To be honest, they've already done this. While the S1 may have used some inspiration from the 3g, the S2 and S3 look nothing like any iphone. Samsung has done an excellent job of evolving their smartphone line. In the last year or so, it would appear that they are more innovative than Apple in the smartphone realm.Originally Posted by theanimaster
What this decision really came down to was a bad judge and jury who live practically next door to Apple HQ, and a very biased court case that didn't allow additional game-changing and clear-cut evidence to be admitted. If you read up on some of the things the jury said and did you'd really this case was a sham to begin with.
The decision will be appealed and possibly even end up in the supreme court at which point the ruling will be overturned and ridiculous patents for rectangular devices with rounded corners will be invalidated. Apple likes to pretend that "Function defines form" doesn't exist and that they actually came up with some of the stuff they said they did.
Stories like this put a smile to my face.
Android Powered iPhone 5 Manufacturer Warns They’ll Sue Apple If Next iPhone Resembles “Their” Design
I love the irony of it. I guess Apple isn't the only company that can take an existing design or idea, patent it, then sue someone over an idea that was never their own to begin with. This, my friends, is why Apple's cases should be thrown out of court. They set a precedent for patent wars on ideas that are common sense. It will also encourage companies to randomly submit patents for designs that they think might someday be released. If the internet and web design look and feel was granted patents in the same way that apple is, web development would stutter to a halt as everyone would be afraid of getting sued for some line of code someone else wrote before.It was only last Tuesday we showed you guys the abomination that was the GooPhone. Getting the jump on Apple thanks to leaked parts and pieces, the Chinese were able to manufacture an Android-powered iPhone 5 knockoff that could easily find a home next to the bearded lady on some traveling freak show.
Well, here’s the fun part — the manufacturer of the iPhone 5 knockoff, GooPhone, has reportedly patented the design and is warning Apple that they will sue them for patent infringement in China, if the upcoming iPhone 5 resembles their newly patented design. Sounds backwards? Here’s the logic: because the GooPhone was released first and was successfully granted a patent on their design, anything that comes after is by legal definition a copy infringing on said design patent (and possibly trade dress).
This is the sort of backwards thinking, crazy-pill-taking, madness we’d expect from Apple and one could even argue it was Apple was the one who started the Patent World War to begin with. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t put a smile on my face to see the tables turned. Even if GooPhone doesn’t stand much of a chance at winning, maybe Apple will settle and they’ll get a decent buck out of it.
Last edited by baksiidaa; 5th September 2012 at 15:19.
That _would_ be interesting.
However, I don't see Apple losing this. Surely they can use their existing round-corner patents to wipe these guys off the face of the planet? It's a huge risk for the underdog here... but kudos for them for making a point. Hope they don't lose too much in the court battle!
I wish I could afford to make just a dollar a year.
Just Buy a Mac
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Patents on round corners likely don't exist in China. I would imagine only the US patent office is stupid enough to issue that kind of patent on something so obvious. Anyway, it's a whole different ballgame when you aren't sitting in a courtroom that is in your back yard. I like how its called the GooPhone though the name would be more fitting in Thailand since Goo or กู means "I".
Anyone remember Monster Cable?
This is apple.
During 2011, Apple won their suits against Samsung in Australian, Dutch and German courts, among others. A German court ruled in favour of Apple in September 2011 and banned sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The German court concluded a "clear impression of similarity" regarding the design. I'm not denying that it helps to be in your own backyard, but its effect has been exaggerated.
From what I've read, the decision was based on a massive accumulation of evidence that compelled the jury to conclude that Samsung had been deliberately copying the look and feel of the iPhone design and wasn't dependent on the infringement of any specific patent. The "patent for a rectangular device with rounded corners" ... but where is this patent and what exactly does it say? I'm asking this question seriously because if this patent is that restrictive, no other smartphone manufacturer would have been able to develop their line without being constantly sued. Yet Google have managed to develop their Nexus line of phones without being accused of any patent infringements so far, so why couldn't Samsung?
Living Colour: I ain't no glamour boy.
This video has your answer why Apple has been going after Samsung and not Google.
$1B Is Nice, But Samsung Is Not Apple's Real Target: Video - Bloomberg
^ Interesting video ... but if it's not in Apple's and Google's interests to sue each other, why has Google started a law suit against Apple for alleged patent infringements (including the technology underlying Siri) and why is Apple suing Motorola which is now owned by Google? Or are these just exceptions?
Actually that should be the other way round ... it was Motorola who sued Apple. So, yes it does seem that Apple has avoided going after Google.
Last edited by Tungsten; 9th September 2012 at 03:12.
Yes, that video is correct. I read long ago on Techradar how Apple can't actually sue Google coz Google hasn't actually made any money with their Android OS. Obviously the only reason why Apple waited this long before suing Samsung is to a) wait for Samsung to make sufficient money so it's worthwhile to sue them and b) Samsung has "settled in" with their phones and it would be too difficult to start everything from scratch, hence, Samsung has to pay royalty fees to Apple to use their features.
On a similar note, have you heard about how a foreign company is... err... was suing Microsoft for using their name "Metro" for describing their Windows 8 UI? Dumbasses jumped the gun and opened the lawsuit BEFORE Windows 8 was actually released. Now Microsoft has completely dropped the "Metro" name saying it was merely a pre-release code name. I think the whole case was over in like a week.Clearly Apple understands the virtues of patience.
---Update---
Reply to #17 post: I have a sneaking suspicion that Chinese company is actually of one Samsung's...
^ I wonder why Microsoft even came out with that name in the first place. The Metro trademark (it covers electronic stuff too) would have come up on a quick search. Anyway I hope that They find a cool replacement name as Windows 8 could be the coolest product that Microsoft have created yet.
