Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Nov 2011 22:20 UTC
Legal This is probably not entirely surprising. The European Commission has announced that it is investigating both Apple and Samsung because they may have breached antitrust rules with regard to patents used as standard in the mobile phone industry - otherwise known as FRAND patents. While the EC states it's investigating both Samsung and Apple, it's likely the investigation focusses on Samsung.
Order by: Score:
the market disagrees
by unclefester on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:03 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Samsung's price is up 4% and Apple's is down 3%. This suggests that Apple is in more trouble than Samsung.

Reply Score: 4

RE: the market disagrees
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:23 UTC in reply to "the market disagrees"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Investors are worse than the parties involved - they can't even be labelled as squabbling kids.
They are panicky idiots most of the time.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: the market disagrees
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE: the market disagrees"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

A ban on iOS devices would be an unmitigated disaster for Apple.

Samsung without Android is still a $300 billion corporation.

That is how the markets think.

Reply Score: 7

v Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Sat 5th Nov 2011 00:43 UTC
RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by Lazarus on Sat 5th Nov 2011 00:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

You make a spoon, and I'll make a spoon. I'll see you in court if yours looks or functions remotely similar to mine.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

I'm Ford, I make a car design, patent it, and bring it to market. You're Hyundai, you see my car and you make a very similar one who's design only faintly differs from mine. Since you didn't have to prototype the design like I did, you were able to cut R&D costs to a great margin because I essentially designed it for you. So when you take your car to market you're able to undercut my profits. I take you to court. Let's see who wins.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm Ford, I make a car design, patent it, and bring it to market. You're Hyundai, you see my car and you make a very similar one who's design only faintly differs from mine. Since you didn't have to prototype the design like I did, you were able to cut R&D costs to a great margin because I essentially designed it for you. So when you take your car to market you're able to undercut my profits. I take you to court. Let's see who wins.

How much you sunk into R&D is not a measure by which patents are granted nor should be granted.
And please, please, please.... Hardware related patents are in a totally different universe to intangible IP. They are much easier to define, identify and protect.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


And please, please, please.... Hardware related patents are in a totally different universe to intangible IP.


So hardware deserves protection, and software doesn't?

Innovative designs on a hardware level are valuable, but on the software level they aren't?

You're valued and appreciated as a hardware company, but you're dismissed as worthless as a software company?

With more and more innovations being built around software, rather than hardware, I think thats selling a lot of people short.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Nov 2011 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So hardware deserves protection, and software doesn't?

Innovative designs on a hardware level are valuable, but on the software level they aren't?

You're valued and appreciated as a hardware company, but you're dismissed as worthless as a software company?

With more and more innovations being built around software, rather than hardware, I think thats selling a lot of people short.


How the ***** did you come to that conclusion? Reduction ad absurdum will not help in this case, since I've been in the US patent game and know it from the inside. Those are some benefits of working at IBM(formerly).

Then I must be selling myself short. And my profession. And so on...
Don't be ridiculous...

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Don't be ridiculous...


So patents aren't ridiculous either. Don't throw away the child with the bathwater.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Nov 2011 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

In the current state we are better off without any form of software patent till something acceptable is on the table.

And being afraid to throw away a dead baby with the infected bathwater will only lead to more contamination.
(The dead baby is the software patent, infected water is the current system)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The Honda Jazz and Mitsubishi Colt are blatant copies of the Mercedes A Class. The Lexus I series are copies of 3 series BMWs.

No one gets sued in the car industry for copying designs. They swap IP readily. They only sue over trademarks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

They swap IP readily. They only sue over trademarks.


I'd like to see you bring to market a Lexus which looks almost exactly the same inside out like a BMW 3 and not get sued by BMW.

Swapping IP doesn't come without a price. Its still up to the individual IP holder if they're willing to swap it or not. If they don't, you need to respect that, not do it anyway and not pay anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 04:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple's strategic aim is not to block anybody's products per se. Apple's aim is to retain differentiation of it's products through preventing what it sees as copying of elements of it's designs that it has patented or which it feels it owns.


Totally wrong. Apple has adopted an ultra risky portable device strategy which is rapidly evolving into a potential catastrophe. Obviously Steve Jobs learned nothing from the original Mac fiasco.

Apple is now facing a slew of Android devices that cover every market segment from top to bottom.

In Australia at the moment the price discrepancy for similar products is huge.

- LG Optimus Spirit unlocked - $149
- Samusng Galaxy 5 unlocked -$99
- Apple 3GS unlocked -$ 429

- Motorola Xoom 32GB -$499
- iPad 32GB 32GB (wifi +3g) - $839

- Samsung Galaxy S2 unlocked - $549
- iPhone 4S unlocked - $899

Telstra - Australia's largest Telco - sells unlocked Telstra (Huawei) Smart-Touch Android phones for $79. This is cheap enough to give to a child.

Apple is panicking because they know they will get absolutely clobbered within two years (I predict much sooner). The lawsuits are merely the desperate actions of a company that suddenly realises they can't compete on price and have no compelling technology to attract buyers.

Edited 2011-11-05 04:57 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by kristoph on Sun 6th Nov 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is the biggest company (by market cap) on the planet. It is the most valuable brand on the planet. It makes the most profit of any other company on the planet in handsets, tables, computers, displays, music, etc. It has the best customer service (as voted by actual customers) for an untold number of years. It has the strongest customer loyalty (especially in mobile devices). It makes the most money per retail square foot of any company on the planet. It commands 60% of mobile OS traffic.

I could go on here.

Clearly those are indicators of a disaster waiting to happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple is the biggest company (by market cap) on the planet. It is the most valuable brand on the planet.


So was GE a decade ago. It is now down around 80% in inflation adjusted terms.

It makes the most profit of any other company on the planet in handsets, tables, computers, displays, music, etc. It has the best customer service (as voted by actual customers) for an untold number of years. It has the strongest customer loyalty (especially in mobile devices).


Sounds just like RIM in 2007. Rim is currently facing disaster.

I could go on here.

Clearly those are indicators of a disaster waiting to happen.


Companies are frequently extremely profitable and growing rapidly just before they collapse. eg Enron.

Apple Inc. is currently rated as having Very Aggressive Accounting & Governance Risk (AGR). This places them in the 8th percentile among all companies, indicating higher Accounting & Governance Risk (AGR) than 92% of companies.

AGR scores are based on statistical analysis of accounting and governance risk factors. Lower scores indicate heightened corporate integrity risk, indicating an increased likelihood of future class action litigation, material financial restatements or impaired equity performance.


http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=AAPL

Translation: Apple is at very high risk of going belly up.

Edited 2011-11-06 23:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Android tablets have been a dud in the marketplace sofar. Have you ever used a Xoom? Its a piece of shit.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by Fergy on Sat 5th Nov 2011 06:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

It is surely essential for innovation that being innovative brings something other than fleeting advantage, something more than a momentary advantage that only lasts until your competitors can copy anything you have created or invented. Being innovative is difficult, costly and demanding. Innovation will only happen if it leads to some advantage.

Ipod and Iphone weren't popular because of innovation. They were popular because of the complete package. And that is how most products compete with each other.
Having a big touchscreen instead of buttons isn't innovative by the way it is completely obvious.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

AFAIK the Star Trek Tricorder had a big touchscreen back in 1966.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

AFAIK the Star Trek Tricorder had a big touchscreen back in 1966.


But we'll probably never know if it had multitouch, slide to unlock, inertial scrolling or an App Store. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by MOS6510 on Sun 6th Nov 2011 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yeah, it even had an app store and ran an early beta of iOS 6.

And it was made of wood.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Fergy on Sat 5th Nov 2011 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Have you ever used MP3 players from the time before the iPod came out? I have.

Yes. iPod made it easier for normal people to put music on the mp3player. It changed nothing for me. I also had a harddisk mp3 player before the ipod.
If it was completely obvious, why didn't anyone else think of bringing it to market in the way as the iPhone did?

Changes often occur because a device is used differently or a new technique becomes cheap enough. If you want to use a device to listen to music, browse the web, have apps and be used as a phone how many choices do you have for formfactor?
Just because most phone vendors were being stupid doesn't make Apple brilliant.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The CD player was patented in 1969. It reached the market in 1981. The delay was due to the fact that the hardware was too expensive to build any earlier.

Dick Tracy had a two way wrist radio back in 1946 and a wrist TV in 1964. back in the 1940s.

Someone had probably thought of some type of touchscreen mobile phone by the 1960s.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

The CD player was patented in 1969. It reached the market in 1981. The delay was due to the fact that the hardware was too expensive to build any earlier.

Dick Tracy had a two way wrist radio back in 1946 and a wrist TV in 1964. back in the 1940s.

Someone had probably thought of some type of touchscreen mobile phone by the 1960s.


What are you trying to say? CD players aren't iPods. wrist radios aren't either.

Its a big difference between thinking something up and actually building it. In fact I can imagine a computer that will plug into a socket after my ear, after which my brain is instantly connected to the internet. No screen, keyboard, or touchscreen required. The computer in itself is as big as a mentos and has 50 TB of solid state storage. Knowing how to turn that vision into a real product however, is the difference between sci-fi and the real world.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Companies typically plan products many years ahead. Once the technology becomes cheap enough they build.

Cheap touchscreens became available so touchscreen phones were marketed.

The iPod and Mac designs design were blatantly stolen from 1960s Braun catalogues.

The iPad is a direct copy of the 1987 Knight-Ridder concept tablet.

The iPhone is a copy of the LG Prada.

Edited 2011-11-06 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


The iPod and Mac designs design were blatantly stolen from 1960s Braun catalogues.


I didn't know Braun was in the computer and mp3 player business in the 60's. ;)

FrogDesign developed the original Mac case. Jonathan ive designed the iPod case.


The iPad is a direct copy of the 1987 Knight-Ridder concept tablet.


LOL

The iPhone is a copy of the LG Prada.


The Prada was announced one month before the iPhone. Its quite daft to say it copied the Prada, since the iPhone had been in development for at least 2 years before that.

Edited 2011-11-07 00:59 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Mon 7th Nov 2011 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

FrogDesign developed the original Mac case. Jonathan ive designed the iPod case.


BS.

The Apple designs are blatant copies of designs by 1960s German designer Dieter Rams.

http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-...

Apple is a corporation that has always stolen and dishonestly appropriated other people ideas and claimed them as their own - GUI and mouse(Xerox), OSX (BSD) etc.

Stebve Jobs was a liar, sociopath, thief and criminal (all detailed in Isaacson's biography). Jobs offensive personality and his dubious "values" have permeated every pore of the Apple culture.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If it was completely obvious, why didn't anyone else think of bringing it to market in the way as the iPhone did?"
That alone does not merit any kind of protection, much less a 20year one. There are hundreds of innovations being brought into hundreds of markets ever year; that does not mean iPhone was something out of the ordinary except for the size of the market.

Before the iPhone, almost all smartphones had buttons. Many executives laughed at the fact the iPhone didn't have any. Nowadays you'll be hard pressed to find an Android which still has a keyboard. "
Finder touch oriented UI - I will give that to Apple. For bringing it to the market that is, not inventing it or anything even remotely similar.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The LG Prada had a touchscreen before the iPhone.

Android began two years before iOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

The LG Prada had a touchscreen before the iPhone.

Android began two years before iOS.


Yeah, and for two years, it looked like a cheap knockoff of a BlackBerry. Then the iPhone came along, and they adopted the look and feel of an iPhone knockoff.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash
by unclefester on Mon 7th Nov 2011 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Total BS. There are demonstration videos of Android running a touchscreens GUI long before the iPhone was announced.

BTW When is your messiah Steve Jobs going to be resurrected?

Edited 2011-11-07 05:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[7]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash"
RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

This is related to a rather public trial on a publicly visible issue within the EU. So whatever you might think, there is a lot of place for public comments. If you remember, the laws aren't created by labrats and handed down to us on tablets.


It is surely essential for innovation that being innovative brings something other than fleeting advantage, something more than a momentary advantage that only lasts until your competitors can copy anything you have created or invented. Being innovative is difficult, costly and demanding. Innovation will only happen if it leads to some advantage.

Sorry to break it to you, but innovation is not patentable by legal definition. In reality some insane patent offices issue patents for innovations and disregard the requirement for an inventive step, but that is another issue.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by frderi on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


Sorry to break it to you, but innovation is not patentable by legal definition.


Practical designs are. An innovative product is characterized by a clever implementation. The Apple disk II was characterized by a clever design because it used fewer chips and so it ended up being cheaper to produce.

Reply Score: 1

Sure it's FRAND patents
by Nicholas Blachford on Sat 5th Nov 2011 02:45 UTC
Nicholas Blachford
Member since:
2005-07-06

I haven't been following this in any detail but I've heard Samsung was not using FRAND patents, but other related patents that are not part of the standards.

They'll all kiss and make up eventually - big companies suing one another is not exactly new.

Reply Score: 2

Double standards
by pandronic on Sat 5th Nov 2011 07:22 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

How is this fair?

Company invents technology essential to mobile phone industry ... has to share it with everyone.

Apple invents a rectangle ... gets to sue everyone over it.

Reply Score: 7

twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

There's only one thing EC should do and that is abolish software patents. Make it EU law and mandatory for all member states. I don't give 2 cents about what one dutch judge may or may not say.

Reply Score: 2