Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby High-Tech topic #266716

Subject: "Patent wars are getting ridiculous b/w Fuck Apple" Previous topic | Next topic
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sun Dec-11-11 01:06 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Patent wars are getting ridiculous b/w Fuck Apple"


  

          

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/

Apple Made A Deal With The Devil (No, Worse: A Patent Troll)

JASON
KINCAID

Friday, December 9th, 2011115 Comments

Over the last two years, Apple has been engaged in vicious legal battles over smartphone patents, many of which are aimed at squelching (or squeezing money out of) manufacturers of devices running Android. And now, for some reason, it has given valuable patents to a patent troll — which is using them to sue many of the top technology companies in the world.

Meet Digitude Innovations, a firm based in Virginia that recently filed suit with the International Trade Commission alleging patent infringement by technology companies including RIM, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon, and Nokia (note that Apple is not on this list). The ITC is a favorite for companies litigating over mobile phone patent disputes, as it can block the import of products long before a case has actually concluded.

Digitude was founded in 2010 and raised $50 million from Altitude Capital Partners, with aims to “acquire, aggregate, and license key technology areas within the consumer electronics and related technology fields in a patent consortium” — in other words, it buys up patents and then sues other companies until they settle and agree to pay licensing fees, because it’s generally less expensive than actually going to court.

From a Forbes article this past June:

Digitude is a new kind of patent investment vehicle because it seeks to team up with strategic players that can invest in Digitude not with money, but by contributing patents. The contributing entity would then get a license for all of Digitude’s patents, Kramer says.

In April, Digitude announced the “completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world’s leading consumer electronics companies” — which it didn’t name. The company later announced that additional (unnamed) parties have jumped on board as well, who will receive a portion of Digitude’s proceeds based on the value of the IP each party contributed.

Apple appears to be one of these participants, and may be the unnamed leading consumer electronics company that Digitude boasted about this past spring. Of the four patents that Digitude included in its claim this week, two were owned by Apple earlier this year, before they were transferred to Digitude.

The patents in question:

USPTO #6208879 — Mobile Information Terminal Equipment and Portable Electronic Apparatus

USPTO #6456841 — Mobile Communication Apparatus Notifying User Of Reproduction Waiting Information Effectively

In both cases, Apple transferred ownership of the patent to a company called Cliff Island LLC, which in turn transferred it to Digitude Innovations. In fact, Apple has transferred a dozen patents to Cliff Island LLC this year (though only two of these were named in this ITC suit).

You probably haven’t heard of Cliff Island LLC, because it appears to exist in name only. There is a next to no information about the company available online — though the patent filing does include an address: 485 Madison Avenue, Suite 2300 in New York City.

I was unable to find a phone number for the company, so I attempted to pay a visit to their office, only to find that it doesn’t appear to exist. But there are other tenants on the twenty-third floor of 485 Madison. One of which is Altitude Capital, the same IP-focused private equity firm that happened to lead Digitude’s $50 million funding round.

Put another way, Apple appears to have transferred its patents to the patent troll Digitude, though it first routed them through a shell company that shares the same office as Digitude’s lead investor and Chairman. Further evidence of the relationship between Apple and Digitude can be found on the ITC’s own website, where a list of files relevant to the lawsuit can be found. Many of these files are marked confidential, but it appears someone mistakenly left the file names intact. One of which is “Digitude-Apple License Agreement” (see screenshot below).

So what is going on? There are a pair of scenarios that seem plausible — though both of them are strange.

The first is that Apple is using Digitude as a hired gun of sorts in its patent offensive, giving the company valuable patents to wield against its opponents (while avoiding the waves of press that are spurred by each new lawsuit). But Apple hasn’t exactly been quiet about suing its rivals over smartphone patents, so it’s not clear what they’d gain from this.

The alternative is that Apple has given some of its patents to Digitude because the patent troll came after it first. The dozen patents Apple has handed over may have been part of a settlement with the firm, along with the license agreement (which would presumably give Apple the rights to its patents, and additional Digitude patents). This seems more likely.

But even if Digitude shot first, so to speak, it’s still hard to see Apple in a positive light here. This is Apple we’re talking about. The idea that the company didn’t have any options other than handing over valuable patents to a patent troll — knowing full well that it would then use those patents to sue other tech companies — seems ludicrous.

I spoke with Julie Samuels, Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on patents, who points out that in some cases certain companies will sell their patents to other parties when they’re under financial stress. But Apple clearly doesn’t fall into that bucket.

If Apple were deliberately aiding Digitude, Samuels says “it would be horrifying — the patent troll problem is completely out of control. Apple has every legal right to sue over its patents, but it should be the one to do it”.

And if Apple was indeed threatened first by Digitude, and only handed over its patents as part of a settlement, she says she “cannot imagine any reasonable scenario where Apple didn’t have any other options”.

Both Apple and Digitude declined to comment.

Also, oddly, Digitude Innovations had a website as recently as December 4, but it apparently took it down in the last few days.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
:)
Dec 11th 2011
1
RE: Patent wars are getting ridiculous b/w Fuck Apple
Dec 12th 2011
2
From Apple? Pretty much, yeah.
Dec 13th 2011
3
      i'm not clear on the idea of a "patent company"
Dec 13th 2011
8
           pretty much.
Dec 13th 2011
9
                that's disgusting
Jan 26th 2012
50
meh.
Dec 13th 2011
4
^^^ RDF not strong enough ^^^
Dec 13th 2011
6
      Don't make me throw this SJ Bio at you.
Dec 22nd 2011
27
Occupy Apple.
Dec 13th 2011
5
well played
Dec 13th 2011
7
Apple patents Android (swipe)
Dec 21st 2011
10
This is Mac vs Windows again
Dec 21st 2011
11
huh?
Dec 21st 2011
12
So you support fuckery.
Dec 21st 2011
13
      If it's the choice of the content of your posts or fuckery.......
Dec 21st 2011
14
           Separate the love of your device from actual real world analysis....
Dec 21st 2011
15
                Google IS doing the same shit as you say
Dec 21st 2011
16
                     So they're participating in patent litigation and suing...
Dec 21st 2011
17
                     SAYS YOU
Dec 21st 2011
18
                          Best defense ever.
Dec 21st 2011
19
                          Handle will undoubtedly come back with a compelling argument
Dec 21st 2011
24
                               Go eat a dong!
Dec 22nd 2011
25
                          lol
Jun 23rd 2012
53
                     Apple has CONTINOUSLY fucked you over
Dec 21st 2011
20
                          The funny thing is...
Dec 21st 2011
21
                          WRONG
Dec 21st 2011
22
                          Ehh, I never said google wasn't evil.
Dec 21st 2011
23
                          Sure the Google = good & Apple = Evil thing is bullshit...
Dec 22nd 2011
26
                          That's bullshit
Dec 30th 2011
31
                               They don't tho. All the songs you buy in itunes STAY IN ITUNES
Dec 30th 2011
33
                                    RE: They don't tho. All the songs you buy in itunes STAY IN ITUNES
Dec 30th 2011
37
                                         They are begining to.
Dec 30th 2011
40
Now Apple's trying to patent even more shit that isn't theirs (swipe)
Dec 30th 2011
28
note the update
Dec 30th 2011
29
      It's not necessarily the details of this specific patent...
Dec 30th 2011
30
           I hate apple as much as anybody
Dec 30th 2011
32
                It's one thing to patent...
Dec 30th 2011
34
                     I think it is somewhat valid
Dec 30th 2011
35
                          Not to be funny, but did you read what you typed?
Dec 30th 2011
38
                               everyone does it tho
Dec 31st 2011
42
                                    The difference is...
Dec 31st 2011
43
                                         there is no motherfucking difference
Dec 31st 2011
44
                                              Okay, I'll bite.
Dec 31st 2011
45
                                                   we had this discussion in December
Aug 24th 2012
120
Someone edit the title of this thread to be just: Fuck Apple
Dec 30th 2011
36
^^^contributing to the discussion as usual^^^
Dec 30th 2011
39
*feeds the troll a cookie*
Dec 31st 2011
41
      lol
Jul 04th 2012
55
you gotta pay the troll toll
Jan 01st 2012
46
Sanity rules (swipe)
Jan 24th 2012
47
Galaxy Nexus infringes on slide-to-unlock (swipe)
Jan 24th 2012
48
And the countersuits continue... fuck everyone (swipe)
Jan 25th 2012
49
Apple aims for Android 4.0 (swipe)
Feb 12th 2012
51
When Motorola Googility is finalized, this'll be an epic legal faceoff
Feb 12th 2012
52
Injunction against Galaxy Nexus. Lame.
Jul 02nd 2012
54
HTC beats Apple in patent dispute (in the UK at least)
Jul 05th 2012
56
Apparently Samsung is now the equivalent of a pirate, thief and counterf...
Jul 14th 2012
57
the levels of this fuckshitplace is just amazing
Jul 14th 2012
58
      The voices defending their practices have been curiously quiet.
Jul 14th 2012
59
Apple must post web notice saying Samsung didn't copy (swipe)
Jul 18th 2012
60
... The Galaxy Tab is banned in the US due to copying..
Jul 18th 2012
61
      Honestly, making the case that it is skips all sorts of logic
Jul 18th 2012
62
Apple patents lists (swipe)
Jul 19th 2012
63
LOL. This is absurd.
Jul 19th 2012
64
Brain hurts bad reading the pro-Apple hippies in comments section
Jul 19th 2012
65
All kindsa shit goin on nowadays
Jul 27th 2012
66
And now Kodak's patents are up for grabs...
Jul 28th 2012
67
Jury selection begins... Apple and Google employees cut
Jul 31st 2012
68
Samsung reveals its pre-iPhone concepts: 10 touchscreen devices
Jul 31st 2012
69
I don't know if this was super dumb shit or absolutely brilliant...
Aug 01st 2012
70
Do you WORK for Samsung?
Aug 01st 2012
71
      Evidence gets submitted past the discovery phase all the time...
Aug 01st 2012
72
And the repercussions begin...
Aug 02nd 2012
73
Apple wants case dismissed with winning verdict due to leak
Aug 02nd 2012
74
APB on Wallysmith: back-breaker Samsung memo from 2010
Aug 08th 2012
75
And there's also this report from yesterday:
Aug 08th 2012
76
      Laughable
Aug 08th 2012
77
      But innovation isn't what this document is evidence of
Aug 08th 2012
78
           Right, I'm not denying that.
Aug 08th 2012
79
                I think Wallysmith is Stefan Jones
Aug 08th 2012
80
                     lol
Aug 16th 2012
83
Lots going on....
Aug 14th 2012
81
Coming to a close soon...
Aug 16th 2012
82
Uhm...
Aug 16th 2012
84
      Or provide a more complete and unbiased link, like this one:
Aug 16th 2012
85
           ..
Aug 16th 2012
86
           Right on time. =)
Aug 16th 2012
87
           Okay, player.
Aug 16th 2012
88
                What a compelling counterargument.
Aug 16th 2012
89
"What makes you so special?"
Aug 17th 2012
90
And Google finally goes on the offensive...
Aug 18th 2012
91
I'm against it but it had to happen
Aug 18th 2012
92
      Right, pretty much agreed with everything.
Aug 19th 2012
93
Samsung neutralizes adverse inference jury instruction concerning delete...
Aug 20th 2012
94
Groklaw's take on adverse inference... of course Florian fucks it up
Aug 21st 2012
95
      there's a reason why we don't post about everything he posts
Aug 21st 2012
97
           Yeah, the reason I posted it above...
Aug 21st 2012
98
Apple renews fight against Galaxy Nexus due to "universal search"
Aug 21st 2012
96
And from a simple Google search...
Aug 21st 2012
99
Fantastic breakdown of the jury's responsibilities...
Aug 23rd 2012
100
L
Aug 24th 2012
101
I have no problems being wrong in the courtroom...
Aug 24th 2012
103
Your core argument was just debunked in a court of law.
Aug 24th 2012
106
      Post 82.
Aug 24th 2012
107
      And YOUR core argument was just debunked in a court of law.
Jan 30th 2013
210
Hey look, this statement is wrong.
Jan 30th 2013
209
      You stay taking L's android fanboy..:
Jan 31st 2013
214
           This is how I know your reading comprehension is terrible.
Jan 31st 2013
216
Verdict being announced now...
Aug 24th 2012
102
$1,051,855,000 in damages.
Aug 24th 2012
104
The worst part is that all of Apple's patents are deemed valid.
Aug 24th 2012
105
*shrug* it's the system we have
Aug 24th 2012
109
Oh, it'll definitely get appealed
Aug 24th 2012
110
exactly -- I could give a fuck about the $, but this fucks businesses
Aug 24th 2012
111
Eh, my main question is if the Galaxy Nexus got caught in this too
Aug 24th 2012
122
$1bn is a small price to pay to become the #1 smartphone maker
Aug 24th 2012
112
      Tweet from Nilay Patel...
Aug 24th 2012
113
      except it's social waste, lots of smart ppl arguing over piles of loot
Aug 24th 2012
114
      You hit the nail on the head.
Aug 24th 2012
115
      Honestly, this isn't about fanboyism.
Aug 24th 2012
116
      It's not that simple.
Aug 24th 2012
118
And because it's still relevant...
Aug 24th 2012
108
Too late to edit the above post...
Aug 24th 2012
117
And for those that keep ignoring my "killing competition" argument?
Aug 24th 2012
119
LOL
Aug 24th 2012
121
And there it begins...
Aug 24th 2012
123
Best best animated gifs for the reaction to the verdict
Aug 24th 2012
124
lol
Aug 25th 2012
126
yo wallychamp, you going to go on the warpath vs. dyson?
Aug 24th 2012
125
LOL, you and your lame proxy wars.
Aug 27th 2012
133
      if the problem is that the system is broken
Aug 27th 2012
139
           And your arguments are *literally* getting dumber and dumber.
Aug 28th 2012
142
                I figured you'd be happy anyone will engage you on this shit
Aug 28th 2012
143
                     It's funny, because as much as you want to claim...
Aug 28th 2012
144
                          fucking dumbass
Aug 29th 2012
153
                               Typical Rjcc response...
Aug 29th 2012
154
                                    oh my god you're anidiot
Aug 31st 2012
158
                                         LOL, yup, right on time.
Aug 31st 2012
159
                                              damn.....
Sep 01st 2012
162
I just fucking hate that the Nexus got dragged down into this shit
Aug 25th 2012
127
What happens at the Federal Circuit is what really matters
Aug 25th 2012
128
Apple-Samsung juror speaks out
Aug 25th 2012
129
      Someone pleas defend this:
Aug 25th 2012
130
      hahaha
Aug 25th 2012
131
Seems like Samsung woulda been better off just
Aug 25th 2012
132
The dissenting voices come out...
Aug 27th 2012
134
EFF's take
Aug 27th 2012
135
Cognitive bias
Aug 27th 2012
136
Unbiased post trial coverage
Aug 27th 2012
137
And here's the foreman's patent
Aug 27th 2012
138
Step away from the baords for a few weeks, player
Aug 27th 2012
141
      It took the jury just two days of deliberation...
Aug 28th 2012
146
           You've got a real, honest to goodness illness
Aug 28th 2012
149
Niggas MAD... they still MAD.
Aug 27th 2012
140
Actually, no.
Jan 30th 2013
211
Short and to the point indictment on the patent system...
Aug 28th 2012
145
software patents are 5x more likely to be litigated than others
Aug 28th 2012
147
An article condensing the potential "jury misconduct" angle...
Aug 28th 2012
148
^^Birther
Aug 28th 2012
150
Interesting...
Aug 29th 2012
151
And an article explaining one of the new patent rules...
Aug 29th 2012
152
Foreign perspective on our patent system...
Aug 29th 2012
155
Just when you think there's progress...
Aug 31st 2012
156
ok that's some scary shit...
Sep 01st 2012
165
Reiterating what I said in post #105....
Aug 31st 2012
157
a war going on outside, no phone is safe
Sep 01st 2012
160
What's hilarious...
Sep 01st 2012
161
      yup i posted that article (or something similar) in that phone's thread
Sep 01st 2012
163
will consumers start speaking with their pockets?
Sep 01st 2012
164
It'll be interesting to see, but yeah I agree...
Sep 01st 2012
166
i've never bought an apple product
Sep 02nd 2012
167
One of the most simple things
Sep 04th 2012
168
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong - Groklaw
Sep 05th 2012
169
Trial updates
Sep 24th 2012
170
Yikes... foreman didn't disclose everything.
Oct 03rd 2012
171
Desperation
Oct 03rd 2012
172
      It's a longshot, sure.
Oct 03rd 2012
173
           I don't think you know what that word means
Oct 03rd 2012
174
           why do you even entertain him? it's an appeal, period.
Oct 03rd 2012
175
YO FUCK WHIRLPOOL SON
Oct 04th 2012
176
We on this again? Post 159.
Oct 04th 2012
177
Judge Posner weighs in again:
Oct 04th 2012
179
Oh also... there's this paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Oct 04th 2012
180
      it's amazing how many times you can say the word patent
Oct 04th 2012
181
           Beautiful... exactly what I was expecting.
Oct 04th 2012
182
And for what it's worth...the USPTO is open to trying new things.
Oct 04th 2012
178
Last year, for the first time, spending on patents exceeded that of R&D....
Oct 08th 2012
183
So, you're saying Pinch To Zoom > AIDS cure
Oct 08th 2012
184
So... you *haven't* read the article...
Oct 08th 2012
186
Your digital fetishes > The sanctity of life
Oct 08th 2012
187
      You are seriously blind as shit.
Oct 08th 2012
188
           He's wrong to seperate the pharmcetiucal indisutry
Oct 08th 2012
189
you have no idea what you're talking about
Oct 08th 2012
190
*waits expectantly*
Oct 08th 2012
185
      LOL^^^
Oct 08th 2012
191
           Right on time. :)
Oct 08th 2012
192
ITC Judge Rejects Apple's FRAND Arguments Against Samsung
Oct 10th 2012
193
Injunction removed on Galaxy Nexus (swipe)
Oct 11th 2012
194
This was the ONE problem I had with that entire verdict
Oct 12th 2012
195
      The smackdown from the appeals court was pretty serious.
Oct 12th 2012
196
USPTO 'tentatively' invalidated Apple's key rubber-banding patent
Oct 23rd 2012
197
It's not explicitly patent related, but...
Nov 12th 2012
198
Apple obtains a galaxy sales ban in the Netherlands (partial swipe)
Nov 28th 2012
199
Apple vs Samsung is back up
Dec 06th 2012
200
In more patent news...
Dec 20th 2012
201
In some positive news...
Jan 04th 2013
202
The no-hire paper trail Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt didn't want you to s...
Jan 23rd 2013
203
Jobs was the OG 50 Cent
Jan 23rd 2013
204
Hmm, Jobs threatening inappropriate litigation...
Jan 23rd 2013
205
No willful infrigement (swipe)
Jan 30th 2013
206
Samsung still owes $1 billion.
Jan 30th 2013
207
      Hey there guy.
Jan 30th 2013
208
           What other post?
Jan 30th 2013
212
                I was referring to this one
Jan 30th 2013
213
                     RE: I was referring to this one
Jan 31st 2013
215
                          So, let's look at your counterarguments...
Jan 31st 2013
217
                               So, let's look at YOUR counterarguments...
Feb 01st 2013
220
                                    Wow, this is going to be easy.
Feb 01st 2013
221
                                         *long sigh*
Feb 01st 2013
222
USPTO: Request for enhanced quality of software-related patents
Feb 01st 2013
218
Mark Cuban railing against stupid patents stifling innovation (swipe)
Feb 01st 2013
219
$1 billion? What? (swipe)
Mar 01st 2013
223
$598 million is still an L.
Mar 01st 2013
224
      ^^^ Says the person that only knows how to debate a number
Mar 01st 2013
225
           RE: ^^^ Says the person that only knows how to debate a number
Mar 01st 2013
226
                Nice, a real debate from you.
Mar 01st 2013
227
                     The only thing you are embarrasing is yourself by trolling.
Mar 01st 2013
228
                          Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Mar 02nd 2013
229
                               This whole post is your L. Your ass is sore from Apple...
Mar 03rd 2013
230
                                    Actually, this post isn't an L at all.
Mar 04th 2013
231
                                    Oh, and by the way...
Mar 04th 2013
232
USPTO reaffirms invalidation of Apple patent in Samsung suit
Apr 02nd 2013
233
Nokia supports Apple (swipe)
Apr 02nd 2013
234
Well duh...
Apr 02nd 2013
235
      Nokia clearly, unlike you, understands the ramifications of this case on...
Apr 02nd 2013
236
           Okay, I'm calling you out.
Apr 02nd 2013
237
Hey look, our president acknowledges a flawed patent system (swipe)
Jun 04th 2013
238
This American Life: When Patents Attack Pt. 2 (link)
Jun 04th 2013
239
i heard this on NPR. GREAT show. especially how they updated
Jun 05th 2013
247
This podcast was great!
Jun 05th 2013
248
Older iPhones banned from the U.S. for infringement (swipe)
Jun 04th 2013
240
*Corrects sensational statement*
Jun 04th 2013
241
      LOL. You haven't proved shit.
Jun 04th 2013
242
           They are outselling Samsung globally
Jun 04th 2013
243
                Proof?
Jun 04th 2013
244
                     I proved it earlier
Jun 04th 2013
245
                          Proof?
Jun 04th 2013
246
USPTO rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent (swipe)
Jul 29th 2013
249
THIS WAR IS OVER, YOU LOST.
Jul 29th 2013
250
      Yeah, I don't think you read my post.
Jul 29th 2013
251
Obama vetoes ban on iPhone 4 iPads (swipe) b/w Rjcc wrong again
Aug 05th 2013
252
if you think anyone gives a shit
Aug 05th 2013
253
      How sad is this...
Aug 05th 2013
254
           there is no response to insanity my friend
Aug 05th 2013
255
                Keep sticking with those 5th grader insults...
Aug 05th 2013
256
.
Aug 16th 2013
257
what in the holy fuck?!!?!?!
Aug 16th 2013
258

