Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones

Alpherah said:
There's been murmurs that one of the patents in question is Apple's multi-touch patent. I've used various samsung tablets but honestly can't remember - is multi touch even included? pinch to zoom etc?
Click to expand...

Well the ASUS Transformer had multitouch support for up to 10 inputs, thats both of your hands or feet touching the screen simultaneously :).

Haven't used a Gal Tab though so cannot comment.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Not a surprise, samsung had no case.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Samsung are just trying everything to get one over on Apple, but they appear to be failing.

I still stand by the fact there must be more to this than people are letting on, or Apple have a massively superior legal team to Samsung, which I find unlikely given how huge Samsung are.
 
That blog you posted explains it very well. Much clearer than other articles I have read. It's all down to what patents they own.

Although yes I think we haven't heard exactly what patents apple are going after samsung with, or at least not in the entirety.

We know one was how photos ping back and other similar stuff. Not hard for android to solve. If the multi touch thing is true, that's big and they will need to ask apple for licensing deals.
 
Also, Samsung aren't the only company to use multi touch in their products so surely they'll be able to debunk that one easily? Or not since their legal team seems inferior to Apples :)
 
A bit more info in the BBC article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15305448

It seems apple are going after samsung with a hole list and we are being drip fed info.

The disputed patents include three covering design - including the exterior look of the device - and a 'list scrolling patent' which relates to how users view documents.
Click to expand...


Ooops, own goal

At one point in the hearing the judge held both Samsung and Apple products up on the air and challenged the defence to whether they could identify which device was which.

Samsung attorney Ms Sullivan, who was roughly 10 feet away, responded: "Not as this distance your honour."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I really believe that some of the actual and proposed sales injunctions against Samsung are pretty unfair.

The 3G patents that Samsung hold are so significant to the industry that if other manufcaturers couldn't license them, their devices simply wouldn't work on the telecommunication network. That would lead to a massive hole in their sales figures. As a result, they're forced to license them at a discounted rate under FRAND.

For a bounce effect on list views and other asthetical patents, Apple have effectively created the same major sales blows to Samsung.

Apple can create pretty substantial damage to Samsung with their insignificant patents (insignificant compared to how bad it would be for Apple if they couldn't use Samsung's 3G technology or have to pay top rates for it) where as Samsung's hands are tied. Seems pretty unfair to me.
 
Alpherah said:
Or, to get around these aesthetic patents, Samsung could make something which looks different like every other tablet manufacturer? :p
Click to expand...

Majority of Android tablets are rectangular with a black bezel, the Xoom and Viewsonic tablets are also similar in that respect. Apple just don't like the fact Samsung are actually beating them in terms of how thin and light the units are as it's one of Apples USPs that they've been plugging quite hard. They claimed the iPhone 4 was the thinnest phone in their tv adverts and the MacAir, well, that doesn't need explaining just by the name.
 
Mekrel said:
Majority of Android tablets are rectangular with a black bezel, the Xoom and Viewsonic tablets are also similar in that respect. Apple just don't like the fact Samsung are actually beating them in terms of how thin and light the units are as it's one of Apples USPs that they've been plugging quite hard. They claimed the iPhone 4 was the thinnest phone in their tv adverts and the MacAir, well, that doesn't need explaining just by the name.
Click to expand...

Its funny how most of these patients would apply for almost everyone and its only aimed at Samsung who is the only company that poses any kinda of threat.

The gallery app which is one of the only things I've actual heard anyone actual say infringed was something somes tock android and used by almost all android phone par HTC from what I've seen. The galaxy Tab actual looks a lot more like all the other android tablets, having the same apect ratio and being black without any buttons, having a mirco SD slot and so on and so on really dont see any case in it. From a touch wiz point of view, touch wiz and the LG skin are exactly the same in most case eg the app laucher goes side wats if I remember correctly, the icon lay out at the button is more or less the same.
 
Fallen god said:
Its funny how most of these patients would apply for almost everyone and its only aimed at Samsung who is the only company that poses any kinda of threat.
Click to expand...

It's only aimed at Samsung as they're the largest company, so they should have the most resources/best lawyers etc. to defend.

If Apple can win against the company that can defend itself the best then it means that other smaller companies just have to follow whatever the Judge ruled, as if Samsung were unable to win they won't be able to either.

It would be stupid to take a smaller company to court as even if you win the larger company will think they can afford better lawyers etc. meaning that Apple have to spend more money.
 
Bloomfield said:
It's only aimed at Samsung as they're the largest company, so they should have the most resources/best lawyers etc. to defend.

If Apple can win against the company that can defend itself the best then it means that other smaller companies just have to follow whatever the Judge ruled, as if Samsung were unable to win they won't be able to either.

It would be stupid to take a smaller company to court as even if you win the larger company will think they can afford better lawyers etc. meaning that Apple have to spend more money.
Click to expand...

That kinda what I meant, cause everyone I see/hear just say only samsung copy and its not like apple doesn't copy people as well. Everyone copies everyone these days its just normal if someone has a good idea and everyone finds it to be best im sure everyone else will want that in there software/hardware Ive only seen poeple sueing each other only in the mobile sense to this extent and find it so stupid.
 
It is stupid IMO, but I also understand why they're doing it :).

They really need to change what can be patented IMO, as the current patent system just leads to ridiculous stuff like the images posted a while back that showed a screen with a bezel around it as being patented...

Until they're changed we're just going to see even more ridiculous court cases which will only lead to less competition :(.
 
Bloomfield said:
It's only aimed at Samsung as they're the largest company, so they should have the most resources/best lawyers etc. to defend.

If Apple can win against the company that can defend itself the best then it means that other smaller companies just have to follow whatever the Judge ruled, as if Samsung were unable to win they won't be able to either.

It would be stupid to take a smaller company to court as even if you win the larger company will think they can afford better lawyers etc. meaning that Apple have to spend more money.
Click to expand...

Lol that's nonsense as these companies turnover billions and billions where as the lawyers they hire will cost less than a 1/10 of that.

Apple have hardly created a sales a blow to Samsung. OMG the tablet is banned in Australia. Well it only has a population of about 18 million. China has more people in prison.
 
Meh.

Win against big company, set precedence, other companies won't be able to win.

I'd imagine if Apple do win these cases other companies will change things rather than go to court if they're the same issues Samsung lost over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom