Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[chubb]

That patent is pending and Google has had to narrow its scope several times because it was too broad.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Correct. This is why if Google is granted the patent, Apple won't be violating the patent. If understand the patent right. It clearly says, when a notification comes in it displays in place of the status info(time, data connection, battery status). Then displays an icon, in a drop down menu. As far as I know, Apples version just displays a pop up on top of whatever the user is doing.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Correct. This is why if Google is granted the patent, Apple won't be violating the patent. If understand the patent right. It clearly says, when a notification comes in it displays in place of the status info(time, data connection, battery status). Then displays an icon, in a drop down menu. As far as I know, Apples version just displays a pop up on top of whatever the user is doing.

Apple has a drop down in the newer iOS versions, just like Android.

 

[andribble]

Correct. This is why if Google is granted the patent, Apple won't be violating the patent. If understand the patent right. It clearly says, when a notification comes in it displays in place of the status info(time, data connection, battery status). Then displays an icon, in a drop down menu. As far as I know, Apples version just displays a pop up on top of whatever the user is doing.

So it has come to that, thanx to Apple patenting every user interface tweak.
Where are the days when new software features were demoed, advertised and let the customer decide if it's useful, then move on to the next enhancement while that one is being appreciated?
Are lawyers behind all this?

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

So it has come to that, thanx to Apple patenting every user interface tweak.
Where are the days when new software features were demoed, advertised and let the customer decide if it's useful, then move on to the next enhancement while that one is being appreciated?
Are lawyers behind all this?

Just the lawyers being paid by big companies like Apple, Google, and etc.

 

[pseudoelf]

Apple did not steal the computer, nor did they steal the smartphone. Their designs were new, the UI paradigms they used were new, and the devices as a whole were very different than what existed prior. It is not a coincidence that the market shifted to slate form factors from QWERTY ones following the iPhone, and that tablets have become very different as well.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

That shift had just as much to do with the carriers. The US carriers were the ones helping hold back the smart phone. The biggest thing Apple brought was the cloat to force the carriers to allow good phones.

 

[JHBThree]

Apple has a drop down in the newer iOS versions, just like Android.

One of the keys, though, is that apples version does not display the notification in the status bar. Its displayed in two different versions of a pop-up/over, a d then disappears until you swipe the status bar down. Googles patent calls for a persistent notification in the status bar until swiped.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[badbrad17]

The way I saw the Samsung evidence against Apple was that it clearly showed that Apple was doing design exercises on what the next evolution of the smartphone would be. What would "company A" do didn't necessarily translate to "let's copy owhat company A is currently doing - at least not from my perspective.

The way I saw the Apple evidence against Samsung was that it clearly showed that Samsung was clearly comparing their devices to the iPhone. Spelling out changes that Samsung could make to make it a supposed better experience like the iPhone was enough evidence needed for me to believe that Samsung clearly intended to directly copy Apple.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

Search Google for Pontiac G8 and tell me that you don't see a BMW. It's pretty obvious that GM ripped off their style and design. Why? Because it is a nice car. Does this mean that you are going to go and buy a Pontiac G8 and think you are buying a BMW? Not a chance. Does BMW care that they ripped them off? Probably not. Why? Because they know that there is a difference between their product and their competition.

The logic in looking at this case from a normal consumer perspective is far different than someone dissecting something in a court room where logic and common sense are sidelined in the name of rules and patent laws that don't help the very people they were created to protect.

I find it very sad. I love Apple and I love Samsung and I love Microsoft for all of the great things they create to make my life better. I hate it when the legal system makes it impossible for these companies to protect what should be protected and ignore the things that shouldn't.

We are all at odds because we want to be right for different reasons. I just wish we didn't have a reason to argue and could just enjoy all of the amazing things that technology brings within a free open sharing environment.

I just thank God every day that Apple, Google and Samsung aren't trying to cure cancer.

 

[Joel S.]

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

Apple did not "invent" the capacitive touch screen phone. When the iPhone first came out, it was not even a smartphone, it was a feature phone, and it wasn't the first one with a capacitive touch screen. It became a smartphone later in it's life when the App store came out, but it wasn't the first touch screen smartphone, and as was mentioned already, they weren't the first to come out with a multi-touch device. Apple pioneered the interaction with the interface, they made it finger friendly by using gestures that were familiar, and brought it together with the capacitive screen. That was their contribution to the industry.

The patent abuse by the tech industry, not just Apple, is ridiculous. It doesn't spur innovation, it spurs litigation. Companies focus their time on gathering up massive patent portfolios, and many of the patents are on things that they won't even bring to market. Then they just demand ridiculous licensing or sue the crap out of competitors, forcing the little guys to not even bother competing. Sure, people point to Microsoft and say "look, they have a totally new UI", which is ironic, since the icon grid Apple used in part to attack Samsung was made ubiquitous by Windows. Still, it isn't just the UI, it's the patents on generic gestures, features, and "methods" that irk the hell out of me.

Anyway, the penalty does not fit the crime. A number of the phones in the suit were carried by carriers who do/did not offer the iPhone, and many people preferred an Android phone to an iPhone because they liked the OS, or were looking for something in a lower price point. If Samsung has an argument to make to get the verdict tossed, it's that the penalty is unreasonably high considering the availability of the devices in question when placed next to the iPhone. Remember, the amount was supposed to reflect moneys lost to the infringing devices. In many cases, if the infringing devices didn't exist, the money would've went to another, potentially Android, handset.

Also, FWIW, I had a Samsung Fascinate, and one of my biggest gripes with it was it looked too "iPhoney", so I can certainly see why Samsung was dinged for it (I purchased it for the display, size, and thinness). I even mentioned it to friends. Whether or not Apple had the design idea first, or whether Samsung had a basic idea on paper before the iPhone came out is a different story. I would've preferred Samsung not aim the Galaxy S series and Touchwiz at the iPhone as a design benchmark.

 

[badbrad17]

..they went after Samsung on trade-dress because Samsung decided to copy the design of iPhone and iPad. The jury found that the evidence was good enough to rule that Samsung infringed on the iPhone in that regard.l

I seriously doubt Apple is going to go after phones like the Motorola DROID RAZR, the HTC One series, or the Samsung Galaxy S III for trade dress claims because those phones look nothing like any iPhone Apple has released so far.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

The thing they actually have to look at is if the patent is really legitimate and should be enforceable and if the infringement actually impacted the sales and or profits of the company company who was infringed on. I feel that this entire part of the law was glanced over and almost ignored. No one buying a Samsung phone thinks they are buying an iPhone and vice versa. So any copy cat behavior can't be attached to a dollar amount unless they can prove that someone bought the Samsung phone instead of an iPhone because they felt it was the same thing.

I'm no lawyer but this is what I feel was missed.

 

[Joel S.]

Search Google for Pontiac G8 and tell me that you don't see a BMW. It's pretty obvious that GM ripped off their style and design. Why? Because it is a nice car. Does this mean that you are going to go and buy a Pontiac G8 and think you are buying a BMW? Not a chance. Does BMW care that they ripped them off? Probably not. Why? Because they know that there is a difference between their product and their competition.

The logic in looking at this case from a normal consumer perspective is far different than someone dissecting something in a court room where logic and common sense are sidelined in the name of rules and patent laws that don't help the very people they were created to protect.

I find it very sad. I love Apple and I love Samsung and I love Microsoft for all of the great things they create to make my life better. I hate it when the legal system makes it impossible for these companies to protect what should be protected and ignore the things that shouldn't.

We are all at odds because we want to be right for different reasons. I just wish we didn't have a reason to argue and could just enjoy all of the amazing things that technology brings within a free open sharing environment.

I just thank God every day that Apple, Google and Samsung aren't trying to cure cancer.

lol at that last line.

Look at guitars, there are two basic shapes, the Fender shape, and the Gibson shape. I can't count the number of guitars that look like Fenders... HOWEVER, the Headstock is what is protected. You come out with a guitar that has that trademark scroll at the top, and Fender is going to sue you to oblivion.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that anyone who looks at the offending Samsung devices will automatically assume it's an iPhone, but it's happened. To imply that that confusion caused them to buy the wrong thing is kind of nutty. My faith in humanity wanes by the day, but to think ~50% of people who returned the Galaxy Tab returned them because they thought they were buying an iPad is insane.

Also, I'm all for protecting your invention, but I want actual inventions. Not just tweaks of existing ideas. It's the same as jacking someone else's design. The patent system is screwed up, it needs fixing.

 

[Joel S.]

The thing they actually have to look at is if the patent is really legitimate and should be enforceable and if the infringement actually impacted the sales and or profits of the company company who was infringed on. I feel that this entire part of the law was glanced over and almost ignored. No one buying a Samsung phone thinks they are buying an iPhone and vice versa. So any copy cat behavior can't be attached to a dollar amount unless they can prove that someone bought the Samsung phone instead of an iPhone because they felt it was the same thing.

I'm no lawyer but this is what I feel was missed.

This is one of the things Samsung is going to bring up in regards to the penalty. It's assumed that all that money would've went to Apple had the Samsung devices not exist. That's just not true, and it's next to impossible to put a number on it. I can tell you, it's a lot lower than ~$1 billion.

 

[badbrad17]

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

Trade dress needs to be much more obvious IMO. Good examples are things like the Coca Cola bottle. Very unique very much a clearly designed peice that attaches to a brands style and product. I think apple has lots of unique things that make its brand what it is, but the shape of the phone and the icon grid certainly isn't one of them.

I have always said the best thing apple invented is the thing they can't patent. The App Store. This is what made the iPhone what it is. It's not how the phone looks. It's what it does and how it does it. Android is no different. I like android because it gives me more options. Sometimes this is good and sometimes this is bad. That is why choice is so important.

Apple is trying to take away choice and for this I am disappointed in one of the best companies in the world.

 

[badbrad17]

This is one of the things Samsung is going to bring up in regards to the penalty. It's assumed that all that money would've went to Apple had the Samsung devices not exist. That's just not true, and it's next to impossible to put a number on it. I can tell you, it's a lot lower than ~$1 billion.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[badbrad17]

lol at that last line.

Look at guitars, there are two basic shapes, the Fender shape, and the Gibson shape. I can't count the number of guitars that look like Fenders... HOWEVER, the Headstock is what is protected. You come out with a guitar that has that trademark scroll at the top, and Fender is going to sue you to oblivion.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that anyone who looks at the offending Samsung devices will automatically assume it's an iPhone, but it's happened. To imply that that confusion caused them to buy the wrong thing is kind of nutty. My faith in humanity wanes by the day, but to think ~50% of people who returned the Galaxy Tab returned them because they thought they were buying an iPad is insane.

Also, I'm all for protecting your invention, but I want actual inventions. Not just tweaks of existing ideas. It's the same as jacking someone else's design. The patent system is screwed up, it needs fixing.

It's like having a stainless steel fridge and seeing 2 doors. It may look like a Samsung, maytag, LG or any other fridge. You have to look at it and decide what that particular box with 2 doors will do. To say one company owns the 2 doors and shape makes no sense no matter how much of a fanboy u are.

 

[Ry]

Search Google for Pontiac G8 and tell me that you don't see a BMW. It's pretty obvious that GM ripped off their style and design. Why? Because it is a nice car. Does this mean that you are going to go and buy a Pontiac G8 and think you are buying a BMW? Not a chance. Does BMW care that they ripped them off? Probably not. Why? Because they know that there is a difference between their product and their competition.

The logic in looking at this case from a normal consumer perspective is far different than someone dissecting something in a court room where logic and common sense are sidelined in the name of rules and patent laws that don't help the very people they were created to protect.

I find it very sad. I love Apple and I love Samsung and I love Microsoft for all of the great things they create to make my life better. I hate it when the legal system makes it impossible for these companies to protect what should be protected and ignore the things that shouldn't.

We are all at odds because we want to be right for different reasons. I just wish we didn't have a reason to argue and could just enjoy all of the amazing things that technology brings within a free open sharing environment.

I just thank God every day that Apple, Google and Samsung aren't trying to cure cancer.

The Fender/Gibson example Joel S posted is a great example. I dealt with this personally as I had a hand in creating content for a certain music/rhythm game years ago. You can make a guitar all you want- just don't rip off someone else's protected design.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Ry]

The thing they actually have to look at is if the patent is really legitimate and should be enforceable and if the infringement actually impacted the sales and or profits of the company company who was infringed on. I feel that this entire part of the law was glanced over and almost ignored. No one buying a Samsung phone thinks they are buying an iPhone and vice versa. So any copy cat behavior can't be attached to a dollar amount unless they can prove that someone bought the Samsung phone instead of an iPhone because they felt it was the same thing.

I'm no lawyer but this is what I feel was missed.

Facts that the jury proved in the case: Samsung knowingly and willfully intended to copy Apple. That email trail and design documents were damning evidence.

And another person has posted about thinking the Samsung phone they bought was too "iPhoney".

Again, with regards to trade dress, other OEMs made phones that didn't copy the iPhone. Samsung went too far.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[badbrad17]

something I made the other day. Should give everyone a chuckle.

APPLE VS THE 10 OF SPADES.
http://db.tt/HuszZsp9

 

[Younjulius]

I understand how Steve Jobs felt when he first saw android phones. However, I'd like to live in a world where ideas get shared and we build on top of each others idea so that you don't have to re-invent the wheel all the time.

Speaking of stealing ideas, I think there are plenty examples that Apple stole from Android as well such as pull down notification menu.

Also, it's absurd that Apple is targeting manufacturers not Google.

 

[badbrad17]

Facts that the jury proved in the case: Samsung knowingly and willfully intended to copy Apple. That email trail and design documents were damning evidence.

And another person has posted about thinking the Samsung phone they bought was too "iPhoney".

Again, with regards to trade dress, other OEMs made phones that didn't copy the iPhone. Samsung went too far.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

This may all be true. I just don't think it makes a difference in the big picture. Someone says it looks too iPhoney. So what. It's like the Pontiac G8 example I gave earlier. It looks like a BMW but it isn't and everyone including BMW knows it. I this is more about trying to slow competition that any losses that were incurred.

 

[JHBThree]

Apple did not "invent" the capacitive touch screen phone. When the iPhone first came out, it was not even a smartphone, it was a feature phone, and it wasn't the first one with a capacitive touch screen. It became a smartphone later in it's life when the App store came out, but it wasn't the first touch screen smartphone, and as was mentioned already, they weren't the first to come out with a multi-touch device. Apple pioneered the interaction with the interface, they made it finger friendly by using gestures that were familiar, and brought it together with the capacitive screen. That was their contribution to the industry.

The patent abuse by the tech industry, not just Apple, is ridiculous. It doesn't spur innovation, it spurs litigation. Companies focus their time on gathering up massive patent portfolios, and many of the patents are on things that they won't even bring to market. Then they just demand ridiculous licensing or sue the crap out of competitors, forcing the little guys to not even bother competing. Sure, people point to Microsoft and say "look, they have a totally new UI", which is ironic, since the icon grid Apple used in part to attack Samsung was made ubiquitous by Windows. Still, it isn't just the UI, it's the patents on generic gestures, features, and "methods" that irk the hell out of me.

Anyway, the penalty does not fit the crime. A number of the phones in the suit were carried by carriers who do/did not offer the iPhone, and many people preferred an Android phone to an iPhone because they liked the OS, or were looking for something in a lower price point. If Samsung has an argument to make to get the verdict tossed, it's that the penalty is unreasonably high considering the availability of the devices in question when placed next to the iPhone. Remember, the amount was supposed to reflect moneys lost to the infringing devices. In many cases, if the infringing devices didn't exist, the money would've went to another, potentially Android, handset.

Also, FWIW, I had a Samsung Fascinate, and one of my biggest gripes with it was it looked too "iPhoney", so I can certainly see why Samsung was dinged for it (I purchased it for the display, size, and thinness). I even mentioned it to friends. Whether or not Apple had the design idea first, or whether Samsung had a basic idea on paper before the iPhone came out is a different story. I would've preferred Samsung not aim the Galaxy S series and Touchwiz at the iPhone as a design benchmark.

Who the hell is claiming apple invented capacitive touchscreen phones? Point to where in the quoted text I said anything of the sort.

What I ACTUALLY said was that apple invented and patented several specific multi touch gestures that were used in specific apps in ways that had never been seen before. Those gestures were also coupled with hardware requirements.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2