Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,140
- Location
- Europe
Isn't the S3 more expensive then the 4S?
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Price never reflects cost, it reflects what the market will pay.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 916
- Location
- West Sussex
Apple seek to ban a further 21 model's including the S3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19463693
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19463693
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,247
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
Reading various comments around news articles, there are masses and masses of people all criticising Apple.
I wonder how long it will be before they take note!
Short-term monetary gains aside i cant see how Apple "won" anything here!
They have made a mockery of the US patent system and legal systems or rather showed them for there true colours to the rest of the world to see.
I wonder how long it will be before they take note!
Short-term monetary gains aside i cant see how Apple "won" anything here!
They have made a mockery of the US patent system and legal systems or rather showed them for there true colours to the rest of the world to see.
Other companies own just as silly patents. Google Nokia phi patent. But oh wait I thought apple help a full screen device with rounded edge patent
.The difference is in the Nokia case no ones copied their design yet. But they would sue the same as apple, if someone did.
On top of that apple has been sued by flatworld interactives over touchscreen gestures, how is that any different to numrouse apple patents that cover touchscreen gestures? But off course it's only apple doing it.
And another company called touchscreen gestures, sued apple over drag, tap and scroll gestures.
Hmm. Wally so different to what apples doing.
And Taiwan university suing apple over speech recognition used in Siri.
People opinions just don't hold upto scrutiny. You might think its wrong (even I do) but its the patent system that is wrong, and apple unlike what people think isn't doing anything different or new.
Last edited:
Other companies own just as silly patents. Google Nokia phi patent. But oh wait I thought apple help a full screen device with rounded edge patent
The difference is in the Nokia case no ones copied their design yet. But they would sue the same as apple, if someone did.
On top of that apple has been sued by flatworld interactives over touchscreen gestures, how is that any different to numrouse apple patents that cover touchscreen gestures? But off course it's only apple doing it.
And another company called touchscreen gestures, sued apple over drag, tap and scroll gestures.
Hmm. Wally so different to what apples doing.
And Taiwan university suing apple over speech recognition used in Siri.
People opinions just don't hold upto scrutiny. You might think its wrong (even I do) but its the patent system that is wrong, and apple unlike what people think isn't doing anything different or new.
Quoting the actions of patent trolls then saying it's ok for Apple to act the same way isn't helping your argument, but i don't expect you to see that. Of the player's in the market Apple are the one's that started this, but given how they acted with Microsoft in the 90's it shouldn't really have been a surprise.
Actually Nokia started the smart phone patent wars. But don't let facts get In the way.
Also nice ignoring patents of other phones, but of course only apple owns apparent for a smart phone, oh wait they don't.
Patent trolls are no different. The only different is they use patents to make money, rather than make products.
Those patents still exist are still granted and can still be used in litigation.
Yes let's ignore the context of Nokia's patent litigation. It's funny how everyone forgets what Nokia's patent suit was about. I remember it clearly at the time it happened.
Apple completely ignored Nokia's long recognised patents paid by all other phone manufacturers.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...hones_use_of_patented_wireless_standards.html
They weren't dubious gui patents which someone "invented" in 5 seconds.
edit:
better link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8321058.stm
Last edited:
Unfortunately Apple have set a precedent by winning their court case.
If you are Nokia, Samsung, HTC et al, you now have no choice but to start patenting crap. Google started doing it recently as well.
Apple did start doing it at all, Ui has been patentable for a while. Apple is by no means the first. There is no differnce in law between Ui invention and teh logical invention. Like most laws over the years things change. People seem totally obliviuse to this. Unless media force it down their throat.
Can't you remember back in the early 90s plent of Ui patent cases, most failed. But since then patent law has changed.
It depends what you mean by "started", it was actually another situation where Apple didn't want to pay the licensing rates for essential wireless patents, sounds familiar. You know actual patents where people aren't disputing the validity of them, but don't let facts get in your way, you certainly haven't concerned yourself with them so far.
Patent trolls are pretty much universally despised, but they don't care, they aren't selling anything, additionally their patents are often of dubious quality. Apple are not doing themselves any favors acting in that fashion, I note you don't even debt they're acting like a patent troll.
Actually apple did despite the validity of them, in so much as apple didn't use the infringing patents and that Nokia where asking for unfair and discriminatory terms on FRAND patents.
What facts have I ignored there?
They may be despised, but they hold patents, often buying them from other companies which go bust. Those patents are still valid and can still be used and are used in litigation. The fact you are calling them despised does not change anything at all.
Never see anyone get upset with Motorola either, who sued apple first, sued Microsoft first before those compa is counter sued, the. Purchase s3graphics (also sued apple first) out to get the patents they need to secure their defense against apple. And then motorola sue other android manufactures before dropping most things as they get taken over by google.
What facts have I ignored there?
They may be despised, but they hold patents, often buying them from other companies which go bust. Those patents are still valid and can still be used and are used in litigation. The fact you are calling them despised does not change anything at all.
