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

Everything you said is against the patent system not apple. Yes they can and have patent it.

Anyone can use pinch to zoom without licensing as long as it doesn't infring the patent.
So you could exclude the clock bit. But without that it would be extremely difficult to use two finger touch for any other control. As apple uses time to distinguish between several gestures.

Why is it not acdeptable? That's the American patent system.

If it was so obviuse that it could be overturned. Why have Ms not tried to over turn it. Rather than paying one of their biggest competitors.

Again you seem to ignore the patent system and just blame apple for following their legal rights or saying its a big CT by the jury.

How about we focus on bounce feature? Why did anyone else implament that? Is it vital?
Or does that support your view.
 
Last edited:
cu3ed said:
I want to know, how was the Jury able to sort this in 2 days!?
If brought in they would be completely fresh to all the cases brought to this, all the patents...2 frigging days?
Click to expand...

It's relay not complicated at all.

It's a few questions over a lot of devices and each device has two questions. Does it infringe, was it willfull infringement.
 
I seriously can't believe people are still defending Samsung over this.

apple are a ******* joke

they wanted to pay samsung $0.0049 per patent per device...
Click to expand...
Yeah, thats what happens with a FRAND patent - you have to sell it to everyone at around the same price, which is what Apple requested.

$2.02 for the “overscroll bounce” (or “rubber-banding”) ’318 patent $3.10 for the “scrolling API” ’915 patent $2.02 for the “tap to zoom and navigate” ’163 patent $24 for use of any of Apple’s design patents or trade dress rights
Click to expand...
Again, pretty acceptable I assume since MS, Nokia and RIM are licensing some of the above.
These are expensive because they are non FRAND. ie: You do not need 'rubber banding' on photo viewing to make a photo gallery in a phone. There are alternatives .. yet Samsung decided to use it anyway.
You do not need to use pinch to zoom, or tap smart zoom, for a phone to render web-pages. Having them increase the usability for sure but there are alternatives (zoom toggle button, press it then run finger up/down the screen to zoom in or out for example).

Regarding its 'trade dress' - which is what the 3G/S is protected as - it refers to the device's appearance as a whole. Packaging, UI, dock connector, form factor .. the lot.
Regardless of what Samsung's legal team would have you believe - Apple do not have "rectangle with rounded corners" patented. Samsung could indeed make as many phones in this way as they want. What they can't do is everything else that makes the 3G/S look the way it does as well as it. Or simply - they need to design it to look unique. Having a curved back, curved corners, bottom in bedded home button, metallic bezel etc was more then a step too far.

This court case actually had me pretty conflicted, because I strongly dislike that Apple could patent something as small as the bounce-back feature
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't they? its an aesthetic feature that dramatically increases the perception of it being a high end device and the 'smoothness' of feel re: the interface.
It might be small but its one of hundreds of other small things that made the iPhone look superior in every way compared to the competition at the time. We live in a shallow cosmopolitan world - the way something looks and feels matters more to 99% of the population then the spec's.

I strongly suspect there's more to come from Apple after Samsung's more recent blatant copy attempts. The Samsung Store - wooden flooring, oak tables in familiar layout, an "expert bar" at the back?
.. Stealing an old iTunes logo for their music store?

etc etc.

-edit-
I should add, US patent 915 'Pinch to zoom' wasn't granted wholly due to prior art, but rather incorporates what a user is able to do immediately following, as well as software behaviour to the pinching gesture outside of simply zooming in (ie: IOS applies some AA filtering to keep zoomed font somewhat smooth).
Its the extra stuff, not just pinching to zoom in, that Samsung has infringed, and thus their prior art argument is invalid.
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
I'm not sure I agree with that.

Only problem with Apple is their pricing. But if people are willing to pay for style & substance, vs substance. Then let them. It's how Apple are making their billions.

Snipped for space.
Click to expand...

I'd say the price of Apple products is one of the more minor issues you could level at them. Their monopolistic practices in the iTunes market and their previous refusal to allow other companies to even license ALAC for instance meant that anything purchased via iTunes was unable to be played on other media players - this has now stopped and songs are DRM free but to suggest that it's only on pricing where they have some dubious practices is being somewhat more generous than they deserve. Anti-competitive practices in the eBook market is a newer example or the refusal to admit certain apps to the Appstore and then releasing them or very similar themselves would be another example.

Apple aren't the only company to indulge in such practices by any means and I don't point them out as the worst offenders but there's a lot more to complain about than the prices.
 
Alpherah said:
Samsung's mobile department is over 20% of S. Korea's GDP and they employ something like 40% of the countries workforce.
Click to expand...

Reading through the thread again and saw that. Really??

I tried having a quick look and could not see any figures although I found out that Samsung produces S300 SAMs!! :p
 
Last edited:
The reason Apple got away with the iTunes DRM thing was likely because downloading music over the internet still wasn't the mainstream way to obtain music at the time. Physical copies out-sold downloaded copies, so the impact it had on the competition (being people selling music) was perceived to be minimal.

