Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Soldato
I like the Ipad but I definitely wont buy one because of what apple are doing in the courts.
Before someone comes along and says "well they all do it", well sorry but that's not true apple are the ones who started getting bans on products and patents on concepts that shouldn't even be granted.
These are blatant attempts at establishing a monopoly something apple were bitching about in the 90s.
And quite funny that it's coming when there competitors have closed the gap in the smartphone market.
Before someone comes along and says "well they all do it", well sorry but that's not true apple are the ones who started getting bans on products and patents on concepts that shouldn't even be granted.
These are blatant attempts at establishing a monopoly something apple were bitching about in the 90s.
And quite funny that it's coming when there competitors have closed the gap in the smartphone market.
Soldato
Wouldn't stop me buying some kit I really wanted, Kinda smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
If you really like the product and want one then just get one.
Soldato
Nah I like the Galaxy Tab aswell
Apple aren't really the only option any more, they have good competition.
Man of Honour
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales injunction has been lifted and Samsung has filed a motion saying the iPhone 5 had infringed on some of the company's patents:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE89102320121002
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE89102320121002
Soldato
Samsung have officially asked the courts to do a retrial of the recent case with Apple - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19816642
Their main point is that the jury foreman was biased and failed to answer questions truthfuly.
TBH, after hearing the foreman speaking on various interviews I have to agree with Samsung. The guy was an idiot and he proved in these interviews how biased he was.
Their main point is that the jury foreman was biased and failed to answer questions truthfuly.
TBH, after hearing the foreman speaking on various interviews I have to agree with Samsung. The guy was an idiot and he proved in these interviews how biased he was.
Yeah that was done nearly 2 weeks ago, just the BBC with their finger on the pulse as usual (not) !
See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170
Further info : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770
Edit:
Oh wow, Hogan made a real mess of this. It turns out that in the 80s he was hired by Seagate. As part of the employment contract Seagate loaned him $25k, to repaid to Seagate. In the event his employment was terminated he had 270 days to pay up.
He got fired in 1991 and didn't repay the money. Seagate sued for breach of contract, Hogan then filed for personal bankruptcy to avoid having to repay the money.
Recently Samsung became a shareholder in Seagate, in fact the largest shareholder.
During jury selection for the Apple trial Hogan was asked if he'd ever been involved in any sort of court trial. he did not mention the Seagate trial.
After the trial Hogan told Reuters that he had sued Seagate for fraud and they counter sued, (this appears not to be true). He says that he didn't have to repay the money (hence the "fraud claim"). However the original documents from that case show that he did agree to repay the money.
Samsung's legal team are basically saying they would not of accepted him as a juror had they known this previously. It only came to light because the lawyer who sued him on the behalf of Seagate back in the 90s is now married to one of the Samsung legal team !
All this only came to light after the trial.
This is on top of Hogan blabbing to the media saying he did all the things he shouldn't of done during the trial.
Amazing, if this is true surely a re-trial will have to happen ?
See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170
Further info : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770
Edit:
Oh wow, Hogan made a real mess of this. It turns out that in the 80s he was hired by Seagate. As part of the employment contract Seagate loaned him $25k, to repaid to Seagate. In the event his employment was terminated he had 270 days to pay up.
He got fired in 1991 and didn't repay the money. Seagate sued for breach of contract, Hogan then filed for personal bankruptcy to avoid having to repay the money.
Recently Samsung became a shareholder in Seagate, in fact the largest shareholder.
During jury selection for the Apple trial Hogan was asked if he'd ever been involved in any sort of court trial. he did not mention the Seagate trial.
After the trial Hogan told Reuters that he had sued Seagate for fraud and they counter sued, (this appears not to be true). He says that he didn't have to repay the money (hence the "fraud claim"). However the original documents from that case show that he did agree to repay the money.
Samsung's legal team are basically saying they would not of accepted him as a juror had they known this previously. It only came to light because the lawyer who sued him on the behalf of Seagate back in the 90s is now married to one of the Samsung legal team !
All this only came to light after the trial.
This is on top of Hogan blabbing to the media saying he did all the things he shouldn't of done during the trial.
