32 replies to this topic

[shaunm82]

Guess Apple was able to win over an injunction on the Samsung Galaxy Nexus'.

Wonder how quickly Samsung can get a work around for that patent.


http://news.cnet.com...gs-nexus-phone/

[S4GRU]

I cannot believe Apple made a statement like this:

Apple said:

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," Apple said.

The Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S-III LOOK ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE ANY IPHONE PRODUCTS EVER. The only similiarities they have aesthetically is that they both are smartphones. ICS and TouchWiz ICS is nothing like iOS, except they are both user interfaces. These kind of quotes just make the whole thing a joke, and really not even material to their complaint. I don't know why they even make such stupid comments.

Robert

[shaunm82]

S4GRU, on 29 June 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

I cannot believe Apple made a statement like this:



The Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S-III LOOK ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE ANY IPHONE PRODUCTS EVER. The only similiarities they have aesthetically is that they both are smartphones. ICS and TouchWiz ICS is nothing like iOS, except they are both user interfaces. These kind of quotes just make the whole thing a joke, and really not even material to their complaint. I don't know why they even make such stupid comments.

Robert

I know. Everytime I read that comment I have to shake my head, and Apply says it every single time a patent dispute comes up.

[pyroscott]

This idiot judge is just fueling the fire. Maybe Apple can go patent using rechargeable batteries in phones.

[ChadBroChillz]

I consider myself an apple fan, and even I am just shaking my head in disgust at this mess. The courts need to tell apple to either license the patents or they are void. I am tired of this patent war. Microsoft had the patent war right. Sue the companies, until they pay you for each device and force them to support your platform.

[oversight]

pyroscott, on 29 June 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

This idiot judge is just fueling the fire. Maybe Apple can go patent using rechargeable batteries in phones.

It would go well with Apple's apparent patent of rectangular slabs with rounded corners.

[shaunm82]

ChadBroChillz, on 29 June 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I consider myself an apple fan, and even I am just shaking my head in disgust at this mess. The courts need to tell apple to either license the patents or they are void. I am tired of this patent war. Microsoft had the patent war right. Sue the companies, until they pay you for each device and force them to support your platform.

Yeah, they need to just cross-license all said "infringes" and move forward. They are wasting everyone's time, and their own money on this mess. They need to be sinking those $$$ into product innovation instead of legal fees.

[themuffinman]

I am not kidding when I say this, but I honestly and wholeheartedly believe that some of these judges(and other powers that be) are getting kickbacks and/or bribes from apple.

[Fraydog]

Cross-licensing.

That's how things get handled in civility. Apple has decided to toss that out the window. Shameful.

[irev210]

I am sure that samsung is very "inspired" by apple.

Siri vs. S Voice for example

My favorite is the Samsung usb cable and charger - it's a black version of Apple's.

Let's just call it what it is - Apple feels that Samsung and others are infringing on their patients. Google is suing apple, apple is suing everyone, the beat goes on.

One thing this tells you is:

A) This is why we have a court system.
It's very good to be a tech patient attorney this day and age.
C) This is how companies feel they can protect their IP.

Not sure why people get so worked up. If you feel it's petty, don't buy that brand. I avoid apple products like the plague and have no regrets... but at the same time, I have no issues with them using the legal system to defend their intellectual property.

I still find it ironic that Apple and Samsung have such a huge relationship with one another yet the lawsuits battle on.


Moto is doing the same thing to Apple:
http://www.intomobil...phone-and-ipad/

The beat goes on. If you couldn't protect the IP you developed, nobody would innovate.

[irev210]

Fraydog, on 29 June 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Cross-licensing.

That's how things get handled in civility. Apple has decided to toss that out the window. Shameful.

Well considering the number of times Samsung and Apple have tried to do that and failed... it's hard to speculate as to why.

One thing you can't say is that they didn't try. Both sides feel like they have the law on their side, that's why we have a court system.

