Apple and Samsung

[Sceadwian]

Apple just won a billion dollar court verdict against Samsung for various design patent infringements that included the 'pinch zoom' function on smartphones (future lawsuits to follow).

I wonder if the Kids in the Hall could claim precendence for it's "Head Crusher" and "Face Pincher" skits...

https://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b...ids-in-the-hall-from-greatest-comedy-sketches

This should put the entire absurdity of this patent garbage into perspective.

Tens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of billions of dollars wasted on the trivial in the long run to no one's gain. Even the consumer suffers.

So sad.

 

[ronsimpson]

Tens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of billions of dollars wasted on the trivial in the long run to no one's gain. Even the consumer suffers.

Apple, the company that came up with the ideas, is making money.
Sceadwian, have you made any money with patents?
Every week I see people with good ideas and all they want is money for the idea. With out a way of saying 'that's my idea and you can't use it' I will quite work. 'Tens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands' of engineers will not have a job by morning.

 

[Sceadwian]

ronsimpson, lets take the example of the pinch/zoom function as the first case of how absurd patent law is.


How long have parents been opening their closed fists in front of their babies with their hands next to their face to indiciate that the eyes were opening large? Or the same in reverse to indicate that they were closing using an indirect association?

Did Apple really 'come up' with these ideas, or are they just patenting everything they can think of under the sun that people that use their products might want to use and claiming inovation...

The bulk majority of the Apple/Samsung dispute is the basic physical shape of the device, and a couple of gestures....

Is the shape of the device or these gestures really fundamentally critical to the functioning of the device or what can be done with it? Absolutely not, it could be done another way, a dozen or hundred different ways and all they're arguing about is who controls the way people do things so they can keep raking in these profit margins.

The entire intellectual property rights industry now doesn't have a damn thing to do with protection of people that create something fundamentally new just specific implementations that happen to be popular.

 

[cachehiker]

The verdict seems a bit idiotic to me, like Chevy suing Ford because their cars have also become more aerodynamic.

I can agree with copyrighting software but patenting software is like patenting a novel. It would essentially eliminate any chance of another author utilizing any of your plot elements. Would any of the greatest novels ever published exist if this were the case? With a copyright, if the plagiarism is obvious enough, then you have all you need to win a judgement. If you're designing, assembling, and programming independently and not outright cloning, you should be in the clear. I think Apple fell short of that standard on most counts.

 

[nsaspook]

The jury completely misunderstood the importance of prior art/obviousness in this case.

https://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

 

[Sceadwian]

There's always apeals.

 

[ronsimpson]

This case was too large and complex for a jury. It is very hard when experts on both sides disagree as to 'is this the same thing or not'. Often things are close but not exactly the same thing.

There were many infringements. This was not about one use of IP.

When I worked for Samsung, it was against the law for any Korean company to pay for IP. We copied many IC. I could get "Micro soft office" for $3.00. CAD programs ($9000.00) were $4.00. Korea now accepts patents. I believe the old way of thinking is still very common in Korea.

With out the intellectual property rights industry, new ideas are worth nothing. If I put millions into a new product and China copies it in 3 months, for thousands, and puts me out of business then I might as well stay in bed. No new ideas will be produced with out protection. I understand some people don't want to pay the inverter and his company. "Fundamentally new" and small improvements will not happen with out a way to pay an engineer. Being an engineer I live by the imperfect IP system, with its problems. Consumers, may not like $1.00 more a product costs. With out the IP system there would not be computers, toasters, pocket phones, etc.

 

[jpanhalt]

There's always apeals.

I suspect you mean appeals with two p's as in apple.

Juries are flawed, but so is every other system. Arbitration is not the answer. If you really want to see a flawed system, look at the arbitration system for investors (FINRA). If you have any investments in the US, you are bound by it, yet it is incredibly biased. The so-called arbitrators are all employees of the investment firms.

Juries are the determiners of fact. Appeals are based on law. Of course, any good lawyer can try to confuse the two well enough to win, at least occasionally.

I am only watching with interest to see the final outcome. I don't own an i-phone and my cell phone is prepaid with an accumulated balance of more than $300 -- I use it less than once a month.

John

 

[Vizier87]

This might sum it up.

Good thing I don't own any I-this or I-that.

 

[nsaspook]

So Apples "pinch and zoom" patent ("preliminarily rejected" ) and others are invalid.