Amazing, if this is true surely a re-trial will have to happen ?
Last edited:
Soldato
New patent being applied for by Apple that was highlighted in another thread here. I felt it should go here as well.
This patent will allow Apple or 3rd parties to enable/disable features of the iPhone at will
Doubt anyone else will want to use this patent but does anyone else think this is ridiculous? You pay £500 for a phone then get told how and where you can use it?
This patent will allow Apple or 3rd parties to enable/disable features of the iPhone at will
Doubt anyone else will want to use this patent but does anyone else think this is ridiculous? You pay £500 for a phone then get told how and where you can use it?
New patent being applied for by Apple that was highlighted in another thread here. I felt it should go here as well.
This patent will allow Apple or 3rd parties to enable/disable features of the iPhone at will
Doubt anyone else will want to use this patent but does anyone else think this is ridiculous? You pay £500 for a phone then get told how and where you can use it?
I remember reading something a while ago about venues wanting to disable cameras on your phones remotely as the tech in them got better, which really irks me as I hate being told yes or no you can not photograph something you have paid to see as it is!
Soldato
Won't really work will it.
Turn off GPS and wifi, which I don't have on anyway, and you're good to go.
Turn off GPS and wifi, which I don't have on anyway, and you're good to go.
Soldato
I think the idea is it can work through any medium (so theoretically, a camera could see a symbol next to a stage and be told not to take the picture) rather than any specific interface. It's still a terrible idea though. I'd much rather we just executed people who left their phone on in the cinema as at least I'd get enjoyment out of it.
There is a good legit scenario for this though, sensitive workplaces (mil, aero, gov) could equip all employees with iphones that had this ability and businesses would have less security issues. As I'm sure a lot of you have seen, secure facilities usually have lockers for phones etc.. and camera-less phones which are from the stoneage. This could really improve their workplace on the cheap.
There is a good legit scenario for this though, sensitive workplaces (mil, aero, gov) could equip all employees with iphones that had this ability and businesses would have less security issues. As I'm sure a lot of you have seen, secure facilities usually have lockers for phones etc.. and camera-less phones which are from the stoneage. This could really improve their workplace on the cheap.
Soldato
They can use cell sites to do it as well according to the video so you would need to enter airplane mode for it to not take effect.
Point still stands - I pay for the phone and I do not care for being allowed to use it where someone else deems fit.
It's just a patent ATM, doesn't mean they will put it on the iPhone.
If they did can see many more people leaving apple, seems a lot of us are. It's not even for one thing though its a host of reasons, which is more difficult to fix. However saying that as long as the core target don't start leaving, it doesn't really matter.
If they did can see many more people leaving apple, seems a lot of us are. It's not even for one thing though its a host of reasons, which is more difficult to fix. However saying that as long as the core target don't start leaving, it doesn't really matter.
wouldn't be anywhere near precise enough. it can't triangulate you to an exact area. people 1 st over would have probs using their phone with that.
wouldn't work on android thankfully. devs would remove the functionality
Not only that, Apple have been granted a broader slide to unlock patent. If you remember the patent they are using against Samsung talks about a pre-defined path or start.stop points. This new patent does not have those stipulations.. read here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature
Just shows how ridiculous the patent system in the US is, there must be loads of prior art for this ?
Whats the betting Apple will start suing other manufacturers based on this..
Just shows how ridiculous the patent system in the US is, there must be loads of prior art for this ?
Whats the betting Apple will start suing other manufacturers based on this..
Soldato
It's great that apple have got that 'wireless switch off patent', it means that other companies won't, or can't do it 
Soldato
Shouldn't affect the S3 or newer Samsung devices. The patent mentions moving an unlock image to anywhere however the S3 has no image, you simply swipe anywhere on the screen.
Stock Android on the other hand....
Soldato
Oh US patent law, why are you so stupid???
I don't think it really matters. I was listening to a podcast about a journalist who tends to cover protests, goverment corruption, etc. and she claimed that she had several iPhones thrown out of a window because the contacts she had didn't trust that phone. Claiming the only way to be 100% sure that it is turned off is by removing the battery which is pretty impractical.