Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[Bertuzzied]

How can anyone cheer against Samsung when there are Apple Stores and their geniuses here on earth??

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The only victims are consumers. Which is why I don't get why people are so quick to defend Apple.

I don't think that is fully true. I don't think companies would want to invest millions in to R&D if they couldn't protect their brand, designs and technology with that investment. Price wise as a consumer it may increase but I have a feeling I'd still be spending $850 on my 4S regardless of these lawsuits.

I personally defend Apple because if I invented something I would want it protected and not copied so I lose money and I'd say the same thing if Samsung won $1b in a lawsuit. It's the name of the game, pay the price to borrow the patent or pay the price when you steal it. Samsung stole the iPhone look and paid the price, I'm glad!

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I don't think that is fully true. I don't think companies would want to invest millions in to R&D if they couldn't protect their brand, designs and technology with that investment. Price wise as a consumer it may increase but I have a feeling I'd still be spending $850 on my 4S regardless of these lawsuits.

I personally defend Apple because if I invented something I would want it protected and not copied so I lose money and I'd say the same thing if Samsung won $1b in a lawsuit. It's the name of the game, pay the price to borrow the patent or pay the price when you steal it. Samsung stole the iPhone look and paid the price, I'm glad!

Key word in your argument is IF. If you invented something non obvious and patented a specific implementation of it, not on person here would have a problem with you using the patent to protect yourself and ensure compensation. However, software and design patents are often no longer for specific implementations that may have been novel, but the idea itself, regardless of implementation. In addition many of these patents are questionable due to prior public art, or are for obvious things that people didn't do previously due to the technology they are built on not being ready (readily available, fast enough, compact enough, etc) for mass consumption.

The problem with this lawsuit is that the the things being sued for are in general either obvious, far too broad, or have public prior art and should not have been granted in the first place.

[Azure]

Apple didn't invent anything for the 10th time. Prior art has shown that the technology they improved on existed before Apple came around.

Look, I know and we ALL know they have a damn good product. But they don't need to bully other companies like they are. Sure we all know they want to product their product, and I don't blame them for that. But it has been shown that they asked extremely high licensing fees from Samsung, and then bitched when Motorola wanted the same fees. It speaks to them being pretty arrogant.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apple didn't invent anything for the 10th time. Prior art has shown that the technology they improved on existed before Apple came around.

Why aren't the patent holders suing Apple?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by valo403

What you call arrogance I call brilliance, the fact that they've been able to obtain the market position they have is astounding.

Oh believe me I totally agree its brilliant, I think any strategy that is that effective is brilliant. That still doesn't mean I have to like it. More than anything they excel at exploiting the fleeting nature of the consumer.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apple didn't invent anything for the 10th time. Prior art has shown that the technology they improved on existed before Apple came around.

Look, I know and we ALL know they have a damn good product. But they don't need to bully other companies like they are. Sure we all know they want to product their product, and I don't blame them for that. But it has been shown that they asked extremely high licensing fees from Samsung, and then bitched when Motorola wanted the same fees. It speaks to them being pretty arrogant.

[Regulator75]

Interesting side story about texting using URLs that I stumbled upon during the patent craziness.

Here’s why the cost to legally send web URLs in text messages is $750,000

A company in Chicago, Helferich Patent Licensing, is reaping the benefits of the smartphone-connected world, hand over fist. As it turns out, the man behind the name, Richard Helferich, has a small, but powerful portfolio of patents dating back to mid-90s. One such patent covers the sending of web URLs in SMS messages. Helferich obtained that particular patent in September 1997. He offers infringing companies a one-time settlement for licensing: $750 grand. Companies like Apple, The Walt Disney Company, McDonalds and more than 100 others have already settled.

[Azure]

Patent troll is lame. I know its not much, and they probably gladly settle....but that is seriously lame.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Azure

Patent troll is lame. I know its not much, and they probably gladly settle....but that is seriously lame.

I can't think of one single person who wouldn't patent something like that, if it meant they could start cashing $750,000 cheques at will.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apple didn't invent anything for the 10th time. Prior art has shown that the technology they improved on existed before Apple came around.

Look, I know and we ALL know they have a damn good product. But they don't need to bully other companies like they are. Sure we all know they want to product their product, and I don't blame them for that. But it has been shown that they asked extremely high licensing fees from Samsung, and then bitched when Motorola wanted the same fees. It speaks to them being pretty arrogant.

I love how somehow using the legal system to legally and effectively protect your brand and product is now bullying. You're directing your scorn at the wrong target.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apple didn't invent anything for the 10th time. Prior art has shown that the technology they improved on existed before Apple came around.

And for the 10th time, we will reiterate that patents do not have to consist of pure inventions of things that never existed or were thought of previously.

It's going to be a long thread isn't it.

[Diemenz]

[Bertuzzied]

I guess S3 sales in the US are taking off after the verdict. hahaha.

Which is pretty good news for Samsung as usually there is a huge dip in sales before the release of a new iphone.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze

The most fascinating thing about all this is how people's particular phone choice plants them firmly on one side or the other on this legal quagmire. A case that has probably paid lawyers 10 of millions of dollars, careers worth of time invested in the details. But we have it all figured out by reading a few articles and just happen to fall on the side of the phone we own. Its neat.

Oh ya Azure has always hated apple forgot about that.
Oh and there's fanin80, we know what side he will be on.
Chemgear, he cheers every time apple stock goes up another 10 bucks, curious
Slava, IIRC a blackberry relic guy.

I have an iPhone and a MacBook but secretly root against Apple in all these debates...

[OilKiller]

[Bertuzzied]

Another reason why we should all cheer against apple.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I can't think of one single person who wouldn't patent something like that, if it meant they could start cashing $750,000 cheques at will.

Still doesn't make the guy any less of a huge Delta Bravo.

Maybe next we'll see Brett Favre patenting sending d*ck pics.

[Senator Clay Davis]

While the S3 sales have reportedly spiked as much as 50%, Samsung's shares have lost 7% of their value and the company itself has lost $12 billion in market cap. Be interesting to see how they come back from this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I guess S3 sales in the US are taking off after the verdict. hahaha.

Which is pretty good news for Samsung as usually there is a huge dip in sales before the release of a new iphone.

Its a win for Google too because if the ban goes through then a lot of phones running old 2.3 are going to be removed from the shelves.