Does the court in California go back and subtract all the damages that the jury awarded to Apple based on this patent that Apple should never have been granted?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121219174625546

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/apple-to-appeals-court-costs-to.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html

 

[RichTheDude]

To date I do not know of any true Apple inventions (GUI was by Xerox for example). They have a perceived reputation for invention, like the new iPhone 5 adverts proclaiming noise cancelling technology with two microphones. Most people will assume Apple have invented this from now on, even though it is OLD technology. I have often wondered why my friends iPhone 4S audio was so bad compared to my Sony Ericsson, now I have my answer!

I am also wondering when Apples court case is going to be for limiting competition by restricting software used on "I devices". For example Microsoft got took to court for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, even though the end user had the option of installing other browsers. Apple is doing FAR worse than this (removing google maps for example, as they already provide mapping software).

Trouble is people seem to like Apple, even if their policies make Microsoft look fairly liberal!

 

[Mr RB]

To date I do not know of any true Apple inventions ...

The mouse?

 

[killivolt]

Apple is doing FAR worse than this (removing google maps for example, as they already provide mapping software).

When I listen to my IT guy's they say Google refused to give up certain Mapping options for the users who own Apple devices. I don't recall what they were.

That's why Apple created their own. I'm sure they will continue to update their Mapping services until it's fully operational.

( Microsoft) often uses the public to beta test there products. Delivering an incomplete product. People who prefer to use Microsoft as their operating system say nothing about being a (Test Subject)

This has been and will alway's be Microsoft's position just get it out, quick and dirty. In addition that's how they treated Company's with anything they wanted in their System, force them into Bankruptcy. Then buy them out.

So, I won't chide Apple for coming up with the only available option for their end user. I do believe that Apple spends more time on their product before they launch an incomplete system.

And having as many incursions with Microsoft they (Apple) have learned to play in a Quick and Dirty environment. (Kill or be Killed)

How many Companies are Bankrupt because of Microsoft. Now one seems to care to remember?

kv

 

[RichTheDude]

The mouse?

Another myth Apple has managed to perpetuate. The mouse was invented by Douglas Engelbart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart

@ kv: My point is when MS tries to ensure a monopoly, we still have the option to do what we fancy in that particular ecosystem (such as windows), by installing Firefox or whatever.

Apples policy for iOS is something I would never agree with. Not only are they ensuring a monopoly for their selves (surely that is a breach of anti competition laws which MS has been had up for?), I should have the freedom if I want to run free or open source software, write my own software, use theirs or be a test subject for something else.

At least with Linux, Windows, and Android I have the choice to do what I want with my hardware. That is why I will never own a iOS device...

 

[killivolt]

At least with Linux, Windows, and Android I have the choice to do what I want with my hardware. That is why I will never own a iOS device...

Which is why I hope they don't allow it. I want to be free from as many, open source bugs that become infested in my operating system. ( You can't trust people who will or are paid to do so ).

But, all to often people willing to sell out to those interested in a popular product will ruin a good thing. When the IOS becomes to popular I most likely will no longer enjoy freedom of it.


kv

 

[RichTheDude]

iOS is extremely popular. We will have to agree to disagree, a company restricting what software I can run with a ~£500 piece of hardware is something I would never agree with.

 

[jpanhalt]

iOS is extremely popular. We will have to agree to disagree, a company restricting what software I can run with a ~£500 piece of hardware is something I would never agree with.

I guess either your car costs less than £500 or it doesn't have an on-board computer. []

John

 

[RichTheDude]

My car has a carburetor and distributor + points, and I am glad for it being that way! Also a public app marketplace and safety critical firmware (car computers) are a different ballgame.

To be honest the buggy software argument does not wash for Google Maps. Everyone I know that owns iOS devices says Google Maps is a lot better. Is it morally acceptable for a company to block the use of a better offering whilst they develop their own? Especially when the only reason to do so is to limit competition?

Surely that is forcing iOS owners to be test subjects for their map offering?

 

[killivolt]

Why Google won't let Apple have Google Maps

Why Google won't allow it

Edit: I alway's make $150 resell on my Phone and in the end get it for free.

Agree to dis-Agree. I have a full battery at all times and happy with the IOS.

Regards,

kv

 

[RichTheDude]

There are numerous pages stating or hinting they did block it for a while - even from the same news source you quoted!

https://www.businessinsider.com/evi...locked-google-apps-from-the-app-store-2012-11

Note this news came after yours!

Do not get me started on any smart phones battery life . I miss the days of my old Nokia lasting for days even with fairly heavy use... Any smart phone is on its way out even after a day of decent use.

Large back lit LCD's, more powerful processors (and more processors!), inefficient RF PA's (GSM allowed for very efficient non linear PA's at the expense of low data rates) all add up to awful battery life.