Is it time for patent reform yet?

Please say "yes".

Majick Thise: Samsung seems to have a bit of a sandy vagina...

Sorry, but I have the patent on carrying sand around in your vagina. I'm gonna sue!

The Bestest: Apple has gotten injunctions against Samsung in several countries preventing them from selling their product.

Which makes one wonder if Apple might have an actual case.

And the only ones who will win in all of this are the lawyers.


/Married to a lawyer.

Although, in related news (new window), the same suit has been rejected in the Netherlands.

Honestly, this is a dangerous one for Samsung, and goes beyond patent laws. The court didn't throw out the suit because they found that the patents were invalid, or found that Apple didn't infringe. They threw out the suit because Samsung claimed these patents were essential to the 3G technology standard which it helped develop... but nonetheless didn't license.
Well, that's not fair. You don't get to develop an industry standard with your competitors, and then a few years later stand up and say "oh, and we have a patent that covers the whole thing, so we're going to (i) require royalties from everyone and (ii) use it to keep specific competitors out of the market." That's not a patent issue - that's an anti-trust issue.

Notice how they've tried that suit in the Netherlands and Australia, but not the US? That's because there would almost certainly be criminal charges filed by the DoJ.

The Bestest: Majick Thise: Samsung seems to have a bit of a sandy vagina...

..or, they're trying to protect themselves and get Apple to drop their bs. You probably haven't been following, but Apple has gotten injunctions against Samsung in several countries preventing them from selling their product.

Wouldn't be an issue if Samsung hadn't copied Apple right down to the power supply, dock connector, and packaging. Apple seems justified in this case, Samsung is blatantly copying everything from the marketing on down.

The Bestest: ..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

And Samsung is effectively trying to claim they invented packet data. I'm willing to bet though that this thread won't be filled with the same kind of outrage at the patent system as previous threads though.

The Bestest: digistil: ..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.


Hey, they didnt invent it, but they perfected it, and now everybody wants to get in on the rectangle action after apple did all the grunt work.

YouWinAgainGravity: The Bestest: ..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

And Samsung is effectively trying to claim they invented packet data. I'm willing to bet though that this thread won't be filled with the same kind of outrage at the patent system as previous threads though.

Not so. Samsung's patents are on very specific implementations of the 3G standard - in fact, they helped define the 3G standard. That's actually not the issue here.

The issue is that those are part of the standard, and therefore they're subject to compulsory licensing on fair and reasonable terms... And if Samsung didn't offer Apple those terms, then they may lose big. One penalty for patent misuse is that the patent becomes unenforceable - anyone can use it without paying royalties - even if it's perfectly valid, novel, non-obvious, etc.

You know what else is a lie?

Majick Thise: Samsung seems to have a bit of a sandy vagina...

And yet Apple's lawsuits about the Galaxy S II and the Galaxy Tab were totally legitimate, I'm sure.

Rootus: Wouldn't be an issue if Samsung hadn't copied Apple right down to the power supply, dock connector, and packaging.

Which they didn't. So... you're saying it isn't an issue?

BurnShrike: Majick Thise: Samsung seems to have a bit of a sandy vagina...

Sorry, but I have the patent on carrying sand around in your vagina. I'm gonna sue!

Not so fast. I have the patent for suing someone else for having said patent. I might sue, but I'l have to check if I'm violating another patent first.

Theaetetus: Although, in related news (new window), the same suit has been rejected in the Netherlands.

Honestly, this is a dangerous one for Samsung, and goes beyond patent laws. The court didn't throw out the suit because they found that the patents were invalid, or found that Apple didn't infringe. They threw out the suit because Samsung claimed these patents were essential to the 3G technology standard which it helped develop... but nonetheless didn't license.
Well, that's not fair. You don't get to develop an industry standard with your competitors, and then a few years later stand up and say "oh, and we have a patent that covers the whole thing, so we're going to (i) require royalties from everyone and (ii) use it to keep specific competitors out of the market." That's not a patent issue - that's an anti-trust issue.

Notice how they've tried that suit in the Netherlands and Australia, but not the US? That's because there would almost certainly be criminal charges filed by the DoJ.

Puts us back to Samsung having sand in their vaginas.

Theaetetus: Not so. Samsung's patents are on very specific implementations of the 3G standard - in fact, they helped define the 3G standard. That's actually not the issue here.

The issue is that those are part of the standard, and therefore they're subject to compulsory licensing on fair and reasonable terms... And if Samsung didn't offer Apple those terms, then they may lose big. One penalty for patent misuse is that the patent becomes unenforceable - anyone can use it without paying royalties - even if it's perfectly valid, novel, non-obvious, etc.

