Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:05 UTC
Legal Yes, I'm hearing you guys - time to tone down a bit on the patent news. Hence, a summary here of recent developments concerning the various legal cases between Samsung and Apple. Today in The Netherlands, the judge ruled [Dutch] that Samsung will not be able to block the iPhone/iPad from the Dutch market. In the meantime, the Australian courts upheld the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the American courts ruled that while the Tab indeed infringes upon Apple's design patents, Apple has not yet convinced the judge that that actually matters. Tying this all together with earlier rulings we already covered - it seems like judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly. Update: DailyTech has some detailed visual comparisons between Samsung's and Apple's devices, as well with the various design patents. Huh. You don't say.
Order by: Score:
The real loser...
by sparkyERTW on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:30 UTC
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

... is the consumer.

I get what you're getting at, Thom, with the Samsung/Apple battle bringing to light issues that had been festering in darkness (and still are, to quite a degree), but at the end of the day what we're ultimately seeing is the opportunity for consumers to purchase the product of their desire - be it Apple or Samsung - taken away by idiotic lawyers and judges. Those two companies aren't the victims; we are. Rather than cheer for one side or the other, as many seem prone to do, we should be sending a strong message that they need to stop acting like whiny children and get back to doing something productive.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The real loser...
by WorknMan on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:17 UTC in reply to "The real loser..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Rather than cheer for one side or the other, as many seem prone to do, we should be sending a strong message that they need to stop acting like whiny children and get back to doing something productive.


So, what... do you have weapons? If not, you ain't sendin' nothin'. Failing that, the only way this system is going to change is if/when these big companies get tired of suing each other, or somebody comes up with enough money to pay the government more than these companies do.

You can see already that they're getting tired of the patent trolls pissing in their pool, so they're going to get rid of them.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: The real loser..."
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Failing that, the only way this system is going to change is if/when these big companies get tired of suing each other, or somebody comes up with enough money to pay the government more than these companies do.


Why is your first reaction to get upset at the litigator rather than the thief?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The real loser...
by andydread on Fri 14th Oct 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"Failing that, the only way this system is going to change is if/when these big companies get tired of suing each other, or somebody comes up with enough money to pay the government more than these companies do.


Why is your first reaction to get upset at the litigator rather than the thief?
"

Yes and your reason here is exactly the same reason why Apple needs to payup to Lodsys for sub-licensing patents they had no authority to do. Its stealing and Apple is a thief for stealing Lodsys's patents and handing them over to app developers. Lodsys licensed the patents to Apple for its personal use. Not for redistribution to 3rd party App developers. Its akin to purchasing a CD and putting a track online for all to use. Whether its software-patents or copyright the bottom line is Apple stole Lodsys intellectual property by redistributing it to 3rd parties. They should pay Lodsys. That is all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The real loser...
by Gone fishing on Sat 15th Oct 2011 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I've got an idea for a patent - an AI system that recognizes when you post a trollish comment and tells you to grow a brain.

More seriously

Products are the material realization of ideas and ideas by their nature are cumulative - built on other ideas etc. It seems likely to me, that cultural evolution is probably directly analogous to Darwinian evolution, with ideas spreading replicating and changing. Academia or for example Science recognizes this cumulative process and has immensely successful with the open per review system. IT would be wise to follow a similar open development model. To prevent the cumulative development of ideas because of greed and a misconceived patent system would be foolish in the extreme lead to stagnation and will ultimately fail – in the end ideas win.

I feel that the broken patents system has a resonance with some western politicians as they see it as a way of safe guarding their local national advantage – again this is mistaken and in the end will fail. For nations to maintain or increase their technological advantage, invest in education and innovation. Make sure that the young are educated in appropriate skills and technologies and have the confidence and discipline to innovate. This will be far more productive than bogus laws and investing billions in lawyers and court fees.

Possibly there is a case for patents in the development of products which have taken vast amounts of R and D, if it promotes the development of ideas. – but software patents no, the copyright system is sufficient.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 15th Oct 2011 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Make sure that the young are educated in appropriate skills and technologies and have the confidence and discipline to innovate.


Politicians don't want us to be too smart. We need to be smart enough to work, but stupid enough not to question the system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The real loser...
by Gone fishing on Sat 15th Oct 2011 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The real loser..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I think you are over estimating politicians. Certainly to think that that politicians and he “establishment” has the ability to run a conspiracy that keeps them at the top of the pile, is a mistake, they are simply incapable of organizing such a thing. Few politicians, even have a vision, let alone a plan of those that do, most cannot retain it realpolitik. Most cannot think beyond their careers or even the next election.

Many politicians would want to “Make sure that the young are educated in appropriate skills and technologies and have the confidence and discipline to innovate.” However, they don’t know what it means, or the faintest idea of how to get there. The are much more short term pressing issues and if you can take a short term fix, even if it will create a problem in the long term – well that’s someone else’s problem. Software patents would fall into this type of thinking.

Never assign to malevolence what can be assigned to disorganization, thoughtlessness or stupidity - certainly if the malevolence requires any type of self-sustaining organization involving more than 3 people.

(-1 off topic)

Reply Score: 4

v RE: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:26 UTC in reply to "The real loser..."
RE[2]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Agreed. They should be making great products and not copying other's designs so that these legal matters don't have to proceed.

You miss the point. It is impossible, today, to build a product without reproducing someone else's design somewhere*. Even if it was, it would be incredibly counter-productive, due to the huge amount of work duplication involved. Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work.

It seems to me that you like Apple's stuff, so answer me : should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?

And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?

* If you believe you have counter-examples, please expose them now.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:46 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: The real loser...
by Hiev on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, is not that they don't want anybody else to use their desings, is just that they want to be compesated for it.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The OP was saying "People should not copy others' designs". This I strongly disagree with, and I hope you too. Now, what you say is different, and it brings a much more complicated debate on the table, about the validity of a patent system.

Patents exist not to grant companies a full-blown artificial monopoly on stuff (as the OP is advocating), but to allow them to get some financial benefit when other people use their design (so that there is an incentive to be first to innovate, etc).

The main problem is that today's patents, in my opinion, go too far. A company should not be allowed to ban the product of another company from a whole country, no matter the reason. Patents on high tech products with a fast development cycle should not last 20 years. Financial reward asked by the patent owner should always be reasonable and proportional to the wealth of the actor using the patent. Etc etc etc...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The real loser...
by Alfman on Fri 14th Oct 2011 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The real loser..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

One should never forget that patent royalties to patent holders are required even on our own independent implementations of the invention. Legally patents don't care if there was actual copying or not.

I see no reason software developers like myself should have to pay royalties on something we are willing and able to develop ourselves. Doubly so when when we never received any working code from, and had no knowledge of, the patent holder.

This kills off opportunities for independent developers. Of course, none of this matters in the US where the laws are written in favor of those with the largest wallets. Hopefully enough ridiculous lawsuits will stagnate the overall corporate market enough to force politicians to fix it for the better, although I remain skeptical that they'll ever consider the needs of independent developers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Sat 15th Oct 2011 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yeah, the problem of independent inventions does exist too, especially when patents become very broad, like software patents can be in some countries (where one could patent keyboard layouts or Turing machines, given sufficient patent application wording obfuscation).

It's not only about software, by the way. For this year's science festival, a lab at my university has built a flying skateboard based on superconducting levitation. Very fun stuff, I gave them some help for taking care of the stand.

Now, they have decided to patent the device too, with the aim of selling it to Disneyland and others. And this I feel a bit uncomfortable with, depending on what exactly is patented. Is it this specific vehicle design ? The idea of an individual superconducting vehicle ? The idea of a vehicle using superconducting levitation at all ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: The real loser...
by Alfman on Sat 15th Oct 2011 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The real loser..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"It's not only about software, by the way. For this year's science festival, a lab at my university has built a flying skateboard based on superconducting levitation. Very fun stuff, I gave them some help for taking care of the stand."

That sounds awesome, my university never did things like that, but I've seen lots of videos of things that can been done with superconductors. Do you know exactly what your lab did differently that it'd be patentable?

The patent issues may carry over into disciplines other than software, but as I am a CS guy, I morally object to making claims about disciplines other than my own. I hate outsiders telling me my business, I don't want to be a hypocrite and tell a chemist/engineer/biologist what is best for them.

It's not that I don't have an opinion on general patents, but I only have experience with software, and the cost/benefit analysis may very well be different in other fields. I personally have no way to dispute claims that they are necessary in other fields.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Laurence on Sun 16th Oct 2011 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well, is not that they don't want anybody else to use their desings, is just that they want to be compesated for it.

That's not entirely true.
Apple /don't/ want other people using their idea. Not because they're revolutionary, but because they're obvious.

If people can't implement pretty standard features then they are forced to build inferior devices. So this isn't about innovation in the slightest - it's about forcing your opponent to build intentionally crippled products.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Sat 15th Oct 2011 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

You miss the point. It is impossible, today, to build a product without reproducing someone else's design somewhere*.


Then you have an issue with a need to reform patent laws. You ought not take issue with the litigating company. It's not as if Apple's iPad was an unknown entity. With that said, any company who goes to the effort of creating a product to the degree that Samsung did they ought to also become familiar with the laws that may restrict them. When you consider that Samsung specifically used Apple's product as the model to duplicate their risk was known beforehand.



Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work.


Agreed yet Samsung didn't need to mimic so exactly their competitor.


should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?


That question assume that copying an end-goal is the same as duplicating a product or service. Apple created a service that results in the same task achieved as that which google provides. They didn't infringe on software patents or interface concepts etc.



And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?


Your analogy is far off the deep end in an effort to make my position look far off the deep end but yes they should create a different shape of wheel is a circular one is patented. Unlike wheels, tablets can be built in SEVERAL ways to differentiate themselves. The wheel's circular shape is the optimal design however the design of Apple's tablet isn't necessarily optimal. Why couldn't it's shape or color be optimized beyond that which APple created?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Gunderwo on Sat 15th Oct 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

In the back of my head I hear this voice "DON'T FEED THE TROLL!! DONT FEED THE TROLL!!!" yet for some reason I can't help myself. Sorry!

How can you be sure that the design of Samsung's phones and tablets weren't a product that results in the same function achieved as that product which Apple provides. I mean if thats how Apple built the notification system in iOS that looks a whole heck of a lot like Androids why couldn't Samsung have done the same thing?

Why is it that Apple is innovating and Samsung is copying when the process and results look exactly the same?

I don't agree with any of this but I side with Samsung simply because they have not initiated any of this. Sure they sued Apple back but not until Apple took the first swing or several in fact. Wlile at heart I'm a pacifist, if some decides me to take a shot at me I'm going to hit back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Sat 15th Oct 2011 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Then you have an issue with a need to reform patent laws. You ought not take issue with the litigating company. It's not as if Apple's iPad was an unknown entity. With that said, any company who goes to the effort of creating a product to the degree that Samsung did they ought to also become familiar with the laws that may restrict them. When you consider that Samsung specifically used Apple's product as the model to duplicate their risk was known beforehand.

Again, I don't think that taking inspiration from other's design to iteratively innovate on top of it is wrong. Sure, the guy who came up with the design first should get financial retribution, this is what patents are about. But full device bans are pure madness.

A long time ago, in the 70s-80s, a team of engineers from Apple was invited to see what was going on at Xerox PARC, thought "Well, this is great.", and decided to build a consumer product based on Xerox' user interface. Should Xerox have been able to get Apple's product banned, so that they keep their monopoly on the GUI business ? I don't think so. Should Xerox have made Apple pay in some way for use of their ideas ? Well, why not, and I believe that's what happened in the end.

This may be a fundamental disagreement between you and me, though.

"Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work."

Agreed yet Samsung didn't need to mimic so exactly their competitor.

I am very happy that the people at Asus who designed the laptop which I'm currently using didn't randomly swap keyboard keys to avoid mimicking exactly their competitor's keyboard layout. Or put the power button somewhere under the machine instead of putting it on the right hand side above the keyboard. Or put the USB connectors on top of the screen and the webcam and microphone in the bottom.

Some things are better left as de facto standards, as far as usability is concerned, even if it means that a few royalties will be paid during a reasonable period of time. Innovation battles should rather occur on things which are not de facto standards yet. Like SD card slots, USB ports, ability to install software that doesn't come from the manufacturer's App Store.

"should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?"

That question assume that copying an end-goal is the same as duplicating a product or service. Apple created a service that results in the same task achieved as that which google provides. They didn't infringe on software patents or interface concepts etc.

They implemented non-obtrusive notifications in pretty much the same way as Android does, to the best of my knowledge. Popups coming from the top of the screen, slide from the top to get the full deal. Notifications also exist on the lock screen, where you can slide again to get direct access to the notification's source.

It shouldn't matter whether this way of doing things is patented or not. Someone at Google came up with a great new way of doing notifications. People at Samsung (bada) and Apple (iOS) thought "Hey, this is great !" and incorporated it in their own OS as an almost verbatim copy (with only minor changes in each implementation, which are pretty much a matter of taste). Overall, user experience of mobile operating systems has improved.

If Google wanted to make profit when people use their notification system, they could have patented it. I don't think I have a problem with that, it doesn't sound so obvious since pretty much everyone was using stupid modal windows before. But why should other OS manufacturers be forbidden from using the latest and greatest of mobile user interfaces simply because it comes from a competitor ?

"And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?"

Your analogy is far off the deep end in an effort to make my position look far off the deep end but yes they should create a different shape of wheel is a circular one is patented. Unlike wheels, tablets can be built in SEVERAL ways to differentiate themselves. The wheel's circular shape is the optimal design however the design of Apple's tablet isn't necessarily optimal. Why couldn't it's shape or color be optimized beyond that which APple created?

Are you seriously arguing that Apple invented rounded rectangular shapes ? Also, for color, you should have a look around you. Lots and lots of modern devices use black, white, and silver gray as their main colors, simply because it's today's neutral color scheme. Pale and yellowish grays used to be more frequent in the past, but now they induce a rather dated feeling in consumer's mind.

For a more concrete example, take computer keyboards and video games controllers. Pretty much always mostly black or white. It feels neutral and elegant, perfect for a multi-function device. I believe that only the game cube recently used something else for its controller (blue or violet), and it did feel less neutral to me, more like something made for kids (though YMMV of course).

Edited 2011-10-15 20:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The real loser...
by fran on Sat 15th Oct 2011 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Neoloander dont waiste your breath. Not even a Dr.Phil intervention would work here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The real loser...
by MacTO on Fri 14th Oct 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: The real loser..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

The problem is that Apple's current designs tend to be a case that hugs the internal components. And it interacts with the human hand. There is very little that can be changed in the design unless: (a) they artificially bulk up their devices, (b) places elements that the user interacts with in awkward to manage locations, and (c) uses colours/designs that do not fit with current (fashion) trends. All of this would place companies like Samsung at a disadvantage simply because it involves things that consumers don't want. (Note: I'm not saying that they want Apple clones, I'm just saying that the minimalist mentality has pretty much made it impossible for anyone to make a competing product without cloning the product.)

We aren't talking about something like a G3 or G4 iMac, where there is plenty of room to design something similar that doesn't, well, look similar.

Reply Score: 5

Feeling
by OSGuy on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:55 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Why do I always get the feeling that the judges across the world are biased and pro Apple? Why do I get the feeling that judges feel if they ban an Apple product it would be as if they were banning something essential to them? Why technical decisions such as these are made by non technical and clueless people?

Reply Score: 4

v RE: Feeling
by Jennimc on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "Feeling"
RE[2]: Feeling
by OSGuy on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Feeling"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

And based on your comments, you are an Apple fan boy....

