Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book General > News

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2012, 03:13 PM   #61
ScotiaBurrell
Banned
ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ScotiaBurrell ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,118
Karma: 3111746
Join Date: Oct 2011
Device: Kindle & little green monster
Ok. I understand you know.

Thank you
ScotiaBurrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 03:45 PM   #62
Rockbobster
Member
Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.Rockbobster knows what is on the back of the AURYN.
 
Rockbobster's Avatar
 
Posts: 13
Karma: 9998
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West Coast
Device: Handspring Visor, Vtech Helio, Dell Axim x50v, Jetbook Lite, HTC Eris
What goes around comes around. Apple has to answer for where they got their designs.

http://www.staggeron.org/universe.ht...rtrek_vs_apple
Rockbobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 03:56 PM   #63
Daithi
Publishers are evil!
Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Daithi's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,418
Karma: 36205264
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Device: Various Kindles
I think Apple came out with a pretty nice smartphone, and other companies jumped on the bandwagon of producing smartphone's of their own (just like they did PCs, laptops, eReaders, etc.). If you have a phone that uses a screen as an input device then they are going to look similar. I don't see any way around that. The interfaces for navigation will probably also be similar. However, in this case the operating systems are completely different. I remember when Apple sued Microsoft over "Look and Feel," and the lawsuit was never decided, but Lotus v. Borland was decided in court and the "Look and Feel" argument was rejected. So, as a layman, I didn't think Samsung was violating Apple's patents or copyrights.

However, a judge let it go to trial, and let a jury make the decision. So, what I think really doesn't matter. The issue is decided. Samsung is guilty (at least until they win an appeal). Furthermore, I haven't heard a general consensus among legal experts that Samsung got a raw deal.
Daithi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 04:05 PM   #64
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,890
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
While definitely a good rejoinder that graphic is slightly let down by the fact that it doesn't include the original Galaxy S which is the one closest to the iPhone in look, and the cause of most of the fuss.

Silly really, because including it wouldn't really have reduced the impact of the graphic.
Since I'm not the one who put together the graph, I don't know the reason for the choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbone View Post
I was agreeing with the Apple employee when he said, "Customers can get confused on whose product is whose."
Are this customers who can't remember that Apple products have an apple as a logo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasgo View Post
The argument is that if Samsung's product hadn't looked 'like' an iPhone, many people wouldn't have considered it, and would simply have bought the iPhone. Most people knew they were buying a Samsung product but thought it was 'like' an iPhone, only cheaper.
And if Samsung wasn't working on the design, where would Apple have gotten the idea from?
Sil_liS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 08:19 PM   #65
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,190
Karma: 8233324
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011 View Post
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful".

That there indicates with no doubt that they did not look for "reasonable royalty fees", but went for a punishing figure. That can be appealed by Samsung.
1. It is clear that you are wrong from the entire quote posted upthread.
2. You can't appeal on the basis of what a juror said.
Andrew H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 08:37 PM   #66
wodin
Illiterate
wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wodin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
wodin's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,594
Karma: 15009596
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Sandwich Isles
Device: Samsung Galaxy Note, Nook HD+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
You can't appeal on the basis of what a juror said.
Entire verticts have been overturned based on what a juror said. It remains to be seen if this one will.

Last edited by wodin; 08-30-2012 at 08:40 PM.
wodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 05:45 AM   #67
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
they disregarded the fact that Apple's losses are lower by the limitations of the stock.
And what evidence do you have to support that fact?
If Samsung didn't provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury that Apple wouldn't have been able to make up supply, why should the jury decide that they couldn't?
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 06:27 AM   #68
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,597
Karma: 31076089
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
And what evidence do you have to support that fact?
If Samsung didn't provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury that Apple wouldn't have been able to make up supply, why should the jury decide that they couldn't?
The evidence of their own words in the interviews. This only arose because the jurors said they felt that Apple wouldn't have the components.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/08/a...terviewed.html

Quote:
Hogan however said that they felt $2.5 billion that Apple was seeking was "extraordinarily high" as it was unclear whether Apple would have been able to sell more iPhones due to the supply constraints it was facing.
As Silis points out, having said that you would expect them to apply it in their calculation of damages. But they didn't. Those were based on the percentage profit that Samsung would have made on the sale of all the accused devices (see above).

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 06:35 AM   #69
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,890
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
And what evidence do you have to support that fact?
If Samsung didn't provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury that Apple wouldn't have been able to make up supply, why should the jury decide that they couldn't?
Wasn't Apple continuously out of stock?
Sil_liS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 06:40 AM   #70
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,597
Karma: 31076089
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
We now have a full transcript of a BBC interview with the jury foreman:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

He lays to rest some of the concerns about the size of the task and the speed at which they performed, but I still don't see evidence for a proper consideration of the prior art. He again seems to have led the jury with discussions of source code and processors.

Sorry for the long quote, but here he is talking about prior art:

Quote:
Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

And vice versa of that was also true. So the point being, at the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different.

One could not be exchanged for the other. And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art? No.

Did it mean prior art could not have been used to compete against anything any other company had done? No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying both could have existed independently of each other and been used. The thing you have to remember is that the prior art that belonged to Samsung, or belonged to somebody else that they had the ability of using, they had not used for quite some time.

And the methodology that they had implemented was just right up against the line of infringement and went beyond it in most cases. And not all cases.

Not everything that Apple accused of Samsung was correct and we made those stipulations as we filled out the form, and well, you know how it played out.

My point is that there were substantially difference between the prior art and the new method, but the key was you could not replace one for the other.
I still don't understand how he can invalidate the earlier prior art on the grounds that Apple's code would not run on the earlier designs, but then find Samsung infringing the patents granted to Apple (which would imply that Samsung's code would run on the Apple devices).

In this respect I think it's reasonable to be debating this. It looks like some key points of the deliberations turned on faulty logic.

There's also no reference to some of the key prior art, the ones related to hardware look and feel rather than functionality.

Last edited by Graham; 08-31-2012 at 06:44 AM.
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 08:56 AM   #71
dmikov
Addict
dmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-booksdmikov has learned how to read e-books
 
dmikov's Avatar
 
Posts: 256
Karma: 960
Join Date: Dec 2006
Device: REB1200; REB2150; Sony 500/350; EZReader; IREX DR800SG; Nook/Color
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell View Post
Can shop owner copy someone elses design of a stunning one of a kind evening gown, put his own label on the inside and say 'it's my own design! the label is different!' ?

Or a watch?

I would call it unfair, even if it's legal. Same thing with phone exteriors past a generic point.
Actually you can since there is no patents on round watches (thank god) or evening gowns. That's why you have so many knock-offs.
Unfair doesn't cost 1 Billion dollars.
I feel that I am living in coo-coo land now being in the same country as these jurors.
dmikov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 10:00 AM   #72
obsessed2
Wizard
obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
obsessed2's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,031
Karma: 4694121
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Device: Pocket Edge X 2 , Edge, gTab, Kindle Fire, Nextbook 7S
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell View Post
Can shop owner copy someone elses design of a stunning one of a kind evening gown, put his own label on the inside and say 'it's my own design! the label is different!' ?

Or a watch?

I would call it unfair, even if it's legal. Same thing with phone exteriors past a generic point.

Apple didnít invent the iPod, they stole the idea. In fact, in 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business. We all know how this ended.

Apple didnít invent the tablet computer, they stole the idea.

Apple didnít invent the smartphone, they stole the idea.

Part of the way innovation works is that you build on the works of others. That doesn't just mean wholesale copying, but trying to take what works and improve on it, or take what doesn't work well and figure out a way to make it work better.

Apple did this many, many times. It seems rather hypocritical to get all bent out of shape because others are doing the same thing.
obsessed2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 10:48 AM   #73
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
kennyc's Avatar
 
Posts: 31,547
Karma: 61866551
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Galaxy SIII; Xoom; Kindle Fire
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsessed2 View Post
Apple didnít invent the iPod, they stole the idea. In fact, in 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business. We all know how this ended.

Apple didnít invent the tablet computer, they stole the idea.

Apple didnít invent the smartphone, they stole the idea.

Part of the way innovation works is that you build on the works of others. That doesn't just mean wholesale copying, but trying to take what works and improve on it, or take what doesn't work well and figure out a way to make it work better.

Apple did this many, many times. It seems rather hypocritical to get all bent out of shape because others are doing the same thing.

^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.
kennyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 10:48 AM   #74
Daithi
Publishers are evil!
Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Daithi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Daithi's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,418
Karma: 36205264
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Device: Various Kindles
A similar patent battle between Samsung and Apple is occurring in Japan. However, in this case, the judge ruled that Samsung was not in violation of Apple patents. Similarly, a patent lawsuit in South Korea was dismissed -- although the "bounce back" feature when you get to the end of a scrolling screen was deemed a violation.
Daithi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 12:04 PM   #75
afv011
Captain Penguin
afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afv011's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,848
Karma: 2076640493
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: nook*, nexus 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
I still don't understand how he can invalidate the earlier prior art on the grounds that Apple's code would not run on the earlier designs, but then find Samsung infringing the patents granted to Apple (which would imply that Samsung's code would run on the Apple devices).
Exactly. This reeks of double standards.
afv011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung v. Apple carpetmojo News 625 11-18-2012 11:07 AM
Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple says afv011 Android Devices 5 07-19-2012 05:50 PM
Apple must apologise to Samsung BeccaPrice News 1 07-19-2012 10:47 AM
Apple vs Samsung US Ruling JD Gumby News 14 06-30-2012 03:49 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.