Never see anyone get upset with Motorola either, who sued apple first, sued Microsoft first before those compa is counter sued, the. Purchase s3graphics (also sued apple first) out to get the patents they need to secure their defense against apple. And then motorola sue other android manufactures before dropping most things as they get taken over by google.
Last edited:
Apple settling with Nokia to the tune of $608m (plus licensing it's own dubious patents which they value so much) and withdrawing their own litigation should tell you something.
Nokia's patents were universally recognised. Apple didn't stand a chance.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/nokia-apple-payments-to-nokia-settle-all-litigation.html
What has that got to do with anything?
Apple have lost many cases. By no means do I think app,e will win everything, deserve to winning everything or are saints. That isn't what I have said at all. You jsut seem to pick and choose which patents are worthy and which aren't, the law does not distinguish like that, UI patents are just as solid as technology.
If you want a list of patent disputes, buy outs, change in cases there's a good list on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
As you seethed all sue and counter sue each other numrouse times.
Nokia started, apple countered.
Apple starts on Samsung, Samsung counter sues.
Apple started against hTc, hTc countered
Motorola started on apple, apple countered.
Microsoft stars against Barnes & noble
Microsoft starts against samung
S3 graphics started on apple, then Motorola buy out.
Motorola started on Microsoft, Microsoft counter sued
So on and so forth.
All of them adding and removing patents from the court cases depending on what they think is best.
Last edited:
The suits against Apple are FRAND patents (Samsung and Motorola) being leveraged to avoid getting sued by Apple over their multitouch patent portfolio. I'm not disputing Samsung and Motorola are doing bad things in their desperation, but they have been slapped back and that avenue has been cut off. It was always going to happen, and note how they don't use these FRAND patents against each other.
FRAND exists to promote innovation where large R&D costs exist for technological advances without allowing abuse of that technology.
Apple's patents have very low R&D costs, and exist to stifle the competition. Complete abuse of the system which was recognised by Judge Posner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18579081
IP Law is a result of economic theory.
Who better to arbitrate over all this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
FRAND exists to promote innovation where large R&D costs exist for technological advances without allowing abuse of that technology.
Apple's patents have very low R&D costs, and exist to stifle the competition. Complete abuse of the system which was recognised by Judge Posner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18579081
IP Law is a result of economic theory.
Who better to arbitrate over all this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
Last edited:
Desperation, how's that possible? Motorola started on everyone, including apple first. That's not desperation.
Apples patents aren't FRAND and as such not techolgy vital, which means others don't have to use their patents to make a usable device.
Samsung will yet againt get spanked for their FRAND patents and lose in court. They own something like 14% of the patents, so if you extrapolate the money they are asking so apple pays the others who hold the patents as well, it is no way fair and non-discriminatory.
Yes apple will have to pay and back dated, but it will be a sum not even in the same ball park as Samsung is asking.
Apples patents just aren't needed, FRAND patents are, that's why FRAND exists and that why in ever case so far people trying to refuse FRAND or ask ridiculuse sums have lost and lost badly, even if they still get paid, the victory isn't theirs.
Apples patents aren't FRAND and as such not techolgy vital, which means others don't have to use their patents to make a usable device.
Samsung will yet againt get spanked for their FRAND patents and lose in court. They own something like 14% of the patents, so if you extrapolate the money they are asking so apple pays the others who hold the patents as well, it is no way fair and non-discriminatory.
Yes apple will have to pay and back dated, but it will be a sum not even in the same ball park as Samsung is asking.
Apples patents just aren't needed, FRAND patents are, that's why FRAND exists and that why in ever case so far people trying to refuse FRAND or ask ridiculuse sums have lost and lost badly, even if they still get paid, the victory isn't theirs.
Last edited:
Motorola were very pleased with the complete dismissal of the case between them and Apple. Their FRAND abuse actually worked in getting nearly all of Apple's UI patent disputes against them dismissed.
You fail to understand why patents exist at all and why FRAND exists. It isn't derived from necessity but from issues over competition.
When someone invents something (at a high cost) which naturally becomes a standard, a patent would give them a complete monopoly seriously distorting the market. So FRAND was created, effectively regulating this monopoly which would exist.
Apple's patents exist entirely to stifle competition. Not to protect an investment but to force other companies from competing in their space. Just as Judge Posner said.
IP laws are a result of economic theory. Nothing else.
When we have something clearly distorting competition and not forcing innovation but the patenting of pre-existing technology in order to shut out competitors, then something is very wrong. This is led by companies like Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
I don't misunderstand at all.
You misuenderstand what the law says and what the law does.
And instead seem to think it is some idealistic system, that it certainly isn't.
So is the Nokia design patents to stifle competition? I thought only apple did that.
You misuenderstand what the law says and what the law does.
And instead seem to think it is some idealistic system, that it certainly isn't.
So is the Nokia design patents to stifle competition? I thought only apple did that.