I know, but nobody is actually going to read the article or investigate what is actually going on. I've come to realize that most of the people that post on tech threads on Fark have the mental capacity of a fruit fly and can't handle concepts any more complicated than "Apple sez they invanted tha rectangle" and "Samsung invented packets" and "All patents r bad me luv open source". So at this point, I just amuse myself by poking and making fun of the people here the few times I check in.

The Bestest: digistil: Which makes one wonder if Apple might have an actual case.

..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

Yes, you're correct, the judges around the world are stupid. Perhaps you should enlighten them with your superior understanding of IP.

I dropped by PARC last week. Those twits at Xerox have a GUI and a network, and they don't even know it.

The Bestest: digistil: Which makes one wonder if Apple might have an actual case.

..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

THIS plus we all know that Apple would never steal an idea.

At least the Samsung has a battery compartment you can smuggle dope in. You never hear in the news how Samsung outsells the iPhone, but you can see it on the street every day. I don't have a smartphone myself, but my retard friends seem to keep buying them and asking me to show them how to work them. I think I'm going to post my pic of me with my Palm Tungsten and Moto RAZR all bluetoothed up and surfing the web and answering calls no problem well over 6 years ago. It lost its appeal after a couple of months. I can't see how the same doesn't happen these days but folks need to tell the world about their new socks on twitter or skype someone (even though you have nationwide free calls), or sit and stink with other dbags on wall street. Do they have a Dorcia app yet? I think Bateman would have loved that. Good to know Zombie Steve Jobs is not able to mousse up his pubic hair for another lawsuit.

Theaetetus: Although, in related news (new window), the same suit has been rejected in the Netherlands.

Honestly, this is a dangerous one for Samsung, and goes beyond patent laws. The court didn't throw out the suit because they found that the patents were invalid, or found that Apple didn't infringe. They threw out the suit because Samsung claimed these patents were essential to the 3G technology standard which it helped develop... but nonetheless didn't license.
Well, that's not fair. You don't get to develop an industry standard with your competitors, and then a few years later stand up and say "oh, and we have a patent that covers the whole thing, so we're going to (i) require royalties from everyone and (ii) use it to keep specific competitors out of the market." That's not a patent issue - that's an anti-trust issue.

Notice how they've tried that suit in the Netherlands and Australia, but not the US? That's because there would almost certainly be criminal charges filed by the DoJ.

I seem to recall Rambus doing the same thing back in the 1990s-early 2000s. They would go to some of the JEDEC conferences where they would be discussing new memory standards. I believe it was one of the SDRAM standards being created where they submitted comments and did not disclose they held patents on key technology. Once every memory manufacturer was making SDRAM that violated Rambus's patent, they tried to extract licensing fees. The courts laughed at them after some time, saying that they violated the terms of standards committees, mainly that patents had to be disclosed and license fees had to be reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

digistil: Yes, you're correct, the judges around the world are stupid. Perhaps you should enlighten them with your superior understanding of IP.

If I go with my personal experience, I'd say that yes, they are stupid.

They are pompous and see themselves as above the law. Even in the cases that I won (or assisted in winning), the majority of judges I've dealt with were simply a case that someone managed to make their way in that position and dictate their opinion over anything regardless of the facts and laws. It's scary.

HeartBurnKid: Which they didn't. So... you're saying it isn't an issue?

Actually they did. Expand your horizons, don't be a fanboy, the information is out there. Someone less lazy than me will post the graphic comparison in this thread before too long.

If it were just the software interface I'd be less inclined to side with Apple. But Samsung really did copy them in every regard and they weren't the least bit subtle about it. They deserve to get their hand slapped.

buttcat: THIS plus we all know that Apple would never steal an idea.

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/229993/did_apple_steal_a_college_kids _ wifi_sync_app.html]

Meh. Microsoft had WiFi sync long before there even was an iPhone.

I'd say that we need patent reform, that patent law is no longer fostering the promotion of technology but instead is bogging it down with wasteful litigation, but I will instantly be mobbed by patent troll apologists and internet GED patent lawyers who castigate me for not considering whether a Form 106Q was filed.

Rootus: HeartBurnKid: Which they didn't. So... you're saying it isn't an issue?

Actually they did. Expand your horizons, don't be a fanboy, the information is out there. Someone less lazy than me will post the graphic comparison in this thread before too long.


1: Fanboy out by claiming Samsung copied Apple down to the dock connector
2: Accuse others of fanboying out when they tell you you're full of shiat.
3: ...
4: Profit?



Does that look like an Apple dock connector to you?

YouWinAgainGravity: The Bestest: ..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

And Samsung is effectively trying to claim they invented packet data. I'm willing to bet though that this thread won't be filled with the same kind of outrage at the patent system as previous threads though.

Want to know why there's outraged and why this suit is taking place? Becausae those patents weren't merely claimed, they were granted. And patents like those are routinely granted, and routinely enforced. These cases are hardly some extreme exceptions, they're just higher profile suits that fit a trend. That speaks to a systemic flaw, not specific error.

The Bestest
Rootus: Wouldn't be an issue if Samsung hadn't copied Apple right down to the power supply, dock connector, and packaging. Apple seems justified in this case, Samsung is blatantly copying everything from the marketing on down.

The Galaxy S uses a standard USB micro connection (Apple has a proprietary connector), and an industry standard power block. As for the packaging, yes, they are very similar, but only Apple is allowed to use a white box with a picture of the face of the product on it?

It's not like Samsung is trying to fool people into thinking they're buying an iWhatever; people who buy high-end electronics like these tend to know exactly what they're getting -before- they make a purchase, and the fact that they run different OSes with relatively equal market share, with the OS generally being the deciding factor when consumers pick between one or the other should make this a non-case.

Yeah, I'm going to argue that by citing the biggest known peddler of junk electronics marketed to confused Grandparents and the Eternally Poor:



Honestly, have you ever seen the shiat they sell? They have everything from Wii knockoffs



To iPad knockoffs



Especially with the Maylong 150 tablet, does that not copy the look of an iPad? Brand recognition is in itself not just a logo nor even internal components, but sometimes form factor as well. Coca-Cola being the best example of this with the patented bottle shape that was actually created to force their product to stand out from not just competitors but blatant counterfeiters.

Now I'm honestly not trying to make this an attack on you. But what I do want to say is that you're seriously giving people way too much credit. Consumers are not savvy buyers. If they were the Infomercial itself wouldn't even exist, let alone shiatty knock-offs of so many popular products out there.

But still it comes back to the argument about brand recognition. There is a sea of electronics devices out there. Let's say someone savvy doesn't know the difference between the two. First thing is the Brand Logo, and the second thing is going to be the design of the product itself. If you're thirsty and drink bottled beverages, I don't care if it's soda or plain water, you'll notice that the bottle shapes are all different. The first thing you subconsciously look for is the shape of the container that represents your brand. Then once you've located your brand, you look for the different colors to determine what flavor is in side. Same with a phone. A Droid certainly looks different from an iPhone. But how much different does it really look at the same quick glance from a Samsung Galaxy, an HTC, or any other smart phone out there? Sometimes the form factor is there for function, other times its there for brand recognition.

After all, how many times have we seen that trendy person who wants to be hip, so they wear White iPod headphones, but connect that shiat up to a non-Apple MP3 player? Trust me, it's not because iPod earbuds are comfortable. In the case where someone might be savvy enough to know the differences between products, they'll still prefer a product that physically looks like another more popular one so that they can be more socially acceptable. So even if the physical appearance isn't made to fool a purchaser, it can be made to fool observers as a way to maintain social status. And in those cases invoking patents is great IMO. After all if you want to keep these electronics as a social status symbol, then you damn sure better be prepared to pay to play.

oh great! i was looking for the thread where people start with something they like, (say, iPhones/iPads) and then use this as a springboard to backfill/"inform" not only their positions on this particular case, but also to wax pseudophilosophic on the nature of IP regulation. Tune in next week for "knockoffs devalue an item that I already own", where you'll see the exact opposite argumentation from the same people.

cptjeff: YouWinAgainGravity: The Bestest: ..or that judges continue to be inept in the field of patent law, particularly in software or high-tech cases.
Apple is effectively trying to claim they invented the rectangle.

And Samsung is effectively trying to claim they invented packet data. I'm willing to bet though that this thread won't be filled with the same kind of outrage at the patent system as previous threads though.

Want to know why there's outraged and why this suit is taking place? Becausae those patents weren't merely claimed, they were granted. And patents like those are routinely granted, and routinely enforced. These cases are hardly some extreme exceptions, they're just higher profile suits that fit a trend. That speaks to a systemic flaw, not specific error.

"Why there's outrage". Sorry, I tend to have a little more difficulty typing on my phone. The fark app needs a "sent from mobile" tag.

Rootus: HeartBurnKid: Which they didn't. So... you're saying it isn't an issue?

Actually they did. Expand your horizons, don't be a fanboy, the information is out there. Someone less lazy than me will post the graphic comparison in this thread before too long.

If it were just the software interface I'd be less inclined to side with Apple. But Samsung really did copy them in every regard and they weren't the least bit subtle about it. They deserve to get their hand slapped.

Because, clearly, nobody designed a tablet PC before Apple.

I'm usually not one to side with someone complaining that "WAH IT LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE OUR PRODUCT!", but the recent Galaxy tablets do bear a striking resemblance to an iPad. It's not that Apple's trying to patent the rectangle, that's stupid. But to say that there are only so many ways to design a tablet is absurd; you don't see Apple going after Motorola or HTC for this same issue.

The little oblong dock connector thingy is also straight out of Apple's design book. There's "imitation is the biggest form of flattery" and then there's "bought a ream of tracing paper."

Which is weird, because Samsung clearly has some solid design talent. Their mega-thin flat screen TVs are really nice looking, and I'm not just talking about the picture.

xsarien: I'm usually not one to side with someone complaining that "WAH IT LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE OUR PRODUCT!", but the recent Galaxy tablets do bear a striking resemblance to an iPad.

Allow me:

Interpretation: "We make cheap, crap electronics that no one wants to buy anymore. Meanwhile, Apple is making money had over fist. So let's sue Apple and, at the very least, we'll get a few million bucks in a settlement. After all, patent trolling has become the newest and easiest way to make money. Why innovate when we have lawyers? We've learned a lot from Microsoft"

Bomb Head Mohammed: oh great! i was looking for the thread where people start with something they like, (say, iPhones/iPads) and then use this as a springboard to backfill/"inform" not only their positions on this particular case, but also to wax pseudophilosophic on the nature of IP regulation. Tune in next week for "knockoffs devalue an item that I already own", where you'll see the exact opposite argumentation from the same people.

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to unerstand complex discussions.

And yes, knockoffs devalue items and force prices down. That's the goddamned point of a capitalist economy. shiat gets cheaper when companies are forced to compete. Patents exist to encourage initial R&D work by allowing for an appropriate period of exclusivity. Nobody (okay, very few) seriously argues againt patents. People are discussing how the patent system we have today is horribly inappropriate for the high tech world.

Sit back and read, you may just learn something. Millitant ignorance ain't good.

What patent lawyers and trolls might look like.

xsarien: I'm usually not one to side with someone complaining that "WAH IT LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE OUR PRODUCT!", but the recent Galaxy tablets do bear a striking resemblance to an iPad. It's not that Apple's trying to patent the rectangle, that's stupid. But to say that there are only so many ways to design a tablet is absurd; you don't see Apple going after Motorola or HTC for this same issue.

The little oblong dock connector thingy is also straight out of Apple's design book. There's "imitation is the biggest form of flattery" and then there's "bought a ream of tracing paper."

Which is weird, because Samsung clearly has some solid design talent. Their mega-thin flat screen TVs are really nice looking, and I'm not just talking about the picture.

I know what you're saying. After all they could have gone with this.


Realistically there are only so many ways to design a tablet. Makes you wonder if the reason why they are going after Samsung, and not the other hundreds of companies that make a rectangle tablet, is that they were trying to extort them into selling them components for less.

Theaetetus: Although, in related news (new window), the same suit has been rejected in the Netherlands.

Honestly, this is a dangerous one for Samsung, and goes beyond patent laws. The court didn't throw out the suit because they found that the patents were invalid, or found that Apple didn't infringe. They threw out the suit because Samsung claimed these patents were essential to the 3G technology standard which it helped develop... but nonetheless didn't license.
Well, that's not fair. You don't get to develop an industry standard with your competitors, and then a few years later stand up and say "oh, and we have a patent that covers the whole thing, so we're going to (i) require royalties from everyone and (ii) use it to keep specific competitors out of the market." That's not a patent issue - that's an anti-trust issue.

Notice how they've tried that suit in the Netherlands and Australia, but not the US? That's because there would almost certainly be criminal charges filed by the DoJ.

Tell that to RAMBUS. They helped develop memory standards wIth patents they owned (but didn't disclose, if I remember proper) and have successfully sued companies.

JackieRabbit: Interpretation: "We make cheap, crap electronics that no one wants to buy anymore. Meanwhile, Apple is making money had over fist. So let's sue Apple and, at the very least, we'll get a few million bucks in a settlement. After all, patent trolling has become the newest and easiest way to make money. Why innovate when we have lawyers? We've learned a lot from Microsoft"

Everybody in the industry does this. See above mention of the multiple claims apple has against samsung.

As for the 'but they copied the iPad!' butthurt, what color are the backs? A plain touchscreen only front with a black border isn't a protected form factor, it's way too close to pure practical utility for that (which is what they were aiming for). It's like trying to trademark a plain cardboard box as unique because everyone's been using printed ones recently.

If they made the box shaped like a piece of modern art, they could claim that. Basically what Coke did. But they can't claim white cardboard with a picture- it's just not anywhere near distinct enough given the broader design trends of the time, which are going for stark, clean lines and simplicity, often making significant use of white.

The Bestest: It's not like Samsung is trying to fool people into thinking they're buying an iWhatever;

Then why not have an original design that looks nothing like the iPad at all?

-- ALSO ---

You want to know how I know you have NEVER worked in retail selling tech to consumers for even one minute?

exatron: Because, clearly, nobody designed a tablet PC before Apple.

Is your assertion that the iPad is also a non-functional television prop with a painted-on screen?