Apple vs Samsung

[keiser]

Well said ... the qualification of the jury is a little weird and also some of the 6 "patents" is kinda funny e.g. i mean .. alamak ... so basic also call patent ... kekeke

http://www.ciol.com/News/News-Reports/Apple-vs-Samsung-What-are-those-6-patents/165256/0/

Anyway, so much money spent on lobbying over there ... how to loose?

Bery disappointed with Apple ...

I do not own any Apple iphone or Samsung phone.

This thread discussion is not about anyone being a "fan" of either brand.
A phone is a tool that we use. We are not married to the mobile phone brand.

This discussion is about:

• Anti-competition tactics.
• Abuse and misuse of law courts to handicap a competitor.
• Country-to-country protectionism in the disguise of a patent law suit.

• Just look at the market share.
• Apple dislikes Google-Android. In short, Samsung is the whipping boy.
• If USA and South Korea have vested interests in the case, the law suit should not be heard in USA. It should be carried out in another country. For example, if the law suit was heard in an Iranian Court, then the judgement may be different.
• What is the quality of the jury hearing this billion dollar case? How conversant are they with mobile phone technology and user interface design. If either party's lawyers smoke them, do they know it? Are they blur like sotong?

 

[keiser]

How to have alternatives that are more appealing to you if they are banned? Not immediately perhaps ... but your choices and actions could determine the path for the future yes?

I need a smartphone and certainty not a fan of any brand.
I buy a iphone because the look of it appeals to me more.. might change if any smartphones appeals to be more after my 2 years contract or not..
:bsmilie:

 

[stuck]

Fantastic posts from one & all. I'm not an engineer or even a computer geek knowledgeable about the inner workings of computers. I've learnt so much about tech development from this discussion. After absorbing all the information that has been posted/linked-to here's how I see it from a consumer's viewpoint:

- Did Apple invent most of the technology in the iPhone? Probably not.
- Did Apple abuse the patent system by patenting some ridiculous things? Absolutely. But no other tech company can claim to not have done the same.
- Did Samsung deliberately copy Apple's brilliantly well-designed iPhone (both hardware & software)? Most definitely.
- Does Samsung deserve to be punished for their transgressions (imho)? Absolutely. Unfortunately they had to dig up some of their legally granted, albeit arguably nonsensical patents to do it.

 

[stuck]

Plus, Android has been in development since before the iPhone was announced.

You're right. & it looked like this before the iPhone :bsmilie:

 

[ricohflex]

Video: Jury foreman reveals how Apple versus Samsung verdict unfolded | Android and Me

Video interview with Apple v. Samsung jury foreman | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog

Is this misconduct?
http://www.gallagher-lawfirm.com/articles/jurymisconduct.htm

Can a juror give media interviews about details of secret jury deliberations?

Was the jury impartial?

 

[thedaniel]

I personnely do not like apply product. First they force you to use itunes to do all the transfer. They force you to use their proprietary connector.
Their new Iphone 5 will use the new small connector. Why they don't use the standard macro usb like every other phone manufacture used?

Very simple. They want to be different from the rest of the world. They know that what ever they come out, all of you will suck thumb and buy.
Why the new Ipad cannot have a version that will work with the 4G bandwidth that the rest of the world is using? Because people will still suck thumb and buy a 4G Ipad that can only work in 3G.

The case for Apple and Samsung is held in a court that is just miles from Apple HQ and the jury are all staying in the area. How to believe that it jury is fair. The jury even want to award damage to Apple on Samsung products that do not infringe on Apple patent and the judge has to step in to correct that.

 

[kei1309]

fanboys will always be fanboys... until they see how ridiculous and stupid it is :bsmilie:

 

[snowc]

Ironically, this incident is causing Americans to snatch up Samsung phones in fear that they might be banned.

 

[Prismatic]

No doubt that the iphone is an innovative and wonderful piece of gadget. But seriously, from wat I understand about the suit, some of the claims are somewhat absurb and silly. Its like uncle A comes up with chendol and patent it as ice shaving dessert with condiments. Then he sues every other uncle for making ice kachang, ice jelly, red ruby, ice longan with beancurd tofu....

 

[ricohflex]

Human natural gestures should not be allowed to be patented. Judges should know better and throw out such cases.

 

[nitewalk]

Haters are sometimes no better than fanboys. True story.

Whatever it is, whoever wins, as long as I like what I'm using that's good enough. If Nokia comes up with a good interface and convenience which I feel useful, then so be it, I'd use Nokia.

Haters always have a mentality that people who defend or like a dominant company products is called fanboy. It is the dominant vs suppressed mentality. It's really interesting how people don't shake this idea off despite samsung garnering more Market share.

I don't care who wins. As long as I have a device in my pocket which suits my needs that is good enough.

 

[thedaniel]

I saw a lot of patent on Camera makers on their body and lens but never heard of any company suing each other. Why?
I cannot imaging the first camera maker that come out with flash on camera and patent it.
The first to use CCD / CMOS on camera and patent it.
The first to use wifi/GPS/waterproof or any new features in the camera and then it to prevent others from using it.
If all these happen and other camera makers cannot do the same, I do not know what we have now.

Do TV makers sue each other? Fridge? Monitor? Harddrive?
I hope Apple do not enter the Camera market and other market.

 

[milez]

I saw a lot of patent on Camera makers on their body and lens but never heard of any company suing each other. Why?
I cannot imaging the first camera maker that come out with flash on camera and patent it.
The first to use CCD / CMOS on camera and patent it.
The first to use wifi/GPS/waterproof or any new features in the camera and then it to prevent others from using it.
If all these happen and other camera makers cannot do the same, I do not know what we have now.

Do TV makers sue each other? Fridge? Monitor? Harddrive?
I hope Apple do not enter the Camera market and other market.

Because none of them were marginalized by Microsoft like the way Apple did.... almost went burst. So they went on the offensive from the beginning...
.... and no other industry could produce Shanzai copies the way IT industries could ...

Also, no car makers sue other car makers for copying their design..... and so on.

 

[ninelives]

dont understand why people would buy samsung...

 

[snowc]

I saw a lot of patent on Camera makers on their body and lens but never heard of any company suing each other. Why?
I cannot imaging the first camera maker that come out with flash on camera and patent it.
The first to use CCD / CMOS on camera and patent it.
The first to use wifi/GPS/waterproof or any new features in the camera and then it to prevent others from using it.
If all these happen and other camera makers cannot do the same, I do not know what we have now.

Do TV makers sue each other? Fridge? Monitor? Harddrive?
I hope Apple do not enter the Camera market and other market.

I certainly hope so too. Not good for consumers....only good for fanboys

 

[s1221ljc]

Bottom line, Apple sucks! Some of these patents are so ridiculous. Apple have sued Microsoft over their GUI copyrights/patents in the 80s till Microsoft nearly folded. The case sounds familiar with the issue of "look & feel"", but they lost that time Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And they continue to threaten & sue their competitors for this & that, like some grandiose plans for world domination. They are making so much profits because their marketing manage to convert so many fanboys, yet all the money never seems to be enough, to leave a share for others. Hate to say this but glad Steve Jobs no longer heading Apple (he was kicked out before). One day if Apple collapse & turn belly up, many all around the world will rejoice & shout for joy!

 

[yrh0413]

I saw a lot of patent on Camera makers on their body and lens but never heard of any company suing each other. Why?
I cannot imaging the first camera maker that come out with flash on camera and patent it.
The first to use CCD / CMOS on camera and patent it.
The first to use wifi/GPS/waterproof or any new features in the camera and then it to prevent others from using it.
If all these happen and other camera makers cannot do the same, I do not know what we have now.

Do TV makers sue each other? Fridge? Monitor? Harddrive?
I hope Apple do not enter the Camera market and other market.

1. camera manufacturers do patent their technologies, like Canon/ Nikon filing patents on lens design (lens groups, x amount of special elements, focal length, max aperture etc). This is to prevent other lens manufacturers from copying their lens design. Sony patented back-illumated sensor, Fuji patented hybrid organic sensor and so on. No one is suing one another as no one is infringing others' patents. You don't see Nikon having Diffractive Optics in their lens, you don't see other DSLR manufacturers other than Sony using translucent mirror.

2. Do you know Kodak still holds key patents to image sensor technology? Yes there are patents for CCD and CMOS sensors.

Companies do pay royalty fees when they use patents from others, the reason why you don't see them suing one another is because most of them are aware that patents exist and they are "renting" intellectual properties from the inventors. Patents are real and they do exist, just that most consumers are not aware of the patents... the manufacturers have factored in the royalty fees etc into the final product and passed the cost down to consumers.

In fact HTC pays Microsoft $5 per Android device sold. Android is free but it is not "patent free"; you have to pay to use patents of others. Putting unreasonable patents aside (I do agree human finger gestures should not be patented), having patents protect your intellectual property and it prevents others from stealing your ideas and make profit out of it.

 

[nitewalk]

dont understand why people would buy samsung...

I lol at the Nokia one.

 

[keiser]

I presume when you made the below statements, you assumed of having many choices or good options when purchasing a phone ... I believe one of key concerns in this discussion is simply how the consumer can continue to have more good choices and options for their purchases ... what is your view on that?

Whatever it is, whoever wins, as long as I like what I'm using that's good enough. If Nokia comes up with a good interface and convenience which I feel useful, then so be it, I'd use Nokia.

I don't care who wins. As long as I have a device in my pocket which suits my needs that is good enough.

 

[milez]

1. camera manufacturers do patent their technologies, like Canon/ Nikon filing patents on lens design (lens groups, x amount of special elements, focal length, max aperture etc). This is to prevent other lens manufacturers from copying their lens design. Sony patented back-illumated sensor, Fuji patented hybrid organic sensor and so on. No one is suing one another as no one is infringing others' patents. You don't see Nikon having Diffractive Optics in their lens, you don't see other DSLR manufacturers other than Sony using translucent mirror.

2. Do you know Kodak still holds key patents to image sensor technology? Yes there are patents for CCD and CMOS sensors.

Companies do pay royalty fees when they use patents from others, the reason why you don't see them suing one another is because most of them are aware that patents exist and they are "renting" intellectual properties from the inventors. Patents are real and they do exist, just that most consumers are not aware of the patents... the manufacturers have factored in the royalty fees etc into the final product and passed the cost down to consumers.

In fact HTC pays Microsoft $5 per Android device sold. Android is free but it is not "patent free"; you have to pay to use patents of others. Putting unreasonable patents aside (I do agree human finger gestures should not be patented), having patents protect your intellectual property and it prevents others from stealing your ideas and make profit out of it.

if finger gestures are ubiquotus and somethings users cant do without.... why didnt anybody thought about using it? Isnt it as simple as using your fingers to dig your nose or ears ? Then why were people using stylus to dig their nose before that ? And using scroll bars with stylus to scroll the screen .... or the famous 'D' pad.

Perhaps i should patent using fingers to dig nose..... so that i get royalties from 7 bil population who use their fingers for digging their nose.