Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Most of those autocorrects are fake as hell. It doesn't correct into words like vagina and curse words.

I thought it did based on how often you used the word.

[Devils'Advocate]

Wow Azure... did Apple piss in your cornflakes or something?

As for these lawsuits, I see this as another example of a company doing EVERYTHING within their legal means to create the most profit for their investors. Which I thought was the capitalist way. Perhaps, Azure, you would be for more government regulation in this area? Or do you expect companies to do the moral thing in lieu of greater profit?

[Azure]

What would MORE government regulation do? All the government needs to do is fix the patent system.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Wow Azure... did Apple piss in your cornflakes or something?

As for these lawsuits, I see this as another example of a company doing EVERYTHING within their legal means to create the most profit for their investors. Which I thought was the capitalist way. Perhaps, Azure, you would be for more government regulation in this area? Or do you expect companies to do the moral thing in lieu of greater profit?

The should corporations care beyond base profits question is always interesting. I think as shareholders of companies we should hold them to account to our ethics. So if you are a money at all costs kind of person then yes Apple's actions are correct but if you have a belief that this is not in the best interests of the industry in general at the expense of profits then you as a shareholder should make that perspective known.

The statement that corporations should only make profit is false. They should follow the beliefs of the shareholders. Now this may be a meaningless differentiation as for many the only important thing is profit but for me enviromental record, humane treatment of employees etc matters.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

What would MORE government regulation do? All the government needs to do is fix the patent system.

http://www.cio.com/article/710586/Go...axonomyId=3133

It looks like what the Democrats want to do is:
- reduce the ability to block imports of products found to have patent violations
- more accurately define damages, since they seem to be severely overstated
- have the DOJ's anti-trust division step in and block Trade Commission complaints out of the public interest

And the hope is that with this approach we would see a vast decrease in the number of suits filed since the payoff would be limited and wouldn't be worth the resources invested.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by GGG

The should corporations care beyond base profits question is always interesting. I think as shareholders of companies we should hold them to account to our ethics. So if you are a money at all costs kind of person then yes Apple's actions are correct but if you have a belief that this is not in the best interests of the industry in general at the expense of profits then you as a shareholder should make that perspective known.

The statement that corporations should only make profit is false. They should follow the beliefs of the shareholders. Now this may be a meaningless differentiation as for many the only important thing is profit but for me enviromental record, humane treatment of employees etc matters.

Right. Ethical funds are a tiny, minuscule fraction of the mutual fund market. And even then, you have to question their criteria for calling a company ethical. Some include MacDonalds, others include BP, MOST include Apple... all of which could be argued against. So most mutual fund managers are measured against the performance of other fund managers. Which mutual fund managers are given bonuses based on their performance... as in who gets the highest yield for their clients. When comparing manager A vs manager B, they don't look at who invested with the most ethical companies. And given how few people actually even entertain the thought of investing in ethical funds would suggest that most people, it's your "meaningless differentiation" and you would be the aberration from the norm.

Saul Alinsky, near the time of his death, tried a new tactic to fight against Kodak in that he tried to get all the investors (shareholders) to unite together to vote to make Kodak's business practices more ethical. Here is what he found:

despite all the crap about "people's capitalism," the dominant controlling stock in all major corporations is vested in the hands of a few people we could never get to. We're not even concerned about electing four or five board members to a 25-member board, which in certain cases would be theoretically feasible. They'd only be outvoted by management right down the line. We want to use the proxies as a means of social and political pressure against the megacorporations, and as a vehicle for exposing their hypocrisy and deceit.

The investors that want social change within a corporation are severely outnumbered and outpowered by those that want profit.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Most of those autocorrects are fake as hell. It doesn't correct into words like vagina and curse words.

Well if you spell vagina wrong it might auto correct it to something else....but yeah they're mostly fake anyways.

[icarus]

Came across this and thought it was kind of funny, patents court judge in the UK holds the Galaxy Tablet free from patent infringment for not being as cool as the iPad.

190. The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different.

Conclusion

191. The Samsung tablets do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 000181607-0001.

[calculoso]

Cool as in hip or cool as in cold?

[Regulator75]

That was from back in July. Old news dude.

[icarus]

Until it's posted in CP it didn't happen...

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by icarus

Until it's posted in CP it didn't happen...

Oh, but it did.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?p=3807086&

[Tinordi]

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/09/1...source=Twitter

In fact, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak hates the result, doesn’t agree with it, and thinks it will be overruled. Samsung will of course appeal, and this case will go back and forth for months still, but Wozniak just wishes everyone could get along.

“I hate it,” Wozniak told Bloomberg in Shanghai today, referring to the patent battle. “I don’t think the decision of California will hold. And I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that innovative. I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s technologies.”

[FlameOn]

Litany of lawsuits still going. Apple has won another injunction, this time against Motorola in Germany for the bounce-back patent.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/13/a...over-rubber-b/

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/09/1...source=Twitter

Easy for Steve to say this now, he has no obligation to the shareholders anymore.

[Regulator75]

Just stumbled upon this link today.

http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/14/apple-...diamond-touch/

As the end of the epic soap opera that is the Apple (AAPL) v. Samsung (005930) trial draws near, Samsung’s turn at the plate kicked off on Monday evening with some interesting events. Apple had gone straight for the jugular with its arguments, stating that Samsung knowingly stole its technology and designs by meticulously examining each key element of the iPhone’s UI and ripping it off in its own products. Rather than get right to denying any wrongdoing, Samsung on Monday decided to take a different approach — prove Apple’s technology patents are not valid because they’re stolen to begin with.

[Regulator75]

Nm

[FlameOn]

There seems to be a lot of talk as to how much money Apple will ask for from Samsung, but it seems people aren't talking about how the verdict of the trial may possibly be overturned.

The lawyers at Groklaw have found based on voir dire and the jury foreman's subsequent statements to the press, it seems he has broke the law.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20923233451725

Personally I love the statement from him where he thought prior art didn't apply because it ran on a different hardware architecture :/

[Azure]

I'm sure Apple is going to be impressed.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Apple lost their appeal in the UK, must now run ads and put a banner on it's website saying that Samsung did not rip them off for the Galaxy Tab

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-loses-u-k...ds-7000005978/