About the video .. I'm sure the revenue factor played a part in Apple's decision to wait so long before suing Samsung but the fact remains that Samsung could easily have avoided this entire court case. They knew exactly what they were doing and had countless opportunities to modify their code to avoid infringing any patents. Following the verdict, the jury foreman told the BBC about a high-level meeting between Google executives and Samsung executives. The minutes of the meeting were a critical piece of evidence. The Google execs warned Samsung about the risks of being sued by Apple, and recommended them to change some features but Samsung ignored this advice and didn't even tell their engineers. Google are a lot smarter than Samsung (I mean Samsung as they were then - they've been more innovative in their later models). Even if Android wasn't being given free, Apple wouldn't have a case for suing Google because Google have been extremely careful while developing their OS to avoid any patent infringements.
Finally it's important to remember that these people go really deep, I mean the jurors. They have to read and compare thousands of lines of source code. Making a decision as to whether a patent has been infringed is a complex process with its own methodology. I'm just saying that because some anti-Apple critics give the impression that the whole process is arbitrary and subjective.
The results of suits in other countries were drastically different than the one done in Apple's backyard. First of all, there were typically only 1 or 2 devices involved in each case and did not involve massive fines be paid to Apple from Samsung and Samsung was able to work around these through minor software changes or small changes to the devices. However, if you recheck your facts, the majority of Apple's claims were dismissed for being ridiculously obvious patents that they never came up with in the first place. I'll repeat what I said before in that only the US court system was dumb enough to allow something like "rectangular devices with rounded edges" to be issued as a patent.
German courts:
On September 9 2011, the German court ruled in favor of Apple, with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1.[32] The court found that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents.[32] Presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffmann said there was a "clear impression of similarity". Samsung would appeal the decision.[32]
In March 2012, the Mannheim state court judges dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the "slide-to-unlock" feature used on their respective smartphones.[33] The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals.[34] In July 2012 the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht München affirmed the lower Regional Court's denial of Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on
Samsung worked around the 10.1 ban with the release of the 10.1N which has minor differences.
Apple's allegation that Samsung infringed Apple's "overscroll bounce" patent; the appellate court's appealable ruling affirmed the lower court's February decision doubting the validity of Apple's patent.[35]
Dutch Courts:
In late October 2011, the civil court in The Hague ruled for Apple in rejecting Samsung's infringement arguments and denied Samsung's motion made there; Samsungappealed the decision and in January 2012, the Dutch appeals court overruled the civil court decision, rejecting Apple's claim that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed its design rights.[42][43]
Australian courts:
British courts:Also in autumn 2011, an Australian federal court granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung agreed to an expedited appeal of the Australian decision in the hope that if it won its appeal before Christmas, it might salvage holiday sales that it would otherwise lose.[5] Ultimately, the injunction Apple sought to block the Tab 10.1 was denied by the High Court of Australia. In July 2012 an Australian judge started hearing the companies' evidence for a trial anticipated to take three months.[44]
This is going to be funny if they are actually forced to do this.Samsung motioned a U.K. court[which?] for a declaration that its Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple's products and Apple counterclaimed, but Samsung prevailed after a British judge ruled Samsung's Galaxy tablets were not “cool” enough to be confused with Apple’s iPad.[45] In July 2012, British judge Birss denied Samsung's motion for an injunction blocking Apple from publicly stating that the Galaxy infringed Apple's design rights, but ordered Apple to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad.[46][47] The judge stayed the publishing order, however, until Apple's appeal is heard in October 2012.[48]
---Update---
The decision was based on a group of toolbags who have little understanding of technology. If the courts were to adapt this philosophy for all products, imagine how damaging this would be for adapting new technologies.
For example:
Imagine if the first company that used a touchscreen phone had received a court enforced monopoly on a phone with a touchscreen.
Imagine if the first company to mass produce hybrid or electric cars were the only company that would be allowed to use this technology.
Imagine if the first website to embed videos were given a court enforced monopoly so that they would be the only company allowed to use this tech. Youtube wouldn't exist.
Imagine if myspace or some other earlier pioneer in social networking were given exclusive rights to produce a social media site, have friends lists, create profiles, etc. Facebook, LinkedIn, and countless other social media sites would never have existed.
These things are not any different than what Apple is trying to do. They basically take existing technologies, put them in a pretty package, do a great job of marketing and selling them with only a few exceptions, then turn around and tell other companies that they aren't allowed to use the same technologies that they borrowed from somebody else to begin with. Apple's anti-competitive nature is a menace to progress and technology in general.
By the way, did you have a chance to see the Q&A for the Jury foreman? The dude is a complete moron and clueless. Here's a few points illustrating the flaws in that trial:
Why The Apple Vs Samsung Jury Verdict May Not Hold Up | Gizmodo Australia
I'm sure the foreman wishes he could go back In a time machine and NOT say this:
I know very little about patent law though, and just possibly this statement does make sense to a software patents expert, but I haven't found any expert defending it.The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. that means they are not interchangeable. that changed everything right there.
About the trial - I'd concede there seem to have been a few inconsistencies. They considered a huge amount of evidence in a surprisingly short time. However, I still think the appeal court will uphold the main decision. They might reduce the amount of damages though, and overturn a few specific infringements.
I agree with you about the absurdity of a patent for "a rectangular device with rounded corners."
I thought one of the qualifications for a patent was "non-obviousness." By the way, I'd be interested to know if you're against any kind of software patents or you just think that Apple have gone too far in creating and applying them.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks