Linked by nej_simon on Sat 11th Aug 2012 12:10 UTC
Legal "[...] tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet." $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.
Order by: Score:
Greedy
by Luke McCarthy on Sat 11th Aug 2012 13:29 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

That is incredibly greedy, considering the ARM licence is only a few cents per device.

Reply Score: 6

v RE: Greedy
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:13 UTC in reply to "Greedy"
RE[2]: Greedy
by ephracis on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Greedy"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Why compare profit to revenue? You surely don't need to use such dirty tricks to make your point.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Greedy
by tupp on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Greedy"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

It's always fun to hear the fanboys' interpretation of Apple's desires/motives.


Apple's motives fro pursuing this action have always been absolutely clear. To stop Samsung from copying Apple designs

But the designs are not Apple's -- the designs did not originate at Apple.

Reply Score: 12

v RE[3]: Greedy
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Greedy"
v RE[3]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Greedy"
RE[4]: Greedy
by bornagainenguin on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Greedy"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Windows Sucks baited...

Because that is just opinion. The fact is Apple patented all their stuff, others didn't. That's not Apples fault. As they say in rap music "Protect yo neck" or CYA. Apple CYAed their self.

Apple is a company like any other company, out to make money! The thing that bugs me is everyone is acting like Apple is evil any more then Google or MS or Intel or IBM. They all do or have done stuff to protect market share, MS was almost split apart for it.


Why? Because clearly this whole thing was never about making money, it was about destroying competition. Steve Jobs made it clear before his death bed that he was willing to take the current patent standoff of MAD and make it hot nuclear war if that was what it would take to destroy the competition. Thanks to a dead man we now have almost every tech corporation engaged in a patent war no one can win but the lawyers.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

? patent stand off? What patent stand off?

If you look Apple has always done this! Come to market first or better if not first then sue those who copy!

Sorry but if the CEO of the company that wasn't even in the software business at the time you are about to come out one of your most popular products ever, is on your board or directors and all of a sudden they doing the same thing, the same way as you!! There is a problem!

I would sue everyone also.

On top of that MS is doing the same thing, they just got everyone to pay them so they didn't really have to go to court like Apple.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Greedy
by Stephen! on Sat 11th Aug 2012 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Steve Jobs made it clear before his death bed that he was willing to take the current patent standoff of MAD and make it hot nuclear war if that was what it would take to destroy the competition.


Probably not surprising Jobs was in such poor health. Getting so agitated over Android can't have been good for him.

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Greedy
by zima on Sat 18th Aug 2012 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greedy"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh come on, he was in poor health simply because of having one of the nastier cancers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Greedy
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Greedy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

It's always fun to hear the fanboys' interpretation of Apple's desires/motives.
But the designs are not Apple's -- the designs did not originate at Apple.


Are you saying that Samsung did not copy Apple's products even though we now have internal Samsung documents showing them doing exactly that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Greedy
by MOS6510 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Greedy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12
RE[4]: Greedy
by tupp on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Greedy"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Are you saying that Samsung did not copy Apple's products even though we now have internal Samsung documents showing them doing exactly that.

No. Imprecise fanboy reasoning is the culprit here (as it is in almost all issues involving Apple).

As I said, the designs did not originate at Apple. Whether or not Samsung copied the unoriginal Apple design is another issue.

However, the fanboys can't seem to understand that one issue makes the other moot. If the designs did not originate at Apple, then Apple has no rightful claim to the designs. So, it doesn't matter whether or not Samsung "copied" Apple, because they are actually emulating prior, non-Apple art.

Now, the issue of Samsung copying Apple is hardly an "open-and-shut" case. Internal Apple documents show that Apple copied Sony, yet fanboys dismiss that.

Furthermore, just because Samsung tried to emulate Apple with one product, it does not mean that they did not already have designs that were identical or very similar to what they sought. Samsung's own prior art was extremely close, with only very minor differences.

Of course, there is also the issue of obviousness. Everything about the design of Apple's (and its competitors) touchscreen products is obvious. This obviousness is reinforced by very early prior art in movies, product mock-ups, and old sketches. If the fanboys really believe that it is original to combine rounded corners with icons grids and a shiny, flush black bezel, etc, I suggest that they spend some time actually researching and looking at the vast, vibrant industrial design world that is, and was (and will be) out there, of which Apple is only a mere unremarkable speck. Truly great, inspired designs always appear on a regular basis.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Interesting because that is not what the courts are saying. Apple seems to be slowly racking up wins all over the world!

And again if Apple is such a big thief, then why don't the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue??

I am confused here why 5 years later Apple has not been sued left and right like Android companies are, since according to you Apple is the thief??

Sorry but the Apple theft idea is not panning out in reality.

The most funny part of it is people will say "Well Android is the bigger target!" interesting because in the mobile market Apple is making more then 50% of the profits. You would think they would be the target since they Apple is making all the money.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Greedy
by Beta on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greedy"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting because that is not what the courts are saying. Apple seems to be slowly racking up wins all over the world!


What courts are these?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Greedy
by tupp on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greedy"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Interesting because that is not what the courts are saying.

Not really, but only the fanboys and the very naive blindly believe that court rulings are based on truth and actual justice.


Apple seems to be slowly racking up wins all over the world!

Not really. Apple has had major defeats, especially in Europe.


And again if Apple is such a big thief, then why don't the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue??

Who claimed that Apple is a thief? Apple is derivative, bland and obvious in almost all of their products, but that doesn't make Apple is a thief.

Furthermore, Apple HAS been sued -- A LOT!

Judging from posts in this forum, Apple fanboys must get most of their exercise from jumping to conclusions, because it is hardly a workout to lean on the Genius bar or to sit and fawn over the simple, banal design of their electronics enclosures.


I am confused here why 5 years later Apple has not been sued left and right like Android companies are, since according to you Apple is the thief??

As you address me personally, I will return the courtesy to you.

It's not surprising that you are confused.

Do you refer to the Android companies who are getting "sued left and right" by Apple?

Also, it is according to YOU that Apple is a "thief." To me, Apple is just a highly overrated manufacturer of mediocre, derivative electronics that has a made a lot of design/engineering blunders, but that has nevertheless recently gotten rich off of its retarded user base.


Sorry but the Apple theft idea is not panning out in reality.

Well, the prior art is historical fact.


The most funny part of it is people will say "Well Android is the bigger target!" interesting because in the mobile market Apple is making more then 50% of the profits. You would think they would be the target since they Apple is making all the money.

Probably should verify that profit statistic, but the truth is that Apple started the huge patent lawsuit war in which we currently find ourselves. All of the counter suits are (of course) defensive.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[7]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Greedy"
RE[7]: Greedy
by Tony Swash on Sun 12th Aug 2012 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Greedy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Not really, but only the fanboys and the very naive blindly believe that court rulings are based on truth and actual justice.


Apple has had major defeats, especially in Europe.


Would it be very naive to blindly believe that those court rulings are based on truth and actual justice?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Greedy
by shmerl on Sun 12th Aug 2012 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greedy"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

then why don't the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue

Because those companies aren't idiotic to sue for obvious design ideas like rectangular or circular shapes which don't need anyone to "invent" them. Those companies used them before Apple, yes. But these ideas are older than even those companies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Greedy
by Windows Sucks on Sun 12th Aug 2012 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Greedy"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

"then why don't the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue

Because those companies aren't idiotic to sue for obvious design ideas like rectangular or circular shapes which don't need anyone to "invent" them. Those companies used them before Apple, yes. But these ideas are older than even those companies.
"

That's silly. Sony and Nokia are both going broke. Nokia for one sues so you can't say that about them.

If they could sue they would sue.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Greedy
by MOS6510 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Greedy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Internal Apple documents show that Apple copied Sony, yet fanboys dismiss that.


This has been dismissed, because it wasn't the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Greedy
by tupp on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greedy"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

This has been dismissed, because it wasn't the case.

Of course it was the case. Apple even made a mock-up of the Sony design.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Greedy
by MOS6510 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Greedy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, they did. But they made a lot of prototypes and apparently this one done as a fun side project, but it doesn't really matter as they didn't use this design for their released products.

Furthermore the Sony product that apparently was used as inspiration was itself modeled after an Apple product.

But again it doesn't matter what you design behind closed doors, what matters is what your market and what people pay money for.

Samsung came with something crappy and improved it by trying to make their product look as much like an Apple product as they thought they could get away with. Now it was still crappy, but at least more people bought it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Greedy
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 12th Aug 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Greedy"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, genius, it is all about money. Why doesn't Apple want samsung to copy it? M-O-N-E-Y. With large cooperations, its always about money.

Reply Score: 2

Unvitation?
by siraf72 on Sat 11th Aug 2012 13:48 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

Perhaps they didn't really want them to accept it. Instead of making an offer the couldn't refuse, they did the opposite. .. .. or they were just being greedy.


Probably being greedy.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Unvitation?
by Gone fishing on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:17 UTC in reply to "Unvitation?"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Perhaps they didn't really want them to accept it. Instead of making an offer the couldn't refuse, they did the opposite. .. .. or they were just being greedy.

Probably being greedy.


This is not about greed - greed with Apple comes from exploiting its customers. This is about using the legal system to prevent Samsung from competing. Apple know with competition they wouldn't be able to keep screwing their customers.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Unvitation?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Unvitation?"
RE[2]: Unvitation?
by darknexus on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Unvitation?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

This is not about greed - greed with Apple comes from exploiting its customers. This is about using the legal system to prevent Samsung from competing. Apple know with competition they wouldn't be able to keep screwing their customers.

You know, I hear a lot about Apple "screwing" its customers. Let me ask you this: If I buy a product that I want that provides me both the software and the features I like to have, how precisely am I getting screwed? Apple is getting my money, I'm getting the product I want. Granted, I do not like everything that Apple does. I don't like the closed ecosystem of iOS. There are things about every company and/or platform that I don't like. I dislike the fragmented state of Android for example. The thing is, I knew that going in and had to weigh that in conjunction with other features I require, and I got an iPhone anyway. Explain to me how I'm getting screwed, please, without bringing f/oss ideology into the picture. Please explain to me how I've been screwed by Apple when, after weighing in all the factors, I purchased an Apple product that fit my needs better than the other products on the market.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Unvitation?
by Gone fishing on Sat 11th Aug 2012 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unvitation?"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

See these headlines from Apple insider

Apple's iPhone twice as profitable per unit as iPad [50% per Unit]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/27/apples_iphone_twice_a...

Apple may make more profit selling one Mac than HP does from 7 PCs

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/24/apple_may_make_more_p...

Just imagine how much more Apple would have made per unit if they had managed to ban HP from selling PCs on the grounds they had monitors or mice or something.

If Apple had had their way the personal computer, the smart phone would never been for the masses just a small privileged clique and they would have always made 60% or more profit per unit.

Apple make me feel all warm and cuddly about Microsoft and if you buy its products you support probably the nastiest company in the technology sector. If you care about openness, the freedom,to produce software open-source or proprietary, hardware, why you would by anything from this company beats me.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Unvitation?
by RogerBryce on Sat 11th Aug 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unvitation?"
RogerBryce Member since:
2008-07-07

It's funny, but by saying you weigh in all the factors before buying a product, you're simply saying you choose whom you will pay to screw you. Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Unvitation?
by zima on Sat 18th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unvitation?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You know, I hear a lot about Apple "screwing" its customers. Let me ask you this: If I buy a product that I want that provides me both the software and the features I like to have, how precisely am I getting screwed?

Apple gloats about you being screwed, openly boasting having the highest margins ...and, the most perplexing of all: strangely many buyers seem to cherish that.

And then, we might also ponder how much of that satisfaction is about buying into positional goods (or even veblen goods, & http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-wine-011608.html - overall, not very positive phenomena), or PR in general (where Apple often, well, lies: like the whole "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign)

Edited 2012-08-19 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

seek other fruit
by Janvl on Sat 11th Aug 2012 13:49 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

The best thing to do, never ever buy anything from Apple.

Reply Score: 9

v RE: seek other fruit
by jigzat on Sun 12th Aug 2012 07:04 UTC in reply to "seek other fruit"
In the game of extortion.
by dulac on Sat 11th Aug 2012 13:52 UTC
dulac
Member since:
2006-12-27

Forget justice... fairness, whatever.

The name of the game is an opposite, as everything is reversed. Patents (what they had become) are an excuse.

