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  
•       •       •

22879 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-18 12:08:19 PM  
fark Apple.
 
2012-10-18 12:08:24 PM  
Another iThread where iFans whine about the unfairness towards Apple.
 
2012-10-18 12:08:59 PM  
static.funnyshirts.org
 
2012-10-18 12:09:55 PM  
I have a feeling that Apple's own greed is going to come bite them in the arse.

And it shall be epic.
 
2012-10-18 12:10:36 PM  
If you think everything can be solved by lawyers, be prepared when those lawyers do something that opens you up to scrutiny.

Idiots.
 
2012-10-18 12:11:16 PM  

AlgertMan: fark Apple.


This, x1000
 
2012-10-18 12:12:20 PM  
Also:

www.aboyandhiscomputer.com
 
2012-10-18 12:12:37 PM  
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?
 
2012-10-18 12:12:42 PM  
Nevermind
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-18 12:13:46 PM  
I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.
 
2012-10-18 12:15:52 PM  
graphics8.nytimes.com 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.
 
2012-10-18 12:16:10 PM  
I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?
 
2012-10-18 12:16:22 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?


Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.
 
2012-10-18 12:16:27 PM  

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


You're farking crazy.
 
2012-10-18 12:17:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x260] 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.


Bought my iPhone 4 at Walmart. Double the evil.
 
2012-10-18 12:18:40 PM  
yet more proof that this is about eliminating competition, not copyright infringement.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:02 PM  

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


Considering the VP, among many other congressmen, are in the pockets of the RIAA, good luck with that.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:03 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?


1- The patent and copyright system in this country is a joke. It needs to be overhauled, but no one in DC have the guts to do it.

2- The jurors massively farked up the whole thing. After appeals and such, the likelihood of Samsung paying Apple anything is small. They definitely won't be paying the massive farkton of cash the jury said they should.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:26 PM  
I think everyone knows their slave-made phones net them huge amounts of money. But they're still willing to buy anything Apple sells so I'm not sure why Apple is so worried about it's public image at this point. I think they could use the blood of kittens to make each product and people will still buy their status symbols.
 
2012-10-18 12:20:28 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: 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?

Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.


Not to mention the jury foreman apparently having an axe to grind against Samsung and not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit with Seagate, a Samsung partner.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:32 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?


jury trial.

samsung was too complicated for them, the jury found their lawyers and experts to be smug, because they described things like facts and details.

apple just said round corners... the jury could understand that and understand that apple's lawyers and experts didn't have to hide behind facts and explanations. they were just nicer and easier to understand.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:44 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?


The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:57 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?


By having a jury foreman with a completely whacked notion of what constitutes prior art, and ignoring any prior art that Samsung brought up as a result.
 
2012-10-18 12:23:05 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-18 12:25:23 PM  
I'd like to see this decision applied to the RIAA when they ask for $150,000 in losses per individual song pirated.
 
2012-10-18 12:26:41 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 GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?
 
2012-10-18 12:27:44 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?


Jury foreman presented himself to other jurors as an "expert" on patents while giving them very bad information. Also jury foreman failed to disclose his loss in court back in 93 to a subsidiary of samsung

That judgement against him lead to personal bankruptcy on his part. It's not 'If' but 'When' this gets sent back for a new trial or thrown out
 
2012-10-18 12:28:08 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.


Perhaps it will show insanely low labor costs.
 
2012-10-18 12:28:41 PM  

Bored Horde: 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?

The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.


I guess what I don't understand is how this sort of thing isn't thrown out by a judge before jury selection. Why can't Samsung just drop a pile of PDAs and cell phones from the 1990s to 2000s on the table, and have the judge say, "Well, clearly this patent shouldn't have been granted".
 
2012-10-18 12:29:00 PM  

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


The only way this would happen would be if the kid they went after happened to have more money than God and a want to waste it on lawyers.
 
2012-10-18 12:29:50 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?


They neglected to enter it into evidence until it was too late, so it became inadmissible.
 
2012-10-18 12:29:51 PM  

Cletus from Canuckistan: 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?

By having a jury foreman with a completely whacked notion of what constitutes prior art, and ignoring any prior art that Samsung brought up as a result.


These articles disturb me more than most. At least we seem to have a new trend where people are being that stupid IN PUBLIC and on record.
 
2012-10-18 12:31:18 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.


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.
 
2012-10-18 12:31:35 PM  

Mr Guy: Bored Horde: 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?

The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.

I guess what I don't understand is how this sort of thing isn't thrown out by a judge before jury selection. Why can't Samsung just drop a pile of PDAs and cell phones from the 1990s to 2000s on the table, and have the judge say, "Well, clearly this patent shouldn't have been granted".


Courts are all about procedure. First, you have to sue over the right thing. Next, you have to put your ducks in a very specific row. Samsung kinda effed that up.
 
2012-10-18 12:32:38 PM  

AlgertMan: fark Apple.


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?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, some that worked well, some that was crap. And the consumer kinda had to dig through it and figure out what worked well and what didn't.

Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.
 
2012-10-18 12:32:58 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.


Because they like putting out the image that they're operating on some razor thin margin, and that's why things have to cost what they do, and why they need slave workers in China to actually pull it all off. When the public finds out how much Apple is reaming them, they're going to be pissed off and not quite as willing to shell out as much money as they have been.
 
2012-10-18 12:35:16 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?


Because, Money.
 
2012-10-18 12:35:48 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?


Because a jury trial is roughly the same as walking into Wal-Mart and asking nine random people to sit down and decide the outcome of a really important and highly complex issue for you. No one would ever, in a million years, do that, but for some reason we think jury trials will somehow result in "justice."
 
2012-10-18 12:36:04 PM  
Whoever loses, the lawyers win! And that's what we want, right?
 
2012-10-18 12:36:46 PM  
I like my new iPhone 5. It fits much better in my hand than the old 4S.

Samsung's phones do look a lot like the iPhone, but who can blame them? Apple found the form factor that works great.

I don't really like how Apple uses the courts to compete against other companies, but they have a right to defend their IP.
 
2012-10-18 12:37:03 PM  

Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.


People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.
 
2012-10-18 12:37:14 PM  
If they reveal their profit margins you'll see they make over 100% profit on every iPhone.

It will be brutal. Especially with them being made by child labor.
 
2012-10-18 12:38:31 PM  
Yawn. This is a typical playing-out of the events in patent infringement lawsuits. In all likelihood Apple will win the point and have all of this info redacted from published transcripts of the trial and related documents.
 
2012-10-18 12:40:00 PM  
In other news, Apple has to publicly state that Samsung did not copy the iPad in the UK story
 
2012-10-18 12:41:05 PM  

stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.



i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-18 12:41:58 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 12:42:36 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?


I don't think you read his comment correctly...
 
2012-10-18 12:42:53 PM  
No OBVIOUS tag? If you claim damages, you have to prove damages.
 
2012-10-18 12:43:34 PM  

misthop: 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.


Wow.

What an incredibly large, steaming pile of bullsh*t.
 
2012-10-18 12:43:59 PM  

Rev.K: misthop: 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.

Wow.

What an incredibly large, steaming pile of bullsh*t.


What I said or the law?
 
2012-10-18 12:44:43 PM  

misthop: What I said or the law?


The law.

Haha! Boy, I looked like a real dick there, didn't I?
 
2012-10-18 12:44:55 PM  

stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.


You should email your response to his "[nospam-﹫-backwards]c­am­*com" address.
 
2012-10-18 12:46:38 PM  

Rev.K: misthop: What I said or the law?

The law.

Haha! Boy, I looked like a real dick there, didn't I?


No worries, that law does make the brain short circuit for a while
 
2012-10-18 12:48:33 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?

Well for one thing the trial was held in the US...that should explain it
 
2012-10-18 12:50:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 12:50:13 PM  
I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.
 
2012-10-18 12:51:25 PM  

bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.


Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the judges.

/what?
 
2012-10-18 12:52:09 PM  

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

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?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, some that worked well, some that was crap. And the consumer kinda had to dig through it and figure out what worked well and what didn't.

Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

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


I appreciate apple tech. It is good tech. I dont buy apple due to problems with their business practices, so I dont support apple.

Yet apple is still dicking around with my consumer choices available. That is why I rant on them.
 
2012-10-18 12:52:30 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?


Bad lawyers?
 
2012-10-18 12:53:42 PM  

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


Ah, and theeeere's the catch. Always a catch ...
 
2012-10-18 12:55:06 PM  

Aarontology: yet more proof that this is about eliminating competition, not copyright infringement.


I think Apple is doubly stupid for going this route. Prior to going for Samsung's throat, they had a working relationship with Samsung in some areas (Samsung made hardware for them). All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.

Under Jobs Apple was skilled at getting into an emerging or fragmented market and selling a very nicely packaged product that was seen a status symbol. Jobs also realized eventually the commodity guys would step their game up and undercut Apple (hence Apple moving on like decreasing their focus on computers in favor of phones and then tables, etc). Apple could remain in the market as a status symbol device, but they'd get pushed out of the corporate enterprisey type stuff and commodity level devices. Now though it seems like Apple has decided rather than accept that happening in phones and tablets, they're going to make their stand. I remember them trying that against Microsoft in the 1990s over desktops and I bet Google can do what MS did.
 
2012-10-18 12:55:33 PM  
Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.
 
2012-10-18 12:55:54 PM  

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

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?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, som ...


I like my tech made with the blood, sweat, and tears of children.
 
2012-10-18 12:56:17 PM  

scottydoesntknow: stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.

You should email your response to his "[[nospam-﹫-backwards] image 7x13]cam[* image 7x13]com" address.


Yep, the same @mac.com address I've had since I got it free about 10 years ago.

I own Macs, I'm a certified WINDOWS and LINUX sysadmin, and I generally hate all of them. Then again, I also pretty much hate all the butthurt because a company is aggressive in how they pursue their IP.
 
2012-10-18 12:57:09 PM  

ha-ha-guy: All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.


They have all been patent-wielding douchebags forever. You just didn't hear about it until the story was 'Apple's picking on someone.'
 
2012-10-18 12:57:37 PM  
Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?
 
2012-10-18 12:58:05 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.
 
2012-10-18 12:59:43 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


Because damages that are being sought are not about revenue lost but rather lost profit and therefore what it would have cost Apple to make the revenue (their costs to manufacture, market, etc.) is highly relevant.
 
2012-10-18 01:00:44 PM  

poot_rootbeer: ha-ha-guy: All they really did was prove to HTC, Google, and everyone else who held patents in this arena that Apple was the douchebag who was going to exploit the flaws in patent system. Now you have HTC buying up LTE radio patents so they can fark Apple. Google has Motorola Mobility, which currently they're just using a defense portfolio, but if they went on the offense with it they could do some serious damage.

They have all been patent-wielding douchebags forever. You just didn't hear about it until the story was 'Apple's picking on someone.'


this.
 
2012-10-18 01:06:12 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?


Actually, the GS3 is both thicker and heavier than the iPhone 5.
 
2012-10-18 01:08:12 PM  

ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.


But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?
 
2012-10-18 01:09:00 PM  
I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.
 
2012-10-18 01:10:54 PM  

Ordinary Genius: 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?

I don't think you read his comment correctly...


Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?
 
2012-10-18 01:11:21 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.

You're farking crazy.


It's crazy enough to work.
 
2012-10-18 01:13:26 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 01:13:30 PM  

HortusMatris: I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.


I'm not sure how big the long-term savings really are. Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost. Sure, it resets my two-year "contract clock" with AT&T each time, but I've been happy with their service and wasn't likely to be changing carriers anyway.

So in essence, I paid $200 for an iPhone once, back in 2008, and all of the subsequent upgrades have been free.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-18 01:13:46 PM  
"Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.
 
2012-10-18 01:14:09 PM  

bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.


How much does Apple pay you?

1. Iphone 4, shoddy product when released, consumers were told they were holding it wrong, then Apple finally had to send everyone out a rubber bumper.

2. Iphone 5, battery life worse than the 4s in every day use, many defects out of the box. Nothing really groundbreaking about it, especially for its 750$ full retail price. other than the processor speed it ain't nothing to write home about. The Samsung S2 is a year older and has 4g, an 8 meg pixel camera, and can take panoramic pics, and has google maps out of the box. and a larger screen..

I support Apple users on a daily basis, and have for years between the telecom and the computer industry. Maybe 5% know how to actually use the product more than just making calls, but when they need support they are the worst, because they fail to see their inability to try and learn anything not as a personal failing or an Apple failing but as everyone elses fault.

The Samsung ruling will be overturned, I have no doubt of that, but when that day comes I am sure you will not be commenting.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:05 PM  

ZAZ: "Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.


Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business. I honestly want to know just what irreparable harm was done to their company by Samsung producing the Galaxy series.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:18 PM  

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"?
 
2012-10-18 01:16:21 PM  

ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.


Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?
 
2012-10-18 01:17:05 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?


It helps having a jury foreman with an axe to grind against Samsung.

I don't think it will make it that far though, either it will be thrown out on appeal or apple will settle for a third so they don't have to release profit data.
 
2012-10-18 01:17:15 PM  

kpaxoid: ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.

But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?


That's what they thought too. The judge disagreed.
 
2012-10-18 01:22:47 PM  

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"?


I can't cite a case, but are you really trying to argue that prior art doesn't qualify as prior art?
 
2012-10-18 01:22:57 PM  
Fun development.

Link

Apple has to say 'I was wrong.' At least in Britain. They lost the Appeal.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:12 PM  

Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?


Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:17 PM  

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 know this could be the beginning of a shift from the "Apple - cool company with cool stuff" to "Apple AKA The Microsoft of the 90's era". More and more people are beginning to be fed up with Apple's antics in court. In the end, it might even be good for Samsung, yes they have to pay a bazillion of dollars to Apple, but

1. this amount as huge as it seems is not big enough to make Samsung go out of business
2. more people see Samsung as the company that makes products as good as Apple with the bonus that you don't have to drink the Apple Kool-Aid and pay the Apple tax.

So in the end Samsung might be the big winner after all.
 
2012-10-18 01:23:18 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.


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.
 
2012-10-18 01:26:45 PM  

Bored Horde: 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.

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.


This. And the Galaxy line still didn't stop them from getting enough profit to oust 1999 Microsoft as the most valuable company ever.

Apple sued Samsung on the grounds that the Galaxy line had copied from Apple and had caused irreparable harm to their company. This is akin to saying that the United States was irreparably harmed by the founding of South Sudan a few years ago.
 
2012-10-18 01:27:18 PM  

Girion47: 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"?

I can't cite a case, but are you really trying to argue that prior art doesn't qualify as prior art?


I guess I can see it from a design standpoint, although there are design limitations that you don't have to follow when all you're doing is building a studio prop. But on the whole, it smacks of someone trying to patent a plasma rifle based on something they put together for one of the "Terminator" movies.
 
2012-10-18 01:29:39 PM  

Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.


I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

/typing this on my iPad tethered to my samsung galaxy.
 
2012-10-18 01:31:40 PM  

Teknowaffle: Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.

I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

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


It's why the terrorists hate us, really...
 
2012-10-18 01:32:11 PM  

DORMAMU: Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

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?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and s ...


Yes the argument "OMG, just don't farking buy them!111!111" is invalid because Apple tries to remove the option of buying a competing product, I tought anyone could see that...
 
2012-10-18 01:32:16 PM  
As a tech-mercenary, I really don't give a crap about Apple. Are their computers nice? Sure, they have some cool features, but then again, it get annoying that while I can install a program from the pc into apple, I can't do it the other way around. Also, the problem with the iPhones is very notorious, their PR without Jobs sucks even more when he was still kicking. And, if you have an iPhone, like I do, you really can't seem to be compelles to get the iPad, or even the new iPhones (I have the iPhone 2, it still works for me) because they're freakin' expensive.

Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.
 
2012-10-18 01:32:46 PM  

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!
 
2012-10-18 01:35:19 PM  

Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.

You should email your response to his "[[nospam-﹫-backwards] image 7x13]cam[* image 7x13]com" address.

Yep, the same @mac.com address I've had since I got it free about 10 years ago.


I have an email addy at aol.com from 15 years ago but you don't see me still using it. You use the address you want people to see for a reason. I went to gmail as my main because I was in beta and got my name at gmail plus gmail is the shiat.
 
2012-10-18 01:37:43 PM  

CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.


Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.
 
2012-10-18 01:39:07 PM  

ScottRiqui: Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?

Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.


Now compare the price for a service only plan to the price of your service + phone plan. Notice the price difference? You are paying for the phone either way.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:05 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:14 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.

Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.


Lol, this. A friend has one, and while she uses it to look at CAD files, I she says she feels like a hobbit grabbing a cellphone when making or taking a call XD.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:17 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.

Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.


Made me think of the old side-talkin' days.
 
2012-10-18 01:40:35 PM  

cervier: Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and s ...

Yes the argument "OMG, just don't farking buy them!111!111" is invalid because Apple tries to remove the option of buying a competing product, I tought anyone could see that...


my only wish is that I didn't have to use itunes to access my phone. i hate itunes. it's a poison.
 
2012-10-18 01:42:45 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.


Jury nullification is the concept you're looking for.

I'd rather it remain legal in the off chance someone decides that America has had enough of the WBC's bullshiat.
 
2012-10-18 01:45:04 PM  

nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?


Ummm... you and your "Mercedes" analogy are behind the times.
 
2012-10-18 01:46:47 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 01:49:27 PM  

pute kisses like a man: cervier: Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and s ...

Yes the argument "OMG, just don't farking buy them!111!111" is invalid because Apple tries to remove the option of buying a competing product, I tought anyone could see that...

my only wish is that I didn't have to use itunes to access my phone. i hate itunes. it's a poison.


It constantly tries to install safari on my computer, so yeah, it is poison.
 
2012-10-18 01:52:48 PM  

DerAppie: ScottRiqui: Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?

Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.

Now compare the price for a service only plan to the price of your service + phone plan. Notice the price difference? You are paying for the phone either way.


I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if someone comes to AT&T with an unlocked iPhone and just wants service, they pay a lower monthly fee for an identical service package compared to someone who bought their iPhone through AT&T at the subsidized price?

Regardless, all I was pointing out was that the $200 price point for the subsidized iPhone is a little easier to swallow (not that the competition is much cheaper) if you consider that every two years, you'll likely be able to swap out for the newest one at no out-of-pocket expense.
 
2012-10-18 01:54:10 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-18 01:55:11 PM  

pag1107: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: 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?

Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.

Not to mention the jury foreman apparently having an axe to grind against Samsung and not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit with Seagate, a Samsung partner.


What are the odds on Samsung knowing that, and getting him on the jury anyway, so they could get the trial thrown out if they needed to? A little conspiracy nutish, but given the amount of research done and money involved on just about everything in a case like this, it's hard to imagine they didn't run a quick Lexis search on everybody involved.
 
2012-10-18 01:57:19 PM  

ScottRiqui: HortusMatris: I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.

I'm not sure how big the long-term savings really are. Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost. Sure, it resets my two-year "contract clock" with AT&T each time, but I've been happy with their service and wasn't likely to be changing carriers anyway.

So in essence, I paid $200 for an iPhone once, back in 2008, and all of the subsequent upgrades have been free.


I'm too paranoid about identity theft to sell my used phones. I'm also too cheap to run out and get the newest model every year or two, though; I wait until a phone is dying to get a new one. One cheap cell phone usually lasts me several years, and by that time the technology has advanced so far that even the older models have me spending hours marveling over every silly little feature thinking "O, brave new world!" I may not be cool to the techies, but at least I'm easily satisfied.
 
2012-10-18 01:57:29 PM  

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


FTMFW!!!
 
2012-10-18 02:01:03 PM  

nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?


A better analogy would involve paying more money for an ed hardy tshirt.
 
2012-10-18 02:02:55 PM  

fireclown: nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?

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.
 
2012-10-18 02:04:15 PM  

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. ;)
 
2012-10-18 02:05:02 PM  

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
 
2012-10-18 02:08:06 PM  

nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?


Because they're idiots who like it when everyone makes fun of them behind their backs...
 
2012-10-18 02:09:39 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?


The jury foreman was fired when he was working at Seagate (which is essentially owned by Samsung).

That's the reason why Samsung lost this case and won the same case in every other court and country in the entire world.
 
2012-10-18 02:12:12 PM  

pag1107: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: 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?

Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.

Not to mention the jury foreman apparently having an axe to grind against Samsung and not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit with Seagate, a Samsung partner.


Worth noting that I'm pretty sure it is illegal not to disclose something like that... so either they knew and selected him anyways or he will be going to jail.
 
2012-10-18 02:12:26 PM  

nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?


Because they have small penises?
 
2012-10-18 02:13:07 PM  

pute kisses like a man: 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?

jury trial.

samsung was too complicated for them, the jury found their lawyers and experts to be smug, because they described things like facts and details.

apple just said round corners... the jury could understand that and understand that apple's lawyers and experts didn't have to hide behind facts and explanations. they were just nicer and easier to understand.


This sounds ironically similar to:

Romney (Samsung)

vs

Obama (Apple)
 
2012-10-18 02:15:20 PM  

ScottRiqui: DerAppie: ScottRiqui: Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?

Yep - throughout its history, the carrier-subsidized price of the entry-level iPhone has always been right around $200. Look on eBay, and you'll find that out-of-contract iPhone 4 and 4s models are selling for significantly more than that. Buyers, especially overseas buyers, want unlocked, contract-free iPhones.

Just last week, I sold my iPhone 4 (not the 4S) on eBay for $275. The listing was up for less than two hours before it was sold, and when I put up the listing, mine was the lowest-priced one on there by almost $5.

It was the same two years ago, when the money I made selling my and my wife's iPhone 3G models more than paid for two of the iPhone 4 models. My wife wasn't planning on getting the iPhone 5, but since it's basically a free upgrade, she probably will.

Now compare the price for a service only plan to the price of your service + phone plan. Notice the price difference? You are paying for the phone either way.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if someone comes to AT&T with an unlocked iPhone and just wants service, they pay a lower monthly fee for an identical service package compared to someone who bought their iPhone through AT&T at the subsidized price?

Regardless, all I was pointing out was that the $200 price point for the subsidized iPhone is a little easier to swallow (not that the competition is much cheaper) if you consider that every two years, you'll likely be able to swap out for the newest one at no out-of-pocket expense.


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.
 
2012-10-18 02:20:59 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: 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?

Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.


Plus USA USA USA. There is this feeling that Apple is this grand US innovator that needs to be protected.
 
2012-10-18 02:21:45 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 02:28:31 PM  

you have pee hands: bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.

Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the judges.

/what?


See, I went with the "Apple bought the judge" thing early on... but now I'm wondering if that is true. The judge wanted this to get appealed, so she went along with the retarded jury. I think she's trying to put it up to a higher court so that someone can come down hard on Apple to stop shiat like this. She wants a big legal precedent to be set.
 
2012-10-18 02:31:59 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


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
 
2012-10-18 02:36:02 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 02:36:25 PM  

Marine1: ZAZ: "Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business. I honestly want to know just what irreparable harm was done to their company by Samsung producing the Galaxy series.


Not actually true when you adjust for inflation, but I get your point.
 
2012-10-18 02:37:09 PM  

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
 
2012-10-18 02:37:14 PM  

Bullseyed: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

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


I've yet to find a price point or feature that makes an Apple product appeal to me. On top of that, apple fanboys are so repugnant, I don't want to be associated with the company in any way.
 
2012-10-18 02:38:01 PM  

Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?


No, no. Someone paid him $200 (the subsidized cost) so they could have his old iPhone and not extend their contract.
 
2012-10-18 02:38:17 PM  

ScottRiqui: 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?

Actually, the GS3 is both thicker and heavier than the iPhone 5.


If it was made out of lead, perhaps. My S3, sans its Otter Box, is far thinner than the I5 and much lighter. My wife has the I5, I have the S3. We compared them on the day we bought both phones.
 
2012-10-18 02:39:08 PM  
Its funny cause libs love Apple, the richest company in America, with over 100 billion in cash sitting there. They make huge profits with a big margin, and all their products are completely non-essential. Entertainment only.

But they hate oil companies, who make small margins, and are important for every single thing that we do.

Big Apple is the real evil.
 
2012-10-18 02:41:37 PM  

Girion47: I've yet to find a price point or feature that makes an Apple product appeal to me. On top of that, apple fanboys are so repugnant, I don't want to be associated with the company in any way.


I"m an apple anti-fanboy, but I love my old school ipod. For running, the click wheel is fanfreakingtastic.
 
2012-10-18 02:41:42 PM  

cervier: 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 know this could be the beginning of a shift from the "Apple - cool company with cool stuff" to "Apple AKA The Microsoft of the 90's era". More and more people are beginning to be fed up with Apple's antics in court. In the end, it might even be good for Samsung, yes they have to pay a bazillion of dollars to Apple, but

1. this amount as huge as it seems is not big enough to make Samsung go out of business
2. more people see Samsung as the company that makes products as good as Apple with the bonus that you don't have to drink the Apple Kool-Aid and pay the Apple tax.

So in the end Samsung might be the big winner after all.


It sounds like a lot of money to people who know nothing about money. It won't make much of a dent in Samsung's financial statements. It is less than 1/5 of the PROFIT (not revenue) they made from selling screens, processors, ram, etc to Apple for the iPhones and iPads in the last 5 years.

That's right... once you take the Apple logo case off (the only thing Apple actually designs) what you're left with is mostly a Samsung product.
 
2012-10-18 02:43:18 PM  

Kit Fister: if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.


My carrier is Verizon, so I consider this a feature of rooting and using a third-party ROM.

/I miss you T-mobile
//Get a decent network, we could be together again
 
2012-10-18 02:44:19 PM  

Bored Horde: 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.

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.

The typical iPhone costs Apple about $300 to make, based on industry estimates. They sell them for $700+ dollars each (133% profit). Most consumers don't pay that much, but the carrier do. That's why your phone bill is so high.
 
2012-10-18 02:45:24 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.


Yup, if you can get a previous generation phone at a discount and get a SIM-only plan it can save a few hundred bucks a year.
 
2012-10-18 02:46:41 PM  

Teknowaffle: Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.

I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

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


Because stock value isn't based on fact. It isn't based on anything at all really.
 
2012-10-18 02:49:50 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 02:51:39 PM  

Bullseyed: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

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.

img144.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-18 02:51:40 PM  

fireclown: Girion47: I've yet to find a price point or feature that makes an Apple product appeal to me. On top of that, apple fanboys are so repugnant, I don't want to be associated with the company in any way.

I"m an apple anti-fanboy, but I love my old school ipod. For running, the click wheel is fanfreakingtastic.


I have an old 20 gig Ipod. the HD is corrupted or something, I dunni, it won't turn on and I get a sick looking folder icon.

My HTC One V works well for music while running, plus I can load up Couch 2 5K on it and MyTracks.
 
2012-10-18 02:53:31 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 02:58:10 PM  

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

Ah, and theeeere's the catch. Always a catch ...


I thought the catch was that it was a Zune club...
 
2012-10-18 02:59:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 03:02:41 PM  

Girion47: Not really training for a 5K. Just trying to be able to run for 30 minutes straight.


The point still stands. It's a freaking great running app.
 
2012-10-18 03:04:33 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-18 03:04:33 PM  

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


Good find.
 
2012-10-18 03:05:04 PM  

fireclown: Girion47: Not really training for a 5K. Just trying to be able to run for 30 minutes straight.

The point still stands. It's a freaking great running app.


It looks cool. I might go for it after the C25K, it'll be a nice break from the plain intervals. They don't have the 5K training app for Android yet. I think a half-marathon is my ultimate running goal, but I don't plan on hitting that for at least a year or 2. immediate goal is 10K level.
 
2012-10-18 03:05:22 PM  

Caelistis: ScottRiqui: 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?

Actually, the GS3 is both thicker and heavier than the iPhone 5.

If it was made out of lead, perhaps. My S3, sans its Otter Box, is far thinner than the I5 and much lighter. My wife has the I5, I have the S3. We compared them on the day we bought both phones.



Well I guess Samsung is lying (and not in their favor, either) when they say the GS3 is 8.6mm thick and 133g, because I just weighed and measured my iPhone 5, and it matches its advertised specs of 112g and 7.6mm thick.
 
2012-10-18 03:07:41 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.


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.
 
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.
 
2012-10-18 08:35:08 PM  

C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
 
>

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.


You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?

Samsung vs. Apple icons:

static6.businessinsider.com
 
2012-10-18 08:50:19 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Billions!
 
2012-10-18 09:07:54 PM  

ScottRiqui: C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
 
>

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.

You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?

Samsung vs. Apple icons:

[static6.businessinsider.com image 223x644]


icons

in order of the picture

#1 is the common colour and icon since dial pad, apple didn't make that, they copied it
#2 is the chat icon that is used as far back as icq
#3 is apple ripping of windows XP for crap sakes
#4 cogs have been the settings icon for decades almost as long as the long defunct diskette has been the save button
#5 the note icon is a ripof from LOTUS NOTES
#6 Contacts icon has been around for over a decade,
#7 I've seen music players with that icon in WIN 3.1

This is why people think apple fan boys are retarded. Those are all standard commonly used icon formats that have been around a very long time and are used to denote obvious common functions that are required for any device with computing functions. Then you double down on the derp by implying that apple was the first to come up with these industry standards.
 
2012-10-18 09:23:03 PM  

C_Canuk: This is why people think apple fan boys are retarded. Those are all standard commonly used icon formats that have been around a very long time and are used to denote obvious common functions that are required for any device with computing functions. Then you double down on the derp by implying that apple was the first to come up with these industry standards.


I've used most of the programs you mentioned, and don't remember the icons being as close to the Apple ones as the Samsung ones are. A quick GIS didn't pull up any obvious candidates, either. And for all the Apple hate in the world, you'd think that someone would have come up with a graphic similar to the one I posted, except showing the Apple icons next to the ones they supposedly ripped off.
 
2012-10-18 09:24:30 PM  
And did you have anything to say about the rest of my post?

"You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?"
 
2012-10-18 09:31:01 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]


www.freeimagehosting.net 

Shmuck
 
2012-10-18 09:34:12 PM  

change1211: 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]

[www.freeimagehosting.net image 768x1500] 

Shmuck


Jebus. That image failed.

s9.postimage.org
 
2012-10-18 09:34:58 PM  

change1211: 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]

[www.freeimagehosting.net image 768x1500] 

Shmuck


I don't care about this argument one way or another, but is that really the best image you could find?
 
2012-10-18 09:40:51 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x260] 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.


China Factory Outlet?
 
2012-10-18 09:41:46 PM  

ScottRiqui: 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.


Different is not the point what is the point is how technology allowed it to progress, just because apple was first to market using inflated priced tech doesn't mean others won't follow once tech prices drop.

Otherwise philco could sue every company who made a square TV after they first introduced it.
 
2012-10-18 10:10:47 PM  

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

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?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, som ...


Summary for TLDR: I paid way too much for exactly the same features. Weep for me
 
2012-10-19 12:36:17 AM  

Kit Fister: Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

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


I call shenanigans! Apple does it because they want to control the process end to end to reap all the profit. It is the old Henry Ford model.

//I don't buy Apple. The products are overpriced and overhyped crap.
 
2012-10-19 12:42:18 AM  
Hate to admit but I don't own a cell phone and have never missed it.

Only maids and butlers are always reachable.
 
2012-10-19 12:44:57 AM  

C_Canuk: 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.


Please, had one of these in 2001.

upload.wikimedia.org

It was basically the size of a Palm Pilot glued to a cell phone but it still rocked (though I carried my iPaq around for a while too)! After this I bought damn near every Palm phone until the Samsung Galaxy S2 came out not I am hooked on Android.
 
2012-10-19 04:23:05 AM  
At what point does a company reach the size and power where it is now entitled to profit? No business is entitled to profits. You can speculate and project all you want, but some analyst's report detailing what profits should end up being is not a legally binding contract with the rest of the world.
 
kab
2012-10-19 08:59:28 AM  
Not making money that you possibly maybe might have made doesn't mean that you actually "lost" anything.

"If only I had gotten that second job. I've lost thousands this year"

See how dumb that sounds? Stop it.
 
2012-10-19 11:01:07 AM  

ScottRiqui: 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.


So what do you think of the picture Change1211 posted? The fact that you cherrypicked your devices to make your point then when you are showed there were devices already made that looked just like the tablets of today you run away because you have nothing to say since you are wrong.
 
2012-10-19 11:14:02 AM  
I have an iPhone, I like it, but seriously fark apple.
 
2012-10-19 11:25:00 AM  
Is it too late in the thread to mention that Thomas Edison (and his companies) were avid patent-writers, and were also avid patent-violation-suers of those who infringed?

Does that fact make his light bulb, record player, or motion picture innovations (to name a few), and less valuable?

/the answer is "no."
 
2012-10-19 11:26:53 AM  
Regarding the icons, I'm pretty sure they aren't just limited to Samsung, as my hacked Nook running CM9 uses several of them. Many of them aren't really all that similar unless you're tripping balls and looking at them through coke-bottle glasses.

Btw, am I going to hell because I love the new child slave labour made iPod Nano that everyone seems to hate because it's an ugly rip-off of the Nokia Lumina, is too big to wear as a watch, and doesn't have enough on it to be called a mini iPod Touch, and actually has the audacity to be pretty much music only? Because I really love it, and Nanos are the only things I'll buy from Apple from now on. I had the 2008 model, second last with the Clickwheel, and the battery is starting to tweak out. The new Nano's got a touch screen, but it also has physical controls! The button on the side does volume, play/pause, forward/backwards, and it will tell me song/artist if I don't recognise it, all without turning on the screen. I don't see why it's getting so much hate.


/Can't wait to ditch my 4 for a less restricted phone.
//Would have loved for Bluetooth to be data synch in addition to audio playback
///Not impressed about Apple charging 35 bucks for an adaptor, and then waiting on shipping said adaptor out a week after the iPod was shipped. It should have been included for free, but we all know Apple are greedy bastards.
 
2012-10-19 12:46:08 PM  

bacongood: 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.


Yes and no... Non-enabling prior art is still relevant for the limited bits it teaches. For example, Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon would anticipate a patent application claiming "A method of flying to the moon, comprising: firing a projectile from a big ass cannon." You'd have to go at least slightly farther than that in order to get around that art.

Similarly, the 2001 tablet would be prior art for a claim of "A portable viewer comprising a flat screen and a row of buttons labeled with numbers," but as soon as you get into processors, network connectivity, etc., the Kubrick reference wouldn't teach those. You can't claim inherency either with non-enabling art.
In this case, it's a fine reference against the design patent, but frankly, it's quite different visually. The aspect ratio is narrower, it doesn't have the same bezel, and there's a row of channel buttons at the bottom, offset at an angle.
 
2012-10-19 12:46:45 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?


The patent isn't as vague as you think?
 
2012-10-19 12:49:14 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.


Prior art is the evidence you use to prove obviousness. What you said is equivalent to "furthermore, there is more than evidence to look at, like guilt. Is the defendant, accused of murder, guilty looking? I'd argue yes." It's a conclusion, not an argument, and must be supported by evidence.
 
2012-10-20 03:39:08 PM  
"we like touching our phones together. so we can "exchange" playlists. see u at the "studio" later

studio meaning studio apartment of course. before the inevitable buttsex
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

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