Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 10:35 UTC
Legal "Apple vs. Samsung initially ended with a billion-dollar verdict in favor of Apple, but there have been plenty of wrinkles since. This week brought about another, as Nokia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the brief filed Monday, Nokia asked the court to permit permanent injunctions on the sale of Samsung phones that were found to infringe Apple's patents." In the meantime, the latest comScore figures for the US show that Windows Phone's market share actually declined during the launch of Windows Phone 8. It's pretty clear that, combined with the disappointing quarterly results for Nokia, the company is setting itself up for the future. In this future, Nokia's patent portfolio is worth more than their actual phone business, and as such, Nokia can't do anything but support Apple in this case, else the value of their portfolio goes down.
Order by: Score:
v It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:17 UTC
RE: It isn't about Samsung
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:23 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If Apple can't get an injunction after a Jury has found Samsung to be infringing to the tune of a billion dollars, then who the hell can get an injunction?


600 million.

Its too draconian a restriction. Apple clearly deserves the injunctive relief.


It really isn't. None of the so-called infringements were core aspects of a phone, and none were dealbreakers or makers. I.e., you don't ban an entire car from the market just because the shape of the steering wheel bears a passing resemblance to that of another car.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


600 million.


Quite clearly, the Jury awarded Apple around a billion dollars. The Judge disagreed, but that will be handled in a separate case.

At the time when the Judge made her ruling, the billion dollar figure still stood. Its important to point out, that even in light of this, apparently there was not enough to find for an exclusion order, which is worrying.


It really isn't. None of the so-called infringements were core aspects of a phone, and none were dealbreakers or makers. I.e., you don't ban an entire car from the market just because the shape of the steering wheel bears a passing resemblance to that of another car.


I don't really think anything you said above has any legal bearing on why Apple should get an infringement, and in fact, isn't even the argument that the Judge used.

A disagreement with the Judge's core reasoning is why Nokia filed its amicus brief.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung
by kwan_e on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

apparently there was not enough to find for an exclusion order, which is worrying.


Only if you think the current patent system is worth protecting.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I do. Without getting into too much of a philosophical argument, I think that many companies have innovations and R&D investments worth protecting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung
by bnolsen on Thu 7th Mar 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

ouch. for the sake of my little company i want the software and design patents utterly gone. We know that any larger player with a legal department will bury us with just legal threats even if totally unfounded. It's another small business nightmare that destoys innovation and effectively allows a few huge companies to dominate through collusion. More money is now spent on legal departments than r&d in these huge companies. I see no progress here, just another lawyer multuplying industry.

And the MS shills are out again even though the article has absolutely nothing to do with windows, just nokia's already existing patent portfolio. If you can't innovate (that means market, not just technology!), then litigate!

Edited 2013-03-07 13:13 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think you place too much importance on your small business. You're relatively small fish to fry in the grand scheme of things, so really, you need to worry mostly about NPEs or patent trolling.

That aspect of the system needs great reform, but it is completely separate from the merits of the patent system at large.

Besides, your post reads more to me like you'd like to escape the reality of potential liability for anything. You're starting a business, you're going to need a lawyers. Regardless.

Small start ups usually are not targeted, and products of the start up mentality like Facebook are only just now amassing a patent arsenal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: It isn't about Samsung
by BushLin on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Yeah, fuck his small business... Apple are on the bread line.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung
by kwan_e on Thu 7th Mar 2013 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I do. Without getting into too much of a philosophical argument, I think that many companies have innovations and R&D investments worth protecting.


No need for philosophical arguments at all. Innovation tends to happen at a quicker rate without protections. Sure, we could protect companies, but it tends to be at the expense of society.

It's a myth that patent protection fosters innovation, much like the myth that ever increasing tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. They sound all right in theory, but they never pan out in reality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by zztaz on Thu 7th Mar 2013 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
zztaz Member since:
2006-09-16

The public good served by patents isn't isn't about rewarding innovation, it's supposed to be about rewarding *publication* of innovation. In other words, making the details of innovations available to the public is the goal, a temporary government-imposed monopoly is the incentive.

Markets reward innovation, government has no need nor justification for doing so. There are powerful interests behind the misrepresentation of the purpose of patents ("rewarding innovation"), so it's worth pushing back and remembering the true purpose when comparing the benefit to the public against the cost to the public.

Some economists think that the cost of patents is higher than the benefits. Cost and benefit to the public, that is. Many companies see great benefit in suppressing competition.

Back to the topic, I see that the usual players are busy misrepresenting this case. The judge has not ruled out injunctions, she's ruled that it's not time for them *yet*. The jury didn't follow instructions, so that needs to be sorted out before injunctions or penalties can be assigned.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Back to the topic, I see that the usual players are busy misrepresenting this case. The judge has not ruled out injunctions, she's ruled that it's not time for them *yet*. The jury didn't follow instructions, so that needs to be sorted out before injunctions or penalties can be assigned.


That's not what she said at all. Did you just make this up? She didn't mention any of what you just said. You're being intentionally misleading.

The Judge's ruling is unusual and controversial. I think it has more to do with having an appearance of impartiality than an actual correct application of the law.

There's almost no doubt that Apple will appeal and win this one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


No need for philosophical arguments at all. Innovation tends to happen at a quicker rate without protections. Sure, we could protect companies, but it tends to be at the expense of society.

It's a myth that patent protection fosters innovation, much like the myth that ever increasing tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. They sound all right in theory, but they never pan out in reality.


Do you think that the rate of innovation is low in the mobile space? Watch other industries. There's the initial boom, rapid innovation, a small period of litigation, then relative peace. No industry has really blown itself up over patents historically.

I'm just wondering what would lead you to conclude that patents are stymieing innovation. Sure, its easy to call patents innovation killers (just like its easy to say that tax cuts for the rich are good) but its harder to prove.

And I'm a bleeding heart liberal so I think we agree on the rest of your post ;) .

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: It isn't about Samsung
by kwan_e on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Do you think that the rate of innovation is low in the mobile space? Watch other industries. There's the initial boom, rapid innovation, a small period of litigation, then relative peace. No industry has really blown itself up over patents historically.


There was a well written article a while back about the stymieing affect of patents on England's train industry.

And yes, I do think that innovation is low in the mobile space where patents are involved. None of Apple's patents are really innovative.

Quality, not quantity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung
by gilboa on Thu 7th Mar 2013 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

What a load a crap.

I've seen far too many big companies spend millions on kitchen sink patents that cover world + dog just to use it later on to bully small companies into submissions by using the sheer size of their legal department.

You simply have no idea how broken the system is, and how hard it is to navigate a small company in today's patent system minefield.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

What a load a crap.

I've seen far too many big companies spend millions on kitchen sink patents that cover world + dog just to use it later on to bully small companies into submissions by using the sheer size of their legal department.

You simply have no idea how broken the system is, and how hard it is to navigate a small company in today's patent system minefield.

- Gilboa


You've seen big non patent trolls extorting small businesses? Where? Do you have examples? I don't really think this happens as much in practice as people let on.

It is a myth that small business is being strangled by patents. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: It isn't about Samsung
by gilboa on Fri 8th Mar 2013 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Let just say I'm talking from personal experience. (Both ends, BTW).

You're either very naive, very young, or living on another planet.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-03-08 09:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: It isn't about Samsung
by BushLin on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:27 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

"This isn't about Samsung, or Apple. Its about the precedent that the ruling against Apple would have."

Seems more likely it's simply about removing some competition in the hope of more sales but then I'm quite cynical.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Seems more likely it's simply about removing some competition in the hope of more sales but then I'm quite cynical.


I don't think that's Nokia's play at all. Maybe it's Apple's, in fact, it's likely Apple's strategy. They're out for more blood than Nokia is.

Nokia's hand in this is that they need to protect their future ability to use injunctive relief as a negotiating chip. The bar being set so impossibly high threatens that and hurts their IP licensing schemes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung
by BushLin on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

You may very well be right but isn't Apple's IP in this case mostly guff rather than actual invention? (rounded corners, bounce back...)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Some of it may be, but that'd be for the courts and the applicable Government agencies to adjudicate. The good news is, that in a lot of instances, it has found patents by a variety of entities to be invalid or too broad. That's a good thing, its the system working as intended.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It isn't about Samsung
by MOS6510 on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:39 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apparently more and more WP phones have been sold, but the marketshare has gone down slightly percentage wise in the US.

So WP is on the climb in absolute numbers, but down a little big percentage wise.

I think it's still early days for WP8 and its marketshare will increase as it's getting more known, accepted and supported.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It isn't about Samsung
by dsmogor on Thu 7th Mar 2013 12:07 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

As far as Poland is concerned I've seen 4 WP devices in the wild to date, and I'm a bit crazy about getting to know what people have. About 2 times less than HTC. Samsung is dominating. IOS devices are also not hard to come by but nowhere near Samsung.
The Nokia wp ad posters have been all over the place for about 8 months, and they very good exposure in operators shop windows (much much better than Apple for example).

Reply Score: 2

RE: It isn't about Samsung
by static666 on Thu 7th Mar 2013 13:58 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

You can see this in countries like Poland, Russia, Italy, and other European companies where Windows Phone is sometimes in the double digits regionally there. It is undeniable that there, Windows Phone has great momentum and is catching on.


In case of Russia or other Soviet block countries it is absolutely not surprising to me. Smartphone market share is substantially lower there than in developed world. Many people are still migrating from dumb phones, where Nokia was considered a top brand for years.

Majority of them don't even know what a joke of a manufacturer Nokia has become since then, but are being misled by aggressive advertising of the latest and greatest, better than Android or iPhone, platform.

But lol @ 3.1% global share and falling.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


In case of Russia or other Soviet block countries it is absolutely not surprising to me. Smartphone market share is substantially lower there than in developed world. Many people are still migrating from dumb phones, where Nokia was considered a top brand for years.

Majority of them don't even know what a joke of a manufacturer Nokia has become since then, but are being misled by aggressive advertising of the latest and greatest, better than Android or iPhone, platform.

But lol @ 3.1% global share and falling.


Yes, Italy with 14% and the United Kingdom with 6%, or Finland with 17% sure are Soviet satellites. /s

Windows Phone has an overall 7% share and growing in Europe. Its doubled its share YoY in a lot of regions (including the US).

I think in light of this, along with more lower priced Lumias (a lot of the Eastern Europe WP sales are attributed to low cost Lumia handsets) you'll see Europe continue to make gains, and China start to pick up.

I'd caution you against being on the wrong side of history with your pessimism.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung
by static666 on Thu 7th Mar 2013 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

Yes, Italy with 14% and the United Kingdom with 6%, or Finland with 17% sure are Soviet satellites. /s

Well, Finland looks a no-brainer. Would be strange for Nokia to lose foot even in its native market. Substantially higher than global percent in Italy hints at possible pushes of contract bundles or otherwise depends on local market specifics.

We should not forget how the market is structured. There's always a portion of people, who do not care about platforms, fragmentation, openness or application store policies but rather features of a particular phone they liked. This group is very gullible and easy to convert to any platform given enough advertising and promotion.

Until the figure of WP global market penetration is out of statistical insignificance of a couple of percents, I can't find myself relying on it. My pessimism is OK, since I'm not trying to predict the future, but follow what everybody else is using now.

I'd caution you against being on the wrong side of history with your pessimism.

Good thing I'm only choosing a phone but not which shares to buy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The US distorts this quite a bit given the sheer size of the market. Nokia knows they have a US problem. They do. However just because a US problem distorts global market share statistics, does not imply that they're not doing well in other parts of the world.

This Windows Phone isn't selling meme died with WP8. Definitively.

They have a long way to go, but small to modest sales does not mean nobody is buying them.

Reply Score: 2

WHAT?!?
by sgtrock on Thu 7th Mar 2013 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It isn't about Samsung"
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

@Nelson:
"This Windows Phone isn't selling meme died with WP8. Definitively.

They have a long way to go, but small to modest sales does not mean nobody is buying them."

I STRONGLY recommend that you re-think what you're saying. The best analyst focused on the mobile market these days is probably Tomi Ahonen. He has been right time after time when other analysts looking at the smartphone market have been way off:

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/02/so-whose-your-...

His analysis of the 2012 Q4 and full year numbers give some additional detail:

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/02/so-whose-your-...

I hate to say it, but you are just whistling in the dark if you think Microsoft is going to ever be a serious player in mobile with WP8. Their Skype problem makes them DOA as far as all carriers are concerned.

Edited 2013-03-07 19:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: WHAT?!?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:14 UTC in reply to "WHAT?!?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I do not subscribe to the mental backflips Tomi does to arrive at his conclusions.

He's laughed at by everyone except Nokia haters and apparently OSNews. He's not insightful, influential, or even right. He's been so blinded by ideology that it's almost sad.

I read his blog years ago before the Windows Phone transition and he generally had something smart to say once in a while, between him plugging his stupid book everywhere and his annoying self worship.

http://dominiescommunicate.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/the-tomi-ahonen...

Holds the definitive list of fact checking on Tomi Ahonen. He's a fraud who routinely manipulates numbers. Fortunately for him, his interests line up nicely with those of people who are still burned that Nokia killed off MeeGo (like some on OSNews) or people who irrationally hate Microsoft (again, like some on OSNews). Snake oil salesman, in my opinion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: WHAT?!?
by Valhalla on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE: WHAT?!?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

He's laughed at by everyone except Nokia haters and apparently OSNews. He's not insightful, influential, or even right.

Well he was featured as the the number one Top 10 Power Influencers in Mobile in Forbes magazine.

Of course the reason you are attacking him is all because he is saying things you don't want to hear, which is that Microsoft's mobile efforts are doing really poor.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It isn't about Samsung
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It's not draconian since in essence Apple has no case at all - i.e. prior art. I'm not quite sure why the judge didn't bust the case altogether.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because the Judge doesn't share your primitive view on the law, and there is a proper legal procedure that Samsung did not follow.

They were over a month late with paper work in an instance. That's damn near negligent on behalf of Samsung's legal team.

Too many people put their faith in people that think exactly like you, and it was hilarious watching the reactions people had when the ruling came in. It reminded me of when conservatives in my country were so delusional, so blinded by pure ideology that they didn't see the tea leaves.

Reply Score: 3

Not unexpected
by bowkota on Thu 7th Mar 2013 12:37 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Nokia has a very strong patent portfolio, as strong as IBM's in their respective business. It's to be expected that they don't want a dangerous precent set with this case because it would seriously devalue the worth of their own patents.

There's a current system based on a certain set of rules; you either follow them or you change them.

I don't agree with the patent system at large; get rid of it. I wouldn't want to see a current Galaxy device being banned because of patents and Apple shouldn't be paying companies licensing fees for stuff they invented in the 90s.

However, I also consider ridiculous and outrageous the blatant ripoff from Samsung on many Apple related stuff (software, hardware, retail, there are countless examples).

Edited 2013-03-07 12:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not unexpected
by static666 on Thu 7th Mar 2013 14:22 UTC in reply to "Not unexpected"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

I know it's a complicated matter altogether, but do you really think majority of those patents are still relevant?

Smartphone today is nothing like it was when Symbian was considered top notch. Now, Android software stack is developed by Google and protected by it. Only things vendor really has to care about are hardware and design.

In hardware Samsung is very strong, developing and manufacturing everything largely by itself. Even Apple profits from Samsung's work in this field.

When it comes to design, any sensible person who is not braindead can:

a) tell the difference between Apple, Samsung or other devices; b) understand that minor similarities in packaging are unavoidable due to standard form-factors; c) agree that design is not how you choose between mobile platform, which are totally incompatible with one another.

Reply Score: 2

Nokia's Elop is a Microsoftian
by tomz on Thu 7th Mar 2013 13:01 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

Go read Communities Dominate Brands blog for the whole history, but given that Nokia became a sock-puppet of Microsoft, and the only thing Microsoft and Apple agree on is that Google (Android, etc) must be destroyed, Ballmer reaching out through his sock-puppet isn't surprising.

How else are they going to continue to shove out those Lumias (where each generation can't be upgraded to the next WPOS) when there is Android?

Reply Score: 4

PieterGen Member since:
2012-01-13

Indeed. The usual play is that Microsoft goes after "Intellectual Property Deals", suchs as those on the wonderful and 'cutting edge' (cough, cough) exFAT technology; whereas Apples weapon of choice is the sales ban, based on breached "rounded corner patents".

Reply Score: 1

injunctions for what?
by TechGeek on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:20 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson:

Injunctions are really only suppose to be used when the grievance is so bad that money can not make the victim whole. The problem is that most of what Apple was infringed on were not things that would prevent the competition from existing. Its not like Samsung was using some new screen technology that Apple hadn't licensed to anyone else. Apple cross licensed with HTC and with Microsoft. Therefore injunctive relief is not a valid relief. Its only a question of money.

Reply Score: 1

RE: injunctions for what?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 19:01 UTC in reply to "injunctions for what?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Wrong. Read up on patent case law in the US.

Irreparable harm is caused to Apple because patents have a finite lifespan, and every second that Samsung is allowed to continue to infringe is time Apple will never get back.

This comes with the caveat that its at the Judge's discretion, and this has usually worked well. Judge's have been very fair about balancing monetary damages vs injunctive relief.

The issue at hand is that after Samsung has been found by the Jury to infringe something like a dozen patents, many of them willfully, and across a span of many devices, the Judge is still reluctant to grant an exclusion order.

This is radical and unprecedented, ESPECIALLY for a non preliminary request, and why Nokia filed its amicus brief.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: injunctions for what?
by TechGeek on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: injunctions for what?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

The reason I gave WAS based on case law. Its the exact reason the judge gave, based on case law. Look it up.

Also: Any other actions against any other manufacturer mean jack shit in this case. Your not even allowed to bring it up in the court case.

Nelson, try the Googles. A *very* quick look shows this from Wikipedia:

"Nevertheless, the irreparable injury rule was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), a case in which the Court announced a test for injunctive relief that required, among other things, that the plaintiff prove "that it has suffered an irreparable injury"."

Edited 2013-03-07 22:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: injunctions for what?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: injunctions for what?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple has proven irreparable harm. Apple has had a dozen of its patents infringed across a shitload of Samsung products. Willfully so, in fact.

If this doesn't pass the litmus test for an injunction, nothing does. The Judge is clearly making a ruling that is inconsistent with how the test has been applied in the past.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: injunctions for what?
by TechGeek on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: injunctions for what?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Apple has proven irreparable harm. Apple has had a dozen of its patents infringed across a shitload of Samsung products. Willfully so, in fact.

If this doesn't pass the litmus test for an injunction, nothing does. The Judge is clearly making a ruling that is inconsistent with how the test has been applied in the past.


You might have an argument if Apple hadn't cross licensed with Microsoft and HTC, Goes to prove that they WILL take money in exchange for IP.

Edited 2013-03-08 02:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

innovation halted by IP
by TechGeek on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:29 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson:

The largest example of an industry where innovation was halted by patents and IP was, surprise surprise, the phone industry. Bell was found to be a monopoly, having illegally domineered the entire industry, and was broken up. That allowed other phone companies like Sprint and MCI to exist.

Reply Score: 2

RE: innovation halted by IP
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:51 UTC in reply to "innovation halted by IP"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

That case wasn't really about patents.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: innovation halted by IP
by TechGeek on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE: innovation halted by IP"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Oh really. And just how do you think at&t became the huge corporation that got broken up? at&t had a long history of abuses all starting with the patent on the telephone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: innovation halted by IP
by Nelson on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: innovation halted by IP"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes really. ATT had a statutory monopoly.

Sure, maybe they had patents, so did everyone else, but it is far from the principle reason why they were broken up, which is what you're claiming.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: innovation halted by IP
by Johann Chua on Fri 8th Mar 2013 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: innovation halted by IP"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Do tell, O wise and powerful Nelson.

Reply Score: 1