Do you even realize what will happen if competition is eliminated? Think about it. Telcos around the world will become slaves to Apple and Microsoft. There will create monopoly and there will be only two smartphone platform choices: WP7 devices and iPhones. Is this really the future you want? Do you really want to force an iPhone to everyone? AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile will have to bow down to both Apple and MS. With Android, they are free to do as they wish because the platform is open and there is more than one so one company cannot be the king + you have the freedom to use your device the way you want with Android and back up any file you want manually because it is only a USB flash drive as far as the computer is concerned. You don't need third party crap controlling and dictating what you can and what you can't transfer.

*Regardless* whether Samsung is wrong or not, banning competition is *not* the way. You think they infringe a patent? Sure, get them to pay royalties and deal with it in court until proven wrong but banning a product is anti-consumer and anti-competitive. It should not be allowed.

Edited 2011-10-14 21:15 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Feeling
by cyrilleberger on Sat 15th Oct 2011 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Feeling"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Do you even realize what will happen if competition is eliminated?


Do you realize that judge don't make policies or write laws ? If the laws is on Apple side, the judges can't do anything else but give right to Apple. So yes, if Apple is winning trials after trials against Samsung, it is more likely that the law is on Apple side, no matter what are the consequences. And it is not being an Apple fan to say so.

Now, if you disagree with the law being on Apple side, you need to start lobbying your government to change the law.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Feeling
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 15th Oct 2011 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Feeling"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, in the end, as a Dutch guy, I only care about Dutch law. In The Netherlands, Apple has been pretty much torn to shreds in both Apple v. Samsung as well as Samsung v. Apple. I obviously studied the Dutch rulings, and both judges were incredibly fair, sane, and took the international situation into account. Both rulings were very well argued and articulate.

I'm happy with the Dutch ruling (the one about Samsung not being allowed to block iPads/iPhones) because the judge made a very strong case that Samsung's offer was way out of line and not particularly FRANd. I'm happy the judge pretty much told them they were a bunch of children and ordered them to go back to the negotiating table.

In both cases, consumers were not affected AT ALL. So, my hats off to the Dutch judges, who have the interest of the public in mind - and a big thumbs down to the Australian and German judges, who couldn't care less about the consumer.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Feeling
by melkor on Sat 15th Oct 2011 01:53 UTC in reply to "Feeling"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Because judges are idiots that don't live in the real world. Let's open up competition and ban software and hardware patents. See how much things will improve in such a short time. I also believe that patents lead to anti competitive and monopolistic behaviour by default, which are both illegal. There is absolutely no place in today's society for patents.

I think you'll also find that American courts *always* back an American company vs non American companies. There's a sort of bigoted and racist approach to the US court system imho. There's a lot of money in the American IT industry, and I'm pretty sure the US government politically interferes at the judicial level to ensure that American IT companies stay #1 and destroy oppponents in any way, shape or form.

We all know how America deals with countries it doesn't like - illegal invasions, paying and encouraging insurgents, etc. Not to mention assassinations of people (illegal under the Geneva convention) where convenient for the US. I could go on and on...the US government is nothing but a bully, and US companies aren't much different.

Dave

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Feeling
by fran on Sat 15th Oct 2011 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Feeling"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Melkor there are not racial issues in the american court system. That racial issues that so many so desperately want to believe to reinforce there victim mentality or serve there own self interests..
Blanket statements like that one can literally be dangerous to white communities living as minority in other communities.
As a white person I know there is no great white conspiracy. Hell most white people dont even get along.

I'ts all about the have's and the have nots.
In greed anyone has just one color... green.
Those green people can be found everwhere. Africa, Asia, Europe, USA, Middle East..
So in short your statement of a racial conspiricy is not only wrong but will over the long term become more dangerous.
Here where l live as a very small white minority there is an increase in racial hate rhetorics against the us. And i'm fed up with that.

