Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
It has been thrown out a few times all over the world.
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
It has been thrown out a few times all over the world.
Why do people keep saying this. It's blatantly rubbish. Other smart phones and tablets exist. Many do not infringe at all.
Different legal systems and different patent laws.
How anyone can say Samsung didn't copy on purpose is beyond me. They produced a document stating exactly that. Identifying apples good parts and they woul copy the,.
Even if you say the pinch to zoom should never off been granted, I can't see why you would say the bounce back feature shouldn't off been granted. That one obviously stands up as that feature has been removed for a while.
Last edited:
Here we are again....
no one is mentioning bounce back because it's noted that it is really just UX window dressing and is therefore not a required standard. I only just noticed a few weeks ago that the S3 didn't have it so personally I don't miss it....
In other words - the bounce back patent is being accepted by probably even the most staunch anti-Apple people around.
Stop flogging a dead horse over this individual patent where no-one is arguing otherwise.... WE ARE AGREEING WITH YOU HERE (perhaps that is clearer now)
P2Z is different as it is pretty much the de-facto standard for what it does. Yeah there are other methods to zoom etc but I think even the most zealous Apple fan will say that P2Z is the only real tangible method of doing it.
Also, there lies the fact that there is prior art for this which, according to one of the jurors, they decided to ignore as it was "bogging them down" and they wanted to get through it faster
I accept that the Apple patent is a very narrow section of P2Z as a whole. Can you not agree that, even with this narrow section, it basically rules out P2Z as a whole as it cannot be used without it?
Google only applied for the patent in 2009 and, as yet, it is still pending. Bearing in mind it seems to take about 5 years for patents to be granted by the USPTO.
It is well reported by various persons that Apple may possibly infringe this patent so it will be interesting to see what Google do. Dependant on the landscape at the time the patent is granted (if it is granted), Google may simply license it to Apple (non-FRAND) or they may attempt import sanctions etc as well as many other things in between these extremes.
And yes, I have no issue with this patent as Google DID invent this. AFAIK there is no prior art for notifications in this way for mobiles or even computers (I am happy to accept someone to prove me wrong). I would also have no issue with this patent if Apple asked for it.
Glaucus? You want to give us your opinion on this part as you seem to have missed out on it but concentrated on restating your own opinion on the other bits... You know, the pro-Apple bits only...
Last edited:
The patent for the f700 design was submitted in late 2006 i believe.
Apple have infringe patents, as proved by other cases around the world. They all do it.
Previuse work, does not mean you can't patent it, if it is significantly different.
If you read the report I post many 10s of pages ago, which states apple has the strongest patent portfolio, it actually talks about the evolution of patents and where it evolves on from earlier patents from different companies.
So I don't accept that on its own at least under Us law is enough to over turn a patent. You have to show that it's being done in the same way. Something even MS seems to shy away from, as they've licensed it. Even with their decades of aggressive patent cases.
There are other forms of zooming and as yet it is not FRAND.
There's always a lot of hate for apple in these threads, despite showing that many company's have far more patent disputes, there also seems a lack of understanding. See several pages ago with the "apple console" patent. People read titles not details on the most part.
I really don't care what company is doing it, they all do it. Either they're right or wrong. And I think it's clear that smasung is in the wrong, backed up by their own documents.
What's worse IMO, is when companies with FRAND patents try to block it. These are essentials.
For those saying that if this was the case years ago, we would only have ford. What do you think of tech nessecary patents, like wifi and 3G. Something smasung has tried to block apple gaining with none fair license. But it's smasung not apple so a lot of you will skip over that.
Previuse work, does not mean you can't patent it, if it is significantly different.
If you read the report I post many 10s of pages ago, which states apple has the strongest patent portfolio, it actually talks about the evolution of patents and where it evolves on from earlier patents from different companies.
So I don't accept that on its own at least under Us law is enough to over turn a patent. You have to show that it's being done in the same way. Something even MS seems to shy away from, as they've licensed it. Even with their decades of aggressive patent cases.
There are other forms of zooming and as yet it is not FRAND.
There's always a lot of hate for apple in these threads, despite showing that many company's have far more patent disputes, there also seems a lack of understanding. See several pages ago with the "apple console" patent. People read titles not details on the most part.
I really don't care what company is doing it, they all do it. Either they're right or wrong. And I think it's clear that smasung is in the wrong, backed up by their own documents.
What's worse IMO, is when companies with FRAND patents try to block it. These are essentials.
For those saying that if this was the case years ago, we would only have ford. What do you think of tech nessecary patents, like wifi and 3G. Something smasung has tried to block apple gaining with none fair license. But it's smasung not apple so a lot of you will skip over that.
Last edited:
I'm a big Android fan and also own an iPod, I don't really like Apple that much.
However, IMO I think that Samsung designers are so lazy. They deserve to be sued for that, it looked so similar to the iPhone.
However, a lot of the patents Apple are claiming for are just ridiculous.
Samsung have only themselves to blame in the designing of products
However, IMO I think that Samsung designers are so lazy. They deserve to be sued for that, it looked so similar to the iPhone.
However, a lot of the patents Apple are claiming for are just ridiculous.
Samsung have only themselves to blame in the designing of products
I am not disputing this but you appear to give the impression that, unless they agree with you, the poster is one of the above mentioned people.
I read a bit more into the patents than just the title and I do some research as well rather than just taking it from the tabloid-esque headline yet, even if I show this fact, you still go on to state "you obviously haven't read the patent, your opinion is unfounded blah blah blah". It's quite offensive after a while.
Just because some people are like that, take the time to read what everyone is saying and realise that there are some people that do go out and do some reading on it.
What if in all my replies to you which I disagreed with I just said that "you don't know what you're talking about, go read up more then come back when you actually have a clue?" It would get quite infuriating eventually.
Anyway, back to the topic.
Can we get your view on what you think about the Google Notification centre that was mentioned and the points I brought up? You appear to have missed this again.
No I accept some read the patents, very few indeed. And unless it's obviuse and I can't remover what each person posts several pages ago. Then I assumed the snippet opinion makers haven't read them.
Youll also find nearly all my posts are based on people's opapple are so evil doing what no other company do, so aggressive blah blah blah.
Even those who have I'll repeat what I said earlier. Wheres the evidence to overturn the patents? No one can quote anything meaningful.
An as I also said I think it's very telling that MS with all their experince and also tablets albeit it none mobile OS have not fort.
I haven't miss them at all. I said apple have infringed copyright before and as you said it can easily be argued that hey have infringed this one as well. Not sure what's not clear about that.
Youll also find nearly all my posts are based on people's opapple are so evil doing what no other company do, so aggressive blah blah blah.
Even those who have I'll repeat what I said earlier. Wheres the evidence to overturn the patents? No one can quote anything meaningful.
An as I also said I think it's very telling that MS with all their experince and also tablets albeit it none mobile OS have not fort.
I haven't miss them at all. I said apple have infringed copyright before and as you said it can easily be argued that hey have infringed this one as well. Not sure what's not clear about that.
I have seen these images before but can someone tell me what Samsung devices used these?
Oh no, the things that do the exact same thing look the same...ever wonder why that might be? Do you expect Samsung to make their USB adapter in the shape of an S making it unsightly and less practical just so it doesn't look similar to Apples?
The real question to ask is: was this one of the infringements Samsung wanted to bring up against Apple? And if it was, why was this never even mentioned?
Interestingly I found this article on Google+. Certainly gives you a real insight into the way the jury came up with their decision.
Last edited:
If the comments on there about the foreman are true, and he had as much influence as that suggests, it's hardly a surprise what the outcome was.
You have a guy who has essentially patented the idea for a TiVo 3 years after the TiVo was released and seems to have approached the case more from a perspective of justifying to himself that his own patent would be defensible in the face of blatant prior art.
These jurors are contradicting themselves all over the place. Here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...es-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/
It says
Yet here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1
A different juror says:
Additionally, in both links, the jurors said "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist,", yet in the instructions to the jury from the Judge, it is said that:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...es-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/
It says
Yet here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1
A different juror says:
Additionally, in both links, the jurors said "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist,", yet in the instructions to the jury from the Judge, it is said that:
Last edited:
Yep if that's true that's insane. Surly judge/Samsung/apple would have spotted it and sent the jury out again? As they stopped for 30mins to check the sheet over before judgment.
Also why in USA does jury set amounts, hat seems silly. How would jury have any idea what to fine. But then again I suppose that is a big difference with uk. In USA you can have punitive and sorts of odd fines, that just aren't possible in a uk court.
Also why in USA does jury set amounts, hat seems silly. How would jury have any idea what to fine. But then again I suppose that is a big difference with uk. In USA you can have punitive and sorts of odd fines, that just aren't possible in a uk court.