Apple Seeks To Block 8 Samsung Products After Court Win 396
angry tapir writes "Apple has asked a U.S. court to block sales of eight Samsung Electronics products, following the iPhone maker's victory in a patent lawsuit against Samsung. In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against seven smartphones carrying its Galaxy brand, plus the Droid Charge. It based the requests on a jury's ruling on Friday that Samsung had infringed several Apple patents. Apple said it wants the preliminary injunction pending a final injunction."
Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.
Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc [wikipedia.org].
Probably they are second only to Sony.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Informative)
So I guess you have no problem with Samsung directly screwing the end customer through price fixing in the LCD, mobile phone, and DRAM markets? Because they've either settled, or been convicted of all three.
Samsung is *not* a well behaved company.
Re: (Score:3)
They patented it years before Android copied it. You see, Google sent a spy into the Apple boardroom, who copied everything willy-nilly without regards to usability. Only later did Apple choose to go with the Notification Center which they had patented earlier.
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a bit more evil than Samsung.
It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.
Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.
It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.
Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Informative)
They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit
Nonsense.
Do you work at Best Buy or something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do you work at Best Buy or something? (Score:5, Funny)
How do you know if someone has a mac? Don't worry, they'll tell you...
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.
I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline. Apple, as the David against Goliath, use to have a lot of sympathy as a result. But its reputation was also earned on the basis of a preoccupation for the product and for the user experience that was lacking at Microsoft. We believed that Apple was on our side.
If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case, and more sustained (despite all attacks on this account by its enemies) than it ever was in the case of Apple, despite the great show they made of it, 1984 and all.
It may take time, but Apple will pay dearly for what they are doing. They are trashing their name, and their reputation. What a shame.
Re: (Score:3)
Have a look at the comments on the BBC News stories about the verdict, appeal and the move to ban Samsung products. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, on a front page new story on a mainstream site like BBC News.
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Insightful)
"I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline."
You really think that MS's reputation led to it's "decline"?
1. Microsoft is more profitable than it was during the trial
2. Windows is still on 90% + of the world's computers
3. Office still has the largest share of the productivity market by a wide margin,
Microsoft didn't "decline" it just didn't rise as fast as Apple.
MS just hasn't succeeded in anything lately -- search, phones, tablets, etc. because of shoddy execution -- not because of it's "reputation".
"If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case"
Google hasn't "succeeded" at anything besides being an advertising company. As far as profitability, Android (especially with the money-losing $10B + MMI acquisition) has been a net loss for Google. Even now, according to Google 66% of all mobile revenue comes from iOS.
Re: (Score:3)
And here I was thinking that the quality of Microsoft's products in comparison to the competition might have had something to do with why they aren't succeeding in new product lines.
Nah, it's their reputation. You've got to be right about that.
Seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
It acts to reduce my choice as a user. For example, right now the single best smartphone device on the market, from my perspective, based on features alone, is Galaxy Nexus, which Apple seeks to ban for sale and importation. It is clear that they'd rather prefer me to buy an iPhone, but I've owned an iPhone and find it inconvenient and lacking features that I want. Now the only way for Samsung to get their phones unbanned is to remove features that Apple claims are infringing - which leads to the situation
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Brings a tear to my eye to see a new gen of people get burned by them.
Apple makes pretty sweet hw and software. They do *NOT* however like to share. They have run many of their partners out of business. Usually on some sort of whim. They do it every time. Take for example adobe flash. Sure its a crummy programming environment. However, instead of treating one of their *long* term partners with a bit of respect they turned on them like piranha fed a lamb chop. Adobe *will* remember that.
In 30 years I
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Then they did everything they could to act like they had a monopoly even though they had like 5% of the market. They'd bully competitors, over control hardware pricing and availability, lock in prices and threaten vendors who sell lower, etc. They had special RAM made that only fit their systems, sued Psystar, etc. They had the reputation of being the platform for graphics and video editing but like I said, CS4 ended that damn quick. CUDA on a wimpy GT440 = 8x faster rendering than dual 8-core Xeons. Unfortunately, almost no Nvidia cards come in a mac. That doesn't stop them from pretending they're still for video editing though. Now in Photoshop Elements 10 and CS6, they have severe compatibility and font problems so it's pretty much over for them on that front. It'll take years to undo their propaganda that they're the best though. I do usually convince people with actual charts, or just reference their awful human rights violations and unfair business practices.
They've had so many macbook hardware problems lately and back in 07 they had severe overheating problems with their initial core2 duo systems because Steve Jobs is too important to have fans blowing out of his devices.
Then there's the way that they run the App store like nazis and iTunes quite similarly. You think you bought that song? Oh hell no! And you can't redownload it either. So everyone, do everything you can to tell everyone you can that Apple sucks and it will turn into another Vista. All the positive marketing in the world couldn't stop tech experts from giving people the real story and ruining their business.
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:4, Insightful)
...since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?
When people want to buy something (short of an impulse buy), they research it. During their research [wikipedia.org] they will ask the opinions of people they respect and feel are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sorry if your friends and family don't consider you an expert (or consider you too much of a jerk to approach) but there's a rather significant number of people on Slashdot who routinely get asked for computer/electronics purchase advise.
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't work with Microsoft in the 90's what makes you think it will work with Apple now?
Re:Apple is dead to me (Score:4, Informative)
I bought a Asus Transformer Prime to use for work and I've had at least a few dozen people by now comment on it. Usually they don't even realize it's a tablet until I show them. This whole process tends to involve me giving a pros/cons pitch on it. At least five that I know of have now gone and purchased either a first or second gen transformer tablet now...
So I'd say if anything your understating the potential effect.
Re: (Score:2)
previous gen (Score:2)
All these phones are previous generation. Is Samsung still making these? Once they are inside the U.S. and no longer owned by Samsung, can the new owner sell them? Is the answer different if they are new or have been used? Is it different for ATT to sell them, vs. the guy who wants to sell his S2 to get Note 2? If so, why?
Re: (Score:2)
i've seen S2's on sale at $99
i doubt samsung cares that much since these were on their way out anyway and they have newer products coming out to replace these
Re: (Score:2)
Where? I'd love to pick one up for my kid at $99.
Re: (Score:2)
The S2 ban may be a bit of a problem as it's still sold as Samsung's budget smartphone, just as Apple sells it's previous model as a budget version of the iPhone.
However, it may not cause them much financial harm as the Galaxy Nexus wasn't covered by this ban and is similarly specced, so Samsung should be able to fill any void selling this handset instead as it was released around the same time, and is similarly specced, and hell, it's already running Jelly Bean to boot which afaik the S2 isn't yet.
I still don't see what the problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices? You know what? I'll still buy Samsung over Apple even if they were the same price, and you want to know why?
It's because no company that resorts to litigating its competition out of existence because it can't offer something as good, if not better, for the same money, *deserves* my money. End of.
To anyone that says I'm jumping on the pro-Samsung bandwagon just because they're the little guy in all this: fuck off.
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is a F'd Up IP system that makes all this possible, and quite possibly the most prudent way to do business. Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent. Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?
Re: (Score:3)
WTF?!
"go back to real innovation." Hmm... Isn't that Apple's complaint of Samsung's blatant copying?
While I think software patents are pure BS, I don't think cloning a competitor's products is fair game. Patents are specifically intended to inhibit competition, which is why the whole standards process is completely bastardized now. I am not sure if it makes more sense for standards to have patents licensed by consortium at published rates or what, but the current strategy is a mess.
Now, of you look to the
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate Apple. And I think this lawsuit is bullshit, but I try to look at the bright side of things, and I want to believe this lawsuit will mean, finally, innovation in the smartphone market again. A couple of years ago, Motorola had some interesting phones (Backflip, Flipout and the Droid/Milestone series). Nowadays most, if not all, of the smartphones out there are "full touch", thin, rounded edges.
The Galaxy S/S2 were really extreme. Samsung even copied the charger design! I It sounds racist, but the guys at Samsung were acting like typicial asians: cloning the fuck out of everything that makes money.
I hope this lawsuit will mean we'll finally start seeing innovation on the smartphone market again. My theory is that "everything looks like Apple" because manufacturers think it's about *LOOKING* like apple. Yet, Apple is still the king. The key isn't looking like apple, but *being* apple. It's giving you the experience of apple. It's getting a computer, laptop, smartphone, and tablet, and have them all work together. It's not worrying about drivers or compatibility. It's about the "just works".
I got myself an HTC Sensation the other day. I'm very happy with it so far. But I went to connect it to my PC: it required drivers that didn't even came with the phone. I found them on XDA. If I was to download some "suite" for it, it would sure be a 400MB or more download, requiring me to constantly update it. That's the reason why people choose apple. Given the same price and features, the ability for it to "just work" is the dealbreaker.
Sync has been solved by Android, but there isn't yet a *SIMPLE* backup option for my phone like there is with, say, Nokia, which just lets me plug my phone and hit Backup and have a backup file on my desktop. Sure, I modded and rooted my phone and I can do that and more with Nandroid. But to 99% of people that means nothing.
Manufacturers: get it straight, we want things that look like apple, or don't; and have keyboards or don't; and are white, or black, or silver, or red, blue, pink, purple, yellow even. We want colors, we want laser engraving, and replaceable covers. But we also want a plain black plastic phone. Or made with silly kevlar and alluminum alloy. Oh and a 4.3" screen. And also 2.5". And candybar style phones. And clamshell phones. And also slider phones. And blackberry-style phones. We also want to be able to plug to our computer and work nicely with Windows, or mac, or linux. We want full USB mass storage, or MTD. We also want the option to jailbreak/root/mod/S-OFF/unlock (locked bootloader was the reason I didn't get Moto this time). We don't want to be bothered with drivers (come on, it's easy enough for you to standarize on something and have Microsoft ship drivers with windows). Oh and we certainly don't want stuff that slow down our phones and can't be removed/replaced (MotoBlur, HTC Sense...). And we want updates. Get it together against the carriers and GIVE US THE FUCKING UPDATES. Motorola: why did the Backflip only get android 2.1 in the US, and we in the rest of the world got only android 1.6? Why doesn't the HTC Sensation in my carrier get ICS but the "no contract" one does? But any iphone gets all the goodies.
You know what we don't want? That all the phones out there are just clones of the iphone.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd tell you that you're full of shit. Sorry.
So Samsung and Apple are bickering. Do you really think either of those companies invented most of the techniques in debate? Seriously, bounce back, what not, a lot of these sort of easing animations were done in Flash appls years before.
Hell, I've got ideas, that if I implement, I'll be sued. Even though the idea is nearly 10 years old. And how can I defend against an Apple or Google?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd rather support a company that innovated and makes good products. The sad thing is Samsung would have my respect if they actually tried that instead of purposely trying to muddle the differences between their products and Apple's.
I'm not supporting the patent war (I'm against patents on principle), but I don't like supporting copycats, either. Not because I believe that innovation deserves monopoly, but because they aren't even TRYING to move us further ahead. At least Apple made a new product and tries
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts don't support your argument.
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:5, Informative)
Apple don't just sell smartphones.
TEN BIGGEST SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURERS BY UNIT SALES IN Q2 2012
Rank, Maker, Units, Market Share, Was in Q1 of 2012
1 Samsung 50.4 M 32.9 % ( 30.6 %)
2 Apple 26.0 M 17.0 % ( 24.2 %)
3 Nokia 10.2 M 6.7 % ( 8.2 %)
4 HTC 8.8 M 5.8 % ( 5.4 %)
5 ZTE 8.0 M 5.2 % ( 3.4 %)
6 RIM 7.8 M 5.1 % ( 7.6 %)
7 Sony 7.5 M 4.9 % ( 5.0 %)
8 Huawei 7.0 M 4.6 % ( 4.8 %)
9 LG 6.5 M 4.2 % ( 3.8 %)
10 Motorola 6.0 M 3.9 % ( 3.5 %)
Others 10.8 M 7.3 % ( 3.3 %)
TOTAL 153.0 M
In fact, Samsung sell twice as many smartphones as Apple.
Care to play again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, one company carried out the design work and the user testing to create a touch based hand-held computing device with broad consumer appeal--something that many companies (including Apple) had tried to do before and failed--and took the tremendous financial risk of introducing such a product into the marketplace in defiance of conventional wisdom [loopinsight.com]. Another company was able to undersell them by making little investment in design or user-testing, and simply piggybacking on Apple's already market-tes
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:4, Informative)
No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:4, Informative)
It's not like Apple sells things besides smartphones....oh wait....
In the smartphone market, they are getting killed. Look what a previous poster posted: Samsung sells almost twice as many smartphones as Apple does. It's only when you add in iOS, Macs, etc where you get Apple's massive profits and market share. That is why Apple is freaking out and going after Samsung like this.
Re:I still don't see what the problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.
Would you like to play again?
Re: (Score:2)
OK so what's next? Apple to sue Google? :x
Re: (Score:3)
To me, the home screen of an iPhone looks like the bastard child of Program Manager and OpenStep.
It's hardly anything worth granting a 20 year monopoly over.
It uses 20 year old GUI ideas as it is.
Re: (Score:3)
My family actually owns stock in Apple. And guess what? I still think it's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software
Right...I'm sure apple spent YEARS developing bouncing screens. All those billions in R&D!
Re: (Score:3)
No. If I actually owned Apple, I would be worried about karma.
I would be worried about the whole "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing.
Pushing the envelope in exploiting a corrupt system can wortk both ways.
Although corporations tend to encourage sychophants and one might be prone to believe one's own propaganda after awhile and lose perspective. You end up with the kind of mindless echo chamber that guys like you seem so intent on generating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your limited knowledge means nothing.
Search for Lindt vs Hauswirth for an example of a chocolate company suing another.
You can easily find more examples.
What's really funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is that Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!
So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's really funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.
What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.
Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.
Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.
There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly; Apple has plenty of options. They even design their own processors. Plus Samsung isn't going to spite anyone when it costs them money. These are corporations, not people.
Re: (Score:2)
You've answered your own question. With so much Samsung inside an iPhone, Samsung simply can't afford to turn their back on apple - they'd loose too much money. The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.
Additionally there are contracts in place that must continue to be honoured. So if Samsung pulls the plug they effectively shoot themselves in the foot
Re: (Score:2)
The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.
They could start using the worst parts instead of the best parts while still living up to their contractual obligations with Apple, as well as increasing the profit margins of their interactions with Apple, as well as stick it to Apple long term without hurting themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.
Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
earlier in the year the apple tv had a silent update to a 32nm A5 CPU. one core is disabled which means these are reject chips and apple is helping samsung with their 32nm transition. the ipad 3 is a 45nm A5 CPU.
so no, apple is not leaving samsung any time soon. the A5 CPU is mostly samsung with some apple changes. apple can't just leave either. no matter what clueless ifanboys who think apple designs everything scream on the internet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to Apple? They go to another supplier, who will delighted to have such a major customer.
What happens to Samsung? The damages they will have to pay for copying Apple will be dwarfed from their losses from losing such a major customer. This is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!
So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!
And just to make things better, Samsung owns the patents for the 'retina display' - so if Samsung don't sell the screens to Apple, who can Apple get to make them? That's right, nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
didn't the SII come out before the RAZR Maxx?
Re: (Score:2)
not only that but samsung just spent a lot of money to upgrade to 32nm and has interest payments on the factories to make. they aren't going to screw apple and risk having no customers and just interest payments on fabs
Re:Samsung (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is worth more than Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined.
Assets:
Samsung: $384.3B
Google: $72.6B
Microsoft: $121.2B
RIM: $7.7B
Noika: $45.4B
Total assets of Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined: $631.2B
Total assets of Apple: $116.4B
Oh, or were you talking about the imaginary measure of "worth" derived from feelings and pixie dust known as market cap? Even not then:
Market Cap:
Samsung: $167.1B
Google: $218.9B
Microsoft: $257.3B
RIM: $3.7B
Noika: $12.06B
Total market cap of Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined: $659.0B
Total market cap of Apple: $633.4B
Anyway, not sure what a company's worth in relation to others prove about what one company will do with respect to breaking contracts and dropping customers. Remember, Samsung has something much more powerful than fat stacks of cash, something Apple cannot compare: the full backing and support of the South Korean government. Not saying I think it's great a corporation is so close to a government, but that while Apple is making only shiny iToys, Samsung is a massive conglomerate making:
Textiles
Securities
Credit cards
Insurance
Chemicals
Machine tools
Engineering services
Electronics
Semiconductors
Hotels
Ships
Surveillance
Automations
Aeronautics
Oh yeah, and weapons tech... seriously, that's not a company I'd want to fuck with.
Re: (Score:3)
They better have something special in line for the iPhone 5.
Can the ban occur before the appeal? (Score:5, Interesting)
If phones can be banned for using pinch to zoom, why not ban them all?
Re: (Score:2)
The Charge? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, I just looked up what the Droid Charge [engadget.com] looked like. It's really quite different from the iPhone. I think my lil' LG looks more like an iPhone than that one does. [mobilewitch.com]
Oh well, I guess they won't be done with this until everyone either has an iPhone or something that looks like an old Black Berry. Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this [wikimedia.org] did they?
Maybe if they cared more about their intellectual property they'd be in better shape today. No need to worry about the competition if you can wipe them out in the courts
Re: (Score:3)
Check out the 4G Epic, that cost Samsung 350m+ in the ruling; sure as hell looks nothing like an iPhone.
So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.
Part of the ruling in the UK was to put a notice on the website stating that Samsung did not copy Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.
Which may have something to do with the major differences in IP law between UK/EU and US. Like - no software patents in the EU (at least in theory).
It would be really, really good if the US patent system didn't grant the sort of silly patents that both sides used in this case (remember folks, don't use an app while playing music without talking to Samsung first). However, it was not the job of this jury to fix the patent system. All of their questions on infringement and validity were of the form "has Sa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, with a patent holder as the foreman...
...they still found that many of the patents, on both sides, had not been infringed.
An irrationally pro-patent jury would have decided all the patents, on both sides, had been infringed. They didn't.
An irrationally pro-Apple jury would have found Samsung infringed the iPad and iPhone 3 IP by having rounded corners. They didn't (I know that spoils a lot of jokes, but tough...)
A jury can't fix US patent law - especially in a case where neither of the litigants is going to argue against patents with any en
Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
No, there was a foreman who was an engineer and has multiple patents. And led the juries, to protect the patents because he'd want "his" patents protected.
Look and Feel (Score:2)
If the "look and feel" lawsuit had happened in the present-day US, Apple would have won it.
And where would be we be now?
Re:Look and Feel (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.
In other words we would have been much better off.
rounded corners (Score:2)
The most useful shape would be rectangular because that's the shape of the screen - if only for software reasons
The most practical shape to put it in your pocket would be round/oval, because a rectangle will hurt your tighs and tear pockets.
A compromise between the two is simply obvious.
OpenMoko revival (Score:3)
Did you know you can upgrade the Openmoko's motherboard? See http://www.gta04.org/ [gta04.org]
So you want to push them to the Galaxy SIII? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's remove the older, slower phones from the market so you'll have to compete only against the SIII, which people say beats the iPhone hands down.
Smart move Apple.
Galaxy Tab (Score:2)
Samsung also asked for the ban on the Galaxy Tab to be removed as this was apparently found not infringing in the very same case. Something which seems to have gone largely unreported.
So a question, does this mean Apple will have to pay damages for loss of sales from the Tab ban due to it apparently being frivolous?
Next Slashdot headline (Score:2)
"Samsung files to appeal judges decision" and blocks Apples request for injunction...ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
time for an IBM injuction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which original IBM patent? One of the ancient ones that have expired? How would any of the single-touch, resistive-screen pen computing tablets apply to a device with multi-touch capacitive screen? And how exactly are the FoxConn workers, who earn a wage around 40% over the regional average for the type of work, "slave labor"? Are you that disconnected from the manufacturing industry as you sit in your comfy chair pretending to be doing a desk job?
More Canadian Sales (Score:3)
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.
If Apple had been held to your standards they would never have gotten into the mobile industry at all since its impossible to build a mobile phone without infringing on thousands of patents on hardware alone from thousands of different companies and private inventors. If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost? Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.
This is what always kills me about those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post. They completely miss the fact that Samsung had phone before iPhone and Samsung had tablets before iPad. Apple gets defensive about broad patents on trade dress, but completely neglect the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on the top, which is not so loud as to conform to the sensitivities of the human ear; a mic on the bottom, which is sensitive enough to pic up the human voice; is shaped to fit the human hand and the human head; contains radio technology which enables voice conversations between people across the planet, at the speed of light; relies on networking technology developed by other companies to enable as such.... all the myriad technologies that enable the iPhone to even exist, were in place before the iPhone, and were invented by many of the same companies Apple is so keen to sue for frivolities like scroll bounce.
These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device, just as the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on top and a mic on the bottom is a direct consequence of mouth/ear placement on the human head.
Re: (Score:2)
These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device
I'm all for Samsung in this because I don't believe in IP, but I must say that I clearly remember, when the iPhone came out, that it was criticized all around for not having a keyboard and/or not having a stylus. This means that nowadays we only consider keyboard-less/stylus-less touch screens a primary input device because Apple came and showed how to do it in a way not only comfortable enough for people to not cringe at bare-hands touch screen usage, but to actually like doing it this way, up to and inclu
Re: (Score:3)
No, it means that nowadays it's the obvious design because the technology (which had nothing to do with Apple) matured enough to support it. Apple was just the first to take advantage of the obvious evolution in design. They didn't "innovate" it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not indirectly. They licensed it from the chip maker. They presented the receipts in court which is why Samsung's patents were considered exhausted.
Samsung was trying to double dip.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so Samsung could have provided third party receipts in defence of Apple's allegations of patent infringement too? Why didn't their lawyers think of that one?
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you're trolling, but the point of the post is that it showed that Apple properly purchased the chips from Intel, which in turn had a contract with Samsung that provided the right to sell said chipsets along with a license to use them, from Intel. This is why Samsung's claims were found to be invalid and their patent claims exhausted. Intel had the right to sell the chips from Samsung, and that included protections for any purchasers granting them the necessary rights to use those chipsets.
http://en [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.
Who holds a DVR patent that was granted after devices like the Tivo already existed.
Of course the patent trolls won the case, the foreman of the jury was also a patent troll.
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
umm, no... you're right, to build a phone you need patents for 3g, etc. these are standards essential. you can buy them on frand terms. but design patents are just one way of doing things.
if the rubber band bounceback is patented, then figure out a different visual cue. i've seen some nice ones elsewhere. if slide to unlock is patented, then figure out a different way. circle to unlock? spin a wheel? there are infinite varieties.
the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is your post down modded? Android itself does this with the glow effect. Patents have a short term and force variety. We don't need another iOS clone. What would be the point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Android normally doesn't use a bounce effect during scrolling, it uses a glow effect. Pretty much all of the claims only apply to Samsung's modifications to the base Android system (what they call "TouchWiz"), which is why you don't see, e.g., the Galaxy Nexus named in this injunction.
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Which addresses the issue with Samsung. Apple warned them they were infringing and they ignored it at the direction of their management, hence the willfull finding.
Samsung blatantly copies Apple as directed by upper management, was found guilty in a court of law, and somehow they are the victim?
Many on here can't seem to separate open source from IP. You aren't entitled to someone else's work. Android avoided this but Samsung didn't.
Spend your tears on someone who did the work and deserves it.
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, it's a bounce effect on a touchscreen device. I guess this should change things?
Re: (Score:2)
First off, if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today. You talk about two patent owners when there are thousands of them, many with far more impressive patents than Apple has ever dreamt off. If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex? You are totally missing the point.
My old SE 990i looked very similar to the iPhone a full year b
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened.
Yeah, Apple invented something completely out of the blue. None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc. Nor were they smartphone shaped. They certainly wouldn't have had an 'i' anywhere in their names.
Oh, wait [pencomputing.com]....
Mitsubishi Trium Mondo (Score:3)
The Mitsubishi Trium Mondo released in 2001 [imgur.com] was a PDA-style cellular telephone clearly in the slate form factor now effectively claimed by Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This will stifle innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sardine cans have had this design for decades with a pull to unlock feature included.