Edited 2011-10-15 02:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Jennimc
by Jennimc on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:23 UTC
Jennimc
Member since:
2011-06-22

"judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly"

Ya, because even though every judge disagrees with you it couldn't possibly be that Apple was right.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Jennimc
by Tuxie on Fri 14th Oct 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jennimc"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

No, because patents are wrong, period.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Jennimc
by jackeebleu on Fri 14th Oct 2011 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Jennimc"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

No, because patents are wrong, period.


The people that say things like this have never created anything. If you created something to support your livelihood or worked for someone that did you'd understand. But since you don't, oh well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Jennimc
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Jennimc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"No, because patents are wrong, period.


The people that say things like this have never created anything. If you created something to support your livelihood or worked for someone that did you'd understand. But since you don't, oh well.
"

No, because software patents are wrong, period.

FTFY.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Jennimc
by Alfman on Sat 15th Oct 2011 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Jennimc"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jackeebleu,

"The people that say things like this have never created anything. If you created something to support your livelihood or worked for someone that did you'd understand. But since you don't, oh well."


Personally I am a software professional doing original contract work for clients, and I object to software patents. Most of us do even.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Jennimc
by Gunderwo on Sat 15th Oct 2011 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Jennimc"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

jackeebleu,

"The people that say things like this have never created anything. If you created something to support your livelihood or worked for someone that did you'd understand. But since you don't, oh well."


Personally I am a software professional doing original contract work for clients, and I object to software patents. Most of us do even.


I do the same thing as Alfie and I also object to software patents. Most of us do.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 23:01 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Okay so did any customer in the world ever actually intend to buy an iPad 2, only to come home to discover they actually bought a Galaxy Tab 10.1?

No?

No case for you, Apple. If there are no recorded cases of this, then it's pretty clear there's no confusion among customers. Too bad common sense has no place in a court room.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by edgeofsanity on Sat 15th Oct 2011 03:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
edgeofsanity Member since:
2011-06-10

this is actually so true! ipad is sold in apple section of the stores and samsung is in the rest section. how could anyone mix them, it is not like they are right next to each other.

i believe there is some racial/image issues going on. apple cool honest American company, Samsung shady Asian company. so Samsung starts with -1. i think if samsung were to sue in Asian country, it would the reverse.

even if u have a good judicial system, it is run by people. people tend to be per-judgemental!

Reply Score: 1

v Innovation
by Netfun81 on Sat 15th Oct 2011 01:12 UTC
RE: Innovation
by jsolares on Sat 15th Oct 2011 02:55 UTC in reply to "Innovation"
jsolares Member since:
2005-07-06

It would also be great if apple did the same, they were not the first to do a tablet, i had in 2002/2003 a compaq tablet with windows xp tablet edition that was a rectangle with silver around. So you're telling me that apple should be the only one that's allowed to make a tablet?

What do you expect? that samsung and the others do round tablets for no reason than not to infringe on a stupid apple patent?

Are you forgetting the LG Prada? the design of it looks quite a lot like an iphone, samsung, motorola device.

So now samsung has to make an spherical phone that makes no sense at all?

Next you'll be telling me that everyone make weird looking laptops just because they can't look like macbooks...

I really hope apple loses, if they win, we're all screwed. I have an iMac, Air and 3G iPhone in case you think i'm an android fanboy.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Innovation
by atsureki on Sun 16th Oct 2011 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Innovation"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

So you're telling me that apple should be the only one that's allowed to make a tablet?

What do you expect? that samsung and the others do round tablets for no reason than not to infringe on a stupid apple patent?


Listen for the sounds of WP7, RIM Playbook, and WebOS being called Apple clones, and you'll hear crickets.

A duck is a duck, and a Samsung Android device is a rip-off of an Apple iOS device. It's for the courts to decide whether the law protects Apple from being ripped off.

I hope it does, because I hate horizontal monopolies and rampant copying. WebOS is neat, and maybe if there were any room in the market for actual alternatives to Apple's designs, even HP's celebrated incompetence wouldn't have been able to bury it. But alas, I'm becoming wistful.

Are you forgetting the LG Prada? the design of it looks quite a lot like an iphone, samsung, motorola device.

So now samsung has to make an spherical phone that makes no sense at all?


The LG Prada indeed looks like every other slate phone, provided it isn't turned on. It even gets the honor of first to market with virtual touch key input. But in operation, it's obvious it has a slightly modified dumbphone OS, and that touch input is based on number keys and T9. It came out scant few months ahead of iPhone but was decades behind in tech and innovation.

LG had a neat idea and put a little work into it. Apple had a neater idea and put a ton of work into it. Samsung saw Apple's neat idea and put a tiny bit of work into copying it. If you're in Samsung's position, you're poised to offer the same product quality at a lower price with the same profit, because you never really had to do any work. That is, unless the law intervenes.

Next you'll be telling me that everyone make weird looking laptops just because they can't look like macbooks...


This looks like a MacBook: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392106,00.asp#fbid=8UBWpJzlQ3...
This does not: http://topdesign72.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Asus-laptop-best-...

It's obvious, pathetic, and disgusting all at once that Samsung's R&D is simply handed a stack of Apple products and told to reskin it in black plastic and ship it.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

It may or may not be illegal, but either way, don't defend it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Innovation
by Alfman on Sun 16th Oct 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

In an era where removing buttons and using pure touch input is trendy, it would be hard to make something that doesn't look like something else - that doesn't mean it's a copy. By your own admission, you say apple failed to make something that looks different than something before it.

Personally this doesn't bother me in the least - so long as real customers aren't actually confused. However since your the one trumping up "rampant copying", then at the very least you should acknowledge that apple is also guilty of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Innovation
by linux-it on Sun 16th Oct 2011 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

ok, you missed it on all points by defending this way.

Prada looks like someting else so it's ok to get that model and use it. And only because it internally works different..? Ever noticed the major diferences in android vs iOS? Tey are hardly compareable.

Ok, let's sue Apple for te notificatins and the voice control. Thise are old too. So much for the "inventions" of apple. And OTA.... what about MMS etc. Seriously we're talking about a religion -- "if you touch apple you touch me.."

In fact, Apple is not for their customers. They *refuse* to give you any choices. It's their way or... How good can that be. And don't come up with that "it just works" -- I never have seen so many problems with the latest iOS updates and still the device(s) lack basic functionality.

The only onses who loose: the customers. Apple is not innovative -- they are just very good at marketing. People folow them because they are affected by that maketing machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Innovation
by jsolares on Sun 16th Oct 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
jsolares Member since:
2005-07-06

Listen for the sounds of WP7, RIM Playbook, and WebOS being called Apple clones, and you'll hear crickets.

A duck is a duck, and a Samsung Android device is a rip-off of an Apple iOS device. It's for the courts to decide whether the law protects Apple from being ripped off.

I hope it does, because I hate horizontal monopolies and rampant copying. WebOS is neat, and maybe if there were any room in the market for actual alternatives to Apple's designs, even HP's celebrated incompetence wouldn't have been able to bury it. But alas, I'm becoming wistful.

The LG Prada indeed looks like every other slate phone, provided it isn't turned on. It even gets the honor of first to market with virtual touch key input. But in operation, it's obvious it has a slightly modified dumbphone OS, and that touch input is based on number keys and T9. It came out scant few months ahead of iPhone but was decades behind in tech and innovation.

LG had a neat idea and put a little work into it. Apple had a neater idea and put a ton of work into it. Samsung saw Apple's neat idea and put a tiny bit of work into copying it. If you're in Samsung's position, you're poised to offer the same product quality at a lower price with the same profit, because you never really had to do any work. That is, unless the law intervenes.

This looks like a MacBook: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392106,00.asp#fbid=8UBWpJzlQ3...
This does not: http://topdesign72.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Asus-laptop-best-...

It's obvious, pathetic, and disgusting all at once that Samsung's R&D is simply handed a stack of Apple products and told to reskin it in black plastic and ship it.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

It may or may not be illegal, but either way, don't defend it.


So it's ok when apple does it, but not when samsung does...

Unless i'm reading it wrong apple IS going after samsung by how the device looks physically, that IS wrong.

They're also going after how the OS looks and behaves, they might win in looks, shouldn't win at all in the behavior part, to me those patents shouldn't have even been granted.

As i said again i hope apple loses most of their claims hopefully all, or we're all screwed.

Why do you think we have a new iphone/ipad every year? if it weren't for android we'd probably still be at the iphone 3G :S

I find it funny you say LG put little work in it, do you work for them? did you work on the device? decades behind? really!?!?!?!?

Edited 2011-10-16 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Sat 15th Oct 2011 03:04 UTC
neticspace
Member since:
2009-06-09

Wait, Thom. You forgot one important fact.

Samsung wouldn't get any harm from these legal decisions. Samsung literally "influences" some parts of the South Korean government under Lee Myung-bak's security net.

(Lee Myung-bak = Geert Wilders of South Korea but worse)

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by neticspace
by unclefester on Sat 15th Oct 2011 03:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by neticspace"
RE[2]: Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Sat 15th Oct 2011 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by neticspace"
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

I don't think that's an accurate statement. Samsung is only a top-tier company that influences this awful fascist-like South Korean president.

Reply Score: 1

STOP
by mfaudzinr on Sat 15th Oct 2011 06:48 UTC
mfaudzinr
Member since:
2008-02-13

DO NOT BUY APPLE people. It's EVIL. My stance. All this makes me want a Samsung smartphone more.

Reply Score: 2

RE: STOP
by neticspace on Sat 15th Oct 2011 08:33 UTC in reply to "STOP"
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

I would rather stop buying both Apple and Samsung products.

Apple: just being evil business-wise
Samsung: just being evil by taking advantage under the fascist South Korean government

People think this would sound strange. What can I say. I am a LG fanboy.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: STOP
by mfaudzinr on Sat 15th Oct 2011 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE: STOP"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

Let's not forget LG is Korean too.

Reply Score: 0

"intellectual" property
by Nth_Man on Sat 15th Oct 2011 18:33 UTC
Nth_Man
Member since:
2010-05-16

idiotic intellectual property rights have become.

The use of term "intellectual property" confuses people, it mixes legitimate things to defence, like:
- "trademark" (for example: apart from Samsung, nobody should make electronic products called "Samsung")
with things like
- "sofware patents", used to get money through legal protection rackets, "patenting a way to do something" where no other way is possible, menacing people without presenting facts and with impunity.

Edited 2011-10-15 18:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: "intellectual" property
by Nth_Man on Sat 15th Oct 2011 18:39 UTC in reply to ""intellectual" property"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

More explicitly, in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html it was written:

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests.

and
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

Reply Score: 3

Thanks Thom...
by whartung on Sat 15th Oct 2011 21:53 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

The once a week update is a really good idea.

Reply Score: 2

Technology, Business, and Law
by matthekc on Sun 16th Oct 2011 03:46 UTC
matthekc
Member since:
2006-10-28

Thom In no way can you separate these three entities. An OS community news site however should not favor any one aspect over the others. Legal battles seem quite common these days and while the community should not ignore this, it should not fixate on it either.

Reply Score: 1

Australian News
by crabbop on Mon 17th Oct 2011 03:45 UTC
crabbop
Member since:
2011-10-17

Here is an interesting article from australian news paper, the age, detailing how the court order not allowing samsung to sell the 10.1 tablet in our country is affecting its sales.

Brings up and interesting point that the only people this injuction is hurting are the store based sellers, unable to stock them and that the online retailers who are able to import them from other countries are seeing increased interest and sales due to the injunction.

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/tablets/buyers-dodge-courts-s...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Australian News
by unclefester on Mon 17th Oct 2011 06:29 UTC in reply to "Australian News"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple are morons. They are simply providing huge amounts of free advertising and massive press coverage for Samsung.

Reply Score: 2