After all, patents were created to protect inventors.
Not now, as now it is the opposite where brands seem to own inventors, when they are...

Brands do not invent anything... but patent that nothing and steel an inventor that happens to work with them (they own him 24 hours a day? Or his life since he was born?).

If extortion was not the name of the game...
... madness would. A global one!

Reply Score: 2

Hmm.
by Beta on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:17 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

Should I laugh or cry?

Reply Score: 6

v Always negative on Apple.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:24 UTC
RE: Always negative on Apple.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:53 UTC in reply to "Always negative on Apple."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uhm, Samsung doesn't give out sales numbers. Analysts do.

Reply Score: 6

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Uhm, Samsung doesn't give out sales numbers. Analysts do.


Oh yeah I forgot they started hiding numbers after they got caught lying about the original GTab numbers. My bad.

Thanks for the reminder.

Oh but then here we see posted stories like this on Osnews:

The Galaxy Note confirms it: people want larger screens

http://www.osnews.com/story/25750/The_Galaxy_Note_confirms_it_peopl...

With little nuggets like this: "Keep that in mind when you read Samsung's latest little communiqué: the Korean giant has sold (not shipped, sold) more than 5 million Galaxy Notes. Which has a 5.3" screen."

That does not sound like it came from an analyst?? Or am I reading that wrong and it was posted as fact when its not??

Anyway, as shown again Samsung lies about its numbers. interesting its not a bigger topic then any negative (Or spun negative) Apple story.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Always negative on Apple.
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Always negative on Apple."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The trial has not forced Samsung to release it's global sales figures but those US sales figures make previous estimates of global sales look like they have been, with Samsung's encouragement, wildly exaggerated.


Not really. Asymco noted that the figures from the court case amounted to 4% of Samsung's estimated total sales. The United States population is 4.4% of the world population. Seems pretty plausible to me, especially when you take into account that Apple is popular in the US, but far less so in the rest of the world.

Edited 2012-08-11 16:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Always negative on Apple.
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Always negative on Apple."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

But not 4.4% of the population willing and able to buy a tablet..you can't be forreal.

Edited 2012-08-11 16:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But not 4.4% of the population willing and able to buy a tablet..you can't be forreal.


If you take into account how the scales are tipped in other western countries, it suddenly becomes a whole lot more plausible.

http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/samsung-behoudt-koppositie-in-ne...

The Netherlands market share: 10% iPhone, 19.6% Samsung (based on independent research). If the rest of Europe has similar figures, it's not at all weird.

The world is not just the US, you know. I know Apple fanatics have shifted the goalpasts from world market share to US market share, but considering the US is only 4.4% of the world, it's really not all that important. China, India, Europe are by far the most lucrative markets, especially over the coming years. being big in just the US is irrelevant in the long run.

Reply Score: 4

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

My point is that Samsung lies about something simple as numbers of tablets sold (Even after being caught lying) why would I believe anything else that is said by them??

It would be one thing if the numbers were just a little off or you could easily say for example "We sold 100 into the channel but only 80 got sold to consumers." But in this case the numbers are off by millions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Always negative on Apple.
by Bennie on Sat 11th Aug 2012 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Always negative on Apple."
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

Boo hoo, Samsung lied about their sales numbers. Terrible, lets hang them. And btw also everybody who likes to put a little nuance into the story ... Let's hang them too.

Disclaimer: i do not know anything about if they lied or if a analist company put those numbers out ...

Just you guys trying to hammer down this point make you look so desperate.

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

If you take into account how the scales are tipped in other western countries, it suddenly becomes a whole lot more plausible.

http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/samsung-behoudt-koppositie-in-ne...

The Netherlands market share: 10% iPhone, 19.6% Samsung (based on independent research). If the rest of Europe has similar figures, it's not at all weird.

The world is not just the US, you know. I know Apple fanatics have shifted the goalpasts from world market share to US market share, but considering the US is only 4.4% of the world, it's really not all that important. China, India, Europe are by far the most lucrative markets, especially over the coming years. being big in just the US is irrelevant in the long run.


Based on documents revealed in court and now public Apple sold 5.7 Million iPads in the USA last quarter. We know Apple sold 17 million iPads in total in the same period from their publicly announced quarterly results where they (unlike Samsung) do give total sales figures for the products such as the iPad.

That means Apple sold just over 33% of it's iPads in the US market last quarter. Samsung sold 37,000 in the same period.

I know Apple has a bigger network of retail Apple stores in the US compared to other parts of the world but I cannot believe that this would skew the tablet market to such an astounding degree such that Apple would sell 33% of it's tablets in the US but Samsung can only manage to sell 1.5% of it's total sales.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utterly implausible. Isn't the simple explanation the more likely. Samsung global tablet sales are much lower than they have tried to suggest and much lower than analysts estimates.

That would also tally with tablet date from web usage where reports like this:

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/01/report-ipad-accounts-for-85-...

which show the iPad at 85% of global tablet web browsing. Note the continental breakdown in this article showing the proportion of iPad to non-iPad tablet use in in the USA is very similar to the breakdown in Europe and and only slightly worse (77% to 79%) in South America, Africa and Asia.

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Not really. Asymco noted that the figures from the court case amounted to 4% of Samsung's estimated total sales. The United States population is 4.4% of the world population. Seems pretty plausible to me,.


I guess all those sales in Somalia really add up ;)

Why not just accept the obvious, that Samsung exaggerated it's sales and never actually releases any actual sales figures but should.

Reply Score: 1

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Right. I mean if they lied about us sales why would we believe their other numbers?

And yes Samsung (When it's positive for them) does themselves as shown on OSnews put out numbers.

Reply Score: 0

v Anyone
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:35 UTC
Tactical blunder?
by darknexus on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:42 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I can't help but wonder if Apple is making a tactical mistake in emphasizing this rather outrageous licensing deal. It strikes me that, if they get a judge who has some background in the tech industry (although not all that likely considering our court system), this might actually do some damage to their credibility. It's fairly obvious that this deal was offered precisely so that Samsung wouldn't accept it. I'm not saying Samsung is the good guy nor am I saying Apple is the bad guy (those labels are too simplistic for this matter) but this bit of evidence could seriously backfire on Apple. If it doesn't turn out to be a mistake, filing this is at the very least a gamble.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Tactical blunder?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:46 UTC in reply to "Tactical blunder?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple has no obligation to be reasonable or fair in their licensing. They can charge whatever they'd like. Hell, they can flat out refuse to license at all.

They are not bound by FRAND commitments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Tactical blunder?
by grahamtriggs on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Tactical blunder?"
grahamtriggs Member since:
2009-05-27

Rounded corners? Slide to unlock?

As a 'style', these either should be bound by FRAND, or better yet, not patentable.

For example, rounded corners are just a sensible bit of design - sharp corners are uncomfortable and/or dangerous. Having rounded corners is not innovative, and preventing anyone else from having them is unfairly anti-competitive.

Now, if Apple have a particular manufacturing technique, where other means to create rounded corners are available, than that technique is patentable.

But there are an awful lot of patents out there that are not genuinely protecting R&D investment, but are just being used to restrict competition.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Tactical blunder?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tactical blunder?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Trade dress is not just rounded corners. Its a combination of all their design claims.

Rounded corner, icon shape, design, color. Design of the front. Etc.

Essentially Samsung piggybacked off of an iconic design, to the point where they advertised the Galaxy series with the app drawer opened so it'd look more like an iPhone to consumers. The packaging was similar, the design ethos was essentially the same. Their internal documents show attempted iPhoneification.

Its easy to sit here and say "well rounded corners are ridiculous" but looking at the big picture, it is clear Samsung engaged in egregious copying. You squint your eyes and you can't even tell the difference.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Tactical blunder?
by zhulien on Sun 12th Aug 2012 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tactical blunder?"
zhulien Member since:
2006-12-06

ipod / iphone / ipad are not iconic designs, they are butt ugly...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Tactical blunder?
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tactical blunder?"
RE[4]: Tactical blunder?
by bnolsen on Sun 12th Aug 2012 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tactical blunder?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

uhhh....tablets are tablets. you are almost defacto saying that only apple is allowed to sell tablets. Really stupid. There's not much you can do with a slab and touchscreen wth connectors. the ONLY THING Apple should be possibly allowed to patent is probably their lame proprietary connection, if there's anything mechanically revolutionary about the connector that is.

Apple under steve jobs always has been anti competitive. It's just a shame the lame legal system built around maximizing law firm profits is involved in this.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Tactical blunder?
by dvhh on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tactical blunder?"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

I guess that these FRAND terms for licence came at a time when everybody played nicer with each other and were more willing to cross licence their patent in equivalent terms.
Apple decided not to play nice with the other major player of the industry, disrupted the market (probably in a good way), and probably raised hell as well concerning the problem of patent ligations.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Tactical blunder?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tactical blunder?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

FRAND is an obligation you submit to by having your intellectual property included in the standard setting process. Apple is not bound by such things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Tactical blunder?
by Beta on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Tactical blunder?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

FRAND is an obligation you submit to by having your intellectual property included in the standard setting process.


Yup, if only Apple ever paid FRAND terms for standards they use. Nokia had to take them to court to get royalties, now Samsung has to counter‐sue to get *their* FRAND terms. Its pretty clear Apple doesn’t follow its obligations.

Apple is not bound by such things.

Apple avoids publishing standards ’cept for the minor tweaking of existing standards, and even when they do contribute to things like W3C standards they leave it til candidate recommendation before declaring patents on them… arsehats.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Tactical blunder?
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:47 UTC in reply to "Tactical blunder?"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Thing is they don't have to offer a license. To make any kind of offer is above and beyond what they are required to do.

Reply Score: 1

Bollocks
by kwan_e on Sat 11th Aug 2012 15:07 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I refuse to believe this.

I refuse to believe Apple forgot to add an extra zero at the end of both numbers.

Reply Score: 6

how to save money
by Adurbe on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:36 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting how companies will avoid paying $30 dollars for a license yet will happily pay the millions in legal fees in avoiding them...

It probably not to late to retrain as a patent lawyer!!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: how to save money
by dvhh on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:50 UTC in reply to "how to save money"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

30$ per device that could translate into billions of $ in the case of samsung. Even Microsoft is not that greedy with only a 16$/device licence for long file name over FAT.

Plus it applied on windows mobile based phone (I guess that it could not be applied to other OS in these terms) and applied a discount of 20% if samsung cross licence some of its patent ( which I guess that samsung though that they were worthing more than 6-8$ per device ).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: how to save money
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE: how to save money"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple only went after WP7 as an inclusive means of leverage, and it discounted them all the way to $6 a device.

Would Samsung offer purely WP7 devices, Apple wouldn't have the gall to demand such a thing, especially not with the cross licensing agreements Samsung and Microsoft entered.

Reply Score: 1

RE: how to save money
by bornagainenguin on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:56 UTC in reply to "how to save money"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Adurbe pondered...

Interesting how companies will avoid paying $30 dollars for a license yet will happily pay the millions in legal fees in avoiding them...

It probably not to late to retrain as a patent lawyer!!!!


Maybe you should just practice your math a bit first and see how many millions it comes out to when you factor in $30 dollars per phone and $40 per tablet? Then subtract the estimated numbers from people who would chose not to buy the devices at the newly inflated prices...

I imagine the numbers would be interesting.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: how to save money
by Adurbe on Wed 15th Aug 2012 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE: how to save money"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

feel free to assist me... what are the numbers?

Reply Score: 2

No opinion
by th3rmite on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:18 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

I'm glad I don't have an opinion either way. I'd hate to be labeled a "fanboy" for either company. Some people just won't let you agree or disagree with something without screaming "fanboy!", really it's pathetic.

Reply Score: 1

a bit off-topic
by smashIt on Sat 11th Aug 2012 22:34 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

the whole design-crap around the iphone (media-device, brick with rounded corners, extremely minimalistic design) allways reminded me of an old walkman i had back in the late 90s

and today i finaly didn't forget to dig it up again:
aiwa PX557

great device that helped me through some boring hours in school ;)

Reply Score: 5

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 12th Aug 2012 01:56 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Samsung should kick Apple hard for this.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Sun 12th Aug 2012 09:35 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

So...Apple approached Samsung with an outrageous offer that had the implication that there will be trouble if they don't accept.
Am I the only one getting flashbacks to The Godfather?

Reply Score: 4

Back when this stuff made sense
by BluenoseJake on Sun 12th Aug 2012 12:37 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Apple lost this case. They went after MS in the 80s for the same type of crap and they lost. I don't know how we got here from there, but I am entirely sick of it.

Reply Score: 5

Oh god....
by henderson101 on Sun 12th Aug 2012 15:59 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

This is so boring it makes me want to shoot myself.

Can we just have an Snapple free week this week, please? (if you don't know what Snapple is, cf the Verge Cast, hint - not a drink.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh god....
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2012 16:06 UTC in reply to "Oh god...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is so boring it makes me want to shoot myself.

Can we just have an Snapple free week this week, please? (if you don't know what Snapple is, cf the Verge Cast, hint - not a drink.)


That's a bit hypocritical coming from someone who submitted a grand total of five (5) stories on this very subject over the past few days, don't you think? ;)

Edited 2012-08-12 16:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oh god....
by MOS6510 on Sun 12th Aug 2012 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh god...."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

He's trying to kill you by overdose, no doubt.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oh god....
by henderson101 on Sun 12th Aug 2012 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh god...."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

That was before it became clear that was futile.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh god....
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2012 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh god...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, it's not the amount of posts you dislike, it's the fact they do not fit in your world view.

Good to have that cleared up ;) .

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Oh god....
by henderson101 on Mon 13th Aug 2012 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh god...."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

No, it's that no matter what, you can only see a single tainted viewpoint. You, not me. Please don't project your inadequacies on to me. No ones perfect and text is an imperfect medium to express nuances of meaning. My biggest issue is trying to sound neutral in a way where you don't jump to the incorrect conclusion that I lean in one direction. But you certainly don't have that defence now, do you Thom?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh god....
by Bennie on Sun 12th Aug 2012 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh god...."
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

"+1 insightful"

He now whining about the amount of posts about this subject seems indeed hypocritical; which is the opposite of integrity :-)

About integrity he said: you did have a lack of. :-)

"Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs." -wikipedia

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh god....
by henderson101 on Mon 13th Aug 2012 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh god...."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The problem here is this : feed Thom stories with reporting that support his argument and he gushes about how large his ego is, feed stories that oppose his straw man arguments, he uses them as opinion pieces to push forward his slanted agenda. Feed Thom stores that prove issues with his position because the actual premis can be proven flawed, he questions translations and accuracy. Well, he can't have it both ways. Either all evidence from the trial is infallible and accurate, or it is flawed and purposefully slanted on both sides. Realty tells us the latter is true for both parties.

This is my current position : the court will decide the case. Thom can shit gold bricks and it won't make any difference. But if all he is going to do is talk about how right Samsung is and how wrong Apple is - well we've done that to death, and it's boring beyond belief.. Moreover, every fcuker here has an opinion one way or another - is there anything really worthwhile left to discuss? Is anyone gaining any real insight? Is anyone's opinion being swayed? All I see is the usual suspects come out on every story. One side hates Apple, one side hates Samsung. Some drifters float to either side, and some radicals sit on the fence in the middle. Same arguments. Same penis waving. Same ill informed opinions on both sides. Tired, boring, shoot me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Oh god....
by kwan_e on Tue 14th Aug 2012 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh god...."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Same arguments. Same penis waving. Same ill informed opinions on both sides. Tired, boring, shoot me.


The most repeated arguments, penis waving, ill informed opinions, and generally boring comments are those that whine on and on about a lack of variety and the presence of bias in content from people who merely consume and don't produce.

You're not forced to read the articles on the lawsuits. You can also write your own.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Oh god....
by henderson101 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oh god...."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

How many articles have you submitted to OS News? Zero. How many have I? 5. Funny you should complain about my complaint then. No I haven't submitted an original article, because I don't have a compelling topic to write about.

Reply Score: 2

Just 3 words
by tuma324 on Mon 13th Aug 2012 02:17 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

Fuck you Apple

Reply Score: 3

$6 for non infringing devices
by VistaUser on Mon 13th Aug 2012 18:25 UTC
VistaUser
Member since:
2008-03-08

I cant help but notice how in that offer, apple also wants to get paid for devices that they admit are not thing like their devices - and they get a cross license of Samsungs patents in return.

In fact, only 20% of the proposed fee was for "proprietary" (by which I assume apple patented) features.

Edited 2012-08-13 18:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3