Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[andribble]

This is such a joke. Its sad such a profitable company has to cone down to this.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Lemme see. Patent infringement for 'Bounce-back effect' on a scroll? Tap to center? 'Icons arrangements on a screen'? 'Rectangular shape with rounded corners'?............One Billion?

Did Apple pay royalties for using graphic icons on a screen, for clicking with a mouse on them, for using scroll bars, for displaying menus on a screen, or for holding a screen to your ear and talk to it?

Is Apple paying royalties to Etch-a-Sketch for using its rectangular shape with rounded corners?

Hopefully it is paying a little something for using multi-touch panels, color screens, processors, networks, memory, solid state packaging, etc technologies without which there would be no gadgets to design user interfaces on.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

I would like to know why people on "android central" are defending Apple on this. I read the verdict and I was so pissed off I had to walk outside, then I got on here and started ranting. Yes I was emotional over thinking but I came back and apologized the next day and tried to have a thoughtful discussion but seems every time I posted something some jack a$$ is quoting what I posted and giving me "well actually" responses. At least on xda you can have a discussion with people without people calling you ignorant, RE TARD ED, and telling you you lost all credibility.

Maybe i accidently signed up for Apple Central instead.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

To be a fine upstanding member we need to ignore right and wrong?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

 

[radar320]

It was said earlier, that the problem here is the patent system is broken. Which it is. The patent office doesn't seem to be doing it's homework to make sure that 1) they are not granting a patent on something the requester did not create, just find another way to use it, and 2) that the concept that the patent is being requested for isn't prior art. Apple and in some instances, other companies have been granted patents that are so broadly worded, that it just traps other companies. The patent system is broken and Apple is using it to be the big bad playground bully, bloodying the nose of the other kids on the playground. They are using this to squash any and all competition and is going to kill innovation. These patents are so broadly worded, that by the time another company comes up with a new innovation, Apple will find a way to say it infringes on one of these loose patents.

 

[cormaster628]

Ah forget it. I'm done

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

FWIW, why hate the player when you should be hating the game? The patent system is broken, and this is just further evidence of that fact.

I hate the player that cheats and tries to re-interpret the rules.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[socrfan]

Now, if nothing changes through appeals then the only thing Apple should do is donate the money to charity. That's the only way IMO that they could come away from this mess with any dignity and maybe, a distant maybe, look a bit better to the critics.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

I hate the player that cheats and tries to re-interpret the rules.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Who re-interpreted the rules?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Who re-interpreted the rules?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

The people who decided to patent shapes and the inventions of others. It's basically like Chevy patenting the wheel and telling ford that they can't use them. The Patent system was designed to protect inventors, not stifle competition and innovation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

The people who decided to patent shapes and the inventions of others. It's basically like Chevy patenting the wheel and telling ford that they can't use them. The Patent system was designed to protect inventors, not stifle competition and innovation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Obviously you haven't read the patents in question. While Samsung would like you to believe Apple patented the rectangle, that isn't true. The patent has multiple pieces to it, which Samsung conveniently managed to infringe.

Also, please cite the inventions of others apple patented, considering that the prior art Samsung presented in this case was found not to invalidate apples in patents.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

The people who decided to patent shapes and the inventions of others. It's basically like Chevy patenting the wheel and telling ford that they can't use them. The Patent system was designed to protect inventors, not stifle competition and innovation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

I think there is a little bit more to it than that. If you have followed the case you should know that. Last I checked things like pinch to zoom, doing a double tap to zoom and etc. are not shapes.

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Obviously you haven't read the patents in question. While Samsung would like you to believe Apple patented the rectangle, that isn't true. The patent has multiple pieces to it, which Samsung conveniently managed to infringe.

Also, please cite the inventions of others apple patented, considering that the prior art Samsung presented in this case was found not to invalidate apples in patents.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I have.

They did.

Multi-touch.

Thank you, please come again.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

I have.

They did.

Multi-touch.

Thank you, please come again.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

Who created multi-touch and why did they not patent it ahead of Apple?

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Who created multi-touch and why did they not patent it ahead of Apple?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#section_1

Read it. Capacitive multi-touch has been around since 1972 and developed by numerous companies and individuals. Nobody patented it because it was considered open source and a community collaboration. You know, kind of like Google. Then Apple came in, got a patent and pretended they invented it. Please name a single technology Apple has actually pioneered.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#section_1

Read it. Capacitive multi-touch has been around since 1972 and developed by numerous companies and individuals. Nobody patented it because it was considered open source and a community collaboration. You know, kind of like Google. Then Apple came in, got a patent and pretended they invented it. Please name a single technology Apple has actually pioneered.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

Apple doesn't have a patent on multitouch. They have patents on several specific gestures, all of which also depend on hardware that apple DID invent. Apple has pioneered plenty of technology. Go look up their patent catalogue, because we're not going to do it for you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Multi-touch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it. Capacitive multi-touch has been around since 1972 and developed by numerous companies and individuals. Nobody patented it because it was considered open source and a community collaboration. You know, kind of like Google. Then Apple came in, got a patent and pretended they invented it. Please name a single technology Apple has actually pioneered.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

Good to know. As far as I can tell, though, that wasn't one of the items listed in the judgment or the lawsuit. I'm not sure that Apple holds a patent for multi-touch. As far as naming anything that Apple that has invented, is irrelevent. What is relevent is who holds the patents to the features being challenged in court.

Why was Apple smart enough to patent some of these things and not those who created them, or for that matter other companies?

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Apple doesn't have a patent on multitouch. They have patents on several specific gestures, all of which also depend on hardware that apple DID invent. Apple has pioneered plenty of technology. Go look up their patent catalogue, because we're not going to do it for you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, no. Here's the lowdown.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/06/too-broad-or-too-narrow-apple-multitouch-patent-sparks-debate/

Patent describes general multi-touch developed in the mid 70's.


Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Yeah, no. Here's the lowdown.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/06/too-broad-or-too-narrow-apple-multitouch-patent-sparks-debate/

Patent describes general multi-touch developed in the mid 70's.


Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

You should read your links before you post them. From the article:

Others disagree, arguing that the patent isn't nearly as broad as it seems upon first blush. Nilay Patel, intellectual property lawyer and former Engadget editor (now at This is my Next), told Ars that the patent's claims are "fairly narrow." Patel notes that they require single-finger scrolling along with reprinted scrolling within a frame on a website (think an embedded Google Map, like our example above). "Also, it only applies to Web browsers on mobile devices, not multitouch in general," Patel said. "asically no one's read the claims carefully enough." (Patel has written more analysis on the patent at This is my Next.)

As I said, apple has patents on specific gestures with specific use-cases. You just proved my point.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Good to know. As far as I can tell, though, that wasn't one of the items listed in the judgment or the lawsuit. I'm not sure that Apple holds a patent for multi-touch. As far as naming anything that Apple that has invented, is irrelevent. What is relevent is who holds the patents to the features being challenged in court.

Why was Apple smart enough to patent some of these things and not those who created them, or for that matter other companies?

Because the people who created it weren't doing it for money, rather to advance science. Why didn't Linus patent Linux? Because he wasn't anti-thesis of what a tech firm should be.

Whether they've invented anything is important because they're going around all holier than thou and calling people out for stealing their intellectual property when they honestly just take advantage of other people's ideas.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal. We've always been shameless about that kind of stealing."

-Steve Jobs



Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Because the people who created it weren't doing it for money, rather to advance science. Why didn't Linus patent Linux? Because he wasn't anti-thesis of what a tech firm should be.

Whether they've invented anything is important because they're going around all holier than thou and calling people out for stealing their intellectual property when they honestly just take advantage of other people's ideas.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal. We've always been shameless about that kind of stealing."

-Steve Jobs



Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

They have invented plenty. Google has this nifty patent search feature. You should use it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[andribble]

Illustrated infringements: