Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Apple know this and hence why the are going after the manufactures like HTC and Samsung instead of trying and failing to nail Google to the wall.
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
The amount of Apple hatred in here is frankly pathetic.
True. Come on guys, I'm sure you can do better.
But if Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, but want to charge others to use it, you don't think that's wrong at all?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,222
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
It's got nothing to do with being 'retarded' its about protecting your business interests, some company's defend them harder than others.
You being sarcastic right. Blackberry are in deep and cease to exist as we know it in another year.
It is, but that would be a fault with the Patent Office, no?
So you back glitchers in games then? Someone finds a rock they can sit in and shoot everyone without being hit, your response is 'well its a fault in the game, fair enough'?
Got to be honest, every server I've been on abuse the guy in the rock and tell him he's a dick. Why are you surprised people hate Apple?
Got to be honest, every server I've been on abuse the guy in the rock and tell him he's a dick. Why are you surprised people hate Apple?
didn't they? Remember you can ignore patent titles and you need to read the details.
Apple have a very limited scope patent that requires multiple steps all in conjunction to the other.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/
It's patents for you, it's neither wrong or right, it just is. Until patent law changes. But few companies want/agree on changes as seen by the recent patent talks.
Patents can also be overturned in court, why has MS licensed it, if they thought it would be easy to overturn?
Perhaps becuase it isn't easy to overturn at all.
It very much is retarded. Apple take ideas and use them for themselves, they get sore arses when they think anyone else has done it to them though.
They love to disregard things such as prior art too. Pinch to zoom was a gesture in Minority report, it is intuitive and generally seen as an obvious move. Apple have no claim it it.
This was the right decision. The level of copying was blatant.
So why wasn't this given as evidence of prior art by Samsung's lawyers? Or, if it was given as evidence, why did the judge (an expert in the US patent system) disallow it?
So why wasn't this given as evidence of prior art by Samsung's lawyers? Or, if it was given as evidence, why did the judge (an expert in the US patent system) disallow it?
Last edited:
I just got in so bear with me as I pore through 4 pages of this 
Exactly this.
When has technology ever been sold for the price of the physical end unit?
They are not solely licensing the physical chip, they are licensing the technology that the chip provides which, after research and invention costs, probably cost more than the physical chip.
So hold up.... Apple approached Samsung to licence the pinch to zoom and Samsung told them to go away although we don't know why.
Result - Samsung infringes patent
Samsung approach Apple to have them pay for the FRAND patents within the current trial. Apple said go away as Samsung were asking too much in Apple's view
Result - Apple doesn't infringe...
Crazy.
I still have no idea why Apple have not infringed on the 2 FRAND patents. The jury agreed that the patents were legitimate, Apple are using the tech and not paying for it ergo it's an infringement.
Now I understand that, as far as Apple are concerned, they didn't licence it as Samsung were asking for too much but does that then give you carte blanche to just do whatever you want because you don't agree with something?
Agreed but, again, do we know WHY Samsung refused? Could they have done similar to what they accuse Samsung of doing i.e. licensing the tech under unfavourable terms when compared to other companies?
It would be far better for everyone if we knew why Samsung refused....
Anyone?
Oh really - <insert link to youtube vid of Jobs saying "great artists steal"
I find it frankly baffling that only Samsung infringed on all the patents yet Apple did not. An important point for me would be for them to clarify why Apple did not infringe on any Samsung patents especially considering the jury agreed that the Samsung patents were valid.
Strange....
Exactly this.
When has technology ever been sold for the price of the physical end unit?
They are not solely licensing the physical chip, they are licensing the technology that the chip provides which, after research and invention costs, probably cost more than the physical chip.
So hold up.... Apple approached Samsung to licence the pinch to zoom and Samsung told them to go away although we don't know why.
Result - Samsung infringes patent
Samsung approach Apple to have them pay for the FRAND patents within the current trial. Apple said go away as Samsung were asking too much in Apple's view
Result - Apple doesn't infringe...
Crazy.
I still have no idea why Apple have not infringed on the 2 FRAND patents. The jury agreed that the patents were legitimate, Apple are using the tech and not paying for it ergo it's an infringement.
Now I understand that, as far as Apple are concerned, they didn't licence it as Samsung were asking for too much but does that then give you carte blanche to just do whatever you want because you don't agree with something?
Agreed but, again, do we know WHY Samsung refused? Could they have done similar to what they accuse Samsung of doing i.e. licensing the tech under unfavourable terms when compared to other companies?
It would be far better for everyone if we knew why Samsung refused....
Anyone?
Oh really - <insert link to youtube vid of Jobs saying "great artists steal"
I find it frankly baffling that only Samsung infringed on all the patents yet Apple did not. An important point for me would be for them to clarify why Apple did not infringe on any Samsung patents especially considering the jury agreed that the Samsung patents were valid.
Strange....
^^
Apples patents are not FRAND so can charge what they want
Samsungs patents are FRAND, so Samsung can not charge what they want.
On top of that Samsung introduced a Ui over android that copied apples designs. How anyone can say smasung didn't copy apple and didn't do it wing fully is a bit mystifying.
People can argue all day this shouldn't be possible, etc. but while the system exists. That's the system.
A company has to play the game, they all do it. It's the only choice open to the,.
And yes I'm all for a massive patent law overhaul. But while that's the legal system in place, than that's that.
Apples patents are not FRAND so can charge what they want
Samsungs patents are FRAND, so Samsung can not charge what they want.
On top of that Samsung introduced a Ui over android that copied apples designs. How anyone can say smasung didn't copy apple and didn't do it wing fully is a bit mystifying.
People can argue all day this shouldn't be possible, etc. but while the system exists. That's the system.
A company has to play the game, they all do it. It's the only choice open to the,.
And yes I'm all for a massive patent law overhaul. But while that's the legal system in place, than that's that.
Last edited:
Yes, so imagine you had to play the game...
Works fine for me. People abusing a system can still be hated. Look at MP's. The whole of the UK hated them even though they were just claiming what they were allowed to claim.
Works fine for me. People abusing a system can still be hated. Look at MP's. The whole of the UK hated them even though they were just claiming what they were allowed to claim.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 420
- Location
- Rotherham
What have I said that has to do with hatred?
I've been responding to points like Samsung didn't copy and similar.
Although I do find hate is always one sided.
Do I hate ms or google for patent wars? No
Do I hate google for breaking DPA? No, do I hate apple for the keeping unsecured tracking map on the iPhone? No
They are all essentially the same, all big companies are. Most people seem very hypocritical with their hate.
Last edited:
yet another person who doesn't understand patents. Have you read the patent? It's an extreme specific and limited patent.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/
No one has proved they have used prior technology, why did ms license it rather than getting it overturned?
Everyone stills ideas. Otherwise win8 rt tablets couldn't exist, android tablets couldn't exist.
What you can't do is copy patent ideas and that is something totally different.
These ones they don't. Most of apples patents are not FRAND as they are aren't ssential to making a product.
Partly as they here "late" to the games. So don't have patents in things like wifi, cellular data transmission etc. which are FRAND as they are essential.
Bounce back, pinch to zoom. They might be the nicest solution, but in no. Way can they be argued essential.
This is why apples patent portfolio for smartphones despite being small is actually the strongest in the smartphone industry.
Other companies have been in mobile market ages and so have the underling. Patents hich will off course be FRAND, apple got the drop on them with large touch screens.