I think he means $14b.
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
I think he means $14b.
The greatest force for the creation of the GUIs we see today was the invention of accurate and cheap touch screen technology. Increased processing power helped transfer desktop GUI features into phones as well.
Not the iPhone. The iPhone was simply one of the first to use this new generation of capacitive touch screens. Nearly all their patents are direct and obvious utilisation of this new technology. That it why prior art was so limited. That is why they should never has these patents granted in the first place.
Apple to its credit demonstrated to other manufacturers that there was a mainstream market for what was then very expensive phones.
That's all I'm gonna say.
Not the iPhone. The iPhone was simply one of the first to use this new generation of capacitive touch screens. Nearly all their patents are direct and obvious utilisation of this new technology. That it why prior art was so limited. That is why they should never has these patents granted in the first place.
Apple to its credit demonstrated to other manufacturers that there was a mainstream market for what was then very expensive phones.
That's all I'm gonna say.
Last edited:
Right but remember Apple have successfully got bans before, even on products that ave now been deemed not to infringe on Apple IP.
I would be very surprised if the bans are not granted, as I said the only hope is a reprieve until the appeals process starts.
No, the two should be merged or better still this one closed and the sensible discussion continued in the other. I did point out that the main thread was over in the mobile forum a few times but in true GD fashion that was ignored.
The main thread:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18278426
See here - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22650541&postcount=352 and click the Youtube link....
Yes that was a typo, it's $14b.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,586
If the design convergence was a natural and inevitable thing, how come Google were developing Android as a Blackberry clone with an optional touchscreen until the iPhone came out? It's well known they pivoted on a dime there.
edit: moved to main discussion - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22651479#post22651479
Last edited:
I posted this on the other discussion but sod it, I CBA with that one in GD as this is the main one TBH so I thought I would move it here:
Care to show me who has 19,000 patent disputes going on according to the image you repeatedly keep posting? The biggest I see is 23 disputes and that is from MS closely followed by Apple at 20.
Care to show me who has 19,000 patent disputes going on according to the image you repeatedly keep posting? The biggest I see is 23 disputes and that is from MS closely followed by Apple at 20.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Ok, threads are now merged but the reason for the thread in GD remaining for a time was so that other people could have a chance of comment, not just those who frequent the mobile sub-forum.
As you say according to that image the number in dispute is fairly small comparatively although I make it that Apple are pursuing 40 disputes in total according to that chart (but have 38 disputes being pursued against them) so are the most litigious with Microsoft a close second on 38 (plus 16 pursued against them).
The only time you get into five figures for patents mentioned is the 17,000 patents that Motorola are selling to Google plus a further 2,094 from IBM that they are using. None of those patents are in dispute as far as I can tell, they're properly licenced and the owners are accepted.
As you say according to that image the number in dispute is fairly small comparatively although I make it that Apple are pursuing 40 disputes in total according to that chart (but have 38 disputes being pursued against them) so are the most litigious with Microsoft a close second on 38 (plus 16 pursued against them).
The only time you get into five figures for patents mentioned is the 17,000 patents that Motorola are selling to Google plus a further 2,094 from IBM that they are using. None of those patents are in dispute as far as I can tell, they're properly licenced and the owners are accepted.
I should have added them all up but I concentrated on the 2 biggest individual claims. So Apple are the biggest claimant in the smartphone patent wars after all? (according to the much touted image we keep getting linked to)
That was my point... I think Glaucus has "read the headlines only and not the details".... Oh no he didnt!
Last edited:
Fair enough I got it wrong. MS is still more and lots of them are suing each other. It still doesn't hold water that Apple is more aggressive than anything we've seen before.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That raises some interesting points and as is noted the final sum awarded still doesn't seem to tally with the individual amounts listed. If the individual amounts listed are correct then Apple is owed another $80,000 from Samsung over the final total listed - is this some sort of bulk infringement discount that is being applied?
I'll be curious to see the results of the appeal and where it goes from here.
That's certainly my reading of the image although I'd be happy to be corrected on the totals as it was just quick addition in my head.
Microsoft have more patent disputes with Motorola Mobility than Apple do with any single company (Apple have 20 claims against HTC and there are 9 claims going the other way) but Apple definitely have more claims in total than Microsoft do. It's worth checking the individual numbers to be sure that I haven't miscounted but Apple do have more patent disputes (both for and against) than anyone else if that image is correct.
And here's a interesting article.
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2011-patent-litigation-study.pdf
USA passed a new law last year, that said the person who files a patent first will get the rights. Regardless who invented it.
I suppose that's one way of simplifying cases. So any new patent case will be have you infringed, non of this showing other similar devices/software.
Omg look at the differnce awarded between a jury and non jury trials. Also goes on to say mos of these high award jury ones have been significantly reduced or overturned. Pg13
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2011-patent-litigation-study.pdf
USA passed a new law last year, that said the person who files a patent first will get the rights. Regardless who invented it.
I suppose that's one way of simplifying cases. So any new patent case will be have you infringed, non of this showing other similar devices/software.Omg look at the differnce awarded between a jury and non jury trials. Also goes on to say mos of these high award jury ones have been significantly reduced or overturned. Pg13
Last edited:
That's just chuffing crazy. So if I decided to patent the recycle bin, for example, I can then sue MS/Apple et al once it gets approved? 
All that's going to happen is someone like Apple (and the reason I use them is because they are quite aggressive and well known currently with patenting prior-art ATM but it could be anyone) having a whole division researching and patenting existing tech that they didn't invent and holding the World to ransom!!
Yanks really are mental....
All that's going to happen is someone like Apple (and the reason I use them is because they are quite aggressive and well known currently with patenting prior-art ATM but it could be anyone) having a whole division researching and patenting existing tech that they didn't invent and holding the World to ransom!!
Yanks really are mental....
Mental but you can't deny it's the most lazy easiest solution.
Trouble with patent system is getting granted then proving it shouldn't be, the court cases are stupidly expensive. This way gets rid off 70% of the issue, however in the most stupid way possible.
Trouble with patent system is getting granted then proving it shouldn't be, the court cases are stupidly expensive. This way gets rid off 70% of the issue, however in the most stupid way possible.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
Non American creates something, American patents it. America wins. They've been taking credit for other peoples achievements for decades, not like they'd stop now is it.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2007
- Posts
- 877
It's the same system used in the EU and every other country in the world. In fact AFAIK the US is actually the last country to convert to it.
And no, you can't just patent recycle bins. It's the first inventor to file, plus things like prior disclosure matter.
And no, you can't just patent recycle bins. It's the first inventor to file, plus things like prior disclosure matter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,141
- Location
- Europe
That's just chuffing crazy. So if I decided to patent the recycle bin, for example, I can then sue MS/Apple et al once it gets approved?
All that's going to happen is someone like Apple (and the reason I use them is because they are quite aggressive and well known currently with patenting prior-art ATM but it could be anyone) having a whole division researching and patenting existing tech that they didn't invent and holding the World to ransom!!
Yanks really are mental....
Not the world. The patents would only be valid in the USA.