Apple was built on theft, but Samsung is a better thief?

Oooops on the double post lol. So i watched this show on the history channel today called 100 gadgets that changed the world or what ever it was called. So my question is why didn't anyone sue apple over having a mouse for their computers? Steve Jobs got the idea when he saw a prototype in a Xerox factory! Is it because they only have one button instead of two? Still doesn't make any sense that apple can sue over a rectangle phone, slide unlock....you get the point. Someone else brought up a good point about cars, shapes, looks, truck, SUV blah blah. Really?
 
Myself and several others have mentioned that this whole thing could have and should have been avoided if the patent office wasn't broken and was actually doing their job. How can you grant a loosely worded patent on a concept you didn't create, just find another use for, and was prior art? These patents are so loosely worded that it is imo entrapment. This is going to be hurtful to innovation, and is an attempt to kill off any and all competition. I say it is going to hurt innovation because with how broad and loosely worded these patents are, by the time a company comes up with a new innovation, Apple is going to find a way to say that it infringes on one of their sham patents.
 
The patent laws DO need to reformed. Patents on shapes is TOTALLY out-of-the-question. Samsung would've probably won if they came stronger in defense methods , but Apple won. Now , I can guarantee that more lawsuits will come from Apple , and more corruption by companies reading between the line in laws.
 
The patent laws DO need to reformed. Patents on shapes is TOTALLY out-of-the-question. Samsung would've probably won if they came stronger in defense methods , but Apple won. Now , I can guarantee that more lawsuits will come from Apple , and more corruption by companies reading between the line in laws.

They don't have a patent on a shape. Stop listening to samsungs spin. Go read the actual patent in question.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
Myself and several others have mentioned that this whole thing could have and should have been avoided if the patent office wasn't broken and was actually doing their job. How can you grant a loosely worded patent on a concept you didn't create, just find another use for, and was prior art? These patents are so loosely worded that it is imo entrapment. This is going to be hurtful to innovation, and is an attempt to kill off any and all competition. I say it is going to hurt innovation because with how broad and loosely worded these patents are, by the time a company comes up with a new innovation, Apple is going to find a way to say that it infringes on one of their sham patents.

I agree with most of your post. The patents that Apple is enforcing probably shouldn't have been granted but they were. Since they were Apple has the right to defend them.

I think the one thing that most people are overlooking is that innovation will be stifled if patents CAN'T be enforced. If I'm an inventor and come up with an original idea that anyone can come along and copy it, what incentive do I have to invent something else? The only way that there can be incentive to innovate is to protect that innovation with a patent. The only reason to innovate is to have something that no one else has so that I can profit from it. If I can't profit from it why should I spend money to innovate?

As bad as it is, we NEED patents so that people's idea can be protected. What is being patented is a different story, but if patents are being given, the owner has the right, and I say duty, to enforce that patent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ry
That does not mean the patent law needs to be reformed. It means you need to actually learn something about patent laws.

Are you saying that only an uninformed person could want patent law reform? I would wager there are many highly informed people who would advocate for reform, or reevaluation of the current laws, or, at very least, see the benefits of an open discussion and dialogue regarding how the current system might be improved. Especially if such discussions didn't involve childish insults.
 
As a point of clarification, people have been patenting design elements such as shapes for more than a century. All one needs to do, ironically, is go to Google Patents to demonstrate that fact. There are reasons why, for instance, no one copies coca cola's hobble skirt bottle. The various forms were patented decades ago and the associated labeling is trademarked. People have also regularly patented ideas that have never become actual products for equally long. Like other archaeologists, I do patent searches from time to identify artifacts for historic sites. One might be surprised at the array of items, design elements, and design concepts that have been patented.

People who express their indignation over patenting rules really should just do some very basic homework. The system has worked for over a century. Is it perfect? No it is not. I would still prefer, however, that ideas are protected so that corporations cannot just raid things that have long been defined as intellectual property whenever it is convenient. Neither consumers nor innovators are protected when there are no rules. It is a balancing act but it still works more than it doesn't.

I mostly agree with you, but there is such a thing in patent law called "obvious in the industry" basically meaning that you can't create a patent that prevents anyone else from doing something if that's the only way to do it. I believe "making a phone a rectangle" would fall under that category. Personally, I don't want a triangular or spherical cell phone ;)
 
I mostly agree with you, but there is such a thing in patent law called "obvious in the industry" basically meaning that you can't create a patent that prevents anyone else from doing something if that's the only way to do it. I believe "making a phone a rectangle" would fall under that category. Personally, I don't want a triangular or spherical cell phone ;)

Again, Apple doesn't have a patent on a phone being a rectangle. There's more to it than that. Other Android OEMs made Android phones that don't look too close to the iPhone. Samsung decided to go the KIRF route and got dinged.

IIRC, of all the other lawsuits Apple is involved in, this spat with Samsung is the only one where trade-dress is an issue.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
 
Are you saying that only an uninformed person could want patent law reform? I would wager there are many highly informed people who would advocate for reform, or reevaluation of the current laws, or, at very least, see the benefits of an open discussion and dialogue regarding how the current system might be improved. Especially if such discussions didn't involve childish insults.

Generally, those that scream that the patent system needs to be fixed not only can't explain what needs to be fixed, but also can't even explain the role of patents and how the system works.

Saying 'it needs to be fixed' without explaining why is about as useful as a smartphone with no apps.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
I mostly agree with you, but there is such a thing in patent law called "obvious in the industry" basically meaning that you can't create a patent that prevents anyone else from doing something if that's the only way to do it. I believe "making a phone a rectangle" would fall under that category. Personally, I don't want a triangular or spherical cell phone ;)

If apple had a patent for that, you'd have a point.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
I doubt the mobile device section from Sammy will become stagnant, and if it does....who is this article writer to care, is obvious he is a apple fan.....where the iPhone has been stagnant for the last 3-4 years! And yet with a slight improvement people think apple recreated the phone again with each stagnant installment.


Over the last two plus years, sammy is the one that seems to be pushing mobile tech, apple or android fans alike can all agree to that
 
Apple is lazy and their products prove they only want to produce what they want customers to want, I truly believe the lawsuits with Samsung are not over slight copying with improvements.....which in my views are ok.......Apple just doesn't want to give customers what they want or might want after seeing features implemented in android.


Blind customers will stay loyal, while customers that have their eyes opened to possibilities will tend to stay away.

our society is gotten into a super fast paced world of wants and change....Apple isn't ready for that much time and effort to be placed into their products
 
I doubt the mobile device section from Sammy will become stagnant, and if it does....who is this article writer to care, is obvious he is a apple fan.....where the iPhone has been stagnant for the last 3-4 years! And yet with a slight improvement people think apple recreated the phone again with each stagnant installment.


Over the last two plus years, sammy is the one that seems to be pushing mobile tech, apple or android fans alike can all agree to that

Samsung actually hasn't changed much since the s2 came out. The s3 was a pretty incremental update.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
Apple is lazy and their products prove they only want to produce what they want customers to want, I truly believe the lawsuits with Samsung are not over slight copying with improvements.....which in my views are ok.......Apple just doesn't want to give customers what they want or might want after seeing features implemented in android.


Blind customers will stay loyal, while customers that have their eyes opened to possibilities will tend to stay away.

our society is gotten into a super fast paced world of wants and change....Apple isn't ready for that much time and effort to be placed into their products

If you honestly believe that, then you clearly haven't been paying any attention to the marketplace.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ry