Samsung Mobile and Samsung Semiconductor are effectively different companies.
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Samsung Mobile and Samsung Semiconductor are effectively different companies.
Indeed, and there does need to be some "common sense" and balance around what is, and isn't protectable.
a lot of apples patents are for stuff other companies did first.
some of the stuff they have patents for is a joke
company does XXX doesnt file for a patent because its something they expect to never get a patent for
apple files for the patent and gets it and the company that has the original idea now has to pay apple...
makes perfect sense.......
also
apple are a ******* joke
they wanted to pay samsung $0.0049 per patent per device...
yet in return they wanted 2$+ per patent of theres samsung infringed on LOL
Last edited:
Thats a bit like saying BT retail and open-reach are different, when we all know the truth..
Spot on, Apple don't invent anything, they take other peoples ideas put an icing on it and patent it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Exactly.
[Using rough numbers] it costs £800million to bring a drug to market. When a drug company gets a 20 year patent, it's from when they first think they're on to something... they won't actually have a product ready to sell for 12 years time. So then once they've got something to sell they've only got 8 years of patent left to make back that £800million.
When they start off with ideas they have 10,000 possible leads. Only 3 of those ever make it to market, the other 9,997 all failed somewhere along the £800million process. The 3 that make it to market have to make back all their £800million each, plus then all the certain percentages of £800million that the 9,997 other got to along the R&D/Testing life cycle before failing.
And then of-course there's the money needed to plough back in to the new drugs in development.
And that's just to cover costs, no profit yet!
All the generic companies that get to come along and copy the established product after it's 8 years on the market don't have to spend all the money on R&D on that drug and failed drugs, and then in testing simply have to prove that theirs is a copy of the original.
I know it sounds weird, but I feel sorry for all the pharmaceutical companies!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,586
Well, that's the eternal question. It's almost impossible to come up with a line that isn't very blurry, but quite frankly, Samsung went so far past that point that I don't really think it's something to worry about. If you want to talk about generic Android, then I don't think it's so cut and dry.
On-screen keyboards have been around a while, but there are implementation details that may be patentable under the U.S. patent system, probably not over here.
Funny you should say that, yes, Bluetooth and wifi are patented up the wazoo. How about 3G? Samsung actually tried to double-dip Apple on a 3G standards essential patent in the case that we're now discussing.
Figuring out what works better takes quite a lot of work. Copying what somebody else figured out does not. Simply going with what's better (although if you can argue that Samsung's launcher is objectively better than the stock launcher it replaced, I'm all ears) discourages coming up with original works, it's typically argued.
Regarding the damages amount, Apple settled with Nokia over their patents for around $600 million. Nokia were actually the first to sue Apple. Motorola then decided to try and get in on the action, but that didn't go too far because Motorola lost. Microsoft is rumoured to be making around $10-15 per Android device through patent licensing, that's $billions considering Android sells in the hundreds of millions.
None of these patents are essential to a phone so why didn't Samsung come up with their own versions?
Also Apple don't have the monopoly on patenting things either - if Samsung are so 'innovative' why aren't their phones brimming with their own amazing patents?
Samsung ripped off the iPhone, got caught and are now paying the price.
Also Apple don't have the monopoly on patenting things either - if Samsung are so 'innovative' why aren't their phones brimming with their own amazing patents?
Samsung ripped off the iPhone, got caught and are now paying the price.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
Some of these software patents annoy me - especially when there isn't anything particularly inventive about them rather its just one of or even just the logical solution to a particular problem. Just because one company starts making a particular product first and they can seemingly patent lots of solutions that are then going to stifle the efforts of anyone else who chooses to develop in that area. Its not a good thing for progress in technology, competition etc... while some ip should be protected there ought to be a higher requirement placed on the level of innovation before a patent is granted.
Having said that, in this instance, Samsung has breached numerous patents not to mention ripping off the look and reel of the iphone.
Last edited:
Excuse me, are you for real? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, horrible, in fact.
The amount of Apple hatred in here is frankly pathetic.
Yes, thankfully it's just a small number of people (most of the time) and most people - as evidenced - are trying to discuss the case.
I think some people need to calm down and remember what they're talking about, before ranting in a near fanatical manner - it's almost disturbing.
Most of the 'iSheep' as you describe them will be in two positions:
1. They don't know or care about what's gone on
2. They will - as now evidenced by a court - completely believe Samsung have copied and ripped off Apple, and Apple have 'won', making them even better
I don't know about you, but I don't see myself as someone who supports a company. They will get my money if they convince me their product is good enough. That kind of comment implies some level of almost emotional attachment. A bit like calling yourself a Hotpoint supporter as you've got a Hotpoint washing machine and dishwasher, sounds bizarre, doesn't it?
Still, your post (and attitude) has confirmed the agenda that I suspected you had the other day in GD.
It's a bit of a push to say 'everybody' hates Apple, as that's obviously not the case. A chunk of tech geeks may dislike Apple, but the wider population certainly seem to like them, if the % of idevices I see in use during my commute is any indication.
.....of course they might have been Samsungs, it's so difficult to tell the difference between them
Quite true. Most people - in the real world - don't really care too much about this. I'm sure they'll hear about these events though, surrounding the $1bn damages. What will they assume from that? That Samsung have been ordered, by a court, to pay damages because they are convicted of ripping off Apple?
Have to agree here. They did make TouchWiz look very much like iOS, and I could care less if TouchWiz was what we would be losing, but pinch and touble tap to zoom?
(Yes yes, the UK will be fine, but it's still seems a rather unfair 'win' for Apple)
I'm sure there was likely some level of bias involved, or, Apple's patents were just that good, as was their legal team - something I have suspected all along.
The main fault no doubt lies with the patent system, which needs to be addressed.
I think the two areas where Samsung should be held accountable, are:
1. The design of the Samsung Galaxy S - this was just a blatant, ridiculous rip-off and nobody can deny that
2. Some areas (not all) of TouchWiz, which were now, as has been confirmed, styled directly on iOS.
When I saw those Samsung documents detailing what parts of iOS they wanted to 'imitate' being shown in court, I didn't hold out much hope for them. I'm sure Apple have something similar though they may have kept it secret - bar the silly 'Sony' prototypes.
What can be patented and what can't all seems a bit make it up as we go along.
Also if you copy what someone does, take it and make it better you are just hurting the consumer by restricting that kind of development, like I had said which has been going on since forever?
Really they are all out to shaft each other, have no interest in innovation and care little for the consumer, but I do find it very hard to like apple despite enjoying their products for what they do. (Except Macs, joke product.)
When you scroll to the end of a menu, it bounces back (like elastic).
Worth nothing that it doesn't happen any more, you just get an overglow effect at the edge of the screen instead.
When you scroll a list/menu and get to the end, it would 'bounce', with the size of the bounce dependant on how fast the list was scrolling. Now on Samsung phones, the menu just comes to an abrupt halt with a blue 'flash' that varies in size depending on how fast the list was scrolling.
edit - FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU
Like apple haven't ripped off other peoples ideas and designs including Samsungs, double standards come to mind.
No-one is saying they don't own the patent. We are talking about fair.
a) Companies should pay the person that invented pinch to zoom to use it.
b) Companies should pay the pinch to zoom patent holder to use it.
IF the pinch to zoom inventer isn't the patent holder, then statement b isn't fair. IF.
IMO I think it's pretty obvious that Samsung copied Apple but it was a calcutaled risk that worked in the end. Apple released the iPhone, no one could compete (in terms of desirability), Samsung copied them, became very successful and desirable, used their new found desirability and changed everything (well, stopped coping apple) with the GS3.
The 1bn fine is nothing to them, they and Apple together now hold 55% of the smartphone market right? and 90% of the profits. Mission acomplished
The 1bn fine is nothing to them, they and Apple together now hold 55% of the smartphone market right? and 90% of the profits. Mission acomplished
Last edited: