Apple sues Samsung for $1 billion

[Themius]

No, I know Samsung is just as greedy, if not more. All I'm saying is that what this nonsence does is hinder our true advancement as a society.

APPLE DIDN'T SUE ON SHAPE. They look similar but there were DOZENS DOZENS!!!! OF PATENTS INVOLVED. No one patented the shape this was all about technology so it's very misleading what this topic title is.

---------- Post added 2012-08-25 at 10:49 AM ----------

No, you're right: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...pple-1-billion


Navigating with your finger, yeah, that's even dumber.

Maybe you should continue to look up the patents considering there were DOZENS of patents involved, then get back to us.

---------- Post added 2012-08-25 at 10:51 AM ----------

Samsung is a downright rude company. When they came out with their galaxay 2's I think it was what did they show? A bunch of people waiting in line with iPhones as several people with samsungs walked by and talked about their phones as everyone else waited to get their iPhone.

They sell their chips to apple and at the same time try to copy things apple has done and try to stay away from infringing to maximize profits.

[Pendulous]

Maybe you should continue to look up the patents considering there were DOZENS of patents involved, then get back to us.

That's five article so far and nobody's mentioning anything else. Care to venture a link?

[Maharishi]

"They patented the rectangle" is just reductivist BS.

The major issues here was samsung's obviously willful attempt to steal the iPhone's look and feel. I really don't have any qualms about the trade dress violations, they're pretty obvious.

I do have issue with some of the gesture patents, mostly because they would seem to predate the iphone in a lot of cases. Things like "scroll bounce" should be patentable though, as they are the result of R&D money, and have a significant impact in look and feel. It's no less valid than patenting a 3g antenna.

[igame]

So yeah, been watching Samsung vs Apple for a while now. Guess money won as usual. I don't understand how such a stupid case can even exist in legal system. What next? Patent movies?

Patents are the biggest hindrance to innovation and sharing of knowledge. If a company can copy apple and make a phone that does more than iphone and costs less, they deserve an award.

[Themius]

That's five article so far and nobody's mentioning anything else. Care to venture a link?

I will provide 5-7 of the actual patents that were involved in the case. There were many more patents but apple decided it best to deal with the most simple of patents first instead of the complex ones.

If you seriously think patent court would be something as light as what you have mentioned you are sorely mistaken.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6Bs...ed=0CDMQ6AEwAA
http://www.google.com/patents?id=LWz...%2C305&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087
http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
http://www.google.com/patents?id=n7W...page&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,844,915

And there are more.

[TheWerebison]

Pssh, I'm gonna patent the square. LOOPHOLE, BITCH!

[Themius]

"They patented the rectangle" is just reductivist BS.

The major issues here was samsung's obviously willful attempt to steal the iPhone's look and feel. I really don't have any qualms about the trade dress violations, they're pretty obvious.

I do have issue with some of the gesture patents, mostly because they would seem to predate the iphone in a lot of cases. Things like "scroll bounce" should be patentable though, as they are the result of R&D money, and have a significant impact in look and feel. It's no less valid than patenting a 3g antenna.

People seem to think "scroll bounce that's so easy!" but it's not... it takes time, money, innovation, and when your product comes out and your competitor says, ooh my product could use that! I'm not going to pay them any money I am just going to straight steal it! Then this is an issue a huge issue.

[alturic]

I'm really confused on the issue because from reading the 2 pages worth of comments here, people said Apple sued over the way "scrolling" or "bounce-back" works, and maybe in technology words (i.e. not simply the word "scrolling" or "bounce-back") they somehow made a case, but just reading the few comments that (hopefully used simplistic wording) I don't see how Apple could patent any of those "features". I mean, let's pretend Windows was the very first GUI/Windowed OS. They can patent a GUI/Windowed UI? Hell, maybe the company who came up with a GUI/Windowed UI did patent that and every company since is paying them to be able to mimic that.

I guess the hangup for me is trying to interpret patents on a piece of "software" (iOS) in terms of how it "scrolls" and "bounces back" when it reaches the end of a page/image.

That's like saying I can patent a special "walk"/"dance", no?

[Deleted]

I'm going to apply for a patent for thinking.

then, from what i'm seeing, you wouldn't be able to sue that many people for using it..

[Pendulous]

I will provide 5-7 of the actual patents that were involved in the case. There were many more patents but apple decided it best to deal with the most simple of patents first instead of the complex ones.

If you seriously think patent court would be something as light as what you have mentioned you are sorely mistaken.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6Bs...ed=0CDMQ6AEwAA
http://www.google.com/patents?id=LWz...%2C305&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087
http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
http://www.google.com/patents?id=n7W...page&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,844,915

And there are more.

I meant link an article that explains all the "stolen" patents. How can you "patent' something so vague as "electronic device"?

[Deleted]

I'm going to apply for a patent for thinking.

Add some buzz words, technical details (synapses, electrical signals, neurons, neural net) and you'll breeze through the patents office.

[alturic]

I will provide 5-7 of the actual patents that were involved in the case. There were many more patents but apple decided it best to deal with the most simple of patents first instead of the complex ones.

If you seriously think patent court would be something as light as what you have mentioned you are sorely mistaken.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6Bs...ed=0CDMQ6AEwAA
http://www.google.com/patents?id=LWz...%2C305&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087
http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
http://www.google.com/patents?id=n7W...page&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/US7864163
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,844,915

And there are more.

I don't know how to "read" a patent, but that surely looks like (if it's a valid and legit patent) that Apple pretty much can say (see: sue) almost every smart-phone manufacturer out there. That first patent (if it's one that they won against Samsung) literally, to me, looks like every single smartphone on the market since Android hit the streets.

[Dazzy]

One thing samsung infringed on was the scrolling nature of iphones.

No more than chevy infringed on ford by installing brakes in their cars., or no more than sony did on nintendo by making the b button select menu items

[Themius]

I'm really confused on the issue because from reading the 2 pages worth of comments here, people said Apple sued over the way "scrolling" or "bounce-back" works, and maybe in technology words (i.e. not simply the word "scrolling" or "bounce-back") they somehow made a case, but just reading the few comments that (hopefully used simplistic wording) I don't see how Apple could patent any of those "features". I mean, let's pretend Windows was the very first GUI/Windowed OS. They can patent a GUI/Windowed UI? Hell, maybe the company who came up with a GUI/Windowed UI did patent that and every company since is paying them to be able to mimic that.

I guess the hangup for me is trying to interpret patents on a piece of "software" (iOS) in terms of how it "scrolls" and "bounces back" when it reaches the end of a page/image.

That's like saying I can patent a special "walk"/"dance", no?

Apple came out with scroll bounce. It makes their phones easier to use, Samsung comes out with scroll bounce at a later date, all the while apple holds a patent to scroll bouncing. If Samsung wanted to use scroll bouncing all they had to do was fucking pay Apple; however, greed has cost them.

[Maharishi]

I'm really confused on the issue because from reading the 2 pages worth of comments here, people said Apple sued over the way "scrolling" or "bounce-back" works, and maybe in technology words (i.e. not simply the word "scrolling" or "bounce-back") they somehow made a case, but just reading the few comments that (hopefully used simplistic wording) I don't see how Apple could patent any of those "features". I mean, let's pretend Windows was the very first GUI/Windowed OS. They can patent a GUI/Windowed UI? Hell, maybe the company who came up with a GUI/Windowed UI did patent that and every company since is paying them to be able to mimic that.

I guess the hangup for me is trying to interpret patents on a piece of "software" (iOS) in terms of how it "scrolls" and "bounces back" when it reaches the end of a page/image.

That's like saying I can patent a special "walk"/"dance", no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(c...ption_by_Apple

Xerox tried to sue apple but failed. There are also issues where "obvious" things *shouldn't* be pantentable. Except in east texas.

[alturic]

Apple came out with scroll bounce. It makes their phones easier to use, samsung comes out with scroll bounce at a later date, all the while apple holds a patent to scroll bouncing.

Ok, so since this is a gaming forum and all, and maybe someone with patent experience could answer this, can the first MMO with "raiding" or "dungeons" patent that? Can a game patent the leveling system? Talent trees?

I don't see how it's really any different than (in the case of bounce-back) any of those?

I make a product/game. I make the product/game have a (I don't think anyone could disagree) simple "feature" as "scroll bounce"/"raiding", and then I can sue the next game company that has a feature similar to raiding?

[Themius]

As someone who is currently working on a product you have to have to have to protect your idea. Your lawyer will tell you that you have to make sure you cover quite a few things and make it unique enough to the point no one can copy it or try to come out with an improvement. It is a long very tedious process that takes a lot of time and a lot of money. No one wants to see their ideas stolen after they spent all this time and money developing them as a prototype and then time and money to get them a patent, just for someone to come and steal it!

[Deleted]

absolutely retarded.

Yes, protect the tech, yes protect you logo, yes protect your software.

But my god, there are only so many ways to design a touchscreen. Lets face it, apple just copied a standard design for a screen and made it thinner. This is possibly the most retarded thing on the internet, and for a legal system to back it.....just shows what justice is in America...money.

[Deleted]

Samsung is a downright rude company. When they came out with their galaxay 2's I think it was what did they show? A bunch of people waiting in line with iPhones as several people with samsungs walked by and talked about their phones as everyone else waited to get their iPhone.

What's wrong with that? Doesn't sound any worse than any advert where Apple has made a jab at Windows.

[alturic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(c...ption_by_Apple

Xerox tried to sue apple but failed. There are also issues where "obvious" things *shouldn't* be pantentable. Except in east texas.

So, I can't really bother to look, but what has Microsoft (or any OS since with a GUI/Windowed interface) given to Apple since Windows uses a GUI, or is a GUI something that's so vague/simple you can't patent it in the first place?