If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(InformationWeek)   The US Patent Office has managed to find 6,242 people with a memory like a sieve and the attention span of a gnat   (informationweek.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, USPTO, AppleWorks, apples, attention spans  
•       •       •

11494 clicks; posted to Business » on 31 Aug 2012 at 2:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 02:31:22 PM  
Apple should never be rewarded for thieving ideas from other companies and pretending like they "innovated" those ideas. All of the concepts they stole from Xerox and pretended that they created those ideas. Jobs was a plagiarist. Then, they sue the crap out of companies who do the same not because it was their idea but because Apple is bigger than those other companies. They did this to Digital Research back in the 80's.

I'm surprised that they don't patent slave labor and then sue any other company that does manufacturing in China.
 
2012-08-31 02:37:37 PM  
"But its core design patent on the iPhone covers a large, rectangular screen on a handheld device with rounded corners, much as you would now expect a touchscreen to be implemented."

...because everyone jumped onto copying the iPhone and iPad after Apple created them.

The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."
 
2012-08-31 02:44:59 PM  

cirby: "But its core design patent on the iPhone covers a large, rectangular screen on a handheld device with rounded corners, much as you would now expect a touchscreen to be implemented."

...because everyone jumped onto copying the iPhone and iPad after Apple created them.

The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."


The jury didn't want to consider prior art because it took too much time.
 
2012-08-31 02:50:54 PM  
FTA: What a patent and legal system should aim to prevent is theft by copying, such as stealing the technology of a competitor's product

You know how i know the author doesn't understand patent law?

FTA: or creating such a conscious, copycat duplication that one product can be confused with another, thus letting the profits of an originator be taken by an imitator.

Wait till he learns about trade dress - his mind will asplode.
 
2012-08-31 02:52:20 PM  

cirby: The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."


The first sentence of TFA: "Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square."
 
2012-08-31 03:07:59 PM  
Gunther:
The first sentence of TFA: "Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square."

...and the rest of the article, which is basically telling us that Apple shouldn't be able do do that. The case was a mix of design and utility patent law - and the reporter seems miffed that Apple decided to use both, instead of picking one so Samsung could use the other as a defense.
 
2012-08-31 03:12:21 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-31 03:24:11 PM  

bulldg4life: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 478x284]


Boy, Samsung needs a copy editor.

/*cough*
 
2012-08-31 03:29:03 PM  
bulldg4life:

"Hey, we at Samsung can come out with products that don't look like Apple's. After they sue us, anyway. So here's an S3 with a different color scheme and not showing the app screen or the other infringing elements that they just successfully won their case on! Let's not mention the internal memos that showed we were making a real effort to copy Apple's work!"
 
2012-08-31 03:39:42 PM  
None of this applies outside the States. i wonder what the long term consequences of having patent laws that are out of step with the rest of the world's will mean in the long run. We are no longer the only big, desirable market on the planet. If we try to block progress, will it simply pass us by?
The world is changing.
 
2012-08-31 03:49:11 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: Apple should never be rewarded for thieving ideas from other companies and pretending like they "innovated" those ideas.


Apple has never really invented anything. What they have invented -- that is, if you can call a process an invention --- was the enrichment of the user experience: How can the average user, who would not normally be a computer geek, use this right out of the box, in the fastest and most enjoyable manner?

Remember that this industry was, up until Apple, characteristically wrought with arcane commands, self-serving protocols and languages, and a steep, almost insurmountable learning curve. The man who made it all very easy and accessible became king.

Jobs/Apple didn't invent the computer. They made the computer accessible with the Apple ][. They didn't invent the graphical user interface. They made it accessible with the Macintosh. They didn't invent Unix. They made Unix accessible with OSx. They didn't invent the MP3 player or MP3s. They made them accessible with the ipod and itunes, respectively. Same with the iphone, the ipad... and don't forget Pixar.

Apple has made an indelible impact on billions of people through the mandate of making complexity simple. Through this, they have turned a modest hobby industry into the greatest commercial engine in the world.

They might have some legal right to some design patents. But by and large, Apple's only innovative force is making computers simple enough to use for people too busy, stupid or lazy to understand them.
 
2012-08-31 03:55:13 PM  
Patent and copyright are about locking up ideas as property. That is censorship just as much as trying to suppress them is. I am for abolishing both.
 
2012-08-31 05:22:03 PM  
 
2012-08-31 06:01:29 PM  

cirby: "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen."


Apple should've never been able to get a patent on the shape of the iPhone in the first place. Rounded corners are neither non-obvious nor novel.
 
2012-08-31 06:06:09 PM  

macdaddy357: Patent and copyright are about locking up ideas as property. That is censorship just as much as trying to suppress them is. I am for abolishing both.


They're both antithetical to the underlying, efficient free market principles 1) perfect information and 2) perfect substitutes -- that much is certain.

/nothing funnier than 'free market - bwaaak'ers who defend patent/copyright as if it's part of the framework
 
2012-08-31 06:10:41 PM  

OnlyM3: But nobody will ever make money without strict copyright laws.


Exactly -- they have a robust marketplace where new ideas are constantly introduced. Way too many people are farking *convinced* that the only thing ensuring a steady flow of new ideas is the allure of protectionism. It's total bullshiat.

/ideas flowed freely long before the legal constructs of patents/copyright ever existed
 
2012-08-31 06:14:58 PM  

WhyteRaven74: cirby: "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen."

Apple should've never been able to get a patent on the shape of the iPhone in the first place. Rounded corners are neither non-obvious nor novel.


^ this

Even given the POV that patents are necessary, there's no justification for doling out #34,295,784 for a farking rounded corner.

/the patent/copyright industry is so absurd
 
2012-08-31 06:56:06 PM  
 
2012-08-31 06:59:32 PM  

OnlyM3: But nobody will ever make money without strict copyright laws.


gameshowhost: Exactly -- they have a robust marketplace where new ideas are constantly introduced. Way too many people are farking *convinced* that the only thing ensuring a steady flow of new ideas is the allure of protectionism. It's total bullshiat.


Well to make the argument - fashion is a fairly specific thing, in that (1) copying generally happens at a far remove from the consumer and (2) thus still requires distribution in meat space. Thus, if 1 woman buys a fancy dress, she could make copies of it by pulling its pattern apart resewing it and so forth, but generally this is not much cheaper (if one factors in time) than just buying another. Thus the copying in fashion happens at a high level, requires lots of effort and thus has a reasonably long lag-time. An innovator in fashion could easily capture the value of what they created in the limited monopoly they get (usually a "season" or so).

Because of this high level copying, there are far fewer players in the fashion world than in media (i,e. there is a big disconnect between users and producers - anyone with a computer can be a media producer, or re-producer) - which means that producers can coast far more effectively on brand loyalty. All of this together shows that fashion is a much more of a subset of physical goods than it is intellectual property* - its like any industry where most of the patents are old and expired - although sometimes you get a patent on the next best thing in soap or buttons, IP doesn't play much into things. Thus the comparison to copyright is really not that apt.

The thing is we tend to associate fashion with artsy types, and a great deal of creativity goes into the designs, but clothes are too functional to fall under copyright because, as noted above, they are closer to commodities than "art." 

*note however that designs on fashion are still 100% copyrightable as long as they are not functional.
 
2012-08-31 07:32:00 PM  

cirby: "But its core design patent on the iPhone covers a large, rectangular screen on a handheld device with rounded corners, much as you would now expect a touchscreen to be implemented."

...because everyone jumped onto copying the iPhone and iPad after Apple created them.

The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."


You may be shocked to know that those same dimensions and shapes were being used prior to the iPhone, including by Samsung.
 
2012-08-31 08:07:35 PM  
Not much of a challenge. You can probably find at least that many qualified individuals (using those criteria) on any given 2-hr period in Times Square in NYC on an average day.
 
2012-08-31 08:08:20 PM  

cirby: bulldg4life:

"Hey, we at Samsung can come out with products that don't look like Apple's. After they sue us, anyway. So here's an S3 with a different color scheme and not showing the app screen or the other infringing elements that they just successfully won their case on! Let's not mention the internal memos that showed we were making a real effort to copy Apple's work!"


The documents you speak of had nothing to do with the S3, nor was the S3 on the list of products found to be infringing on those bogus patents. Christ, what iTwat blog did you get your facts from?
 
2012-08-31 08:14:36 PM  

Teiritzamna: OnlyM3: But nobody will ever make money without strict copyright laws.

gameshowhost: Exactly -- they have a robust marketplace where new ideas are constantly introduced. Way too many people are farking *convinced* that the only thing ensuring a steady flow of new ideas is the allure of protectionism. It's total bullshiat.

Well to make the argument - fashion is a fairly specific thing, in that (1) copying generally happens at a far remove from the consumer and (2) thus still requires distribution in meat space. Thus, if 1 woman buys a fancy dress, she could make copies of it by pulling its pattern apart resewing it and so forth, but generally this is not much cheaper (if one factors in time) than just buying another. Thus the copying in fashion happens at a high level, requires lots of effort and thus has a reasonably long lag-time. An innovator in fashion could easily capture the value of what they created in the limited monopoly they get (usually a "season" or so).

Because of this high level copying, there are far fewer players in the fashion world than in media (i,e. there is a big disconnect between users and producers - anyone with a computer can be a media producer, or re-producer) - which means that producers can coast far more effectively on brand loyalty. All of this together shows that fashion is a much more of a subset of physical goods than it is intellectual property* - its like any industry where most of the patents are old and expired - although sometimes you get a patent on the next best thing in soap or buttons, IP doesn't play much into things. Thus the comparison to copyright is really not that apt.

The thing is we tend to associate fashion with artsy types, and a great deal of creativity goes into the designs, but clothes are too functional to fall under copyright because, as noted above, they are closer to commodities than "art." 

*note however that designs on fashion are still 100% copyrightable as long as they are not functional.


You're basing your analysis on the flawed presumption that intellectual property is valued correctly; as it stands IP is artificially-valued due to protectionism, with it being prevented from being used by everyone in the marketplace... which brings us back to the *whole point* of the underlying tenets of efficient free markets -- the two in question being (1) perfect information and (2) perfect substitutes. IP doesn't even ~exist~ in that limited framework.

[Analogue between physical science and social science]

It's as if one were to use Newtonian physics to describe motion (efficient free market economics), set a solid body on a path w/o anything in the way (perfect information, etc - 'nothing in the way', as it were), figure out the trajectory (use your economic toolbox to figure out equilibrium price + quantity demanded), **then** put planets all over the place (introduce protectionism) and somehow expect that the ~actual path~ of the solid body were going to look just like the ~predicted trajectory~ (that equilibrium price and quantity demanded not change).

So - with our current set of 'rules' - free market economics (both in theory and IRL) cannot efficiently allocate those IP resources, due to the definition(s) themselves that the entire framework is dependent upon. Just because something has a market price doesn't mean it's the economically correct price, such that "marginal price = marginal cost to society". 

Information itself, which by efficient free market theory is supposed to be *freely* available, is being rationed/priced.... making information not-free... making it a logical contradiction.
 
2012-08-31 08:17:33 PM  

cirby: "But its core design patent on the iPhone covers a large, rectangular screen on a handheld device with rounded corners, much as you would now expect a touchscreen to be implemented."

...because everyone jumped onto copying the iPhone and iPad after Apple created them.

The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."


Right until they Wrote SAMSUNG on the front in huge whit letters...
 
2012-08-31 08:25:25 PM  
".. the very first official thing I did, in my administration - - and it was on the very first day of it, too - was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways". -Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court


"The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
- Abraham Lincoln
 
2012-08-31 08:25:45 PM  

cirby: bulldg4life:

"Hey, we at Samsung can come out with products that don't look like Apple's. After they sue us, anyway. So here's an S3 with a different color scheme and not showing the app screen or the other infringing elements that they just successfully won their case on! Let's not mention the internal memos that showed we were making a real effort to copy Apple's work!"


Apple invented displaying icons in a grid?

And the SIII, like most Android phones, hides the boring app grid view away, I rarely ever see mine, and lets users customise their home screens with apps and widgets of all shapes and sizes anywhere they want, often with big gaps between them. It's totally different to the iPhone.

And touch screen interface? Star Trek TNG came out twenty five years ago and everything was touch screen interface. Patents should not be granted for "obvious" implementations. With touch interfaces so well established, and fiction counts as prior art, then using that touch interface on a phone and filing a patent saying "We're using it on a phone!" should have been sent back with "Well duh. Patent denied."

Can Samsung file a patent saying "We're the first to use it on a phone with a 4.8 inch screen!"?
 
2012-08-31 09:07:08 PM  

sdd2000: ".. the very first official thing I did, in my administration - - and it was on the very first day of it, too - was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways". -Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court


"The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
- Abraham Lincoln


Thanks for that, BEVETS PAUL.
 
2012-08-31 09:43:06 PM  
SharkTrager:
You may be shocked to know that those same dimensions and shapes were being used prior to the iPhone, including by Samsung.

Then why did Samsung make such an effort to copy something they were already making?

Oh, wait... they weren't. The main example of design patent issues was the Galaxy S, released in 2010. After Samsung's engineers - by their own emails and memos, brought out in the court case - made an effort to copy the iPhone. Which came out in mid-2009. The i9000 Galaxy S had a lot of differences in features, but the front plate was a direct copy of the 3GS. They added a second button and moved the small icons around at the top of the interface, but the software was a blatant copy too.

That Galaxy S3, listed upthread? It came out this year, AFTER the lawsuit, specifically to be a new design.

The utility patents were very specific, and weren't just "our interface looks like this." They were software and hardware procedure patents, and the Samsung software folks (instead of independently making software that does similar functions) dissected the iPhone internal software and made their interface do the same thing - in order to make the Samsung phones act like iPhones.

There were a lot of different ways Samsung could have gone about their design and engineering process - but, as the court discovery revealed, they just sat down and copied Apple's work. There's nothing wrong with making something that does the same job. There's not even that much wrong with using other people's work as inspiration. Flat-out intentional copying? That's stupid.
 
2012-08-31 09:46:45 PM  
I wonder which butthurt Apple-hater Fark user wrote that piece.

/POS, that is
//suck it, biatches
 
2012-08-31 10:13:14 PM  
Gunther: The first sentence of TFA: "Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square."

Whoever was the first to put a hole on the front of washing machines instead of the top should have patented that shiat.
 
2012-08-31 10:59:09 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

One of the 6242
 
2012-08-31 11:40:55 PM  

cirby: in order to make the Samsung phones act like iPhones


Apple should've never had those patents either. Also that two pieces of software do the same thing doesn't mean they do it in the same way. Also funny how you ignore Samsung suing Apple for patent stuff on something that Samsung and Apple talked about, Samsung offered to license to Apple and Apple refused to pay for and then used. Granted there's some murkiness there as the Samsung patents apply to a communications standard, but it's a far cry from Apple patenting shapes and onscreen layouts.
 
2012-08-31 11:51:09 PM  

OnlyM3: But nobody will ever make money without strict copyright laws.


+1
 
2012-09-01 12:58:21 AM  

jso2897: None of this applies outside the States. i wonder what the long term consequences of having patent laws that are out of step with the rest of the world's will mean in the long run. We are no longer the only big, desirable market on the planet. If we try to block progress, will it simply pass us by?
The world is changing.


damn good points. Asian companies seem to work with each other in their fields as they slowly but surely take over and decimate American marketplaces. meanwhile in the USA the fighting amongst never ends. slowly but surely the USA is becoming a lost shiathole.
 
2012-09-01 02:26:49 AM  
So basically this argument boils down to whether one accepts that Apple's granted patents are legit or not.

I know that most innovation relies on adjacency-- it isn't invention but incremental improvements. My observation is that the electronics industry moves WAY too quickly for a patent system devised during the Industrial Age. A reasonable period of monopoly for, say, pump design on a ship that lasts for 40 years is far longer than a reasonable period of monopoly where state-of-the-art remains such for a matter of months before obsolescence.

What started out as a way to ensure an orderly transition of innovation to the public domain has become a nightmare of legal landmines as IP laws have only calcified even as technology has made upholding IP laws more and more problematic. And since worldwide treaties seem to automatically include whatever garbage companies purchase from Congress, our horrible system and unenforceable standards are exported around the world.

Having sold personal electronics a decade ago, I could point to any one of a hundred different products that resembled an iPhone in looks, if not in heft or function. There were generic PDAs that looked very much like an iPhone except in color, with screens that generally required those plastic "pens" for precision tapping. The iPhone's innovation was in packaging a phone like those older PDAs, which was basically just a matter of having the available technology.

There is some justice in saying that the feel of the phone might be important for the brand. I remember LG's were crappy clamshells, Nokias were crappy candybar phones. Motorolas you could pound on the counter as a demonstration of their toughness. Samsungs seemed to be clamshells-- they had the first flip phone with a camera, IIRC, and Sanyos could be either candybar or flip phones.

However, after the StarTach vanished from the market, for example, most clamshell phones pretty much felt the same. Sure, the LGs were crappy (generally the free phones in our market) and Samsungs were the high end, but the main difference in feel were that LGs tended to be smaller and Samsungs bigger. Other than that, they felt the same in the hand. The LGs that I remember had black and white, text menu based interfaces and the Samsungs mostly had color graphics and icons. But you would flip them open the same way, the screens were about the same proportion to the size of the phone, and the speaker and mic were in the same places.

Take the same general type of phone and you will trend toward the same design elements because they are what the customer responds to. Competitors will see what is working and what is not and build around the successful elements of current technology, and hopefully bring a couple of innovations of their own to the party. What Apple is trying to assert is that business as the consumer electronics marketplace has always been conducted is illegal, after having benefited from that same process. I don't really care about the technical legalities of the case-- it's the unadulterated attack on how the industry as a whole has worked for as long as consumer electronics has been a thing. Precedent in business should mean something. And I see nothing that Samsung did here that hasn't been done many times before.

Take the brand names off of a dozen models of flat screen TVs, shuffle them up and tell me at a glance which brand each one is. Same with DVD players, stereo recievers, RC cars, landline phones, and so on.
 
2012-09-01 02:28:17 AM  
Looks like Samsung has found a few people willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda.

Too bad they didn't put that time and money into better lawyers.
 
2012-09-01 04:15:34 AM  

WhyteRaven74: cirby: in order to make the Samsung phones act like iPhones

Apple should've never had those patents either. Also that two pieces of software do the same thing doesn't mean they do it in the same way. Also funny how you ignore Samsung suing Apple for patent stuff on something that Samsung and Apple talked about, Samsung offered to license to Apple and Apple refused to pay for and then used. Granted there's some murkiness there as the Samsung patents apply to a communications standard, but it's a far cry from Apple patenting shapes and onscreen layouts.


Actually, the murkiness there is that Samsung got royalties from the chip manufacturer, and then wanted royalties again, on the same chip, from the manufacturer of any device that incorporated that chip. That'd be like the RIAA asking for royalties from Apple for each song on iTunes... And then coming after and end user for a few additional cents the first time they play the song they purchased.
 
2012-09-01 05:05:07 AM  
If the patents are so egregious as to kill competition, as TFA suggests, then yes, they are overreaching. The proof will be in the pudding.

Who here will look at these results and buy shares of Samsung?
 
2012-09-01 08:00:48 AM  

bingethinker: Looks like Samsung has found a few people willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda.

Too bad they didn't put that time and money into better lawyers.


Apple is a great company and they make great produvts, a few of which I own. But, regardless of whether their legal theory was correct or the jury was full of halfwits, the patent system is broken. I like patents and copyright, but the terms and the duration are not right. It takes far too long to get a patent. USPTO grants patents for absurdly obvious things which then require very costly litigation to overturn.

Apple is a symptom, not the cause.
 
2012-09-01 08:09:19 AM  

bingethinker: Looks like Samsung has found a few people willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda.


There's nothing anti-Apple in saying that some of the patents they hold they should've never been granted.
 
2012-09-01 08:15:21 AM  

WhyteRaven74: bingethinker: Looks like Samsung has found a few people willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda.

There's nothing anti-Apple in saying that some of the patents they hold they should've never been granted.


There is, unless you have some specifics. Otherwise, you're merely saying that Apple shouldn't have been granted those patents, rather than saying "patent no. [n] is invalid because prior art reference [a] teaches this element, and teaches this other element, and the combination of these references achieves a predictable result."
 
2012-09-01 08:16:49 AM  
There should be a "b" there, but apparently fark doesn't differentiate between squat and angle brackets.
 
2012-09-01 09:09:40 AM  
Of of our greatest inventors, Buckminster Fuller, said that patents should just be a historical record to show who originally came up with an idea, but not used to prevent others from using that idea.
 
2012-09-01 10:42:35 AM  

cirby: "But its core design patent on the iPhone covers a large, rectangular screen on a handheld device with rounded corners, much as you would now expect a touchscreen to be implemented."

...because everyone jumped onto copying the iPhone and iPad after Apple created them.

The part some people - like the reporter - keep missing was that the copying wasn't just "a device with rounded corners" but was more like "how much can we make this look just like an iPhone, down to the radius of the corner curves and the size and design of the icons on the screen." And it wasn't just "look how similar they are," but "here's the internal memos and emails saying how they were trying very, very hard to copy the Apple designs."


You must be a troll because square tablets have been around for a while just thicker and the reason the jury's verdict is shiat was because they said the galaxyII skyrocket infringed in the iphone 4 and they look nothing alike. The skyrocket looks huge next to the tiny 4.
 
2012-09-01 10:45:13 AM  

Theaetetus: WhyteRaven74: bingethinker: Looks like Samsung has found a few people willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda.

There's nothing anti-Apple in saying that some of the patents they hold they should've never been granted.

There is, unless you have some specifics. Otherwise, you're merely saying that Apple shouldn't have been granted those patents, rather than saying "patent no. [n] is invalid because prior art reference [a] teaches this element, and teaches this other element, and the combination of these references achieves a predictable result."


Have you read some of the patents they have been granted? Some are so farking vague that the god dammed first generation game boy would infringe on their patents. At this point apple is just patent trolling so fark them in the ass hard without lube.
 
2012-09-01 11:21:11 AM  

Theaetetus: WhyteRaven74: cirby: in order to make the Samsung phones act like iPhones

Apple should've never had those patents either. Also that two pieces of software do the same thing doesn't mean they do it in the same way. Also funny how you ignore Samsung suing Apple for patent stuff on something that Samsung and Apple talked about, Samsung offered to license to Apple and Apple refused to pay for and then used. Granted there's some murkiness there as the Samsung patents apply to a communications standard, but it's a far cry from Apple patenting shapes and onscreen layouts.

Actually, the murkiness there is that Samsung got royalties from the chip manufacturer, and then wanted royalties again, on the same chip, from the manufacturer of any device that incorporated that chip. That'd be like the RIAA asking for royalties from Apple for each song on iTunes... And then coming after and end user for a few additional cents the first time they play the song they purchased.


Funny you saying its just about licensing since every other court in the world has ruled apple did infringe on their patents over those chips. Only one phone didn't and that was because of apples partnership with quallcom.

Its amazing people focus on one lawsuit they won but all around the world apple is losing these lawsuits.
 
2012-09-01 11:52:33 AM  
im glad steve jobs didnt live to see this. not because he wasnt an evil bastard but because he WAS an evil bastard. i'm glad he never got the satisfaction of seeing this. rot, you miserable coont.
 
2012-09-01 11:56:13 AM  
Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square

No, what Samsung did was offer a competing product on the open market. Apple didn't like to actually have to face competition and instead claimed rights to every single black rectangle in existance.
 
2012-09-01 12:38:17 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square

No, what Samsung did was offer a competing product on the open market. Apple didn't like to actually have to face competition and instead claimed rights to every single black rectangle in existance.


Part of the problem is that both the marketing and legal departments of major corporations these days are involved in writing the patent applications, and, instead of writing them to narrowly describe what the "invention" is and what it precisely looks like and does, they write it so broadly that they can rope in as a "patent violator" anything that can somewhat resemble the "invention" or that does something that is somewhat close to what the "invention" does, so as to maximize the profit from their "invention", even if it involves prior art that should, in theory, invalidate the patent. And the horribly under-staffed, over-worked, and not-fully-trained Patent and Trademark Office staff doesn't help, either.
 
2012-09-01 12:38:32 PM  

steamingpile:
Funny you saying its just about licensing since every other court in the world has ruled apple did infringe on their patents over those chips. Only one phone didn't and that was because of apples partnership with quallcom.


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was clear: I was saying it was about patent licensing, not "just" licensing. Does that help?
To be clear, this was about patent exhaustion and patent licensing. Apple certainly uses chips covered by the patents. The only question is whether Samsung is overreaching by asking for more license fees when the chip manufacturer already paid them.


Its amazing people focus on one lawsuit they won but all around the world apple is losing these lawsuits.


Actually, this is the first court to make a decision on the licensing/exhaustion issue. And Apple is winning most of these lawsuits, with the sole exceptions so far being the UK and Japan (albeit on very different patents, so I'm not sure where your "these lawsuits" comes from).
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report