[irev210]

themuffinman, on 29 June 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I am not kidding when I say this, but I honestly and wholeheartedly believe that some of these judges(and other powers that be) are getting kickbacks and/or bribes from apple.

That's a lot of speculation right there.

No doubt apple has a lot of political influence (and for a reason) but to say that Apple is paying off judges? Regardless of if they are or not, it's absolutely irrelevant without any proof.

[themuffinman]

irev210, on 29 June 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

That's a lot of speculation right there.

No doubt apple has a lot of political influence (and for a reason) but to say that Apple is paying off judges? Regardless of if they are or not, it's absolutely irrelevant without any proof.

Whoa There Kemosabe!!! I was simply stating an opinion, which is relevant to me and relevant to this thread. If I had any sort of proof, it wouldn't be an opinion now would it. If you disagree then that's fine with me, I don't care, but don't tell me my comment is irrelevant.

[Fraydog]

Yeah Samsung does a lot to rip Apple. Thing is, this patent is nothing of the sort. This is just bad on a whole bunch of levels. Banning the Nexus because of voice search? So let me get this straight, Apple got the GNex banned over voice search?

This patent is from 2004 and is so deliberately vague that it should never have been granted.
Apple itself had to purchase Siri so they bought a technology that infringed the patent in question. Begs the question what did Apple say to get Siri to sell out to them.
Android had voice search in their phones before the iPhone 4S was released.
Yet, Koh rules in favor of Apple?

The technical ignorance on her part is outstanding. I'm normally one to defend Apple on here, but this is absurd.

[pyroscott]

OK, here is the problem I have with all this patenting vague ideas that have not fully been through R&D, and then trying to ban other devices because they "infringe" on the intellectual property. The Alliance for Wireless Power. This alliance is about bringing a technology to market that will be safe and widely adopted and keep the technology affordable so everyone can enjoy it, not trying to attain a monopoly or disrupt the business of your competitor as if it is some petty playground spat.

As we know, the Samsung GSIII has a wireless charging system that will be available at some point... Instead of submitting a patent for the technology and finding some idiot judge to ban other devices that "infringe" on this technology, Samsung is forming a global initiative to integrate this technology into all consumer devices.

Quote

Wireless technology leaders Samsung and Qualcomm Incorporated have joined other technology leaders to form the Alliance for Wireless Power (A4WP), it was announced today.

Quote

The A4WP is open to new members and welcomes participation from vendors in all segments of the potential ecosystem, including: handheld devices, consumer electronics, semiconductor products, automotive, furniture, test equipment, cellular operators, and retail.

http://www.a4wp.org/news/PR_5.7.12.pdf

[irev210]

themuffinman, on 29 June 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Whoa There Kemosabe!!! I was simply stating an opinion, which is relevant to me and relevant to this thread. If I had any sort of proof, it wouldn't be an opinion now would it. If you disagree then that's fine with me, I don't care, but don't tell me my comment is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant

Samsung has paid off so many judges, it's tots crazy! Frankly, everyone pays off everyone and all these lawsuits are so people can just get paid!

You paid off 500 judges last weekend to get some free chimichangas! Don't disagree with me cause I don't have proof! It's my opinion.


There is no need to add 100% made up "opinion" to this thread. Opinions are typically derived from facts. While you may have an opinion, it's based on nothing but your "gut" which is my opinion

Such the double-standard saying I can't state my opinion that your opinion is irrelevant!

[irev210]

themuffinman, on 29 June 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Whoa There Kemosabe!!! I was simply stating an opinion, which is relevant to me and relevant to this thread. If I had any sort of proof, it wouldn't be an opinion now would it. If you disagree then that's fine with me, I don't care, but don't tell me my comment is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it's based off nothing but your "gut".

Don't take it the wrong way, but let's have a thread that we can have discussion - not a thread based off gut feelings and instincts.

pyroscott, on 29 June 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

OK, here is the problem I have with all this patenting vague ideas that have not fully been through R&D, and then trying to ban other devices because they "infringe" on the intellectual property. The Alliance for Wireless Power. This alliance is about bringing a technology to market that will be safe and widely adopted and keep the technology affordable so everyone can enjoy it, not trying to attain a monopoly or disrupt the business of your competitor as if it is some petty playground spat.

As we know, the Samsung GSIII has a wireless charging system that will be available at some point... Instead of submitting a patent for the technology and finding some idiot judge to ban other devices that "infringe" on this technology, Samsung is forming a global initiative to integrate this technology into all consumer devices.

This is not to be "anti-patent" it's to create an ecosystem that multiple parties can profit from.

It's the same thing as apple allowing a ton of 3rd party vendors to create alarm clocks with iPhone docks, etc.

[pyroscott]

irev210, on 29 June 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

This is not to be "anti-patent" it's to create an ecosystem that multiple parties can profit from.

It's the same thing as apple allowing a ton of 3rd party vendors to create alarm clocks with iPhone docks, etc.

I see it as an internal component that could easily be patented and used only on Samsung devices. Instead of patenting the technology and developing it themselves, they are inviting any interested party into the development of the technology with the hopes that instead of having wires from our laptop, phone, tablet, game remote, speakers etc to an outlet, we have an internal component that can take energy generated at the outlet and convert it to power and charge the battery or power the device. This is different than allowing many 3rd parties to take your 30-pin connector and create peripherals to make your device more appealing to consumers.

[irev210]

pyroscott, on 29 June 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I see it as an internal component that could easily be patented and used only on Samsung devices. Instead of patenting the technology and developing it themselves, they are inviting any interested party into the development of the technology with the hopes that instead of having wires from our laptop, phone, tablet, game remote, speakers etc to an outlet, we have an internal component that can take energy generated at the outlet and convert it to power and charge the battery or power the device. This is different than allowing many 3rd parties to take your 30-pin connector and create peripherals to make your device more appealing to consumers.

That's true - we saw Palm/HP go down the "Palm/HP devices only" path with their awesome touchtone charger - didn't pan out well.

The concept of a global ecosystem is like HDMI - you need everyone to have HDMI for it to be a solid interface. The HDMI licensing group allows people to license the technology, requires you to pay a fee, then a fee per device, then you have to display the "HDMI" logo correctly, etc etc. HDMI becomes branded and valuable.

But this is more apples to oranges - interface globalization vs. protecting IP. If a 3rd party like apple decided to copy the A4WP interface and not pay royalties to A4WP, one would hope that A4WP would offer them a licensing agreement like everyone else. If Apple told them no, I would suspect that A4WP would protect their technology and take them to court.

Look at apple getting skooled by HDMI group:
http://www.appleinsi...ing_issues.html

[pyroscott]

irev210, on 29 June 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

But this is more apples to oranges - interface globalization vs. protecting IP. If a 3rd party like apple decided to copy the A4WP interface and not pay royalties to A4WP, one would hope that A4WP would offer them a licensing agreement like everyone else or make them pay by suing.

Yes, offer a licensing agreement or make them pay, not block the sale of the device (unless it is a last resort.) The thing that I hate about all these lawsuits is that Microsoft has patents, but entered licensing agreements instead of using the courts as a pawn in some kind of game. So it would appear that Android OEMs are willing to enter licensing agreements.

I will concede this though, maybe the Android OEMs are completely unwilling to pay Apple licensing fees. They might think that they have patents that Apple is infringing upon and should pay less than what Apple thinks or pay nothing. I don't know what went on in those meetings. I look at the late Steve Jobs' comments about spending every penny of Apple's money to crush Android, it really paints Apple in a poor light and makes it appear that they are unwilling to license their IP, even for a fair price. It appears that they have gone the "destroy" route, using the courts to ban and disrupt the operations of the other makers.