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

Calabi · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:18

Its interesting, how would Samsung not violate the patents. I mean how different does it have to be?

How else could they have pinch zoom? Its such an simple obvious functionality.

What if someone patented how to open a door?

I thought patenting was about protecting inventions. Not about protecting obvious process's. They cant sell the pinch to zoom functionality, how can they be allowed to sell that functionality.

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:19

Calabi said:
Its interesting, how would Samsung not violate the patents. I mean how different does it have to be?

How else could they have pinch zoom? Its such an simple obvious functionality.

What if someone patented how to open a door?

I thought patenting was about protecting inventions. Not about protecting obvious process's. They cant sell the pinch to zoom functionality, how can they be allowed to sell that functionality.

Easily, like some off their phones didn't.
And door is nota good example. You have to open a door. They have not talented zooming which would be the direct translated. They've patent an extremely limited scope of how to open that door or in this case zoom.

Galaxy Ace, Intercept, Replenish. Did not infringe zoom features.

panyan · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:20

Although i agree the early samsung android phones did look like iphone clones, i think $1bn is a bit steep

El Capitano · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:22

semi-pro waster said:
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

Apple didn't want the DRM, but the music industry insisted, so they made it work for them. They didn't want the hassle of supporting other media players, so they didn't license it. If you didn't like DRM infested music, you could still buy CDs.

AndyCr15 · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:26

Glaucus said:
What you mean is you have no point. He patent system is way it is

No, it means I can see there is little to gain from arguing with some like yourself. Have a nice day.

Robbo · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:32

Is the thread in the mobile phone section not enough for this?

Calabi · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:33

Glaucus said:
Easily, like some off their phones didn't.
And door is nota good example. You have to open a door. They have not talented zooming which would be the direct translated. They've patent an extremely limited scope of how to open that door or in this case zoom.

I'm talking about turning a door handle to open a door. Could someone patent that? I can think of other ways to open a door but would they be as good? You could be giving a single company a monopoly on the best and guaranteed successful way to open a door.

Its a bit strange, is the process they've defined to zoom really an invention? Divorced of its context, it doesnt exist(specifically digital).

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:33

Arthur Hucksake said:
Apple are the personification of the lazy ME generation who want everything done simpler and for them at all times.

Steve Jobs was a thief and an "abhorrent" shill who got what he deserved.

I will grow up when Apple stop suing people for no real reason.

Shows how little you know.
I'll just leave this here and hope you come to your senses. Apple has very few cases.

http://visual.ly/tech-patent-wars

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:34

Calabi said:
I'm talking about turning a door handle to open a door. Could someone patent that? I can think of other ways to open a door but would they be as good? You could be giving a single company a monopoly on the best and guaranteed successful way to open a door.

Its a bit strange, is the process they've defined to zoom really an invention? Divorced of its context, it doesnt exist(specifically digital).

Of course you couldn't patent it, it's been done for thousands of years.

Again this comes down to peoples lack of understanding and reading patents and just gloss over the title.

If a patent is deemed critical then it becomes a FRAND patent, non of which apples patents in this case are. Non of them are critical to the operation of a smart phone.

Robbo · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:35

Arthur Hucksake said:
Apple are the personification of the lazy ME generation who want everything done simpler and for them at all times.

Steve Jobs was a thief and an "abhorrent" shill who got what he deserved.

I will grow up when Apple stop suing people for no real reason.

I don't know what else there is to say, but I feel very sorry for you if you start singing and dancing about someone dying from cancer, especially when they hadn't done anything criminally wrong.

Sad and pathetic.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:36

Arthur Hucksake said:
patent ****ing into a bag

Perhaps because poop bags have been patented??

Arthur Hucksake · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:42

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Perhaps because poop bags have been patented??

That's why he opted for chants and yoga, in fear of teh patent wars.

Jobs was a true hero, he died for his flock to make sure he perfected the next iDevice before drawing his last breath.

Roalith · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:43

Robbo said:
Is the thread in the mobile phone section not enough for this?

Clearly not

It's big news in the tech industry anyway, there are bound to be threads everywhere about it.

My own take is that the only people truly winning out of the patent dispute are the lawyers. Be interested to know just how many millions they were paid.

Having owned the first generation iPhone for 3 years (pretty much from release) and gone on to a Samsung Galaxy S, I know which handset manufacturer I now prefer and will be sticking with.

Calabi · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:43

Glaucus said:
Of course you couldn't patent it, it's been done for thousands of years.

Again this comes down to peoples lack of understanding and reading patents and just gloss over the title.

If a patent is deemed critical then it becomes a FRAND patent, non of which apples patents in this case are. Non of them are critical to the operation of a smart phone.

So you only cant patent things if they've been done for thousands of years(I dont think turning doors was invented thousands of years ago a few hundred more like). So everthing is fair game now. No matter how required, significant and obvious it might be.

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:43

Just to show that non off these patents are essential, smasung managed without them.

Claim 8 of the '915 patent (pinch-to-zoom, swipe-to-scroll)
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. found NOT to have infringed above patent for the following devices: Galaxy Ace, Intercept, Replenish.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC found NOT to have infringed above patent for the following devices: Intercept, Replenish.

Claim 15 of the '163 patent (double tap to zoom and centre)
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. found NOT to have infringed above patent for the following devices: Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, Vibrant.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC found NOT to have infringed above patent for the following devices: Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, Vibrant.

Richie · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:44

Glaucus said:
Why should it not of been granted? You keep saying this. But don't back it up. This is why you have no point.

Sorry... I forgot who I am dealing with. IN MY OPINION it should not have been granted.

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

How delightfully arrogant of you.

You don't read things either. I HAVE read the description and I DO know what it is about. Hell, I even described it in one of my previous posts but that's obviously not enough for the self proclaimed patent guru of OcUK that is yourself.

AndyCr15 said:
No, it means I can see there is little to gain from arguing with some like yourself. Have a nice day.

This is very true. He seems to have the opinion that, if you don't agree with him, then you obviously have no clue about the topic in discussion. Quite arrogant TBH.

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:45

Calabi said:
So you only cant patent things if they've been done for thousands of years(I dont think turning doors was invented thousands of years ago a few hundred more like). So everthing is fair game now. No matter how required, significant and obvious it might be.

No, you can't patent stuff that is old.

What are you on about. We had doors thousands and thousands of years ago.
You can't patent old stuff.
You also can't patent such general stuff.

Your analogy is simply absurd and pointless. It is not the same in any such way.

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:47

Richie said:
How delightfully arrogant of you.

You don't read things either. I HAVE read the description and I DO know what it is about. Hell, I even described it in one of my previous posts but that's obviously not enough for the self proclaimed patent guru of OcUK that is yourself.

This is very true. He seems to have the opinion that, if you don't agree with him, then you obviously have no clue about the topic in discussion. Quite arrogant TBH.

where have I said in your opinion. Your opinion like mine means nothing. What matters is the USA law. It makes zero difference if we think the patent law needs changing. That's simply something the court can't argue. The patent laws are how they stand ATM. With that, apples patents in America are totally valid.
It's really as simple as that.

So unless you can give a legal reason why apples patents should be overturned I simply aren't interested. When we are talking about court orders.

If you are simply saying in your opinion patent system needs to change. Then I've allready agreed with you multiple times.

Arthur Hucksake · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:48

Robbo said:
I don't know what else there is to say, but I feel very sorry for you if you start singing and dancing about someone dying from cancer, especially when they hadn't done anything criminally wrong.

Sad and pathetic.

I honestly didn't care either way and still don't. lol You can't honestly believe somebody on a forum would hate a person they never actually met that much?

I'm just sick of Apple using the legal system to bolster their profits.

I'm equally as annoyed with Google's pacifist approach. Where are all of the patents pre-Apple?

Who holds all of the patents for cell technology at a grass roots level? Where are they in all of this.

I just remember the mobile market pre-iPhone and it wasn't as bad as Steve Jobs painted it out to be.

The so called evolution of the mobile was in bloom beforehand. The 3GS was useless and the iPhone 4 wasn't exactly amazing.

Glaucus · 25 Aug 2012 at 18:49

Arthur Hucksake said:
I honestly didn't care either way and still don't. lol You can't honestly believe somebody on a forum would hate a person they never actually met that much?

I'm just sick of Apple using the legal system to bolster their profits.

I'm equally as annoyed with Google's pacifist approach. Where are all of the patents pre-Apple?

Who holds all of the patents for cell technology at a grass roots level? Where are they in all of this.

I just remember the mobile market pre-iPhone and it wasn't as bad as Steve Jobs painted it out to be.

The so called evolution of the mobile was in bloom beforehand. The 3GS was useless and the iPhone 4 wasn't exactly amazing.

What apple ways
You need to read this chart.

Google is suing the crap out of loads of people. They however are just doing it by proxy. They are forcing their OEMs to sue, giving them patents etc.

Glaucus said:
Shows how little you know.
I'll just leave this here and hope you come to your senses. Apple has very few cases.

http://visual.ly/tech-patent-wars