.. at a guess.
 
Alpherah said:
The reason Apple got away with the iTunes DRM thing was likely because downloading music over the internet still wasn't the mainstream way to obtain music at the time. Physical copies out-sold downloaded copies, so the impact it had on the competition (being people selling music) was perceived to be minimal.

.. at a guess.
Click to expand...

At the time they had by far the biggest percentage of the online music market, it may have been smaller than the amount of physical music sales but in terms of online sales they were hugely in the lead ~90% was sold through iTunes if memory serves. If that's not monopolistic practice in the market then I don't know what is.

You may well be right about the reason more of a fuss wasn't made about it, I'd argue that doesn't make it ok though.
 
Theophany said:
Clearly you've never been to Slashdot.
Click to expand...

Alpherah did make the following claim in the other thread.

Alpherah said:
Samsung's mobile department is over 20% of S. Korea's GDP and they employ something like 40% of the countries workforce.
Click to expand...

Only problem is that Samsung worldwide employs 344000 people.

Somehow,I think a country of 50 million has more than 860000 people in employment.
 
I guess this is a good thread to post in, what shall I go for next in my upgrade in Oct? Already have a iPhone4 for work, shall I just get a sammy ? :p
 
DJMK4 said:
I guess this is a good thread to post in, what shall I go for next in my upgrade in Oct? Already have a iPhone4 for work, shall I just get a sammy ? :p
Click to expand...

Go into a shop and see what suits you?? :D

Edit!!

TBH,the PureView technology in the upcoming Nokia Windows Mobile phones looks very interesting indeed.

Maybe,look at the cheapest half decent phone you can get on contract?? That would be the easiest way to do things IMHO.
 
Last edited:
AndyCr15 said:
I can't make it much simpler than I already did. Sorry.
Click to expand...

What you mean is you have no point. He patent system is way it is,

Samsung wngflly infringed those patents. I mean thes a several hundred page Samsung document identifying which features Os is ahead on saying to cop them.

Non of them are essential to the working of a phone as the jury rejected the claims that smasung copied n a lot of their phones. So it's obviously not essential.
 
Glaucus said:
Everything you said is against the patent system not apple. Yes they can and have patent it.

Again you seem to ignore the patent system and just blame apple for following their legal rights or saying its a big CT by the jury.
Click to expand...

Again?

I am not ignoring the patent system. At no point in my post did I say "Big bad Apple, it's all their fault". What I did say is the patent should not have been granted and it should be invalidated.

How you thought I was having a go at anyone but the USPO is beyond me. They were the ones that granted it (which I am against) and they are the ones that can revoke it (again which I want to see happen) so I fail to see how you manoeuvred my points as ignoring the USPO and slating Apple :confused:


Just to be clear -

1. I think Apple are arses for applying for certain patents in the first place. That doesn't mean I don't understand why they did it, I just think they shouldn't have... Is this self-conflicting view not able to be applied here?

2. I think the USPO are fuds for granting them.




As to why it's not been overturned, I have as much knowledge about that as you do - NONE.

Perhaps it can't be overturned
Perhaps it's easier to just pay them
Perhaps it's for other reasons we have no idea of


The most I can hope is it eventually becomes FRAND if it ever becomes a de-facto tech then forcing Apple to licence it cheaper. Doubtful though.



How about we focus on bounce feature? Why did anyone else implament that? Is it vital?
Or does that support your view.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. I may be wrong but I assume you meant "why did anyone else NOT implement it"?

If so - I have no idea why this is being brought up. I have no issue with this bounce back patent. It's window dressing for the UX and not necessary.



There is more than just 2 camps to this argument. I can agree/disagree with Apple's side in some of it, agree/disagree with Samsung's side and even disagree with both parties.... The issue is too complex to be in one camp or the other. If it was that easy, why did the Jury have 100's of questions to answer!

I think people come into these threads and immediately place people either as pro-Apple or pro-Samsung and you aren't allowed to sway. It shows, as people's arguments are misread or twisted dependant on what camp the reader thinks the writer is in.
 
Why should it not of been granted? You keep saying this. But don't back it up. This is why you have no point.

To me it jsut shouts, you have no idea about the patent system and just read titles rather than the specifics.

Other can even use double tap to zoom. That isn't all the patent says. You have to take the patent as a whole. Which also includes location of the tap to zoom in and centralize as well as other stuff.

The reason it won't be over turned is it's a valid patent. That however does not mean that it's valid in other patent systems around the world.
 
Last edited:
DJMK4 said:
I guess this is a good thread to post in, what shall I go for next in my upgrade in Oct? Already have a iPhone4 for work, shall I just get a sammy ? :p
Click to expand...

I'm either getting a Samsung Galaxy Nexus or an S III.. Havent made up my mind yet, Contract ends in October, So I'm fishing for a cheap deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom