Samsung v. Apple

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

What company do you think spent large sums of money developing innovative new features? It certainly was not Apple. They simply combined the best of ideas from prior art at other companies. There is nothing wrong with that when Apple does it, so why should it be wrong for other companies? The point is not to just copy, but to create an improved copy, that is progress. Apple and Samsung and many others have been doing just that. Apple just hates to be outdone in copying from the past to create the future.

Considerations of "prior art" are the remit of the patent office in deciding whether or not to grant a patent, not a court in deciding whether or not a patent has been infringed. Apple has these patents; the court decided that Samsung had infringed them. Eg, Samsung had simply copied Apple's patented "bouncing list" that rebound if the user tries to drag beyond the end of the list. That's a simple and straightforward case of patent infringement.

[slex]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think it's OK for one company to spend large sums of money developing innovative new features, than for everyone else simply to copy them for free, do you?

The relevant question is "Should companies be granted patent rights over things they have not invented (or if they are commonsense and invented independently by others) and use these to limit competition?"

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a simple and straightforward case of patent infringement.

No point in replying to all of your Red Herring reply.

In Seoul Korea Apple was found guilty of infringing two or more Samsung patents, which were actual technology patents and not trivial window dressing like Apple's patents. As I previously stated they both infringed each other and that is just the way things work.

Steve Jobs himself said "Good artists copy great artists steal". Link

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by slex

The relevant question is "Should companies be granted patent rights over things they have not invented (or if they are commonsense and invented independently by others) and use these to limit competition?"

These are questions for lawyers and judges, on a case by case basis.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

These are questions for lawyers and judges, on a case by case basis.

I am sure the lawyers would like to have it that way.

What is really needed is an overhaul of the entire patent system with no lawyers allowed in the process. Trivial patents like those Apple is flaunting are just not worthy of patent protection, or even copyright. They are just one step in the progress of fashion trends that have nothing to do with real creativity on a fundamental level.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Steve Jobs himself said "Good artists copy great artists steal". Link

Context:

To clarify, and as is clear in the video, Jobs was quoting Pablo Picasso in the headlined quote. The follow-up quote is all him.

There's also a clear distinction between yesterday's statement, which concerns actual, literal patents Apple owns, versus the more general, in-the-ether ideas Jobs references in the video. The Picasso quote speaks to the idea that innovators borrow ideas and an incorporate them into their own work: in this case, he meant that Apple's designers and engineers took all manor of life experiences and used them to make Apple products fresh and innovative. As opposed to the "stealing" he referenced in the press release, which is literally taking a patented technology that somebody owns.

As a company, Apple has consistently been fair in licensing technologies it's found useful or interesting (though Nokia may beg to differ). Has HTC? The lawyers will figure that out, and when they do I look forward to 2015 Steve Jobs's take on it. [YouTube via commenter Fractal the Meek]

http://gizmodo.com/5483914/steve-job...-artists-steal

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

What is really needed is an overhaul of the entire patent system with no lawyers allowed in the process.

Will never happen.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Tim Cook

We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work.

The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

I am very proud of the work that each of you do.

Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.

Tim

http://gizmodo.com/5937837/read-tim-...y?popular=true

[slex]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

These are questions for lawyers and judges, on a case by case basis.

Actually, it's a question of principle.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Google:

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players-including newcomers-are building upon ideas that have been around for decades.

Context:

This should be read as a message to Google's other Android OEM partners more than anything, a gentle reassurance that they don't need to run into Windows Phone's arms. Most of those don't even matter, Google coos as HTC scratches its forearm uncomfortably, besides, everybody does it.

It's all true, of course. The appeals system means this case is far from over, and the industry—any industry, really—is built on what came before it. Then again, if Google didn't think patents were critical and sound, it may not have coughed up $12.5 billion for Motorola.

http://gizmodo.com/5938079/googles-r...s?popular=true

[ScotiaBurrell]

Shares of Samsung Electronics registered their greatest one-day price drop in nearly five years in their first day of trading after Apple's patent award against the Korean electronics giant.

Shares of Samsung were off 6.98 percent in early morning trading, down 89,000 South Korean wan ($78.38) to 1.19 million wan ($1,043.88). It was the company's largest decline since October 2008.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...atent-verdict/

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Will never happen.

Unless you have actual proof of that statement perhaps you should mention that it was just your not so humble opinion.

FWIW, I do not think that it will happen either, because the self serving legal profession would have too much to lose if antiquated institutions were modernized and clarified.

[ScotiaBurrell]

In the end, consumers will lose. Companies high and low are scrapping potentially amazing product ideas right now for fear of legal retaliation. Not just from Apple -- this ruling is way, way bigger than that -- but from any company with a patent on [insert obscure shape here]. I hope we're happy.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/25/e...amsung-ruling/

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

What company do you think spent large sums of money developing innovative new features? It certainly was not Apple. They simply combined the best of ideas from prior art at other companies. There is nothing wrong with that when Apple does it, so why should it be wrong for other companies? The point is not to just copy, but to create an improved copy, that is progress. Apple and Samsung and many others have been doing just that. Apple just hates to be outdone in copying from the past to create the future.

Steve Jobs himself said "Good artists copy great artists steal". Link

Exactly, that's what I have been saying. The RDF is too strong though, people can't see that the iphone rests on the shoulders of all previous smartphones. Apple improved what was there, but did not magically invent the smartphone.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

Apple improved what was there, but did not magically invent the smartphone.

is it consensus here that there is not a single new Apple technology that is wholly their own in the iPhone and or iPad line?