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.

(C|Net)   Apple: We lost billions in profits due to Samsung patent infringement. Judge: OK, well then you are ordered to disclose details of sales, earnings, and profit margins on iPhones so we can just verify that assertion. Apple: oops   (news.cnet.com) divider line 224
    More: Amusing, Samsung, Judge Koh, iPhones, patent infringements, profit margins, u.s. patent, account of profits  
•       •       •

22873 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-18 03:07:59 PM

Kit Fister: Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.


I wanted to buy a Samsung, but Apple won't let me.
 
2012-10-18 03:09:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

The GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?


No I don't. Hence the the context of my post.

JPSimonetti: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

I think by acknowledging beyond a shadow of a doubt that they make $700+ per iPhone 5, all of their customers that have been mocked for spending WAY too much money just for a better looking product (in other words, everyone that wasn't an Apple fanboy) would realize that all of their mockery was not without merit and the house of cards would crumble like a house of cards should. ... then raise questions about every other product they make. Down goes Apple, back to 1992.


I think you're giving the Apple fanbois too much credit. It could be made with baby seals and assembled by 3rd world slaves (halfway there already) and they wouldn't care. But if you priced apple products BELOW the competition, then you'll see an exodus.
 
2012-10-18 03:10:43 PM

Teknowaffle: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Teknowaffle: Marine1: ZAZ:


/typing this on my iPad tethered to my samsung galaxy.

typing this on my ipad tethered to my samsung galaxy note

FTFM

Mini for me. It was free with my cable subscription with a free year of mobile surf. I hated it at first, but now I love it.


HAHA mines bigger than yours
 
2012-10-18 03:11:17 PM

fireclown: Bullseyed: Because stock value isn't based on fact. It isn't based on anything at all really.

It's based on what investors will pay for it at the stocks expected rate of payment. Think of it as an annuity.


The expected rate of payment up until recently was 0 since Apple paid no dividends for a very long time. Prior to dividend announcements, the price of Apple stock was based on pure speculation and fanboyness (aka nothing).

But yeah, keep trying to tell the MBA person about what an annuity is. /facepalm
 
2012-10-18 03:12:15 PM

PsyLord: Apple believes that every single person who ever bought a Samsung phone wanted to buy an iPhone and were unfairly tricked into buying a Samsung phone because they look so similar the consumer couldn't tell the difference.

Therefore, the amount due to Apple would be:

Profit per phone for Apple X number of Samsung phones sold = Penalty

Yes, because the word Samsung printed on the phone can be misread as Apple.


Just because Apple believes it doesn't mean it is true.

I'm guessing you failed at reading comprehension or were trying to elaborate on the sarcasm in my post.
 
2012-10-18 03:14:00 PM

Teknowaffle: I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.


It has a "fall of Rome" kind of feel.
 
2012-10-18 03:15:51 PM

Bullseyed: PsyLord: Apple believes that every single person who ever bought a Samsung phone wanted to buy an iPhone and were unfairly tricked into buying a Samsung phone because they look so similar the consumer couldn't tell the difference.

Therefore, the amount due to Apple would be:

Profit per phone for Apple X number of Samsung phones sold = Penalty

Yes, because the word Samsung printed on the phone can be misread as Apple.

Just because Apple believes it doesn't mean it is true.

I'm guessing you failed at reading comprehension or were trying to elaborate on the sarcasm in my post.


Nope, I was agreeing with you. Seriously. Apple: But, but... they both have round edges...
 
2012-10-18 03:16:04 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg


I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. I can "design" lots of things that simply aren't physically possible to produce using state-of-the-art physics, materials and manufacturing processes. I don't think they would automatically qualify as "prior art" in a court case 40+ years later, when someone has actually made a function, useful gadget that resembles my design.

Also, there's a requirement that an invention must be "made available" to the public for it to count as prior art. Is a non-functional mockup of a tablet computer "available" to the public just because they saw it in a movie?

I'm not saying I know the correct answer, but I thought the question was valid enough that asking if I'm retarded seems like a bit of an overreaction.
 
2012-10-18 03:20:52 PM

ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg

I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. I can "design" lots of things that simply aren't physically possible to produce using state-of-the-art physics, materials and manufacturing processes. I don't think they would automatically qualify as "prior art" in a court case 40+ years later, when someone has actually made a function, useful gadget that resembles my design.

Also, there's a requirement that an invention must be "made available" to the public for it to count as prior art. Is a non-functional mockup of a tablet computer "available" to the public just because they saw it in a movie?

I'm not saying I know the correct answer, but I thought the question was valid enough that asking if I'm retarded seems like a bit of an overreaction.


It's prior art, not prior functional prototypes. By definition is needs not be a working item. Earlier in this thread they had that link to the law web site that went through the definition of prior art.

If you chose not to read it and ask a question that has already been answered, you deserve what you get!
 
2012-10-18 03:21:35 PM

Bullseyed: fireclown: H31N0US: A better analogy would involve paying more money for an ed hardy tshirt.

But you can feel it in the fabric, it breathes non spectrum colors better than any other shirt you can buy.


OK. Then I"ll just fall back on the "I like being to change my own battery" argument. ;)

After a year or so of owning my Galaxy S2 the battery life was starting to suck. I took it to the Sprint store with a bulging battery. They took one look said "yep you need a new battery" and 5 minutes later I walked out with my phone in brand new condition.

With an iPhone you're just screwed.


Yeah, the Apple store will usually just give you a new iPhone. Totally screwed.
 
2012-10-18 03:27:17 PM

GameSprocket: Yeah, the Apple store will usually just give you a new iPhone. Totally screwed.


Nope. They do refurbished ones. Like that time when they gave the kids a refurbed phone filled with porn... Just think, when you put that refurbed iPhone up to your face, it is the same screen some basement farker could have spooged all over while watching porn.

Gizmodo did a story about what happens to your stuff when Apple is "fixing" it.

http://gizmodo.com/5936324/exclusive-confessions-from-the-most-corrup t -apple-store-in-america
 
2012-10-18 03:29:24 PM

Bullseyed: From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.

Well, those things are zero cost all profit. So yes and no.



Really? You think creating and operating the iTunes and App stores is zero cost?

I didn't realize you could get the servers, facilities, manpower, electricity, and publicity for free. That must be nice. Not to mention the fact that they got all that free legal representation to create the contracts with the music publishers.
 
2012-10-18 03:32:22 PM

GameSprocket: Bullseyed: From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.

Well, those things are zero cost all profit. So yes and no.


Really? You think creating and operating the iTunes and App stores is zero cost?

I didn't realize you could get the servers, facilities, manpower, electricity, and publicity for free. That must be nice. Not to mention the fact that they got all that free legal representation to create the contracts with the music publishers.


They had to establish all of that stuff already anyway, and the cost relative to the profit is nearly zero.

It's like owning a retail plaza, but in addition to rent you also get 30% of everything all the stores sell.
 
2012-10-18 03:34:49 PM

ScottRiqui: DerAppie: What I'm saying is exactly that. I pay €35 a month and I can get an identical minutes/SMS (100) and data (1gb) bundle for €15 if I only wanted the SIM-card. If I had a plan with the newest galaxy/iphone I would be paying up to €50 a month with a 2 year plan. Price difference of 35 * 24 = €840. That is more than the 700 I'd need to pay for the newest smartphone. Sure, after the cintract ends you get to pick a new phone but you'll be paying for that one to.

Ah - after reading your post, it's clearer now why it's usually Europeans and Asians who are buying my off-contract iPhones on eBay. I don't think the situation is the same here in the U.S. - if the service plans dropped precipitously in price once our phones went off-contract, for the same minutes/text/data limits, I think there would be a lot fewer people upgrading every two years.


Now that I'm at home I can get some accurate data.

Cheapest Galaxy S3, 16GB with contract: free but I'd be paying €945,- over the 2 year term of the contract (200 minutes, no limit of (S)(M)MS and 200MB of mobile data).

An identical Galaxy S3 would be €471,95. But now I can shop around for a contract. Since I don't use 200 minutes and only send text messages to 4 or 5 people (including my parents) who don't have a smartphone, I don't really need those. So I get fewer minutes but more data (I usually need 400MB a month so I'm going for 500MB), the first hit I get in google offers me a 24 month contract which will cost me a total of €282,- which would save me €191,-. Sure, it is a bigger payment upfront instead of paying more every month but in the end it is 20% cheaper.
 
2012-10-18 03:35:59 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg

I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. I can "design" lots of things that simply aren't physically possible to produce using state-of-the-art physics, materials and manufacturing processes. I don't think they would automatically qualify as "prior art" in a court case 40+ years later, when someone has actually made a function, useful gadget that resembles my design.

Also, there's a requirement that an invention must be "made available" to the public for it to count as prior art. Is a non-functional mockup of a tablet computer "available" to the public just because they saw it in a movie?

I'm not saying I know the correct answer, but I thought the question was valid enough that asking if I'm retarded seems like a bit of an overreaction.

It's prior art, not prior functional prototypes. By definition is needs not be a working item. Earlier in this thread they had that link to the law web site that went through the definition of prior art.

If you chose not to read it and ask a question that has already been answered, you deserve what you get!


I found the Groklaw thread that I missed earlier, and after reading it, I still don't think that the movie-prop "tablet computer" from 2001: A Space Odyssey would count as "prior art" in a utility patent case. From the jury instructions:

"A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion. Also, under the U.S. code, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use. Again, I'm not seeing where a nonfunctional movie prop qualifies.

Now, if someone had sat down in 1968 and actually drew out all of the schematics and wrote the requisite code, and then published them, I do agree that it wouldn't be necessary for them to have actually built it for it to be considered "prior art".
 
2012-10-18 03:36:48 PM

Bullseyed: GameSprocket: Yeah, the Apple store will usually just give you a new iPhone. Totally screwed.

Nope. They do refurbished ones. Like that time when they gave the kids a refurbed phone filled with porn... Just think, when you put that refurbed iPhone up to your face, it is the same screen some basement farker could have spooged all over while watching porn.

Gizmodo did a story about what happens to your stuff when Apple is "fixing" it.

http://gizmodo.com/5936324/exclusive-confessions-from-the-most-corrup t -apple-store-in-america


So, you have a reference to a woman who supposedly bought a refurb iPhone from Radio Shack and it had porn on it. You also have the Apple store equivalent of Waiting....

As far as the referb goes, yes you get a referbed phone with the same warranty as a new phone. I've done it. The referb was in much better shape than the one I had. I guess I should have gone to Radio Shack on the off chance that the woman in question isn't just trying to con some money out of them.

I can find plenty of stories about the antics of the workers at any national chain. What's your point?
 
2012-10-18 03:40:39 PM

DerAppie: ScottRiqui: DerAppie: What I'm saying is exactly that. I pay €35 a month and I can get an identical minutes/SMS (100) and data (1gb) bundle for €15 if I only wanted the SIM-card. If I had a plan with the newest galaxy/iphone I would be paying up to €50 a month with a 2 year plan. Price difference of 35 * 24 = €840. That is more than the 700 I'd need to pay for the newest smartphone. Sure, after the cintract ends you get to pick a new phone but you'll be paying for that one to.

Ah - after reading your post, it's clearer now why it's usually Europeans and Asians who are buying my off-contract iPhones on eBay. I don't think the situation is the same here in the U.S. - if the service plans dropped precipitously in price once our phones went off-contract, for the same minutes/text/data limits, I think there would be a lot fewer people upgrading every two years.

Now that I'm at home I can get some accurate data.

Cheapest Galaxy S3, 16GB with contract: free but I'd be paying €945,- over the 2 year term of the contract (200 minutes, no limit of (S)(M)MS and 200MB of mobile data).

An identical Galaxy S3 would be €471,95. But now I can shop around for a contract. Since I don't use 200 minutes and only send text messages to 4 or 5 people (including my parents) who don't have a smartphone, I don't really need those. So I get fewer minutes but more data (I usually need 400MB a month so I'm going for 500MB), the first hit I get in google offers me a 24 month contract which will cost me a total of €282,- which would save me €191,-. Sure, it is a bigger payment upfront instead of paying more every month but in the end it is 20% cheaper.


Thanks for researching that - I didn't really know where to start since we don't have those kinds of "a la carte" / "bring your own device" pricing plans here in the U.S., at least I haven't found anything suitable for a smartphone (i.e. having voice, texts and data included). Now I understand why all of my old iPhones have gone to overseas buyers.
 
2012-10-18 03:41:31 PM

ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.


I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.
 
2012-10-18 03:41:37 PM

GardenWeasel: TNel: KierzanDax: JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?

You can come over and hang out in our Zune club. We have jackets. We meet every Thursday at 6. Bring snacks.

WHAT!? I was told there would be pie!

No no no no no.. You are doing it wrong.

"WHAT!? I was told there would be pie cake!"

The cake is a lie.


Nope not at all.

More people will come if they think we have punch and pie!
 
2012-10-18 03:43:28 PM

Bullseyed: GameSprocket: Bullseyed: From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.

Well, those things are zero cost all profit. So yes and no.


Really? You think creating and operating the iTunes and App stores is zero cost?

I didn't realize you could get the servers, facilities, manpower, electricity, and publicity for free. That must be nice. Not to mention the fact that they got all that free legal representation to create the contracts with the music publishers.

They had to establish all of that stuff already anyway, and the cost relative to the profit is nearly zero.

It's like owning a retail plaza, but in addition to rent you also get 30% of everything all the stores sell.


They had to establish massive data farms and network infrastructures already? What were they doing before iTunes that would have come anywhere close? That is like claiming that Google is all profit because Sergey Brin had it running on his Pentium desktop already.

Here ya go ...
An analyst has estimated that the Apple iTunes Store costs $1.3 billion a year to run
 
2012-10-18 03:45:04 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: DerAppie: What I'm saying is exactly that. I pay €35 a month and I can get an identical minutes/SMS (100) and data (1gb) bundle for €15 if I only wanted the SIM-card. If I had a plan with the newest galaxy/iphone I would be paying up to €50 a month with a 2 year plan. Price difference of 35 * 24 = €840. That is more than the 700 I'd need to pay for the newest smartphone. Sure, after the cintract ends you get to pick a new phone but you'll be paying for that one to.

Ah - after reading your post, it's clearer now why it's usually Europeans and Asians who are buying my off-contract iPhones on eBay. I don't think the situation is the same here in the U.S. - if the service plans dropped precipitously in price once our phones went off-contract, for the same minutes/text/data limits, I think there would be a lot fewer people upgrading every two years.

That might change in the USA though. Verizon loses a shiatton of money on iPhones. They don't make enough back to cover the subsidy and operating costs if people upgrade too frequently. Since Apple idiots buy a new phone whenever one comes out, Verizon doesn't have time to recoup the loss.

This is a large part of why phone rates have been going up: Apple's fault.


The price difference between a fully-subsidized iPhone 5 and one at full retail price is only $450. If the carrier can't make that back over the course of a 24-month contract (about $19/month), then I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

And Verizon isn't getting screwed by buyers who get a new iPhone "whenever one comes out", because the contracts are two years long, and there's been a new iPhone every year since 2007. If people are getting a new iPhone after only having had their old one for a year, they're not getting the fully-subsidized price on the new one - not even close.
 
PJ-
2012-10-18 03:46:43 PM
Am I the only one here who thinks that Apple should up it's hardware game to remain at the top rather than try to sue everybody into the ground? I guess the days of competition is a good thing for the consumer are over.....
 
2012-10-18 03:46:58 PM
Meanwhile in the UK Apple has to issue a public apology and a statement acknowledging no infringement... over the same goddam issue. Frankly I'm getting really sick of this shiat. Just cross-license and be done with it. fark steve jobs and his lame dying wish. Helluva a thing for a 'buddhist' to spend his last wish on if you ask me.
 
2012-10-18 03:47:14 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.


I still don't see how I'm "dead wrong" after looking at the jury instructions and the U.S. Code. That's why I originally asked if there was precedent for something that had only appeared in a movie being successfully used as prior art.
 
2012-10-18 03:54:02 PM

GameSprocket: They had to establish massive data farms and network infrastructures already? What were they doing before iTunes that would have come anywhere close? That is like claiming that Google is all profit because Sergey Brin had it running on his Pentium desktop already.

Here ya go ...
An analyst has estimated that the Apple iTunes Store costs $1.3 billion a year to run


Well, an analyst said it, it must be true!

Apple charges to cover all of those things. For example, it costs money to get a developer kit to make apps. In my "you own a retail plaza" analogy, that is "rent".

And yes, to some extent Apple already needed to do those things for their own stuff. Like pushing out an iOS update to every device, for example. There is extra storage and bandwidth needed for all the other apps, songs, etc of course, but that is a marginal cost increase that as mentioned, is covered by the fees Apple charges to develop and list apps, songs, etc.
 
2012-10-18 03:55:10 PM

ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.

I still don't see how I'm "dead wrong" after looking at the jury instructions and the U.S. Code. That's why I originally asked if there was precedent for something that had only appeared in a movie being successfully used as prior art.


At this point it is pretty obvious you're trolling.
 
2012-10-18 03:56:18 PM

PJ-: Am I the only one here who thinks that Apple should up it's hardware game to remain at the top rather than try to sue everybody into the ground? I guess the days of competition is a good thing for the consumer are over.....


We are quickly reaching the point where smart phones are pretty much commodities. Remember back to when a new PC would be completely out of date in a year? Advancement has stabilized in PCs and is starting to slow in smart phones. Unless someone comes up with a teleporter function, there isn't a heck of a lot more that phones are going to do. There have been a lot of benchmarks that indicate that the iPhone 5 is the fastest on the market, but who cares? It really only added a couple of trivial functions over the 4S and a slight form factor change.

Some day a company will come up with a completely different concept and the race will be on again. But for now, the phones are pretty close to parity and it is just a matter of personal preference.
 
2012-10-18 03:59:00 PM

Bullseyed: GameSprocket: They had to establish massive data farms and network infrastructures already? What were they doing before iTunes that would have come anywhere close? That is like claiming that Google is all profit because Sergey Brin had it running on his Pentium desktop already.

Here ya go ...
An analyst has estimated that the Apple iTunes Store costs $1.3 billion a year to run

Well, an analyst said it, it must be true!

Apple charges to cover all of those things. For example, it costs money to get a developer kit to make apps. In my "you own a retail plaza" analogy, that is "rent".

And yes, to some extent Apple already needed to do those things for their own stuff. Like pushing out an iOS update to every device, for example. There is extra storage and bandwidth needed for all the other apps, songs, etc of course, but that is a marginal cost increase that as mentioned, is covered by the fees Apple charges to develop and list apps, songs, etc.


Man, that is a speedy goal post. So, the criteria went from "zero cost and all profit" to "profitable". Well, I guess you win then, the iTunes store is a profit center.

Next you will shock up all by informing us that Apple doesn't sell their computers at a loss either.
 
2012-10-18 03:59:35 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.

I still don't see how I'm "dead wrong" after looking at the jury instructions and the U.S. Code. That's why I originally asked if there was precedent for something that had only appeared in a movie being successfully used as prior art.

At this point it is pretty obvious you're trolling.


Well, considering that the Judge in the Apple/Samsung case specifically disallowed Samsung's use of the "tablet" computers from 2001 as "prior art", at least I'm not alone in being "dead wrong". If a higher court disagrees with her later, I can take some solace that more-experienced legal minds than mine thought there was some ambiguity in the issue.
 
2012-10-18 04:12:56 PM

Warlordtrooper: At some point if a jury intentionally ignores the law and jury instructions it should become a civil and/or criminal matter to the members of the jury that do so.


"The jury did something I don't like so they should go to jail" sounds like a horrible way to have courts operate.
 
2012-10-18 04:14:24 PM
Also, while I agree that you could make an argument for protection of stylistic elements used in an otherwise-nonfunctional movie prop, the instructions to the jury were dealing with utility patents, and the jury instructions, along with the applicable U.S. code, appear to set a higher bar, specifically that the proposed prior art must be useful. The tablet computers in 2001 weren't useful, and they weren't even "tablets" - the moviemakers used set design and special effects to hide the fact that the displays were full-size CRTs and not flat panels.

And not that anyone asked, but no, I don't agree with all of Apple's claims in their case against Samsung, and yes, I do think the jury award was excessive. I was just asking if there's been precedent of a movie prop that depicts something impossible to build using state-of-the-art technology being successfully presented as "prior art" in a utility patent case.
 
2012-10-18 04:20:53 PM

misthop: Cheesehead_Dave: I'd like to see this decision applied to the RIAA when they ask for $150,000 in losses per individual song pirated.

Sadly they don't have to. Patent infringement takes into account things like loss and damages, Copyright infringement has Statutory Damages, no actual loss or damage needed.


Thank you. You just answered the question I was in the process of asking.

/balls!
 
2012-10-18 04:22:44 PM

BgJonson79: Warlordtrooper: At some point if a jury intentionally ignores the law and jury instructions it should become a civil and/or criminal matter to the members of the jury that do so.

"The jury did something I don't like so they should go to jail" sounds like a horrible way to have courts operate.


i.ytimg.com

Darling: May it please the court, as this is clearly an open and shut case, I
beg leave to bring a privete prosecution against the defence council
for wasting the court's time.

Melchett: Granted. Council, he is fined fifty pounds for turning up.
 
2012-10-18 04:28:21 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


The reason is simple, it will terrify their investors.

An iPhone costs significantly more to produce than the consumer initially pays for it. The parts alone are more than the sticker price. Their profits come from partnerships with phone companies. Assuming an average consumer replaces an iPhone every 2 years, (s)he's paying at least $2,600 for it, and Apple gets about 20%-50% of that, depending on the mobile provider. More in some countries, less in others. You could buy a Macbook Pro for that, but while Apple laptops are pretty popular these days, Apple has learned that cloaking their prices is a better strategy than lowering them.

If those partnerships go tits up, or a competitor starts gobbling their marketshare, they are going to be in a world of hurt.

/ Not an Apple hater, pretty much every big tech company does the same thing.
 
2012-10-18 04:43:12 PM

Kit Fister: Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?


Wow. You're a Sheriff Joe apologist AND an Apple apologist?

You're either trolling or King of the Douche Bags.
 
2012-10-18 04:57:55 PM

ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg

I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. I can "design" lots of things that simply aren't physically possible to produce using state-of-the-art physics, materials and manufacturing processes. I don't think they would automatically qualify as "prior art" in a court case 40+ years later, when someone has actually made a function, useful gadget that resembles my design.

Also, there's a requirement that an invention must be "made available" to the public for it to count as prior art. Is a non-functional mockup of a tablet computer "available" to the public just because they saw it in a movie?

I'm not saying I know the correct answer, but I thought the question was valid enough that asking if I'm retarded seems like a bit of an overreaction.


You do know that this isn't a functional patent, but a design patent. Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Now if you are truly curious about this case from legal standpoints, I can't recommend groklaw.net enough. They break down the briefs and just put a lot of stuff down in condensed plain english.
 
2012-10-18 04:58:10 PM

louiedog: [i.imgur.com image 361x1500]


I saw that and it does make perfect sense, Steve Jobs always looked like a Sprockets dancer.

/some of you wont get that
//some will

Bullseyed: Apple believes that every single person who ever bought a Samsung phone wanted to buy an iPhone and were unfairly tricked into buying a Samsung phone because they look so similar the consumer couldn't tell the difference.


Well we got two specifically because they werent iphones and they had bigger screens than iphones.
 
2012-10-18 05:07:24 PM

Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.


You are really confident for a guy who clearly has no idea what he is talking about...

Check the MPEPE, 2100 in general, 2121 and 2121.04/2125 in specific.

Pictures can be prior art but all prior art needs to be enabling. A non-functional prop from 1968 is in no way enabling.
 
2012-10-18 05:21:54 PM

darian1919: You do know that this isn't a functional patent, but a design patent. Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.


The jury instructions in the Groklaw link upthread were in reference to a utility patent, so there's evidently more to meeting the requirement than simply visual elements.

Do you think that any of the utility patents covering modern video/cellphone wrist devices could/should be invalidated by bringing in Dick Tracy's two-way video/radio watch from the 1946 comic book as "prior art"?
 
2012-10-18 05:40:13 PM

louiedog: [i.imgur.com image 361x1500]


Well, it's obvious. Braun has infringed on Apple's products and patents. Call the lawyers.
 
2012-10-18 05:48:57 PM

DiRF: louiedog: [i.imgur.com image 361x1500]

Well, it's obvious. Braun has infringed on Apple's products and patents. Call the lawyers.


Unlike Apple, Dieter Rams wasn't a little biatch, and was actually flattered by the influence he's had on Ives' designs:

"I have always regarded Apple products - and the kind words Jony Ive has said about me and my work - as a compliment. Without doubt there are few companies in the world that genuinely understand and practise the power of good design in their products and their businesses. "
 
2012-10-18 05:56:09 PM
Where's my favorite IP evangelist?
 
2012-10-18 05:59:50 PM

Girion47: fireclown: Girion47: My HTC One V works well for music while running, plus I can load up Couch 2 5K on it and MyTracks.

if you're training for your first 5k, look into an app called Zombies Run!. It rocks.

Not really training for a 5K. Just trying to be able to run for 30 minutes straight.


After getting medicalled out, I took a few years off of running. I was so annoyed, I refused to run. About 3 years ago, I decided to get back into it, and found a great way to get to where you can run 30 minutes straight. Start with whatever distance you can do, no matter what it is, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, whatever. Run that distance 3 times a week. You aren't going for speed, you aren't going for distance, just time. I alternated MWF, with Tuesdays and Thursdays I'd run half that time (If I was running for 15 minutes MWF, I ran for 7.5 minutes on T-TH). Every week, add 2 minutes to your MWF time, with 2 minutes added T-TH. Like I said, don't worry about how fast you do it, just do it. Before you know it, you'll be running distances you never thought possible.
 
2012-10-18 06:31:42 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Where's my favorite IP evangelist?


I was wondering the same thing earlier
 
2012-10-18 07:05:10 PM
Listen- all I know is that the iphone blends better than the galaxy...
 
2012-10-18 07:29:47 PM

darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.


Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:

cdn.osxdaily.com
 
2012-10-18 08:09:58 PM

ScottRiqui: darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:


People keep using that pic but its bullshiat, all those devices are made for heavy duty applications which is the reason for their size and grips. The screens are fragile and they need to protect them along with the HDs, what got them smaller are tiny HDs and gorilla glass being used in this application. But for apple people its just a cheap knock off, along with more features, faster, open OS, better screens, smoother interfaces........

So I could see where they would want to kill copies because its not killing competition for them before they over take them at all.
 
2012-10-18 08:14:21 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Link

Part 3

And in the samsung section part 7. Apple was allowed to show resized pictures.

Also: Link

I mean, really? And you want me to think Apple isn't a jerk arse company?
 
2012-10-18 08:20:33 PM

ScottRiqui: darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:

[cdn.osxdaily.com image 580x812]



Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
pdadb.net 

It had free plugins that did everything any smart phone does, including WiFi

the only thing an IPad has that this doesn't is Cellular connectivity as the miniaturization of cellular modems hadn't advanced far enough.

The IPad not only copies about 50 devices predicted by multiple movies and TV Shows, it also was the expected direction of hand held computers since the late 90s.
 
2012-10-18 08:24:35 PM

steamingpile: People keep using that pic but its bullshiat, all those devices are made for heavy duty applications which is the reason for their size and grips. The screens are fragile and they need to protect them along with the HDs, what got them smaller are tiny HDs and gorilla glass being used in this application. But for apple people its just a cheap knock off, along with more features, faster, open OS, better screens, smoother interfaces........


Yeah, I posted that pic half tongue-in-cheek, but you can't deny that the visual/stylistic differences between pre-iPad tablets and the iPad are a LOT greater than the differences between the original iPad and the tablets that have been released since.

I'm just bringing up the possibility that many of the visual & design elements in the iPad were only "intuitively obvious" AFTER the iPad was released, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report