Nopayne
Member since Jan 03rd 2003
52494 posts
Sun Dec-11-11 02:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. ":)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

---
Love,
Nopayne

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

xangeluvr
Charter member
9006 posts
Mon Dec-12-11 11:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: Patent wars are getting ridiculous b/w Fuck Apple"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I don't fully understand all the business law behind these patent "wars" but from a layman's standpoint it all seems like some bullshit.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 09:39 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "From Apple? Pretty much, yeah."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          


>it all seems like
>some bullshit.

The gist of it is that instead of competing properly in the marketplace, Apple is using litigation to to stifle competition instead.

And in this particular case, turning to one of the worst possible options: a patent "company" that exists by piggybacking on other companies' patents in order to sue competitors.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
xangeluvr
Charter member
9006 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 10:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "i'm not clear on the idea of a "patent company""
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

do you mind a quick explanation? a company like that only exists to look for patent infringements or something?

>>it all seems like
>>some bullshit.
>
>The gist of it is that instead of competing properly in the
>marketplace, Apple is using litigation to to stifle
>competition instead.
>
>And in this particular case, turning to one of the worst
>possible options: a patent "company" that exists by
>piggybacking on other companies' patents in order to sue
>competitors.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Nopayne
Member since Jan 03rd 2003
52494 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 11:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "pretty much."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

They buy up any patent they can get their hands on. Next they either license them or sue anyone who uses similar technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

---
Love,
Nopayne

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
cjr2221
Member since Sep 04th 2011
1790 posts
Thu Jan-26-12 10:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "that's disgusting"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

jetblack
Member since Nov 14th 2004
44746 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 09:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
4. "meh."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

---
Knock knock, Neo...
---
Stay +.
---

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 11:41 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "^^^ RDF not strong enough ^^^"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jetblack
Member since Nov 14th 2004
44746 posts
Thu Dec-22-11 08:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
27. "Don't make me throw this SJ Bio at you."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

---
Knock knock, Neo...
---
Stay +.
---

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

FortifiedLive
Member since Dec 26th 2006
9984 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 10:41 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "Occupy Apple."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

_______________________________________

<<progressions.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
exactopposite
Member since Aug 21st 2002
15132 posts
Tue Dec-13-11 10:00 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "well played"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 10:00 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "Apple patents Android (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Fucking shit, patenting software is bullshit. And awarding Apple a patent for a feature that they didn't even implement until last year?

FUCK APPLE.

http://phandroid.com/2011/12/21/apple-awarded-patent-on-in-call-app-switching-multitasking-smartphones-sound-familiar-to-you/

Apple Awarded Patent On In Call App Switching – Multitasking Smartphones Sound Familiar To You?
by Chris Chavez on December 21st, 2011 at 3:47 am

They’ve done it again. The boys at Apple must have some kind of strange patent voodoo because once again, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded them with another IP to stick inside their portfolio, this time with a patent for a “portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching.” Sound familiar to you? It should. Somehow Apple received a patent for a multitasking smartphone that allows a user to switch between calls and apps. Yup, they seem to have patented Android. You best believe that with Apple’s small victory over HTC yesterday, their lawyers are already plotting new ways to stick it to Android manufacturers everywhere. What’s next? A patent on green robot mascots? Well, played, Apple. Well played…

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "This is Mac vs Windows again"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Last time Apple should have won, but they didn't.

Let's see what happens this time.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 10:36 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
12. "huh?"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 10:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "So you support fuckery."
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

Got it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "If it's the choice of the content of your posts or fuckery......."
In response to Reply # 13


          

Sign me up for fuckery.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 11:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Separate the love of your device from actual real world analysis...."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

... then get back to me.

If Google was doing this same shit, my posts would be about Google. But fact of the matter is, litigation is going on all over the world for pretty frivolous bullshit, and the vast majority of it (if not all) is initiated by Apple.

You can love the devices, but don't excuse the company's bullshit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 12:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "Google IS doing the same shit as you say"
In response to Reply # 15


          

And in Apple Vs. Google - I choose Apple.

(Apple hasn't personally fucked me over - Google has.)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 12:45 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "So they're participating in patent litigation and suing..."
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

... on frivolous grounds? Could you point me to a source? I'd love to read it because this is news to me.

Note that attacking litigation is different from defensive moves, like the acquisition of Motorola Mobility and the lending of patents to HTC.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 12:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "SAYS YOU"
In response to Reply # 17


          

>Note that attacking litigation is different from defensive
>moves, like the acquisition of Motorola Mobility and the
>lending of patents to HTC.

I'll sit back and enjoy your complaining now. It'll have no affect on the issues - and maybe you'll shit yourself at some point

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 01:05 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Best defense ever."
In response to Reply # 18
Wed Dec-21-11 01:07 PM by wallysmith

  

          

Ignore the actual question and create spin. Here are some articles that confirm defense from patent trolls, not with intent to initiate litigation themselves:

Google's acquisition of MM:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-and-its-giant-patent-portfolio/

Google lending HTC patents:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/11/google-pledges-to-back-android-manufacturers-against-lawsuits/


I'm genuinely interested in having a discussion on this. If you want to keep hurling insults and avoid providing some sort of actual proof for your position, then why are you even in this thread?

So again, let me ask you... please provide proof of offensive litigation maneuvers from Google so we can maybe have a mature discussion on the issue.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Nopayne
Member since Jan 03rd 2003
52494 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 07:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
24. "Handle will undoubtedly come back with a compelling argument"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

As soon as Daring Fireball tells him what to say.

---
Love,
Nopayne

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Thu Dec-22-11 01:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Go eat a dong!"
In response to Reply # 24


          

For you that IS compelling.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Jun-23-12 10:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "lol"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 02:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
20. "Apple has CONTINOUSLY fucked you over"
In response to Reply # 16
Wed Dec-21-11 02:02 PM by BigReg

  

          

you just don't realize it.

The future is a dark one and Apple is a big harbinger for it...as 'evil' as google is at least they don't keep millions of users behind a walled garden (and get them indoctrinated to believe that's how it should be)

>And in Apple Vs. Google - I choose Apple.
>
>(Apple hasn't personally fucked me over - Google has.)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 02:12 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "The funny thing is..."
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

everyone's gotten fucked over by these companies in one form or another on a personal level. But this issue isn't about that.

What's seriously troubling is the literally global impact these patent wars could have in the future of the mobile industry. And Apple is gaining more fucking traction in this bullshit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 04:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "WRONG"
In response to Reply # 20


          

But it shows your mindset.

Apple = EVIL.

Google = Utopia.

You're a chump if that's your worldview.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Wed Dec-21-11 04:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
23. "Ehh, I never said google wasn't evil."
In response to Reply # 22
Wed Dec-21-11 04:52 PM by BigReg

  

          

Google's evil. But Apple, DEFINITELY EVIL.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Thu Dec-22-11 01:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "Sure the Google = good & Apple = Evil thing is bullshit..."
In response to Reply # 22


          

..but so is going into this argument head first using said bullshit as justification on the blatant bullshit which is the whole patenting bullshit. The whole thing is bullshit that could backfire if & when the Google/Moto Mobility deal is vowed husband & wife by the governments & draw Googlity into the same bullshit of cat/mouse "AH HA! YOU STEALING TOO! THIEF THIEF THIEF!".

The whole "ANDROID STEALS A BUNCH!" angle is bullshit plain and simple for more reasons then one can shake a stick at.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
s t a r s k y
Member since Oct 22nd 2004
2396 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 09:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "That's bullshit"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

People voluntary enter the walled garden. If they want to leave they can choose a different mobile OS. It's not like Apple has a monopoly.
________________________________

(屮゚Д゚ )屮

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 11:36 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
33. "They don't tho. All the songs you buy in itunes STAY IN ITUNES"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

At least you can argue that the difference between platforms makes sharing apps impossible, but Apple has a track record of purposely hating on cross platform apps.

We won't even touch how it's pretty ridiculous we would never accept Microsoft or Apple dictating the programs we can only install on our computer, but suddenly with a phone we are cool with getting bent the fuck over.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
s t a r s k y
Member since Oct 22nd 2004
2396 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 01:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "RE: They don't tho. All the songs you buy in itunes STAY IN ITUNES"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

That hasn't been true since 2009.

>At least you can argue that the difference between platforms
>makes sharing apps impossible, but Apple has a track record of
>purposely hating on cross platform apps.

As far as I know they don't have a problem with cross-platform apps but with certain cross-platform toolkits


>We won't even touch how it's pretty ridiculous we would never
>accept Microsoft or Apple dictating the programs we can only
>install on our computer, but suddenly with a phone we are cool
>with getting bent the fuck over.

Meh. There are a lot of people that have a problem with this, they choose to use a different OS. People that choose IOS know what they are getting in to. The phone is not they first place we are 'cool' with this though. You never hear people calling Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony evil because we can't install our own stuff on a console.
________________________________

(屮゚Д゚ )屮

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 03:34 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
40. "They are begining to."
In response to Reply # 37
Fri Dec-30-11 03:35 PM by BigReg

  

          

>Meh. There are a lot of people that have a problem with this,
>they choose to use a different OS. People that choose IOS know
>what they are getting in to. The phone is not they first place
>we are 'cool' with this though. You never hear people calling
>Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony evil because we can't install our
>own stuff on a console.

Aka the class lawsuit over Sony taking out Linux compatibility on the console a few years back.

The problem is that mobile computing is a relatively new territory, and it's disheartening seeing people gladly hand over their rights because, for now, it just 'works'. It's like I love my iphone as the next person, but there are plenty of serious problems with the platform, and it's bit disheartening seeing people side with a major conglomerate over what ultimately boils down to improving the end experience for the end user (us)


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 12:51 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Now Apple's trying to patent even more shit that isn't theirs (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.droid-life.com/2011/12/29/apple-files-for-face-unlock-patent-are-you-kidding-me/

According to Apple patent investigator Patently Apple, the Cupertino based king of patent trolling has filed for a new facial unlock detection patent. Seriously, Apple? You don’t even have facial recognition technology out to the public yet, but your competitor does and you file for a patent on it? I mean, come on. We get that you hate Android with a passion, however, this just looks pathetic.

If you glance over the fancy little stick-figured depiction of this new technology, you will see that it matches up almost perfectly to what the same feature does in Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Let’s see, it says that the device will look for eyes and a mouth in normal locations, analyze weight differences, and then unlock if it matches up to the one on file. Yeah, that’s exactly how Android’s face unlock works.

Update: According to Engadget, Apple actually filed for this patent back in June before Android had unveiled their Face Unlock and is just not being disclosed to the public. It should also be noted that Google purchased a facial recognition software company around that same time. Tough to tell if that company has a patent for their software or not. Ahh the patent wars – can they be anymore obnoxious? (Cheers Dave!)

Update 2: A reader who just so happens to be a patent attorney has weighed in through the comments. Both of his remarks are worth a read, one of which we have pasted below. You can find them here and here.

I am a patent attorney specializing in computer hardware/software, telecom, mobile computing, etc., as well as a DL fan and reader. i see a lot of confusion about a number of items here so i want to clarify a few points that are clearly being misunderstood:

1. the shift from ‘first to invent’ to ‘first to file’ has nothing to do with prior art. no patent will ever be valid if there is publicly available prior art that has made the invention known to the public before the patent filing. The only difference arises in a case where A invented something before B, but B was quicker to file his patent application. Under the ‘first to invent’ doctrine, if A can prove that he invented first, he will receive the patent even if he filed his patent application later. first to file changes this, whereby it doesn’t matter when you came up with the idea – only when you filed the patent application.

2. no one (including apple) can simply get a patent on an ‘idea’ without (a lot) more. i can’t just patent the idea of ‘unlocking a phone with face recognition.’ in order for a patent to be valid, it must ‘enable’ the invention. in a nutshell, that means that there must be enough detail for someone else in the same field to be able to read the patent and understand exactly what the invention is, how it works, and how to make it. abstract concepts are not enough – there must be concrete examples,steps,etc., which spell it out (here, likely a series of algorithms).

Bleh.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 01:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "note the update"
In response to Reply # 28


          


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 02:52 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "It's not necessarily the details of this specific patent..."
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

... it's the pattern of behavior that's bullshit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 10:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
32. "I hate apple as much as anybody"
In response to Reply # 30


          

I don't care in any direction that they patent things. everyone does.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 11:51 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "It's one thing to patent..."
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

...it's another to use it frivolously and offensively to stifle competition.

When it's warranted, it's warranted. But using software patents like "slide to unlock" and "clickable phone numbers in browser" is taking it to another level.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
BrillRick
Member since Jan 05th 2005
2479 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 12:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "I think it is somewhat valid"
In response to Reply # 34


          

>...it's another to use it frivolously and offensively to
>stifle competition.
>
>When it's warranted, it's warranted. But using software
>patents like "slide to unlock" and "clickable phone numbers in
>browser" is taking it to another level.

If Apple didn't patent certain aspects of their software, everyone would copy them. Before Apple popularized it, a touchscreen only phone was considered a fools errand, through their use of software and hardware they showed everyone. Apple's patent slide to unlock, protects them from people copying their years of research and development in methods to unlock a phone. Trust me, without the fear of patent lawsuit, samsung would copy Apple as much as they could. Patents haves also spurred innovation because now other OEMs have discovered other method (some better, some worse) to unlock the phone.

twitter: lategordon

Check out my podcast Long and Late Movie Show: http://itunes.com/podcast?id=498789655

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
BigReg
Charter member
62390 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 02:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
38. "Not to be funny, but did you read what you typed?"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

>copying their years of research and development in methods to
>unlock a phone.

Years of research into turning on a phone?

Like, Hardware and Software guts and basic design I can understand...but when you start playing with general concepts like 'turning on a phone' it gets problematic.

Imagine if nintendo trademarked 'a button used to pause the action on the videogame screen'

I understand protecting assets, I understand protecting code, I understand protecting engineering. But for general user interface ideas, I don't think it's a good thing at all.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Sat Dec-31-11 04:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
42. "everyone does it tho"
In response to Reply # 38


          

when you open your car door (if it's a nice car) all that shit, about how it works and makes it feel the way it feels, is patented. every bit of it.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Dec-31-11 08:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "The difference is..."
In response to Reply # 42
Sat Dec-31-11 08:11 PM by wallysmith

  

          

GM isn't suing Toyota for having door handles that open sideways.

Again, having patents isn't an issue (although the nature of software patents nowadays is making that trickier).

The issue is that Apple is patenting as much as humanly possible, then initiating litigation anywhere and everywhere, and even going so far as feeding actual patent troll companies (original post in this thread).

Edit: And nowadays, with patent laws moving from "first to invent" to "first to file" this just gives Apple even more bullshit leverage.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Sat Dec-31-11 08:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
44. "there is no motherfucking difference"
In response to Reply # 43


          

the only difference is what you think you know about how these companies do business.

this is about to no longer be polite.

YOU ARE GODDAMN WRONG.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Dec-31-11 10:15 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "Okay, I'll bite. "
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

How so? I have no problems discussing the issue but I'd like to know how I'm wrong.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 07:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
120. "we had this discussion in December"
In response to Reply # 45


          

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1LHioz6Zc

ad went out in march.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 01:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "Someone edit the title of this thread to be just: Fuck Apple"
In response to Reply # 0


          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Dec-30-11 02:36 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "^^^contributing to the discussion as usual^^^"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

Still waiting for a response to post #19 btw.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sat Dec-31-11 04:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "*feeds the troll a cookie*"
In response to Reply # 36


          

awwwwwwww you guys all he wanted was some attention, yesh he dids.. yesh he diiiids!!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
AlBundy
Member since May 27th 2002
9621 posts
Wed Jul-04-12 03:10 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "lol"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

osu_no_1
Member since Feb 26th 2003
9389 posts
Sun Jan-01-12 08:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "you gotta pay the troll toll "
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

you gotta pay the troll toll if you wanna get into that boy's hole, you gotta pay the troll toll to get in. you want the baby boy's hole, you come and pay the troll toll, you gotta pay the troll toll to get in.

troll toll!

what you say?

troll toll!

hey, hey, hey!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Jan-24-12 11:10 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "Sanity rules (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399245,00.asp

Dutch Court Denies Apple's Bid to Ban Samsung Galaxy Tab
By Chloe Albanesius
January 24, 2012 10:21am EST2 Comments

A Dutch court this week denied Apple's request to ban the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the Netherlands.

Apple has been fighting Samsung for months over accusations that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad with its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets.

Today's ruling comes about five months after another Dutch court imposed an EU-wide preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones, but declined to include the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Today's ruling, from the Gerechthof's-Gravenhage appeals court in The Hague, considered the design aspect of the Galaxy Tab patent claim, but reached a similar conclusion and sided with Samsung.

Apple is fighting design-related patent cases in several courts around the globe – from the U.S. to Germany. But determining design infringement can be a difficult task.

Patent blogger Florian Mueller said in a blog post that "the two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins. There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity of up to (for example) 70 percent. Instead, they need guidance from judges."

Those judges tend to vary on the scope of the protection Apple has when it comes to its design patents. A U.S. court and the Dutch court, for example, said the scope was narrow whereas a German court found it to be "medium-range or broad," Mueller wrote.

Next week, a Dusseldorf court will issue a ruling that might lift a temporary ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Next month, another Dusseldorf hearing will also address the case against the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a modified tablet Samsung introduced to get around the ban.
In a statement, Samsung said it was pleased with today's ruling.
"Samsung welcomes today's ruling by the court in the Hague, which affirms the August 2011 ruling that the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is distinctive and does not infringe Apple's intellectual property rights," the company said. "This ruling again demonstrates that Apple's products simply do not warrant the intellectual property protections that it believes."

Samsung will continue to take all appropriate measures, including legal action, to ensure continued consumer access to our innovative products," a spokesman concluded.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Jan-24-12 10:19 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "Galaxy Nexus infringes on slide-to-unlock (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/20/new_apple_suit_claims_galaxy_nexus_infringes_on_slide_to_unlock_feature.html

New Apple suit claims Galaxy Nexus infringes on 'slide-to-unlock' feature

By Mikey Campbell

Published: 04:50 PM EST (01:50 PM PST)


Apple's latest German complaint against Samsung is the first time the company has named the South Korean electronics manufacturer's flagship Android handset in a lawsuit, claiming the device infringes the iPhone maker's "slide-to-unlock" utility model.

Mere hours after serving up a ruling on Friday for a failed Samsung lawsuit against Apple, the Mannheim Regional Court held a hearing about a so-called Gebrauchsmuster ("utility model") complaint the Cupertino, Calif., company is leveling against the Galaxy Nexus, reports FOSS Patents.

In Apple's first suit that directly names Samsung's Android-based smartphone, the company claims the Galaxy Nexus infringes on the "slide-to-unlock" feature first introduced with the original iPhone in 2007 and subsequently patented with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in October 2011. In 2006 the company also obtained a "utility model" registration for the feature in Germany.

FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller describes a "utility model" as a limited fast-track patent that companies are allowed to file for alongside traditional patents, and Apple has done both for the "slide-to-unlock" in Germany.

Examinations of utility model registrations are not as stringent as patent filings and don't carry a presumption of validity which is necessary for a court ruling. Thus the Mannheim court does not foresee an immediate decision in the "slide-to-unlock" suit as it believes the validity or invalidity of the invention is too close to call.

Judge Andreas Voss could opt to stay the case pending the conclusion of an identical suit at the Munich-based Federal Patent court to avoid inconsistent rulings, but Apple wants to obtain a decision as soon as possible. If a stay was instituted, the "slide-to-unlock" model could come dangerously close to its 10-year expiration date, becoming increasingly devalued commercially.

As part of its defense, Samsung is pointing to a relatively unknown Swedish device called the Neonode that persuaded a Dutch judge to doubt the validity of Apple's "slide-to-unlock" filing in 2011. Mueller notes, however, that the standard of availability for a device is much higher in a utility model case than a patent suit.

The Mannheim court is expected to announce either a ruling, a stay or decision to appoint an independent expert to help assess Apple's claims on March 16, 2012.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-25-12 03:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "And the countersuits continue... fuck everyone (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

At best, hopefully this leads to a smartphone "cold war" where everyone just stops acting like fucktards

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/01/25/motorola-mobility-sues-apple-in-the-us-over-six-products-including-the-iphone-4s/

Motorola Mobility has sued Apple over various wireless patent violations by six of its products including the iPhone 4S, reports Retuers. The suit was filed in a Florida court and exercises patents related to antenna technology and more.

The case was filed in a Florida court on Wednesday and Motorola says that it involves six of Apple’s products including the iPhone 4S. Motorola claims that Apple has infringed on patents related to wireless antenna technology, software, data filtering and messaging.

Apple’s arguments that Motorola had done the same to several Apple design patents were denied by the U.S. International Trade Commission just last week.

While no mention was made of Google in the lawsuit, you can be sure that this has everything to do with the Android maker’s desire to protect its stake in the mobile market by gaining patent leverage. If Google were to win a patent case, via its soon-to-be-subsidiary Motorola Mobility, it would help to insulate it against further claims brought by Apple against it or any of the companies that make Android devices.

There is always the possibility that Google has bolstered Motorola’s complaints against Apple with its own trove of patents. This is something that it has done in Apple’s case against HTC.

In August of last year, Motorola was sued by Apple in Europe over the design of its Xoom tablet, in a case that is still ongoing.

Motorola has also filed suit against Apple in the US, claiming infringement against 18 patents in the District Courts, as well as with the International Trade Commission. Motorola has also recently won a GPRS (cellular radio) patent violation suit against Apple in Germany.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sun Feb-12-12 12:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "Apple aims for Android 4.0 (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/11/2791830/apple-seeks-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Nexus

Apple seeks to ban Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, but it's really going after Android 4.0

By T.C. Sottek on February 11, 2012 03:31 pm

Apple's intellectual property quest has traditionally gone after manufacturers and their dubiously familiar form factors, but now it looks like the company is aiming straight at Google and Android 4.0: Apple has filed a new motion in the US for a preliminary injunction that would ban the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Google's flagship Android device.

While Samsung has been the target of Apple's ire with a barrage of other lawsuits, the Galaxy Nexus' hardware isn't really the center of attention here. Since the claim is specifically about key software patents in Android 4.0, other manufacturers putting the latest stock Android OS on their devices could be open to similar lawsuits if the court rules in Apple's favor.

Here are the patents at stake:

US Patent No. 5,946,647 - this patent was filed in 1996 (issued 1999) and covers detecting data, such as a phone number, in an email or web page, creating a link to that data, and initiating an action like calling the phone number when the user selects the link. The data could also include addresses, dates, etc.

US Patent No. 8,086,604 - this patent claims priority back to 2000 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers searching multiple sources of information (on device and elsewhere) through a single search interface, such as Siri. Apple specifically touts Siri in its injunction request, but also argues that a unified text search is covered by the patent as well.

US Patent No. 8,046,721 - this patent claims priority back to 2005 (issued Oct. 2011) and covers Apple's signature slide-to-unlock feature. While Apple already has patent coverage on an image unlock feature, this newest patent is obviously intended to be a bit broader — likely addressing potential workarounds implemented by Google and OEMs over the last couple of years.

US Patent No. 8,074,172 - this patent was filed in 2007 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers providing word suggestions while the user types on a touchscreen keyboard, where the suggestions can be accepted or rejected by the user.

Apple already won a ruling over patent #5,946,647 back in December, when the US International Trade Commission banned the importation and sale of HTC Android devices including the Sprint Evo 4G, Verizon Droid Incredible, AT&T Aria, and T-Mobile G2. The other patents in Apple's new claim are relatively new — all having been issued in late 2011 — so we'll have to wait and see what the court decides. We'll be monitoring the progress of Apple's new patent suit closely, and will update you accordingly.

Matt Macari contributed to this report.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sun Feb-12-12 03:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "When Motorola Googility is finalized, this'll be an epic legal faceoff"
In response to Reply # 51


          

when all is said & done they should do the reenactment of this drama with action figures, stop motion animation & explosions.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Jul-02-12 08:51 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "Injunction against Galaxy Nexus. Lame."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/29/3126934/apple-samsung-judge-bans-galaxy-nexus

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Jul-05-12 07:57 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "HTC beats Apple in patent dispute (in the UK at least)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232

HTC defeats Apple in swipe-to-unlock patent dispute

HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.

The judge ruled that HTC had not infringed four technologies that Apple had claimed as its own.

He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an "obvious" development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset.

Apple has also cited the patent in disputes against firms using Google's Android system software.

Slide-to-unlock
HTC launched the London-based lawsuits a year ago as part of an effort to invalidate European patents Apple had referred to in a German court case. Apple subsequently countersued.

The four patents at stake were:

Unlocking a device by performing a gesture on an image.
The use of a multilingual keyboard offering different alphabets on portable devices, including mobile phones.
A system to determine which elements of a screen were activated by single-finger touches; which were activated multi-finger touches and which ignored touches altogether.
Letting a user drag an image beyond its limits and then showing it bounce back into place to illustrate that they had reached its furthest edge.

The judge ruled that the first three patents were invalid in this case, while the fourth did not apply to HTC's devices.

Lawyers fighting other lawsuits against Apple are likely to pay close attention to the decision regarding its slide-to-unlock patent.

The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004.

The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow.

The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used.

He added that the concept of a "slider" was not new since it had already appeared in Microsoft's CE system.

As a result Apple's claim to the innovation was rejected.

'Limited impact'
A statement from the Taiwanese firm said: "HTC is pleased with the ruling, which provides further confirmation that Apple's claims against HTC are without merit. We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace."

Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Apple has previously defended its slide-to-unlock patent in other disputes against Samsung, HTC and Google's Motorola unit with some success.

Most recently a US court ruled the patent was valid in a dispute that led to a sales ban being imposed on the Google-branded Nexus smartphone.

However, Andrew Alton, a lawyer at UK firm Urquhart-Dykes and Lord who used to do work for Apple, said the impact of the London ruling might be limited.

"National patent laws thematically are very similar, but can be applied very differently.

"Not only are the tests different but also the evidence that can be introduced in different courts varies. If the Neonode wasn't released in the US it might not be able to be cited there.

"So the fact that Apple has lost this particular patent battle in the UK shouldn't mean it should be seen to have lost the global war."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Jul-14-12 02:46 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "Apparently Samsung is now the equivalent of a pirate, thief and counterf..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-accuses-Samsung-of-pirating-stealing-and-counterfeiting-in-letter_id32265

Apple accuses Samsung of pirating, stealing and counterfeiting in letter
Posted: 2 hours ago, by Alan F.Categories: Samsung Apple Patents Bookmark
Shar iscuss38

When we characterized the Samsung-Apple legal battles as being the modern equivalent of the Hatfields-McCoys feud, we firmly had out tongue placed in cheek. Not anymore. First, let's recap. The court has granted a motion giving Samsung what it asked for, an expedited hearing on the Samsung GALAXY Nexus preliminary injunction. (more on that below) It also accepted Apple's response to the temporary stay on the injunction which will be taken into consideration. Additionally, Apple complained about Sprint and Google filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in favor of Samsung. Apple accused Google of not being an uninterested third party since it developed the Samsung GALAXY Nexus with Samsung. The Cupertino based firm said that Google was trying to hide its relationship with Samsung.

" letter shows nothing beyond the entirely predictable consequence of Samsung’s infringement — i.e., the infringing products must be taken off of the market. It is not a legally cognizable harm to halt downstream sales of stolen, pirated, counterfeit, or infringing products."

-letter from Apple

Samsung was granted an expedited hearing, as we said, for the preliminary injunction Apple won on the Samsung GALAXY Nexus. The injunction was later stayed by a Federal Appeals Court pending the hearing. As a result of Samsung's legal victory, the Korean based manufacturer must submit its court brief by the 16th of July to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Apple will have 14 days to respond and final comments will take place on the 6th of August.

Now comes the part of the article you were waiting for. You might recall that we told you on Friday that Apple had its lawyers write letters to retailers reminding them that thanks to preliminary injunctions, the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 tablet and the Samsung GALAXY Nexus should not be sold. The letters were sent before the Appeals Court put a stay on the Samsung GALAXY Nexus Preliminary Injunction. Samsung, as you might guess, didn't take too kindly to this action. Apple defended itself in a letter that included the following: "It is not a legally cognizable harm to halt downstream sales of stolen, pirated, counterfeit, or infringing products." Now, we were taught that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, you don't talk about them at all. But in this one sentence, Apple is accusing Samsung of counterfeiting, stealing and pirating. And something tells us that this is just the beginning. Put it this way, you wouldn't call Apple and Samsung to meet you for breakfast at IHOP (or is it iHop?).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sat Jul-14-12 05:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "the levels of this fuckshitplace is just amazing"
In response to Reply # 57


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Jul-14-12 05:35 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "The voices defending their practices have been curiously quiet."
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jul-18-12 02:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "Apple must post web notice saying Samsung didn't copy (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Fuck the patent wars and all that, but this is going too far in the other direction. No need to kick 'em while they're down.

Oh also, if anyone asks, this is currently on my front page on reddit. I can provide proof if needed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-apple-must-post-notice-online-in-uk-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-2012-7

A judge in Britain is forcing Apple to publicly acknowledge that Samsung didn't copy the iPad, according to a report by Bloomberg.
A judge has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in "several" British newspapers and magazines highlighting a recent ruling that Samsung didn't copy the iPad.
Apple must leave that notice up on its website for the next six months. Ouch!
Apple lost a case against Samsung in Britain earlier this month, as the judge ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab tablets weren't cool enough to be confused with the iPad.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Wed Jul-18-12 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "... The Galaxy Tab is banned in the US due to copying.."
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

The Galaxy Nexus was just banned.

The judge's order is in no way true.

Expect an appeal ASAP.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Wed Jul-18-12 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "Honestly, making the case that it is skips all sorts of logic"
In response to Reply # 61


          

Especially with the Nexus and the Tab being too different for words to be confused with a iPad. And saying the Nexus is jacking iOS is hilariously saying Android itself is just a mere clone when visually it's as different as you can get before veering towards WP7-8 territory.

What makes the US judge appear to be "right" and this judge to be "wrong"? So much general random shit getting the patent tag slapped on it to where it's veering towards stupidity.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Jul-19-12 09:30 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "Apple patents lists (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

So... this is innovation right? Apple's bringing us innovation that we didn't know we couldn't live without.

Lists UI! Huzzah!!

(top voted link submission on reddit; proof available upon request)

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/?source=yahoo_quote

Apple granted 'the mother of all smartphone software patents'
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt July 18, 2012: 7:53 AM ET

Email Print
The effects could be "swift and lethal" says a pro-Android blogger

From U.S. Patent No. 8,223,134

FORTUNE -- Both sides of the smartphone wars agree that the 25 patents granted Apple (AAPL) on Tuesday contain some powerful legal weapons.
One patent in particular -- No. 8,223,134: "Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying electronic lists and documents" -- stands out.

It encompasses the user interfaces Apple designed for blogging, e-mail, telephone, camera, video player, calendar, browser, widgets, search, notes, maps and most importantly, a multi-touch interface.
"Granted just today, the latest addition to the Cupertino-based tech giant's stable of intellectual property could be the mother of all smartphone software patents," writes Phandroid's Kevin Krause. "The effects could be swift and lethal."

Writing from the other side of the battlelines, Patently Apple's Jack Purcher doesn't hold back:

"In 2007, Samsung, HTC, Google (GOOG) and all others in the industry didn't have a smartphone with the likes of Apple's iPhone features. They didn't have the solutions that Apple eloquently brought to market to make a smartphone truly smart. Apple carefully and meticulously crafted a full end-to-end smartphone solution. So when the copycats and their followers whine in public and on blogs that Apple should learn to compete instead of initiate litigation – I bowl over with laughter."

Writing from a relatively neutral corner, Wired's Christina Bonnington quotes Tim Cook's remarks at this year's AllThingsD: "From our point of view, it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We can't take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
lc ceo
Member since Jan 19th 2012
1681 posts
Thu Jul-19-12 06:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "LOL. This is absurd. "
In response to Reply # 63


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Thu Jul-19-12 07:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Brain hurts bad reading the pro-Apple hippies in comments section"
In response to Reply # 63


          

You're allowed to be a fanboy & root as hard as you damn well choose, but the arguments on "ANDROID IS JUST DIRTY COPYCATS" is just disturbingly stupid :\

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Jul-27-12 09:28 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "All kindsa shit goin on nowadays"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Jul-27-12 09:38 AM by wallysmith

  

          

Overview of massive Apple vs Samsung trial:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-explained/

Apple's iphone copied Sony's design, according to Samsung:

http://dottech.org/ios/75007/apples-iphone-copied-sonys-design-according-to-samsung-apple-vs-samsung/

Jury to hear Samsung failed to to preserve evidence in Apple patent suit:

http://allthingsd.com/20120725/jury-to-hear-that-samsung-failed-to-preserve-evidence-in-apple-patent-suit/

Samsung asked Apple for a lower per unit amt that everybody else in the market pays for Samsung's patents:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518

Apple denied Galaxy Nexus and Tab ban in Germany:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/26/apple-denied-galaxy-nexus-and-tab-ban-in-germany/

Motorola Android devices banned in Germany for infringing Microsoft's FAT patents:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/27/3192900/microsoft-motorola-fat-patent-germany-decision


And in other patent news...

Did Apple just patent a game controller (dualshock ftw):

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/26/apple-patents-game-controller

Patent troll says it owns GPS, sues Foursquare

http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/patent-troll-says-it-owns-gps-sues-foursquare/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Jul-28-12 01:07 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "And now Kodak's patents are up for grabs..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443343704577553341769199960.html

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Jul-31-12 10:28 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "Jury selection begins... Apple and Google employees cut"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-jury-selection-cuts-one-apple-employee-and-a-googler/

Apple v. Samsung jury selection cuts one Apple employee and a Googler
Diverse panel is chosen, ready to hear the potential $2.5 billion patent battle

by Joe Mullin - July 30 2012, 5:22pm PDT
APPLE, INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWSUITS
67
APPLE V. SAMSUNG

More haggling over details in the last moments before Apple v. Samsung
Apple v. Samsung: Whose lawyers are earning more in the smartphone wars?

A jury has been seated for the mammoth Apple v. Samsung patent case beginning in San Jose, after a long day of questioning about the jurors' occupations, families, and what kind of smartphones and other devices they use.

Out of more than 70 potential jurors who filed into the courthouse this morning, a jury of seven men and three women were selected. They include an electrical engineer who worked in hard drives for over 35 years, a homemaker, a construction worker, a young unemployed man, an insurance agent, an ex-Navy avionics technician, a systems engineer, and a bike shop manager. They do not include one Apple employee and one Google employee who were in the initial pool from which jurors were selected. The Apple employee ruled himself out and the Google employee was rejected by Apple attorneys.

The would-be jurors gathered in the downtown courthouse were reflective of the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Many had technical backgrounds and advanced degrees. Of the final 24 jurors that answered extensive questions about their backgrounds, nine had been born outside the US.

At one point, potential jurors were asked if they or anyone they knew worked for Google, Apple, Motorola, or Samsung. One worked directly for Google, and one for Apple. The Apple employee said he couldn't be objective and was dismissed, but the Google employee—a user interface designer—said he could be fair. He initially stayed in the jury pool despite the objections of Apple lawyers, but Apple attorneys ultimately used one of their "strikes" to kick him off.

Several jurors also had friends or family who worked for one of the companies, but said they could stay objective and wouldn't talk to those friends during trial. The jurors were also asked what kind of technology they use and own. Some owned Samsung devices, especially televisions, but many more owned Apple devices.

The just-selected jurors may be hearing the largest patent infringement case of all time, if Apple is able to get anything near the $2.5 billion in damages it's asking for. Apple is saying Samsung infringed patents related to iPhone design and user interface technology, and Samsung has sued back, saying that Apple infringes its own patents. The San Jose battle is the centerpiece of the conflict between the two companies who dominate the smartphone market, with a combined global market share of more than 50 percent.

The line for entering the small San Jose federal courthouse this morning included throngs of lawyers, reporters, and interested observers, stretching down half of a city block. Three television crews stood around doing background shots, as lawyers from both corporations stayed mum and waited to be ushered through security check. Their assistants maneuvered boxes of documents, stacked six feet high on hand carts, through the courthouse doors.

Opening statements are scheduled for tomorrow. Both sides have hired top-tier legal talent to fight out this trial, as it is the centerpiece of a worldwide legal battle between Apple and Samsung over patents.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Jul-31-12 10:47 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Samsung reveals its pre-iPhone concepts: 10 touchscreen devices"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Pictures are important, so no swipe

http://www.osnews.com/story/26230/Samsung_reveals_its_pre-iPhone_concepts_10_touchscreen

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-01-12 08:58 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "I don't know if this was super dumb shit or absolutely brilliant..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Pissing off the judge is obviously not a good thing, but it seems like this is pretty damning evidence and shouldn't be omitted on a technicality.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial

Samsung angers judge by sending rejected evidence from Apple trial to the media
By Nilay Patel on July 31, 2012 09:12 pm

The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, but Samsung's already causing trouble on the first day of testimony: Judge Lucy Koh is furious that the company sent the press rejected evidence after the court overruled repeated attempts to introduce it at trial.

Samsung has been desperate to tell the jury about its F700 phone — which was in development months before the January 2007 introduction of the iPhone — and internal Apple emails that show the company pursuing a "Sony-style" design for the phone. All of this information has been public for days, but Samsung's motions to include it at trial have been denied because the company produced it too late in the discovery process. (For what it's worth, Apple has vociferously denied that the iPhone was inspired by Sony, claiming the mockup was just a fun design exercise based on an existing idea.)

Samsung has already appealed the rulings denying the evidence, but that didn't stop the company's lawyers from trying again today after Apple briefly showed the F700 on a slide during its opening statements. Claiming that Apple had "opened the door" to discussion of the F700, Samsung asked the court to reconsider. That didn't go so well with Judge Koh, who noted that "Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration," and asked Samsung lead attorney John Quinn to sit back down. At one point in the exchange Quinn told Koh that he was "begging the court," and desperately asked "what's the point in having a trial?" — but Koh simply wasn't buying it. "Don't make me sanction you," she said. "Please."

That woud have been the end of it — except Samsung immediately emailed its rejected slides regarding F700 development and the "Sony-style" prototype to the press with a statement saying "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." All Things D and several other outlets ran the slides and the statement, giving new public life to rejected evidence — and eventually Judge Koh found out.

In the words of Verge courtroom reporter Bryan Bishop, Koh was "livid" when she found out about the All Things D story and press release, and demanded to know if Quinn was involved. "I want Mr. Quinn's declaration as to what his role was," said Koh. "I want to know who authorized it." The trial eventually moved on, but Samsung's little gambit may have cost it one more ounce of goodwill from a judge who's clearly unhappy with both sides for failing to settle. Of course, with Samsung's repeated protestations entered into the court record, there's always the chance that the company's team is setting the stage for an appeal should Apple emerge victorious — but we'll have to see how the rest of the trial plays out first.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Aug-01-12 10:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "Do you WORK for Samsung?"
In response to Reply # 70


          

>Pissing off the judge is obviously not a good thing, but it
>seems like this is pretty damning evidence and shouldn't be
>omitted on a technicality.

Just asking.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-01-12 10:13 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "Evidence gets submitted past the discovery phase all the time..."
In response to Reply # 71


  

          

especially if it's relevant to the case, which is what this looks like. Oracle submitted evidence past the discovery phase in the case against Google, so why should this be different?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-02-12 09:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "And the repercussions begin... "
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Aug-02-12 10:02 AM by wallysmith

  

          

John Quinn Defends His Personal Honor As Apple vs Samsung Trial Gets Crazier

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/john-quinn-defends-his-personal-honor-as-apple-v-samsung-trial-gets-crazier/

with further analysis here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012080117581118

tl;dr: All the materials are already part of the public record and none of it was sealed. Samsung has a first amendment right to counter Apple's public claims that Samsung copied it. Judge Koh herself recognized that the public has an interest in most of the documents in this case, which is why she rejected both Apple and Samsung's motions to seal the documents.

However, both articles go into deeper detail and are pretty fascinating reads. It looks like Quinn released the evidence in a very calculated manner (and, technically, didn't actually do anything wrong), and is now taking the "fight" to the court of public opinion.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-02-12 01:47 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "Apple wants case dismissed with winning verdict due to leak"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/2/3215368/apple-requests-samsung-case-dismissed-winning-verdict-over-leaked-evidence

Apple wants Samsung case dismissed with winning verdict because of leaked evidence
By Adi Robertson on August 2, 2012 01:01 pm

Apple has filed a request over Samsung's decision to release rejected trial evidence to the media, asking Judge Lucy Koh to respond by issuing a verdict that says Apple's patents are valid and Samsung infringed on them. The statement notes that Samsung has been sanctioned several times, most recently for destroying evidence, claiming the company may even welcome a mistrial in order to further its "strategy of delay" and make it more likely jurors would have seen the excluded evidence Samsung leaked. Apple also says Samsung leaked the evidence without press asking for it, something that was true in our case.

Because of this, Apple says that making a judgment and dismissing the case is the only way to "fully rectify the harm that Samsung and Mr. Quinn have caused." Rejecting the idea of fining Samsung, "Apple respectfully requests that the Court sanction Samsung by granting judgment in favor of Apple on its claim that Samsung infringes Apple’s phone design patents, and granting judgment that those patents are not invalid."

Barring this, Apple wants the court to tell the jury that Samsung "engaged in serious misconduct" and copied the designs in question, then stop Samsung from offering any more evidence about the Sony-style design documents it leaked. The "Sony design exercise" evidence has already been rejected, but it's unlikely that Judge Koh will rule in Apple's favor in order to sanction Samsung.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

B9
Charter member
43122 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 10:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "APB on Wallysmith: back-breaker Samsung memo from 2010"
In response to Reply # 0


          

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 10:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "And there's also this report from yesterday:"
In response to Reply # 75
Wed Aug-08-12 11:01 AM by wallysmith

  

          

... calling into question the validity of Apple's expert witness.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240005067

And I didn't see anyone question the article in post 69, with the pre-iphone concepts that look a lot like the iphone *before* the iphone.

There are a lot of factors on either side. Personally, I feel the Galaxy S was the most egregious imitator of the iPhone. The packaging, plug and certain other elements are definitely cringe-worthy.

And, not everything that Apple claims infringes is infringing. Like trying to pass the app drawer as the primary home screen. Or that "scrolling at the same pace of a finger moving" is innovation.

And seriously? Who doesn't look at a competitor's successful product and find ways to hit those same notes? It happened with televisions, the Walkman, the iPod, the Wii, and tons of other products. Imagine if Nintendo had just outright sued Sony for blatantly copying the Wii... that hurts *consumers* by limiting competition. That's been my whole position this entire time. The massive boom of the tech industry in general this past decade+ has been innovators building on top of other innovators. Software is especially tricky since, in the eyes of patent issuers/enforcers, it's a far more "nebulous" concept than hardware.

The point is... think for yourself, people. I didn't post the article you just linked nor the article I just linked here (as rebuttal) because nothing's concrete yet.

That, and people here didn't seem to want to talk about the issue. But if you're willing to have a measured, objective debate about it I'm more than game.

Edit: Adding Judge Posner's position on patents here, because it's highly relevant to this discussion:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 11:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "Laughable"
In response to Reply # 76


          

I mean, er, um, FUCK APPLE.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
B9
Charter member
43122 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 11:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "But innovation isn't what this document is evidence of"
In response to Reply # 76


          


>And, not everything that Apple claims infringes is infringing.
> Like trying to pass the app drawer as the primary home
>screen. Or that "scrolling at the same pace of a finger
>moving" is innovation.
>
>And seriously? Who doesn't look at a competitor's successful
>product and find ways to hit those same notes? It happened
>with televisions, the Walkman, the iPod, the Wii, and tons of
>other products. Imagine if Nintendo had just outright sued
>Sony for blatantly copying the Wii... that hurts *consumers*
>by limiting competition. That's been my whole position this
>entire time. The massive boom of the tech industry in general
>this past decade+ has been innovators building on top of other
>innovators. Software is especially tricky since, in the eyes
>of patent issuers/enforcers, it's a far more "nebulous"
>concept than hardware.

Improving upon an existing idea or invention is innovation. To play into your example, the Sony Eye, or whatever they call it, is like the IR bar for the Wii only in that they are the basis for capturing interaction between the gamer and the system; but the Sony Eye is a totally different technology based on far more advanced and innovative motion capture design than a simple IR light bar/controller.

This document isn't pointing out deficiencies with the S1 compared to the iPhone for ways to innovate PAST the iPhone or simply correct oversight, it is flat out saying "we need to do exactly what they are doing". There is nothing innovative about aping another device or piece of software.

From a legal standpoint, this document may be frivolous unless there are direct Apple held patents in question, but it surely doesn't do Samsung any favors towards their claims of innovating on their own.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 12:19 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "Right, I'm not denying that."
In response to Reply # 78


  

          

> Improving upon an existing idea or invention is innovation.

As for the Sony Eye, I was speaking more about the Sony Move... I'm not familiar enough with the Eye to speak on it.

> This document isn't pointing out deficiencies with the S1 compared to the iPhone for ways to innovate PAST the iPhone or simply correct oversight, it is flat out saying "we need to do exactly what they are doing". There is nothing innovative about aping another device or piece of software.

So what then about all the recent Apple "innovations", like the Notification Screen, tab sync, "Do Not Disturb" and call-message replies, and turn-by-turn navigation? Did they invent these too?

This was the last paragraph in the article you linked:

>
Reached for comment, a Samsung representative told AllThingsD that this document isn’t nearly as damning as it might appear: “Samsung benchmarks many peer companies,” the rep said. “In fact, these are typical competitive analyses routinely undertaken by many companies in many industries – including Apple. Samsung stands by its culture of continuous improvement and innovation. We are very proud of the product innovations driven by our more than 50,000 designers and engineers around the world who have made Samsung’s products the products of choice.”
>

These "competitive analyses" exist EVERYWHERE in business. Again, show me a company that doesn't analyze their competitor's products (and find ways to add or improve popular features) and I'll show you a company that's out of business.

With that said, going back to the case...

You mention the document and how Samsung tried to copy Apple. In some cases, I agree, and in others, I don't. I addressed your article; how about addressing mine?

For starters, the article in post 69, showing all the pre-iphone design concepts before the iphone was released.... including a phone (the F700) that Apple agreed to remove because it became an actual phone that passed the concept stage and pre-dated the iphone. We all know that a big part of Apple's position is the design patent that encompasses "flat surfaces", "uncluttered displays", "rounded corners", and "rectangular design". What's your opinion on that?

Or the inconsistencies in the testimony from Apple's expert witness on industrial design? He billed $400/hr, earned $75,000+ from Apple and yet was unable to corroborate Chris Stringer's (one of Apple's lead designers) comments on how the Galaxy S' rounded corners "copied" the iphone design? Or how this self proclaimed expert on design functionality had *no clue* what the four buttons were on the bottom of Android phones? Seems like that would matter when trying to determine if a product's infringing, no?

Look, neither company is innocent in this case. Samsung clearly copied and/or was inspired by a number of Apple's fantastic aesthetics. And Apple built their mobile phone on the backs of numerous technical innovators with ***legitimate*** innovations that have become FRAND patents, yet steadfastly refused to pay licenses for those patents.

The disconnect lies in the fact that one company wants licenses for their innovation while the other company wants to REMOVE competitor's products off the shelves.

Again... I cannot stress this enough.... lack of competition hurts the CONSUMERS the most.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Aug-08-12 12:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "I think Wallysmith is Stefan Jones"
In response to Reply # 79
Wed Aug-08-12 12:35 PM by handle

          

http://www.inquisitr.com/296342/meet-stefan-jobes-conan-obrien-spoofs-apple-vs-samsun/

Or Sinbad.

Copying IS innovation - gotcha!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 09:30 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "lol"
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-14-12 09:23 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "Lots going on...."
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Aug-14-12 09:44 AM by wallysmith

  

          

Apple rests its case after claiming it lost 2 million iPhone and iPad sales due to Samsung

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239670/apple-rests-case-damages-expert-samsung-trial

Judge cuts international Galaxy S, S II, and Ace from Apple v. Samsung trial

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3240532/galaxy-s-i9000-i9100-ace-cut-apple-samsung-trial

Samsung's defense against Apple patents begins with DiamondTouch table, LiveTile UI prior art

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/13/samsungs-defense-against-apple-patents-begins-with-diamondtouch/

Chart showing Samsung's accused products vs Apple's asserted IP

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/13/Screen_Shot_2012-08-13_at_5.55.09_PM.png

(Yes, these are all on the front page of reddit)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 09:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "Coming to a close soon..."
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Aug-16-12 09:20 AM by wallysmith

  

          

Samsung expert: Apple's bounce-back patent is invalid, Patent Office never saw prior art:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

TED talk from 2006 proves Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent is invalid:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244580/jeff-hans-multitouch-demo-apple-samsung-trial-patent-validity

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU&t=2m37s

Judge requests Apple and Samsung CEOs meet one more time before case goes to jury:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3242081/judge-requests-apple-samsung-ceos-meet-trial/in/2971889

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Mongo
Member since Oct 26th 2005
45670 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 09:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
84. "Uhm..."
In response to Reply # 82


  

          

http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/16/apple-samsung-patent-trial-ipad-copy-google/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 09:57 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "Or provide a more complete and unbiased link, like this one:"
In response to Reply # 84


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3242077/samsung-industrial-designer-testimony-ipad-2-thinner-tab

Like I said above, Samsung isn't innocent in all this, and they clearly copied certain elements of the iphone/ipad, especially with regards to marketing materials like the packaging of the products.

However, note that the basis of Apple's design patent argument is that they "innovated" a combination of features including an "uncluttered display", "flat surface", "rounded corners" and a "rectangle". Is this form factor really innovative?

Here's a detailed account of the cross examination related to the design claims:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/6/3223372/peter-bressler-testimony-apple-samsung-trial

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 10:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. ".."
In response to Reply # 85
Thu Aug-16-12 10:02 AM by handle

          

http://candyaddict.com/blog/candy_images/100_grand.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 10:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "Right on time. =)"
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

>http://candyaddict.com/blog/candy_images/100_grand.jpg

With a link that doesn't even work?

Par for the course.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Mongo
Member since Oct 26th 2005
45670 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 01:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
88. "Okay, player. "
In response to Reply # 85


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-16-12 01:56 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "What a compelling counterargument."
In response to Reply # 88


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-17-12 04:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. ""What makes you so special?""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Thank you... Judge Koh gets it. Patent litigation is bullshit.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3248689/apple-samsung-paul-grewal-frustration/in/2971889

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Aug-18-12 12:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "And Google finally goes on the offensive..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/17/google-files-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-seeks-to-block-iphone-ipad-mac-imports-to-u-s/

Make no mistake, I'm against this bullshit too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sat Aug-18-12 08:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "I'm against it but it had to happen"
In response to Reply # 91


          

I wouldn't be so hard pressed on some of Apple's legitimate claims vs Samsung if not for the fact that Apple shown hints that they're willing to directly throw shots at Android with them shitting on the Galaxy Nexus in court. Who's to say Apple isn't going to get even more aggressive towards the next Nexus phone or tablet? Scaring off some manufactures both small & big to veer towards Windows who'd at the very least stays off of Apple's radar (for now?).

This is one ugly fight that I'm sadly giddy in watching unfold. Blood will be shed but by whom?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sun Aug-19-12 01:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "Right, pretty much agreed with everything. "
In response to Reply # 92


  

          

What I'm guessing Google's point in finally going on the offense is to eventually strike a cross licensing deal with Apple to stop the bullshit. They actually partnered together to purchase Kodak's patent portfolio, so that's encouraging (although a big part of that is that they didn't want to get into a bidding war for patents not worth Kodak's asking price).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-20-12 09:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "Samsung neutralizes adverse inference jury instruction concerning delete..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Pretty notable judgement... you can see the bitterness dripping from noted Google hater Florian Mueller:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsung-successfully-neutralizes.html

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-21-12 08:58 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "Groklaw's take on adverse inference... of course Florian fucks it up"
In response to Reply # 94


  

          

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257

The bottom line is, after a hearing today, there won't be any. The earlier adverse inference instruction that the magistrate ordered against Samsung has been dropped. And it was Apple that dropped it, when the judge gave them a choice to drop it or get an equal wording against Apple. And the lesson is, just because litigators know how to be super-aggressive, it doesn't always pay to act that way.

That means this is another failed prediction for FOSSPatents. Actually, three of them. First Florian Mueller wrote,1 when the magistrate issued the sanction against Samsung alone, that as a result Samsung now would have a credibility problem with the jury, which could be serious for Samsung. I corrected his misunderstanding of what was happening in this article, where you will find many more details. Mueller also called Samsung's subsequent motion for an equal adverse inference instruction "ridiculous", a motion "without merit", and one he predicted the judge would deny.2

Today he wrote that there would be equal adverse inference instructions against both Apple and Samsung, calling it a "surprising" development, but opined that Apple "may very well" win on appeal on this point.3 He wrote too soon, probably thinking that the judge's proposed order was final, missing the detail that the judge's proposed jury instruction was subject to a conference today. You can't appeal what you agreed to, as Apple did today.

Why keep pointing out his errors, you ask? Not for fun. Because it's not fun. It is, however, part of journalistic ethics to correct misinformation that get published. It's what journalism is for, to present the most accurate account that you can. And that sometimes means you have to correct what others have written.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Tue Aug-21-12 09:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
97. "there's a reason why we don't post about everything he posts"
In response to Reply # 95


          

or everything patent related in general. the simple fact is most of it doesn't mean anything, or at least doesn't mean what people think.

*shurg* I've followed the tivo patent through hell for years now. this is only a little worse.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-21-12 10:20 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "Yeah, the reason I posted it above..."
In response to Reply # 97


  

          

is because he broke the news. The only other article out there at the time was a CNN Fortune article that summarized and quoted his own article (it also wasn't widely reported, despite its importance to the trial).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-21-12 09:09 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "Apple renews fight against Galaxy Nexus due to "universal search""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Right... so Apple's Siri innovated the ability to search multiple sources, such as the internet and email contacts.

LOL

This is the Siri that Apple purchased and integrated into their OS, that's the innovator for unified search?

Versus the Google search bar that was automatically able to search multiple sources long before the Galaxy Nexus was even conceived?

Hey handle, I would love to see your spin on this one... "Copying is innovation" right? Because that's the definition Apple's using here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/samsung-sought-to-beat-iphone-with-galaxy-nexus-apple-says.html

The patent is for a unified search feature that captures results from multiple sources, such as the Internet and e-mail contacts. Perry said that ability forms the heart of Siri, because consumers like the comprehensive results they get when they ask a question.

Quinn said many consumers didn’t even know the feature was on the Samsung phones. It is the Android operating system that customers chose, he said.

Modern smartphones have thousands of features, and if patent owners can block products based on a single invention, all of the devices would be vulnerable to such orders and “the design and manufacture of similarly complex technological marvels would become economically infeasible,” Google wrote.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-21-12 10:23 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "And from a simple Google search..."
In response to Reply # 96


  

          

Google Search automatically showing results from multiple sources from Froyo:

http://www.unwiredview.com/2012/01/12/google-updates-search-for-android-gingerbread-honeycomb-and-froyo/

iOS4 search screen showing that you need to specify what results you want:

http://gigaom.com/apple/organizing-apps-in-ios-4/ios4-spotlight-app-search/

Oh yeah... Froyo was released a month before iOS 4:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history#Android_2.2.x_Froyo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#iOS_4.x:_fourth_major_OS_release





Fuck Apple.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Aug-23-12 02:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "Fantastic breakdown of the jury's responsibilities..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3260463/apple-samsung-jury-verdict-form-nightmare

It's absolutely mind boggling how dense the trial is, and the fact that it's in the hands of only 9 people is stunning (in the sense that Apple and Samsung let it go this far without a settlement).

I have literally no clue how this trial is going to end up, but the repercussions will be MASSIVE.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 05:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
101. "L"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Wally, this wasn't a complete L.

This is a lesson for every biter around the globe. STOP COPYING APPLE. Stop swagger jacking (trade dress for you lawyer niggas).

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "I have no problems being wrong in the courtroom..."
In response to Reply # 101


  

          

but like many arguments I've put forth here, I never got any real response as to why Apple was wholly in the right. Lot of hanging questions in my posts that never got answered.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
106. "Your core argument was just debunked in a court of law."
In response to Reply # 103


  

          

You thought the things Apple sued over were frivolous. They're not frivolous. A company cannot ape a product's essence and not pay dearly for it. Samsung copied Apple and this copying added up to over $1 billion worth of damages.

I hope this spurs ORIGINAL development I software and hardware. OEMs should find solace in the fact that originality always trumps copying. Don't copy Apple and position yourself as Apple with an open ecosystem. Build something new and innovative.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:16 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
107. "Post 82."
In response to Reply # 106


  

          

Prior art *existed* for both pinch to zoom and bounce back. So tell me how that's innovation again? Because Apple knew how to game a deeply flawed patent system?

Credit to Apple for gaming the system, but that's not innovation.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 03:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
210. "And YOUR core argument was just debunked in a court of law."
In response to Reply # 106


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 03:00 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
209. "Hey look, this statement is wrong."
In response to Reply # 101


  

          


>This is a lesson for every biter around the globe. STOP
>COPYING APPLE.

No willful infringement means no copying.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Thu Jan-31-13 12:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
214. "You stay taking L's android fanboy..:"
In response to Reply # 209


  

          

"Again, say goodbye to competition folks.

A shitty system gave way to a shitty player, and it's going to lead to a shitty marketplace.

Edit: So regardless on what side you were on in this whole ordeal, for the most part everyone agreed that the whole patent system was shitty."

Make no mistake, this verdict upholds that shitty system. The patent wars are going to go on and on with no end in sight, and more money is going to be tied up in lawyers and the courtroom than into the actual products."

^^ You said this. Where's the innovation that was stifled? I could've sworn Apple agreed to a patent licensing deal with HTC. Where's your post on that? Oh that's right you a fanboy. Samsung copied Apple. I noticed you Cuban B'd the trade dress W as well.

I'm glad you keep citing post 82. Notice the confidence you expressed in Samsung's victory and the vitriol and downright MADNESS you displayed after Apple's justifiable victory.

CRY over Samsung's declining smartphone shipments.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Jan-31-13 02:06 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
216. "This is how I know your reading comprehension is terrible."
In response to Reply # 214


  

          


>^^ You said this. Where's the innovation that was stifled? I
>could've sworn Apple agreed to a patent licensing deal with
>HTC. Where's your post on that? Oh that's right you a fanboy.
>Samsung copied Apple. I noticed you Cuban B'd the trade dress
>W as well.

Yes, I did say that. And I stand by it. It's funny how you keep complaining about "click bait" articles, yet when I point you towards real articles (posts 108, 116 and 117) you conveniently ignore them and yell "fanboy!" as if that's actually a real position.

Here it is again... an article in the Atlantic written by Judge Richard Posner, who actually stepped down to a lower jurisdiction to PRESIDE over Apple vs Motorola. He's also widely considered the most influential US judge that does not currently sit on the Supreme Court. You want to tell me this is click bait?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

He eloquently explains why patents make sense for SOME industries (like pharmaceuticals, where the cost of R&D is prohibitive) and explicitly states why it does not make sense for OTHER industries (like those involved with software), including why it would stifle innovation.

And guess what: the USPTO agrees that there are issues with the system, and this is why they're trying new things for reform:

(from post 178)
Patent Office tries "Stack Overflow for patents" to find prior art:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/patent-office-tries-stack-overflow-for-patents-to-find-prior-art/

Patents to the people: US Patent and Trademark Office sends staffer to live among NYC startups:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/2/3444814/uspto-david-kappos-cornell-nyc-america-invents-act

(from post 202)
USPTO hosting two roundtables in Silicon Valley and NYC on the issue of software patent reform
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104012214868

So yes, the system is broken, and the body in CHARGE of that system is utilizing multiple measures to try and FIX that broken system.



Now let me address your points:

- HTC - Apple's patent licensing deal
It's because HTC isn't a major player. HTC poses absolutely no threat to Apple, and so the threat of litigation with them carries no weight.

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34447_1-57562370/htc-q4-profit-sales-plunge-amid-holiday-crush/

Apple's goal with Samsung is INJUNCTION, not licensing. This is why I'm carrying this crusade. Imagine if Apple got everything they wanted: the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 7, Galaxy S II and III would all be off the shelves, and if they won those, they probably would have chased the Note and Note II as well. Is this what you really want?


>I'm glad you keep citing post 82. Notice the confidence you
>expressed in Samsung's victory and the vitriol and downright
>MADNESS you displayed after Apple's justifiable victory.

Are you even reading this thread? Post 82 was back in Aug 2012. There have been several relevant updates to that post, including:

(from post 197, Oct 2012)
USPTO tentatively invalidates rubber banding patent
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding

(from post 201, Dec 2012)
From the post trial hearing, Judge Koh finds holes in the "tap to zoom" patent, along with lower damages:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/at-key-apple-samsung-hearing-judge-talks-lower-damages

The USPTO has also ruled that the "pinch to zoom" patent is tentatively invalid due to prior art:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121219174625546


Seriously, do you read anything at all? Other than HTC's sales figures (which isn't even related to the issue) every single one of your arguments I just blew up using old posts from this very thread.


>CRY over Samsung's declining smartphone shipments.

This confirms just how severely underinformed you are. Declining smartphone shipments huh?

Here you go... global smartphone sales figures for Q4 2012.

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQIPbh0qaSp

Samsung's global marketshare went from 22.5% (36mm sold) last year to 29% (63mm sold) this year, good for a 76% year over year change.
For comparison's sake, Apple's global marketshare went from 23% (37mm sold) last year to 21.8% (47.8mm sold), good for a 29.2% year over year change.

So yes, even though Apple is increasing their global sales, their actual global marketshare declined. And uh, Samsung just sold 76% MORE phones this year than they did last year.

This is fun. Please keep talking about things you don't understand.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:00 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
102. "Verdict being announced now..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

...heavily in Apple's favor.

Say goodbye to competition.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:05 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
104. "$1,051,855,000 in damages."
In response to Reply # 102


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
105. "The worst part is that all of Apple's patents are deemed valid."
In response to Reply # 102
Fri Aug-24-12 06:13 PM by wallysmith

  

          

Again, say goodbye to competition folks.

A shitty system gave way to a shitty player, and it's going to lead to a shitty marketplace.

Edit: So regardless on what side you were on in this whole ordeal, for the most part everyone agreed that the whole patent system was shitty.

Make no mistake, this verdict upholds that shitty system. The patent wars are going to go on and on with no end in sight, and more money is going to be tied up in lawyers and the courtroom than into the actual products.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
109. "*shrug* it's the system we have"
In response to Reply # 105


          

also this is getting appealed all to hell so don't think it's over by a long shot. but really, this is why everyone settles and cross licenses. *shrug*

this kind of thing is avoidable tho. Samsung's real problem here is that they mostly did do what Apple accused them of doing and under the current system that can be found to be illegal, and it ain't liking apple to say that.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
110. "Oh, it'll definitely get appealed"
In response to Reply # 109


  

          

But overturning the jury's verdict happens almost never... at best, they're going to granularize the damages and make it something actually reasonable.


>but really, this is why everyone settles
>and cross licenses. *shrug*

Didn't happen here though.


>this kind of thing is avoidable tho. Samsung's real problem
>here is that they mostly did do what Apple accused them of
>doing and under the current system that can be found to be
>illegal, and it ain't liking apple to say that.

I don't doubt that Samsung copied elements of Apple's design and marketing, and some are clearly obvious. But, again, the biggest issue has been the broadness of interpretation of Apple's "innovations" and the length that they're pursuing it to (which is the entire basis of Posner's judgement and follow up statement).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
celery77
Member since Aug 04th 2005
25307 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
111. "exactly -- I could give a fuck about the $, but this fucks businesses"
In response to Reply # 105


  

          

and $1B? the incentive for patent trolling just got upped.

fuck Apple, fuck the Silicon Valley. that's my hometurf, man, and I'm not blind to what goes on there. lots more people just trying to get rich than there are people trying to innovate, fuck alla Silicon Valley's lies.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 08:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
122. "Eh, my main question is if the Galaxy Nexus got caught in this too"
In response to Reply # 105


          

I'm cool with Samsung getting caught with their own TouchPiss UI copying Apple, but a "pure" Google phone getting hit too?

bleeeeeh

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
d.
Member since Dec 13th 2009
4132 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:39 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
112. "$1bn is a small price to pay to become the #1 smartphone maker"
In response to Reply # 102


  

          

for the most part, Sammy just has to make some small modifications to
their Android UI, change a few of the animations, and ensure their
hardware isn't Apple-like

(I'm curious to see whether the hardware ruling holds up on appeal.
I thought the evidence Samsung presented was compelling enough that
they could win on that point):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/samsungs-argument-that-it-didnt-copy-the-iphone-and-ipad-in-pictures/



___

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
113. "Tweet from Nilay Patel..."
In response to Reply # 112


  

          

managing editor for The Verge and a former copyright lawyer, commenting on how short it took the jury to render a verdict:

"Jury clearly gave up at the end after definitively ruling for Apple. Just ruled to end the case there."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
celery77
Member since Aug 04th 2005
25307 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
114. "except it's social waste, lots of smart ppl arguing over piles of loot"
In response to Reply # 112


  

          

instead of actually doing something productive with their time.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
115. "You hit the nail on the head."
In response to Reply # 112


  

          

$1 billion is a small price to pay for copying Apple. They can pay that and keep I moving.

Everyone saying this is too much is a clearly a misguided Android fanboy. Apple was hurt by Samsung's copying and trade dress. They got away with iPad copying.

How is this verdict going to stifle innovation in the industry. Samsung and Apple make 85% of the profit. Apple's not suing LG or Sony. Apple's not suing Meizu and look at the M9. Seriously, someone show me how this is stifling innovation.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 07:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
116. "Honestly, this isn't about fanboyism."
In response to Reply # 115
Fri Aug-24-12 07:18 PM by wallysmith

  

          

Seriously. Read the two articles I posted in #108 (or the Atlantic link and the article in post #117). They were written by someone far more intelligent than me, with a million times more influence, and he doesn't have a dog in the fight. He explains far better than I can how the very antiquated patent system is no longer equipped to handle today's fast moving, technologically-driven world.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 07:26 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
118. "It's not that simple."
In response to Reply # 112


  

          

>for the most part, Sammy just has to make some small
>modifications to
>their Android UI, change a few of the animations, and ensure
>their
>hardware isn't Apple-like

For patents like bounce back, it'd be an easy workaround, and I think newer Android phones already avoid that.

However, for stuff like pinch to zoom? Apple (if they're so inclined) is now going to negotiate a royalty fee for the use of the patent and the Android phone makers have to pay whatever outrageous fee Apple deems is "fair" since they now have the legal high ground.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 06:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
108. "And because it's still relevant..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I want to relink some articles on another Apple vs Android case (in this case Motorola) that was seen by Judge Posner, the most influential U.S. judge that doesn't sit on the Supreme Court.

The basis for dismissing the case with prejudice:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/22/3111607/apple-v-motorola-judge-posner-dismisses-entire-patent-case?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

And his take on the shittiness of the current patent system:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725



I'm REALLY curious to see what he has to say about this current case.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 07:17 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
117. "Too late to edit the above post..."
In response to Reply # 108


  

          

but here's a more detailed look at why Judge Posner dismissed the Apple vs Motorola case:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/20/3101619/judge-posner-apple-motorola-injunction-hearing

Easier reading than slogging through the 38 page pdf in the other Verge link above.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 07:38 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
119. "And for those that keep ignoring my "killing competition" argument?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

From Nilay Patel, managing editor of The Verge and former copyright lawyer:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266571/apple-decisively-wins-samsung-trial-what-it-means

"The company spent most of the past month telling the jury that the iPhone was a revolution five years in the making, and that Samsung had taken just three months to copy it, without bearing any of the costs or risks involved. The jury clearly agreed — and most importantly, the jury agreed that all of Apple's patents are valid, even after Samsung spent hours trying to demonstrate prior art.

After this, the dominoes will begin falling fast. In the short term, expect Apple to seek sales injunctions against the accused devices that are still on sale — the Galaxy S II is still available around the world, for example, and the power of a jury verdict will make those requests very easy for Apple to pursue. We're also sure to see Samsung appeal many of the legal decisions made in the case, and it's all but certain Apple will appeal the jury's decision regarding the iPad's trade dress protectability. That's a big chip for it to win."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

My_SP1200_Broken_Again
Charter member
56889 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 08:04 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
121. "LOL"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 08:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
123. "And there it begins... "
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266719/apple-vs-samsung-preliminary-injunction-hearing

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 09:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
124. "Best best animated gifs for the reaction to the verdict"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Aug-24-12 09:27 PM by handle

          

Post em- they're showing up everywhere.

Willy Wanka: http://i.imgur.com/MrHvs.gif

(Edit:The Apple V Samsung V Apple case that reached verdict on 08/24/2012)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
chillinCHiEF
Charter member
39871 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 01:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
126. "lol"
In response to Reply # 124


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Aug-24-12 10:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
125. "yo wallychamp, you going to go on the warpath vs. dyson?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CatkHM4MRrA

that they're blocking competitors from making anything even like their vacuums is part of their fucking advertising. *shrug*

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:11 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
133. "LOL, you and your lame proxy wars."
In response to Reply # 125


  

          

So are you saying that vacuum patents are anywhere near the level of impact that mobile software patents have?

I'm not denying that defending intellectual property is an ancient practice, but claiming that "all patents are created equal" is just plain wrong.

I've linked Judge Posner's viewpoint on patents here several times; I'd suggest you read it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
139. "if the problem is that the system is broken"
In response to Reply # 133


          

how is dyson's anticompetitive behavior escaping your wrath?

how are vacuums NOT more important than smartphones. literally every house in america has at least one.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 01:24 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
142. "And your arguments are *literally* getting dumber and dumber."
In response to Reply # 139


  

          

You wouldn't entertain this line of argument if it was posed to you, so why should I?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 02:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
143. "I figured you'd be happy anyone will engage you on this shit"
In response to Reply # 142


          


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 08:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
144. "It's funny, because as much as you want to claim..."
In response to Reply # 143


  

          

... that this is all "business as usual, who gives a fuck", literally the rest of the *entire world* doesn't see it the same way.

This whole sequence of events has court cases going on all over the world involving several tech giants, CNBC is covering it all day, Mark Cuban is tweeting about, massively influential judges are stepping down into lower circuits specifically to take its cases (and dismissing them), tech sites liveblogging court decisions, Steve Jobs "going thermonuclear" and now it's gone far enough that we're seeing Google throwing out their own offensive salvos. So no, this isn't on the level of some vacuum patents, no matter how much you'd love for it to be.

But it must really burn your soul to have to cover something so "trivial" for your own job, no?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Wed Aug-29-12 11:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
153. "fucking dumbass"
In response to Reply # 144


          

so in your opinion media coverage = importance?

congratulations. what kin kardashian had for lunch is the most important thing of all time.


it's a massive trial between two of the biggest electronics companies in existence. it is important. every minute step that you think you know anything about and so laughably don't? not.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-29-12 11:50 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
154. "Typical Rjcc response..."
In response to Reply # 153


  

          

Dodging questions and needless insults.

>so in your opinion media coverage = importance?
>
>congratulations. what kin kardashian had for lunch is the most
>important thing of all time.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I said nothing implying "media coverage = importance." Note that I also mentioned worldwide court cases, a massively influential judge stepping down to take Apple vs Motorola and Google going on the offense.... none of which have to do with media coverage.

And you were curiously quiet in this post:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=272491&mesg_id=272491&page=4

ever since Judge Posner shitted on both litigants, then wrote a pretty damning perspective on the current structure of the patent system. I suggested you read his take in The Atlantic, yet you've been quiet on that too. Here's the link again to make things easier for you:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725


>it's a massive trial between two of the biggest electronics
>companies in existence. it is important.

What's that sound? Is that you changing your tune? Here are some quotes from just this thread:

"I don't care in any direction that they patent things. everyone does."

"everyone does it tho... when you open your car door (if it's a nice car) all that shit, about how it works and makes it feel the way it feels, is patented. every bit of it."

"there is no motherfucking difference. the only difference is what you think you know about how these companies do business."

Yes, everyone patents shit, and everyone litigates. I've never denied that. But you've been popping off about how it's just "business as usual" when it's not. The extreme escalation has gotten to ridiculous heights and it's symptomatic of a broken system (confirmed by a U.S. judge that's probably smarter than everyone on this forum put together).

>every minute step that you think you know anything about and so laughably don't?
> not.

So, like I asked you back in December..

"How so? I have no problems discussing the issue but I'd like to know how I'm wrong." Please tell me how I'm "laughably wrong" at every minute step of the way. This post is filled with countless articles that detail my position better than I can, so I would definitely welcome an opposing viewpoint... some evidence would be good though... "YOU ARE GODDAMN WRONG" doesn't exactly cut it.

(sidenote: and WOW... I just noticed now that you replied back EIGHT MONTHS LATER with an AD CAMPAIGN.... wow, that's hilarious. Calling me out for relying on media coverage (when I didn't), then using an ad campaign to "prove" a point. Got it.)

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#267576

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Fri Aug-31-12 12:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
158. "oh my god you're anidiot"
In response to Reply # 154


          

congratulations, you've made handle look sane.

"quiet" because I'm not replying to threads I don't give a single fuck about.

k.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-31-12 01:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
159. "LOL, yup, right on time."
In response to Reply # 158


  

          

I could set a clock to your responses.

Regardless on whether or not you give a fuck, the point is that Posner's article basically shits on your entire position. I've pointed you in that direction several times now and you've ignored it every single time.

The magnitude of this proxy war between Apple and Android is much larger than an ad campaign regarding car patents or an ad campaign regarding vacuum patents (lol). Posner details the situation, describes where patents make sense (pharmaceuticals; industries with high "cost to invent") and where they don't (technology and software).

And, right on cue, your response is comprised of meaningless insults and avoidance of direct questions. One thing that surprised me though... it didn't come with a "YOU ARE GODDAMN WRONG" this time.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
southphillyman
Member since Oct 22nd 2003
90059 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 10:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
162. "damn....."
In response to Reply # 159


  

          

~~~~~~

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 11:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
127. "I just fucking hate that the Nexus got dragged down into this shit"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Samsung did their dirt everywhere except the one phone where Google said "nah"

bleeeeh

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 12:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
128. "What happens at the Federal Circuit is what really matters"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Let's hope those judges are a little wiser than the morons sitting on this jury.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 02:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
129. "Apple-Samsung juror speaks out"
In response to Reply # 128


          


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out

Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors who ruled in favor of Apple, tells CNET he thought Samsung's internal e-mails about incorporating some of Apple's technology into its devices, and the evasive way Samsung executives answered questions, was damning.


(Credit: Vicki Behringer)
Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple.

Ilagan told CNET in an exclusive interview that the jury had several sometimes "heated" debates before reaching its verdict yesterday. He also said nothing in the deliberation process was rushed and that the jury carefully weighed the evidence.

"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented," Ilagan said. "It was clear there was infringement."

Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan said:

"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury: its offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.

The jurors came to their decision in 21 hours, or less than three work days. They ruled in favor of Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. The jury also awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages.

Apple had originally sought $2.75 billion in damages. Though it wasn't unanimous on all counts, the verdict was a major victory Apple. Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't convince the jury that Apple infringed on any of its patents and received nothing in damages.

The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

"It didn't dawn on us on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art . was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

To those who are skeptical that the jury could reach a decision so quickly on more than 700 often complex patent questions, Ilagan said members of the jury took their job seriously and didn't take any shortcuts.

"We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."

The deliberation process moved faster once all the jury members had agreed that Apple's patents were infringed.

"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."

A bezel is a term analogous with the non-functional area around a digital screen, also refers to an ornamental band around the front face. In Apple's first iPhone was polished chrome, a look that stayed with it for three generations until the iPhone 4.

During the trial, Samsung attempted to undercut the importance of the bezel. That included bringing out one of its design experts to say that the feature was functional, and therefore dictated form -- a part of Samsung's argument that jurors appear to have actually bought based on what was a very mixed ruling of infringement on the patent that covers the look of that feature.

As far as the criticism that Ilagan also said there was no hometown bias.

"We weren't going for Apple," Ilagan said. "We were going by the judge's instructions on how we should go about it, and we stuck to that. We weren't thinking Apple or Samsung."

As far as the deliberation process was concerned, each of the jurors had some kind of expertise or played some role that helped the process go smoothly. Hogan, the jury's foreman, owned a company that went through the lengthy process of obtaining a patent. He was also on a jury three prior times.

The two women on the jury, Luzviminda Rougieri and Aarti Mathur, helped keep the discussion on track and within the rules, Ilagan said. One of the jurors, believed to be Peter Catherwood, is a project manager with AT&T and he helped the group add up damages, Ilagan said.

Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung, a battle over billions
"I was vocal about the technical , about the power controls, because I know that stuff," Ilagan said. "I work on that."

Ilagan has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and worked as a systems engineer for Western Electronic and as an applications engineer for Stanford Telecom.

Four of the nine jury members, which all lived in the area around San Jose, Calif., where the trial was held, had experience working for technology companies, including Intel and AT&T. Hogan worked for a hard-drive company.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 06:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
130. "Someone pleas defend this:"
In response to Reply # 129


  

          

Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan said:

"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury: its offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
chillinCHiEF
Charter member
39871 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 07:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
131. "hahaha"
In response to Reply # 129


  

          


>
>Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury:
>its offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its
>patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent
>involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G.
>During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a
>licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips
>Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able
>to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the
>receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

chillinCHiEF
Charter member
39871 posts
Sat Aug-25-12 07:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
132. "Seems like Samsung woulda been better off just"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

admitting they stole their ideas and settling out of court.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:21 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
134. "The dissenting voices come out..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:

"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement."

Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself , told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:

"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions."

If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:

"Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?"

If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.

One of the jurors has now spoken, and CNET's Greg Sandoval has it, in his article, Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out:

"It didn't dawn on us on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art . was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

This gets worse and worse.

Dan Levine of Reuters has some words from the foreman:

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
Hogan said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days -- much faster than legal experts had predicted -- because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said."

Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages , they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:

"The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer."

One more quote from the foreman, thanks to Bloomberg News:

“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:24 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
135. "EFF's take"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/apple-samsung-should-fight-battle-in-marketplace

Our patent system is intended to incentivize innovation, in theory at least. Lately it’s become little more than a tool to squelch competition, and it’s not just the Apples and the Samsungs of the world who find themselves fighting these battles. It’s also small and innovative companies, local governments, foreign companies trying to make it in America, hobbyists, and even individual developers. The problems are particularly acute in the world of software: it turns out that software patents are nearly five times more likely to be the subject of litigation as other patents. In fact, lawsuits surrounding software patents have more than tripled since 1999.

Apple v. Samsung is not the problem in itself, but it’s a symptom of a broken system.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:28 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
136. "Cognitive bias "
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://technologyspectator.com.au/apple-really-original

The fact that companies are happy to appropriate other people’s ideas, but fight to the death in court when someone borrows theirs, is known in psychological terms as a cognitive bias. In this particular case, the cognitive bias is loss aversion. We are naturally programmed to associate more value with something that we have to give up than the value we associate with it to gain it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:29 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
137. "Unbiased post trial coverage"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3269534/apple-samsung-gear-triple-damages-injunctions-and-no-reasonable-jury-JNOV

There's no doubt Apple walked out of the San Jose courtroom Friday afternoon the undisputed winner according to the jury in the Apple v. Samsung case, but there are still many details to work out as the trial process wraps up. We're not even close to appeals yet, although those will absolutely come later. There's still a lot to do in Judge Koh's courtroom over the next few weeks.

Today will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the case: a brutal stretch of legal briefings and in-court debates, where both Samsung and Apple will break down and scrutinize a large number of those 700 individual questions tackled by the jury. And we know how much these attorneys like to file papers with the court — there were around 2000 formal objections filed just for the trial stage of the case. Obviously, Samsung will have far more to complain about, but you can rest assured that Apple will lodge several challenges of its own.

In the immediate future, both sides will file motions for a "judgement notwithstanding the verdict," or JNOV. It's exactly what it sounds like: Samsung will essentially ask Judge Koh to overturn the verdict in its favor on nearly every issue where the jury found in favor of Apple. This will include the jury's position that Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property, that Apple's patents were held to be valid, that Samsung's infringement was willful, and the determinations that all of Samsung's patents were found to not be infringed by Apple. Similarly, Apple will likely file motions to challenge the jury's finding that some of its trade dress protection on the iPad didn't exist, and that the Galaxy Tab didn't infringe its design patent. Moreover, the jury was forced to correct several of its damages calculations after the verdict was read, so we're sure there will be continued questions about whether the final numbers make sense.

The scope and appropriateness of such motions can be complicated — for instance, a party filing the motion must have previously raised the issue after the opposing side presented its primary case to the jury — but in reality it's simply Samsung and Apple's way of asking Judge Koh to overturn all or a part of the jury's verdict. Right or wrong, the jury system is a cherished institution in the US, so judges are reluctant to take either machete or scalpel to verdicts. The legal standard for disrupting the verdict is also extremely strict: in order to make changes, Samsung and Apple will have to persuade Judge Koh that "no reasonable jury" could have come to a particular conclusion. That's a pretty tough threshold to get over.

Apple is also asking the court for injunctions based on the verdict, and that hearing is already set for September 20th. This is often the scariest thing about a patent case for a defendant — the risk that your products will be yanked from the market — but Samsung introduces a lot of new products each quarter, so it may be a little less fearful than most. Apart from the Galaxy S II, most of Samsung's infringing products aren't on the market anymore. The Galaxy Nexus and S III aren't part of this case, so they won't be affected by this outcome. So even if Apple can prove that it will be irreparably harmed by continued sales of these older devices, Samsung's newest flagship phones will come out of this battle unscathed.

Mixed in with all of this will be Apple's inevitable motion to increase the damages based on the jury's finding that Samsung's infringement was willful. This is Apple's most important outstanding issue. The law allows Koh to increase the damages up to three times if the jury finds willful infringement, so Apple's billion-dollar win could turn into three billion. While significantly increasing damages based solely on a finding of willfulness is not the norm, there are reasons for Samsung to be worried. First, a great deal of evidence was presented in the case showing that Samsung intentionally and methodically copied aspects of the iPhone and iOS. Second, Samsung's attorneys angered Koh and her magistrate on more than one occasion. All of that can be taken into account by the court in determining whether an increase in damages is warranted — the goal is to encourage settlement, and triple damages are used to disincentivize companies from pushing a bad case through the courts. While outright tripling a jury's damage award is not very common, we wouldn't be at all surprised if the court decided to bump that 1.04 billion dollar award up a bit.

And there's still always the possibility of settlement. Both Apple and Samsung have already risked a great deal in letting a jury of nine people decide their fate, and Samsung paid an enormous biggest price for that gamble. The Korea Times reports that an emergency meeting took place at Samsung headquarters on Sunday in response to the verdict, with one executive apparently saying "it's absolutely the worst scenario for us." Samsung's negotiating leverage isn't what it was a few days ago, but things can change quickly — especially with all of those other outstanding lawsuits between the companies around the world. Any one of those separate battles can go against either Apple or Samsung, and Apple has to know things can still change quickly. A universal settlement still makes sense for both parties if they can just get past the initial awkwardness of the conversation and decide and who will be designated the net winner.

As always, we'll be following every development closely, so stay tuned.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 10:33 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
138. "And here's the foreman's patent"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.google.com/patents?id=XjGoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

Apparently he patented the HDD.

This is the same guy who said they "didn't consider prior art, (because) it was bogging us down."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 11:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
141. "Step away from the baords for a few weeks, player"
In response to Reply # 138


          

>http://www.google.com/patents?id=XjGoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>Apparently he patented the HDD.
>
>This is the same guy who said they "didn't consider prior art,
>(because) it was bogging us down."

You're mind is too twisted to make sense of the monumental ass kicking you just took.

You find a pull quote from one article that does not present the entire interview and then you make the conclusion that the jury decided to skip something and never to answer it.

Seems like other quotes from interviews, and the fucking verdict form it self, shows that they DID consider prior art.

http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html#ixzz24lRhRyY7

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

You're madder than a Republican who lost an election because of the "negro vote."

Honestly, stop reading Reddit and Gizmodo for a week, go outside, talk to some humans, take that BM you so desperately need, think about the universe and then come back and post like a HUMAN.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 11:16 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
146. "It took the jury just two days of deliberation..."
In response to Reply # 141


  

          

to get through 109 pages of jury instructions and 20+ pages with over 700 questions that involved over a dozen devices.... WITH unanimous consent on each question.

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-jurors-grappled-complex-patent-issues-211251512--finance.html

Deliberations in the Apple v. Samsung battle were far more challenging than most. The jury was confronted with hundreds of questions on a 20-page verdict form that was more complicated than a U.S. tax return. They had in the jury room more than two dozen electronic devices at issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109-pages of instructions from the judge on rendering a verdict.

"This case is unmanageable for a jury," Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. "There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it."

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control," Feldman said. "No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

The jury arrived at its verdict after less than three days of deliberations, far swifter than many experts thought in view of the many complex issues.

The foreman, Velvin Hogan, a 67-year-old electrical engineer, told the San Jose Mercury News on Saturday that the panel was methodical. "We didn't whiz through this," said Hogan, who relied on his own experience patenting inventions. "We took it very seriously."
Hogan, who does not own Apple products, said the first task was to determine if Apple's patents were valid. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on first night of deliberations while watching television. "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things."

The foreman was biased from the start.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 02:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
149. "You've got a real, honest to goodness illness"
In response to Reply # 146


          

No sarcasm, seek counseling.

And R.I.P.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Mon Aug-27-12 11:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
140. "Niggas MAD... they still MAD."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Apple's stock opened at $680 Billion.

I just want to point out that Apple can be awarded triple damages. Samsung should either take the L or settle AND stop biting Apple. Aplle's shown it takes time to create innovative products but it can be done.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 03:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
211. "Actually, no."
In response to Reply # 140


  

          

>Apple's stock opened at $680 Billion.

Well, this is no longer true.

>
>I just want to point out that Apple can be awarded triple
>damages. Samsung should either take the L or settle AND stop
>biting Apple. Aplle's shown it takes time to create
>innovative products but it can be done.

Nor this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 10:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
145. "Short and to the point indictment on the patent system..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-apple-samsung-patents-20120828,0,6151229.story

After finding Samsung liable for more than $1 billion in damages for infringing Apple's iPhone and iPad patents, members of a federal jury told reporters that they hoped to deter companies from copying one another instead of developing their own designs and features. That's a laudable goal, and the public would surely benefit from more choice and differentiation among products. The challenge is in distinguishing between the sorts of innovations that should receive patent protection and the ones that shouldn't.

We don't mean to second-guess the jurors or defend Samsung, which was found to have deliberately imitated Apple's iPhone designs and some of its functions. If companies were able to wait for their rivals to come up with successful devices, then rush out copycat versions with confusingly similar features, there would be less money spent on R&D and more on marketing.

Nevertheless, it's worth remembering that Apple made its name building successful, even iconic products based on ideas that other companies pioneered. The iPhone, for example, was a significantly better version of the smartphones Nokia introduced more than a decade earlier. Innovation is by its nature an iterative process, and good patent policy creates an incentive to innovate more. Bad policy just makes it easier for patent holders to extract royalties from anyone venturing within reach of their claims.

The risk is especially great in the area of patents on design, such as the ones that covered the look and feel of Apple's iPhones. There's a fine line between designs that are purely decorative (which, oddly enough, are the ones eligible for patents) and those that serve a function (which aren't). For example, do rounded corners on a phone simply help set it apart, or do they make the device slip more easily in and out of a pocket?

One safeguard against overly broad or unjustified patents is to provide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office the resources needed to give applications enough scrutiny. Congress took an important step in that direction with the patent-reform law it passed last year. But the courts have played a critical role in defining what is patentable, and the big judgment in Apple's favor is likely to invite more claims that stretch the boundaries of reasonableness. If Apple's win slows the wonderfully frenetic pace of product development in mobile devices and leads companies to battle in courts instead of the marketplace, consumers will be the ultimate losers.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
celery77
Member since Aug 04th 2005
25307 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 01:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
147. "software patents are 5x more likely to be litigated than others"
In response to Reply # 145


  

          

that's all you really need to know, as far as I'm concerned.

just a bunch of lawyers adding cost to every tech device sold by inserting themselves in the transaction and squelching healthy competition in the meantime.

and I'm seriously supposed to believe that the richest company in the world was grievously harmed by Samsung rounding the corners on their phone? what a joke...

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 02:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
148. "An article condensing the potential "jury misconduct" angle..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Finding damages where there was no infringement, no reassignment of damages, not reading the jury instructions, awards intended to punish (instead of making the patent holder whole), the foreman's bias towards patent holders, ignoring prior art... not a pretty sight.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120826/23534320161/applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Tue Aug-28-12 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
150. "^^Birther"
In response to Reply # 148
Tue Aug-28-12 04:21 PM by handle

          

Treble damages coming up!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-29-12 09:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
151. "Interesting..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

the foreman's "aha!" moment was based on misunderstanding prior art. Note that the article is also accompanied with the jury instructions on how to interpret prior art:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

Please read the patent now, if you are free to do so, and you'll see that there is no limitation in the claims to just Apple software or Apple devices. It's claiming funcionality on "portable multifunction devices". Anybody's. That's the only reason it *could* be infringed by Samsung, despite the differences as to what each runs on.

Of course, in a way it doesn't matter which patent they were discussing, because prior art is prior art. What has to match are the claims, not what it runs on. If, for example, Microsoft had invented the bounceback feature for its tablets and phones, it would be prior art for Apple, even though you can't run Apple software directly on Microsoft's operating system.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-29-12 09:17 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
152. "And an article explaining one of the new patent rules..."
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Aug-29-12 09:20 AM by wallysmith

  

          

taking effect in March. Essentially, allowing litigants to choose a jury trial or evaluation by the PTAB - judges experienced in the application of patent law.

http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

Unlike jurors, the decision makers of the PTAB are not laypeople. Rather, PTAB judges are experienced in the application of U.S. patent law and must additionally have an engineering and/or science background. In addition to the established expertise in technology and patent law, unlike the courts, PTAB judges do not accord patents a presumption of validity, nor do they require clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent. Indeed, patent claims are accorded a broadest reasonable interpretation at the USPTO, which makes them that much easier to invalidate.

While some will take advantage of the alternative to litigation this September 16th, others will insist that they “save their arguments” for court. As between the two paths, the choice seems rather “obvious” to me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Aug-29-12 01:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
155. "Foreign perspective on our patent system..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.cfr.org/intellectual-property/american-law-patent-nonsense/p28887

The poster child for patents is the pharmaceuticals industry. But, as Richard Posner, a federal appeals court judge, has argued, what works in this sector is not necessarily appropriate in communications, software or elsewhere. Bringing a new drug to market is inordinately expensive, mainly because of the need for large clinical trials. Monopoly rights over new drugs provide a needed spur to invention. And because trials take as long as a decade, the 20-year exclusivity typically granted can mean only 10 years of monopoly profits.

The technology industry is different. No clinical trials are needed, so costs of development are lower and the case for monopoly weaker. Certainly, 20-year exclusivity cannot be justified. But as Michele Boldrin and David Levine observe in a new paper, the right policy for Silicon Valley might be to grant no patents whatsoever. Technology innovators are amply rewarded by the first-mover advantage. In the 16 months between the launch of the iPhone and the appearance of its first Android competitor, Apple shipped more than 5m units. Its share price outperformed the S&P 500 index by 20 percentage points.

If the need for monopoly incentives in the tech industry is doubtful, the cost of granting them is clear. Whereas a drug patent covers one independent product, a technology patent typically covers a building block of a product, such as the look of the icons on a touch screen, to cite one of Apple's complaints against Samsung. By patenting such building blocks, tech groups prevent rivals from using yesterday's inventions to create tomorrow's improved ones. Rather than spurring progress, patents can trip it up.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-31-12 10:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
156. "Just when you think there's progress..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Apple and Google CEO's reportedly talk about patent wars...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-google-apple-idUSBRE87T15H20120830

You then get this... Samsung threatening to sue if Apple releases an LTE iPhone.

ALL of this bullshit is wrong... ALL OF IT.

http://androidcommunity.com/samsung-plays-offense-will-sue-apple-if-they-release-an-lte-iphone-20120830/

Just when we thought it was almost over, we realize the party has only just started. New reports today are clearly stating that while Samsung might have lost the battle, in the end they’ll win the war. According to the Korean Times Samsung holds just over 10% of all 4G LTE (long term evolution) patents and is prepared to play some offense of their own in the courtroom.

What we are now hearing is that Samsung is basically saying “We dare you” to release a 4G LTE iPhone — which is rumored to be a part of the next iPhone launch — and once they do Samsung will sue the pants off of them and go into full revenge/attack mode. The iPad currently has LTE, yes, but Samsung has been waiting for a much bigger fish and that is Apple’s bread and butter – the iPhone.

Sadly just this afternoon a story came out regarding Apple and Google themselves having private discussions to end these drawn out and angry patent lawsuits — but it appears that Samsung wants nothing to do with that. Obviously these reports can’t be confirmed at this time but we are hearing some reliable information is at hand regarding this.

This is actually a very interesting development in this entire story. If Apple does launch an LTE iPhone (which is pretty likely) they’ll quickly be rounding up the troops once more and headed to court. Samsung will no doubt seek an immediate product injunction and ban from the US, and probably multiple other countries as their patents are very wide. Now obviously Apple needs to release an iPhone 5 with 4G LTE as that is something consumers are basically demanding these days. If they do they will get sued, and if they don’t then people will jump for the Android LTE options available.

The new iPhone should be announced sometime in mid September so we’ll all know soon enough. Will this ever end?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 10:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
165. "ok that's some scary shit..."
In response to Reply # 156


          

I hope Apple gets sodomized by a cactus plant as much as the next Nopayne, but using FRAND shit to do it? That's some "drop a nuclear bomb on a few big cities to cut down their crime rates" type of shit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Aug-31-12 10:04 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
157. "Reiterating what I said in post #105...."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

"A shitty system gave way to a shitty player, and it's going to lead to a shitty marketplace.

So regardless on what side you were on in this whole ordeal, for the most part everyone agreed that the whole patent system was shitty.

Make no mistake, this verdict upholds that shitty system. The patent wars are going to go on and on with no end in sight, and more money is going to be tied up in lawyers and the courtroom than into the actual products."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

gusto
Charter member
26878 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 01:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
160. "a war going on outside, no phone is safe"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

s3 and note added to apple's ban list. shit just got really real (for me)
http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-and-galaxy-note-now-targeted-latest-apple-lawsuit

..|.,

If you still don't know what Jade Typhoon is, click here:
http://jadetyphoon.blogspot.com/ (WS)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 08:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
161. "What's hilarious..."
In response to Reply # 160


  

          

is that the S3's design is based entirely around *not* infringing:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

Granted, the patents in question this time aren't around these particular design elements, but still.... it would be ironic if both the Galaxy SIII and the LTE iPhone 5 went missing from the shelves this holiday season.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
southphillyman
Member since Oct 22nd 2003
90059 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 10:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
163. "yup i posted that article (or something similar) in that phone's thread"
In response to Reply # 161


  

          

should be interesting to see what happens

~~~~~~

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

southphillyman
Member since Oct 22nd 2003
90059 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
164. "will consumers start speaking with their pockets?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

on another board ppl are saying that they have made their last Apple purchase because of this case
i'm guessing that position is held by an extreme minority
if I walked into an Apple store today i'm not sure how many people there would even know about this settlement....
either way the next couple of years could be interesting if Apple is viewed as some kind of corporate patent bully and the Cook inspired products are not as good/innovative as the last decades products have been

~~~~~~

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Sep-01-12 12:52 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
166. "It'll be interesting to see, but yeah I agree..."
In response to Reply # 164


  

          

It'll be an extremely small minority that legitimately stops buying Apple products because of this. What will happen though, is further escalation of the patent wars. Is the backlash from this recent trial going to weigh on the jury for the four patents Apple's trying to assert against the GSIII and the newer devices? No clue.

However, from what I've seen in early discussions regarding Samsung's LTE patents... they may have a stronger position there than the FRAND patents they were trying to claim against Apple in this most recent case.

Samsung killing agreement with Qualcomm to not sue their customers once Apple took the Galaxy Tab to court:

http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/

These specifically involved 3G patents, but it's not a stretch to think that this will extend to any 4G patents, especially considering recent events.

On top of that, the LTE patents Samsung could assert against Apple are considered "seminal" patents, not FRAND:

http://www.i-runway.com/images/pdf/iRunway%20-%20Patent%20&%20Landscape%20Analysis%20of%204G-LTE.pdf

"Unlike essential patents, which are declared by companies (primarily larger firms) on standards such as ETSI, IEEE, etc, seminal patents are a set of strong and significant patents (‘STAR’ patents) identified from the entire portfolio. These are selected based on 22 parameters such as infringement detectability, number of independent and dependent claims, technology activity rate, backward and forward references, age of patent, etc. A seminal patent list helps identify other strong patents in the 4G-LTE landscape and their assignees – patents primarily belonging to SMEs and NPEs."

Per that doc, Samsung is also the holder with the most LTE patents with 9.3% of the total LTE patents.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
xangeluvr
Charter member
9006 posts
Sun Sep-02-12 01:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
167. "i've never bought an apple product"
In response to Reply # 164


  

          

never will. but yeah, i know i'm definitely in the minority.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Rolo_Tomasi
Member since Jan 29th 2004
1140 posts
Tue Sep-04-12 06:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
168. "One of the most simple things"
In response to Reply # 0


          

There are many intelligent arguments to be had about patents and also a lot of time being wasted by lawyers and smart people which will not benefit very many people.

But the simplest argument of the whole case is that after the iphone came out the design of Samsung's phones changed considerably and looked very similar to the iphone. Any jury was always going to rule in apples favour on this. Its just too simple and easy.

The ruling will cause Samsung and other companies to innovate and make their consumer products appear different. This is a win for the consumer.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Sep-05-12 08:59 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
169. "Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong - Groklaw"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I have no clue how this is all going to play out, but I would imagine this makes the inevitable appeal that much stronger:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120904190933195

This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.

That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question.

Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:

Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?

Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.

The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.

And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.

He goes on to say that he understands prior art, but I think not. When asked, "Do you honestly believe that companies should be allowed to patent basic geometric forms?" he answers, Yes. He repeats the false claim that the prior art didn't count because it was not "interchangeable":

Wanhang:
Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?

Velvin Hogan @Wanhang
I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art.

Back at you, Mr. Hogan. Back at you. But someone calling himself Firewheels responded much more effectively:

Firewheels @Velvin Hogan
You're suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn't it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?
If, however, you're suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid.
Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due.

Mr. Hogan has not replied, and it's been 4 hours. As another questioner, Bazzatoyou, phrased it after waiting an hour for a response that never came, "Looks like The Hogan has left the room ...!"

I hope Mr. Hogan's thinking deep thoughts about Firewheels' question.

One thing is for sure, this is going to be one fascinating appeal.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Sep-24-12 08:54 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
170. "Trial updates"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Apple requests additional $707 million in damages, permanent US sales ban on 29 Samsung devices

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/22/3373712/apple-seeks-further-damages-samsung-sales-ban

Samsung wants a new trial, says first one wasn't fair

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170

During jury selection, foreman was asked specifically to set aside all his experience with patent law, and base the decision solely on evidence presented during the trial; of course he didn't do so

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Oct-03-12 10:20 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
171. "Yikes... foreman didn't disclose everything."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

When asked specifically to disclose if he's ever been involved with patent litigation he did not share that he was sued by Seagate back in 1993 (and declared bankruptcy as a result).

The kicker? The lawyer that sued him on behalf of Seagate is now *married* to one of the partners in Quinn Emmanuel's firm, the representatives for Samsung.

Yikes.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Oct-03-12 03:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
172. "Desperation"
In response to Reply # 171


          

Can't win the trial? Attack the judge, the jury, the whole system.

Nas AND Jay-Z both agree -- Samsung lost.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Oct-03-12 04:34 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
173. "It's a longshot, sure."
In response to Reply # 172


  

          

But the smoking gun exists... this was a MASSIVE conflict of interest that he did not disclose.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Wed Oct-03-12 05:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
174. "I don't think you know what that word means"
In response to Reply # 173


          

RE: It's a longshot, sure.

>But the smoking gun exists... this was a MASSIVE conflict of
>interest that he did not disclose.

If it was MASSIVE conflict of interest then it's not a longshot to overturn.

I think the argument from Samsung is: He's a sneaky little shit that lied his way onto the jury and then manipulated the other jurors into doing exactly what he says. Why? Because Seagate was represent by the wife of a lawyer from one of our firms, and they sued him decades ago, which caused him to file for bankruptcy and he's just been waiting to find a way to get back at the system!

It's a long shot because it's absolute bullshit. Samsung knows it, but you don't.

Stop reading Grokloaw, that site is filled with mentally ill people.
Samsung is SCO now. And Groklaw is now on the SCO team. Sad for them.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
celery77
Member since Aug 04th 2005
25307 posts
Wed Oct-03-12 11:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
175. "why do you even entertain him? it's an appeal, period."
In response to Reply # 173


  

          

the patent system is fucked up and this shit will be in court until a better verdict comes in in whatever shape or form. it's not a "fanboy" issue, it's a "future of the economy issue."

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 03:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
176. "YO FUCK WHIRLPOOL SON"
In response to Reply # 0


          

http://lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/62530



WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, LG ELECTRONICS SETTLE REFRIGERATOR PATENT DISPUTES

BENTON HARBOR, Mich., USA, and SEOUL, Korea, Sep. 28, 2012 –- LG Electronics, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation have agreed to settle their respective patent infringement disputes related to refrigerators. This agreement, which concludes years of patent litigation between LG and Whirlpool, will result in the dismissal of three pending patent infringement lawsuits involving several LG and Whirlpool patents in the U.S. District Courts in Delaware and New Jersey. All other terms of the settlement are confidential.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 07:54 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
177. "We on this again? Post 159."
In response to Reply # 176


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 08:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
179. "Judge Posner weighs in again:"
In response to Reply # 176


  

          

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html

Excerpt:

The problem of excessive patent protection is at present best illustrated by the software industry. This is a progressive, dynamic industry rife with invention. But the conditions that make patent protection essential in the pharmaceutical industry are absent. Nowadays most software innovation is incremental, created by teams of software engineers at modest cost, and also ephemeral—most software inventions are quickly superseded. Software innovation tends to be piecemeal—not entire devices, but components, so that a software device (a cellphone, a tablet, a laptop, etc.) may have tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of separate components (bits of software code or bits of hardware), each one arguably patentable. The result is huge patent thickets, creating rich opportunities for trying to hamstring competitors by suing for infringement—and also for infringing, and then challenging the validity of the patent when the patentee sues you.

Further impediments to effective patent policy in the software industry include a shortage of patent examiners with the requisite technical skills, the limited technical competence of judges and jurors, the difficulty of assessing damages for infringement of a component rather than a complete product, and the instability of the software industry because of its technological dynamism, which creates incentives both to patent and to infringe patents and thus increases legal costs.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 09:29 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
180. "Oh also... there's this paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis"
In response to Reply # 176
Thu Oct-04-12 09:55 AM by wallysmith

  

          

"The Case Against Patents"

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf

1. Introduction

The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless the latter is identified with the number of patents awarded – which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity.







So.... yeah. It'd be really nice if you can support your position with some sort of evidence other than car commercials (as a reply 8 months later), vacuum commercials (LOL), or whirlpool patent cases (LOLLOOL).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 03:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
181. "it's amazing how many times you can say the word patent"
In response to Reply # 180


          

and still know nothing about them.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 04:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
182. "Beautiful... exactly what I was expecting."
In response to Reply # 181


  

          

Thanks for that, lol

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-04-12 08:45 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
178. "And for what it's worth...the USPTO is open to trying new things."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

These are small reforms, but definitely steps in the right direction.



Patent Office tries "Stack Overflow for patents" to find prior art:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/patent-office-tries-stack-overflow-for-patents-to-find-prior-art/


Patents to the people: US Patent and Trademark Office sends staffer to live among NYC startups:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/2/3444814/uspto-david-kappos-cornell-nyc-america-invents-act

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 09:27 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
183. "Last year, for the first time, spending on patents exceeded that of R&D...."
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Oct-08-12 09:30 AM by wallysmith

  

          

by Apple and Google.

No swipe, long article, but great read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Some excerpts:


"Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings."


“His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it’s a defensive tool,” said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple’s general counsel until 2006.

"Patents for software and some kinds of electronics, particularly smartphones, are now so problematic that they contribute to a so-called patent tax that adds as much as 20 percent to companies’ research and development costs, according to a study conducted last year by two Boston University professors."


"“When I get an application, I basically have two days to research and write a 10- to 20-page term paper on why I think it should be approved or rejected,” said Robert Budens, a 22-year patent examiner and president of the examiners’ labor union. “I’m not going to pretend like we get it right every time.”"


"One option is judicial activism. This year, Judge Posner, in an Illinois federal court, tossed out patent arguments made by both Apple and Motorola Mobility in a 38-page opinion that dismissed a lawsuit between the two companies. Cleaning up the patent mess, Judge Posner said in an interview, might also require reducing the duration of patents on digital technologies, which can be as long as 20 years. “That would make a big difference,” he said. “After five years, these patents are mainly traps for the unwary.”

Ideas have also come from policy experts and Silicon Valley. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently published a working paper calling for the abolition of patents, saying they do more harm than good.

Another idea is to create different classes of patents, so that some kinds of inventions, like pharmaceuticals, would receive 20 years of ironclad protection, while others, like software, would receive shorter and more flexible terms."


"Since the patent system was overseen by Thomas Jefferson, the United States has awarded ownership of an innovation to whoever created the first prototype, a policy known as “first to invent.” Under the America Invents Act, ownership will be awarded to whoever submits the first application, or “first to file.”

The shift, inventors like Mr. Perlman say, makes life harder for small entrepreneurs. Large companies with battalions of lawyers can file thousands of pre-emptive patent applications in emerging industries. Start-ups, lacking similar resources, will find themselves easy prey once their products show promise."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 09:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
184. "So, you're saying Pinch To Zoom > AIDS cure"
In response to Reply # 183


          

>Another idea is to create different classes of patents, so that some >kinds of inventions, like pharmaceuticals, would receive 20 years of >ironclad protection, while others, like software, would receive >shorter and more flexible terms."

So, you want the absolute right of Samsung to blatantly copy Apple BUT..

If a pharmaceutical company who has a drug that can SAVE LIVES can prevent people from making a version of it for cheaper?

Bounce when at the end of a list > Cure for Cancer

Here's an album for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Me_Convenience_or_Give_Me_Death

Disgusting.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 09:41 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
186. "So... you *haven't* read the article..."
In response to Reply # 184


  

          

nor any of the Judge Posner articles. Got it.

Par for the course.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 11:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
187. "Your digital fetishes > The sanctity of life"
In response to Reply # 186


          

I got it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 12:03 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
188. "You are seriously blind as shit."
In response to Reply # 187


  

          

Stop making up arguments that don't exist, or ones that I'm not trying to make. Here is Judge Posner's take on why patents make sense for the pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

The prime example of an industry that really does need such protection is pharmaceuticals. The reasons are threefold. First, the invention of a new drug tends to be extremely costly--in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars. The reason is not so much the cost of inventing as the cost of testing the drug on animal and human subjects, which is required by law in order to determine whether the drug is safe and efficacious and therefore lawful to sell. Second, and related, the patent term begins to run when the invention is made and patented, yet the drug testing, which must be completed before the drug can be sold, often takes 10 or more years. This shortens the effective patent term, which is to say the period during which the inventor tries to recoup his investment by exploiting his patent monopoly of the sale of the drug. The delay in beginning to profit from the invention also reduces the company's recoupment in real terms, because dollars received in the future are worth less than dollars received today. And third, the cost of producing, as distinct from inventing and obtaining approval for selling, a drug tends to be very low, which means that if copying were permitted, drug companies that had not incurred the cost of invention and testing could undercut the price charged by the inventing company yet make a tidy profit, and so the inventing company would never recover its costs.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
handle
Charter member
17944 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 12:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
189. "He's wrong to seperate the pharmcetiucal indisutry"
In response to Reply # 188


          

Posner's a tool.

You are a tool's tool.

I'm a real American hero!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 01:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
190. "you have no idea what you're talking about "
In response to Reply # 184


          

n/m

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 09:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
185. "*waits expectantly*"
In response to Reply # 183


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
94226 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 02:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
191. "LOL^^^"
In response to Reply # 185


          


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Oct-08-12 02:14 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
192. "Right on time. :)"
In response to Reply # 191


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Oct-10-12 03:37 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
193. "ITC Judge Rejects Apple's FRAND Arguments Against Samsung"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

"The Administrative Law Judge in his "Initial Determination" ruling utterly and definitely rejected Apple's FRAND allegations and completely exonerated Samsung.

He ruled that injunctions are definitely available at the ITC for patents-essential patents, and that there is zero evidence of any wrong behavior by Samsung. Furthermore, the judge told Apple, which had claimed that the amount Samsung asked for licensing was too high to be a FRAND offer, that Apple can't unilaterally decide what is or is not a fair price.

The judge not only totally debunks the arguments Apple brought, he goes further and rules differently than the jury in the case recently decided in California US District Court, Apple v. Samsung on the question of patent exhaustion. He writes that he can't rely on that jury's verdict, because it arrived at contradictory conclusions."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121007194355579


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Oct-11-12 10:59 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
194. "Injunction removed on Galaxy Nexus (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Hey look at that, some rationality returns:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/apple-samsung-patent-idUSL1E8LB8B720121011?type=marketsNews

Oct 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court overturned a preliminary injunction banning the sale of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd's Galaxy Nexus smartphone on Thursday, sending the case back to a California court for reconsideration.

Apple had filed a lawsuit in February accusing Samsung of infringing eight patents, and had asked a California court to ban the sale of smartphones it said infringed on its patents. The lower court agreed.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had previously put a stay on the injunction, ruled that the district court in California "abused its discretion in entering an injunction."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mtbatol
Member since May 22nd 2002
19788 posts
Fri Oct-12-12 12:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
195. "This was the ONE problem I had with that entire verdict"
In response to Reply # 194


          

As bs as I thought everything was with that judgement, I was able to accept it somewhat with Samsung's admitted "LETS BE LIKE APPEL!!" in internal communications. But the Nexus being thrown in was annoyingly awful with that being apart from Samsung's own efforts but Google's.

If anything gets fully reversed out this ordeal, let it be the Nexus. Universal search tho is a annoying piece of shit patent tho

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Oct-12-12 12:36 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
196. "The smackdown from the appeals court was pretty serious."
In response to Reply # 195


  

          

Taken verbatim from the court order:

"This record does not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand. There is therefore no need for us to review the district court’s assessment of Apple’s allegations of irreparable harm. Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. Thus, the district court abused its discretion in determining that the irreparable harm factor counsels in favor of entering an injunction."

"CONCLUSION

We hold that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Tue Oct-23-12 07:50 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
197. "USPTO 'tentatively' invalidated Apple's key rubber-banding patent"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding/

The US Patent and Trademark Office may have just thrown a wrench into Apple's recent courtroom triumph over Samsung by invalidating one of the patents at the heart of the victory: rubber-banding. We noted at the time that Apple hit a "home run" with that particular IP, as jurors declared that all 21 disputed Samsung devices infringed it, no doubt resulting in a large part of the $1 billion (and counting) owed by the Korean maker. "Claim 19" of patent 7469381, which covers that feature, was invalidated by the USPTO on two counts, both of which were cases of prior art that allegedly existed before Cupertino claimed them. Either one could be enough reason to throw out that part of the patent, according to FOSS Patents, provided that the USPTO's ruling stands up. Either way, Samsung has already brought the new information to Judge Koh's attention -- which might bring about some new action very soon.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Mon Nov-12-12 09:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
198. "It's not explicitly patent related, but..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I don't think anyone's questioning the motive behind this.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/samsung-hits-apple-with-20-price-hike-report-2012-11-11

Samsung Electronics , the world's largest technology firm by revenue, raised the price of mobile processor supplied to Apple Inc. AAPL +0.14% by 20% recently, Chosun Ilbo reported Monday, citing a person familiar with negotiations between the two tech giants.

"Samsung Electronics recently asked Apple for a significant price raise in (the mobile processor known as) application processor," the person was quoted as saying in the report. "Apple first disapproved it, but finding no replacement supplier, it accepted the (increase.)"

The two firms have started to reflect the new supply price recently, the report added, citing the same person.

According to the report, Apple buys all APs used for production of iPhone and iPad from Samsung Electronics with the volume estimated to be 130 million units last year and more than 200 million units this year.

Samsung Electronics has a long-term contract to supply APs to Apple until 2014, the report added.

Samsung Electronics and Apple's South Korea office declined to comment on the report.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Wed Nov-28-12 10:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
199. "Apple obtains a galaxy sales ban in the Netherlands (partial swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://9to5mac.com/2012/11/28/apple-gets-galaxy-sales-ban-in-netherlands-samsung-to-pay-130k-per-day-if-it-continues-infringing-photo-gallery-patent/

The result of today’s ruling is an official sales ban on Galaxy devices running Android 2.2.1 that still infringe on Apple’s patent. The courts are also ordering Samsung to disclose to Apple how much profit was made off the infringing devices since June 2011 in order to determine compensation.

If Samsung devices continue to infringe on the patent, the company will be ordered to pay Apple 100,000 euros (US$129,000) for every day it continues selling the devices:

The court ordered Samsung to tell Apple how much net profit it made from sales of infringing Galaxy products since June 27, 2011. A separate court procedure will determine how much of that profit Samsung must pay Apple.

If Samsung continues to infringe on the patent, it has to pay Apple a penalty of 100,000 euros (US$129,000) for every day it violates the ban, the court ruled.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Dec-06-12 05:48 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
200. "Apple vs Samsung is back up "
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Live coverage of the trial here:

http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-samsung-patent-trial-hearing/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Dec-20-12 10:12 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
201. "In more patent news..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

From the post trial hearing, Judge Koh finds holes in the "tap to zoom" patent, along with lower damages:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/at-key-apple-samsung-hearing-judge-talks-lower-damages/

And in addition to invalidating the "bounce back" patent in October, the USPTO has now ruled that the "pinch to zoom" patent is invalid due to prior art:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121219174625546

Also, Apple was denied permanent sales bans on the "infringing" products, while Samsung was denied a new trial on juror bias:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp

In related news, Mark Cuban and Notch have each donated $250k to the EFF to help spur patent reform:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-patent-project-gets-half-million-dollar-boost-mark-cuban-and-notch

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Jan-04-13 10:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
202. "In some positive news..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

USPTO to hold two roundtable discussions (Silicon Valley and NYC) regarding the current software patent system. Tacit acknowledgement that there's a problem with the system?... Imagine that.

This is a GOOD thing.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104012214868

Partial swipe on one of the focuses of the discussions:

Software-related patents pose unique challenges from both an examination and an enforcement perspective. One of the most significant issues with software inventions is identifying the scope of coverage of the patent claims, which define the boundaries of the patent property right. Software by its nature is operation-based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the elements of software are often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in patent claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must be discernible. Without clear boundaries, patent examiners cannot effectively ensure that the claims define over the prior art, and the public is not adequately notified of the scope of the patent rights.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

d.
Member since Dec 13th 2009
4132 posts
Wed Jan-23-13 04:05 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
203. "The no-hire paper trail Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt didn't want you to s..."
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Jan-23-13 04:12 AM by d.

  

          

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3906310/the-no-hire-paper-trail-steve-jobs-and-eric-schmidt-didnt-want-you-to-see


"Steve Jobs threatened patent litigation if Palm wouldn’t agree to
stop hiring Apple employees, says former Palm CEO Edward Colligan in a
statement dated August 7th, 2012. The allegation is backed up by a
trove of recently-released evidence that shows just how deeply Silicon
Valley's no-hire agreements pervaded in the mid-2000s. Apple, Google,
Intel, and others are the focus of a civil lawsuit into the
"gentleman’s agreements," in which affected employees are fighting for
class action status and damages from resulting lost wages, potentially
reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars."

...

"Palm wasn't the only target of Jobs's indignation. Google emails
reveal the beginnings of the Apple CEO's "thermonuclear war"
attitude, particularly in the above email to Eric Schmidt, in which
Jobs demands Google's cellphone software group stop "relentlessly
recruiting" in Apple's iPod group. In another internal exchange,
Google's former senior staffing stategist Amnon Geshuri informs
Schmidt that a recruiter, having pursued an Apple employee, will be
"terminated within the hour." Former head of People Operations Shona
Brown declares it to be an "appropriate response" and asks Geshuri to
"make a public example of this termination with the group."

...

"Below, you can see several of the most condemning documents,
including actual no-hire lists from the likes of Adobe, Intel, and
others. A common theme running throughout is that HR departments
appear to have been free to accept inbound applications from the
employees of listed companies, but were forbidden from initiating the
recruiting of off-limits employees themselves."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3906310/the-no-hire-paper-trail-steve-jobs-and-eric-schmidt-didnt-want-you-to-see

___

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
kwez
Member since Aug 10th 2003
11678 posts
Wed Jan-23-13 09:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
204. "Jobs was the OG 50 Cent"
In response to Reply # 203


  

          


************************

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-23-13 09:54 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
205. "Hmm, Jobs threatening inappropriate litigation..."
In response to Reply # 203


  

          

wonder where we've seen that before?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 12:35 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
206. "No willful infrigement (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Why am I not surprised

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/01/apple-v-samsung-not-willful/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29

Apple v. Samsung: Judge Rules Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe
BY CHRISTINA BONNINGTON01.29.1311:46 PM


Apple and Samsung have been at odds in court over design and utility patents covering the iPhone and iPad, as well as its user interface. Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired
Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s design and utility patents was not “willful,” a federal judge ruled Tuesday, rejecting Apple’s bid for bonus damages in the Apple v. Samsung smartphone lawsuit.

Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California reasserted that Samsung did in fact violate Apple’s intellectual property, though.

This post-trial ruling partially counters August’s jury determination, which found Samsung willfully in violation of seven of Apple’s design and utility patents. These covered the design of Apple’s iPad and iPhone products, as well as essential user interface elements. Apple was not found to infringe on any of Samsung’s intellectual property.

Judge Koh explained in a seven page order that to constitute willful infringement, Apple must “prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was an ‘objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.’” Koh, going patent by patent, determined that in each case the violation was not willful.

Apple and Samsung’s legal battles in this case began over a year ago, and went to trial in August. A nine-member jury then awarded Apple $1.05 billion, and because the jury ruled the infringement was willful, the monetary damages could have tripled in post trial deliberations. At a post trial hearing in December, Koh heard arguments from each party as to whether the damages were appropriate, if any of Samsung’s products should be banned for sale in the U.S., and if the jury decision should be thrown out. Although the jury originally ruled heavily in Apple’s favor, Judge Koh’s post trial decisions have lessened damages for Samsung.

In addition to addressing willful infringement in Tuesday’s ruling, Samsung’s motion for a new trial was denied, and Judge Koh ruled Apple would not be getting three times its originally awarded damages amount.

“Given that Apple has not clearly shown how it has in fact been undercompensated for the losses it has suffered due to Samsung’s dilution of its trade dress, this Court, in its discretion, does not find a damages enhancement to be appropriate,” Judge Koh wrote.

She explained that Apple delivered an inconsistent argument, first claiming money could not compensate Apple for the harm it had been dealt by Samsung’s actions, then requesting $400 million in compensation.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 01:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
207. "Samsung still owes $1 billion."
In response to Reply # 206


  

          

CRY some more.

This is another L for Samsung.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 02:58 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
208. "Hey there guy."
In response to Reply # 207


  

          

Nice to see you again. Still waiting on a reply to my other post. You seem to only show up when you don't understand what you're talking about.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 03:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
212. "What other post?"
In response to Reply # 208


  

          

You waged a 200 reply war against Apple on some DMZ shit. I clearly know what I'm talking about.

Samsung still owes Apple over $1 billion. Apple not receiving more damages does not negate the original. It's rather convenient how you post half assed articles that support your talking point.

What other post are you referring to?

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Wed Jan-30-13 04:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
213. "I was referring to this one"
In response to Reply # 212


  

          

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=279620&mesg_id=279620&listing_type=search#279655



>You waged a 200 reply war against Apple on some DMZ shit. I
>clearly know what I'm talking about.

Oh word?

So what about these posts:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275081

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275095

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275152


>Samsung still owes Apple over $1 billion.

On patents that have been preliminarily invalidated by the USPTO, from a jury that found Samsung was guilty of **willful** infringement.

So yes, they will still likely have to pay fines, but no, it won't be $1 billion (nor triple damages, which is what you were so assured of in your post above).

>Apple not receiving
>more damages does not negate the original. It's rather
>convenient how you post half assed articles that support your
>talking point.

Half assed article? It was reporting breaking news, not analysis.

Do you want analysis? You probably won't read these anyways (I know, the words can get kind of big), but here's some analysis:

Noted Apple apologist:

"Judge, unlike jury, finds Samsung's infringement of Apple's patents was not willful"

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/01/judge-overrules-jury-finds-samsungs.html

Noted open source apologist:

No to a new trial for Samsung, as she views the trial as fair. No to more money for Apple. They failed to prove they were undercompensated by the jury, she writes without conscious irony. And she has ruled that Samsung did not willfully infringe.

Next stop, appeals court, where we will find out if they agree with Judge Koh that the trial was fair. Meanwhile, poor Apple will have to make do with a mere $1 billion as its jury award. We'll see if that stands on appeal too. A billion dollars for infringement that was officially not willful. Your US patent law at work. How do you like it?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013013000132643


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Thu Jan-31-13 12:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
215. "RE: I was referring to this one"
In response to Reply # 213


  

          

>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=279620&mesg_id=279620&listing_type=search#279655
>
>
>
>>You waged a 200 reply war against Apple on some DMZ shit. I
>>clearly know what I'm talking about.
>
>Oh word?
>
>So what about these posts:
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275081
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275095
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#275152

Look at every post you made in this thread after Apple's victory. You seem personally hurt by Apple's successful W. Your posts prove you a fanboy.

>
>
>>Samsung still owes Apple over $1 billion.
>
>On patents that have been preliminarily invalidated by the
>USPTO, from a jury that found Samsung was guilty of
>**willful** infringement.
>
>So yes, they will still likely have to pay fines, but no, it
>won't be $1 billion (nor triple damages, which is what you
>were so assured of in your post above).
>
>>Apple not receiving
>>more damages does not negate the original. It's rather
>>convenient how you post half assed articles that support
>your
>>talking point.
>
>Half assed article? It was reporting breaking news, not
>analysis.
Most of those articles are half-assed clickbait.

>
>Do you want analysis? You probably won't read these anyways
>(I know, the words can get kind of big), but here's some
>analysis:
>
>Noted Apple apologist:
>
>"Judge, unlike jury, finds Samsung's infringement of Apple's
>patents was not willful"
>
>http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/01/judge-overrules-jury-finds-samsungs.html
>
>Noted open source apologist:
>
>No to a new trial for Samsung, as she views the trial as fair.
>No to more money for Apple. They failed to prove they were
>undercompensated by the jury, she writes without conscious
>irony. And she has ruled that Samsung did not willfully
>infringe.
>
>Next stop, appeals court, where we will find out if they agree
>with Judge Koh that the trial was fair. Meanwhile, poor Apple
>will have to make do with a mere $1 billion as its jury award.
>We'll see if that stands on appeal too. A billion dollars for
>infringement that was officially not willful. Your US patent
>law at work. How do you like it?
>
>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013013000132643
>
>
>

So Samsung STILL LOST and IS GUILTY AND OWES Apple $1 billion. Okay got it.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Thu Jan-31-13 02:21 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
217. "So, let's look at your counterarguments..."
In response to Reply # 215
Thu Jan-31-13 02:48 PM by wallysmith

  

          

You've got this:

>Look at every post you made in this thread after Apple's
>victory. You seem personally hurt by Apple's successful W.
>Your posts prove you a fanboy.

So being a "fanboy" is an argument now? I've stated in other threads that I actually have a personal inclination to see the company do well (as it directly affects the size of my yearly bonus). Bad business practices reflect poorly on a company... hence my crusade.

As for Apple's "successful W".... this was built on a house of cards. Sure, they'll probably still win some fines, but Judge Koh just ruled that infringement wasn't "willful", which was the entire basis for the jury's $1 billion award (not to mention awards based on patents that are tentatively declared no longer valid by the issuing body).

Now, can you actually discuss this issue like a well informed, rational human being, or are you just going to continue relying on inane catch phrases and accusatory statements?

I'm fine with either one, but it's clear I'd have a lot more fun if you continue with the track that you're on now.

> Most of those articles are half-assed clickbait.

Could you explain how they're half-assed clickbait? Please explain to me, oh wise, well informed Apple supporter.

>So Samsung STILL LOST and IS GUILTY AND OWES Apple $1 billion.
>Okay got it.

Hmm... so you still haven't read the articles, nor understand what is going on.

Here's a direct question for you: if the patents the awards were based on are found invalid, and if Judge Koh herself finds that Samsung did not willfully infringe, will that $1 billion award still stand? Serious question... I would love to see your answer to this.

Edit: Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed that post I linked to up above.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Feb-01-13 10:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
220. "So, let's look at YOUR counterarguments..."
In response to Reply # 217


  

          

>You've got this:
>
>>Look at every post you made in this thread after Apple's
>>victory. You seem personally hurt by Apple's successful W.
>>Your posts prove you a fanboy.
>
>So being a "fanboy" is an argument now? I've stated in other
>threads that I actually have a personal inclination to see the
>company do well (as it directly affects the size of my yearly
>bonus). Bad business practices reflect poorly on a company...
>hence my crusade.

Apple defending technology that it patented is not bad business practice at all. It's furthe prooft of you trolling and blatant fanboyism on your part. A lot of people have stock in Apple and bet against it so your statement proves nothing.

More proof your trolling/blatant fanboyism is found in you not saying shit about Microsoft. It's clear between the previous fact/Apple's recent dealings with Android OEMs that don't rip off IP and your lack of silence that you're trolling.

Why is any company that protects the IP it built a bad company that engages in horrible practices?

>
>As for Apple's "successful W".... this was built on a house of
>cards. Sure, they'll probably still win some fines, but
>Judge Koh just ruled that infringement wasn't "willful", which
>was the entire basis for the jury's $1 billion award (not to
>mention awards based on patents that are tentatively declared
>no longer valid by the issuing body).
>
>Now, can you actually discuss this issue like a well informed,
>rational human being, or are you just going to continue
>relying on inane catch phrases and accusatory statements?
>
>I'm fine with either one, but it's clear I'd have a lot more
>fun if you continue with the track that you're on now.

I'm beyond rational. Seriously, go back and look a what you posted in this thread. You still haven't answered my question. How has Apple stifled innovation? You put it out there so explain it.

>
>> Most of those articles are half-assed clickbait.
>
>Could you explain how they're half-assed clickbait? Please
>explain to me, oh wise, well informed Apple supporter.

I'm not supporting Apple as much as I am modulating the truth and defending a great company's name against a fanboy's attack. A lot of your sources aren't credible. You posted swipes from android blogs.

>
>>So Samsung STILL LOST and IS GUILTY AND OWES Apple $1
>billion.
>>Okay got it.
>
>Hmm... so you still haven't read the articles, nor understand
>what is going on.
>
>Here's a direct question for you: if the patents the awards
>were based on are found invalid, and if Judge Koh herself
>finds that Samsung did not willfully infringe, will that $1
>billion award still stand? Serious question... I would love
>to see your answer to this.

You swiped something and skimmed through it. Apple's bid for extra damages were thrown out. That's it.

Let me break this down for you:
Samsung LOST
Samsung still owes $1 billion
Samsung is still partially guilty of trade-dress.

The publically released evidence shits all over this post and your claims by the way.
How come you didn't post that?

Of course it's going to stand. Samsung didn't get the damages thrown out.
>
>Edit: Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed that post
>I linked to up above.

I addressed it earlier but you Cuban b'd my response.


No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Feb-01-13 11:27 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
221. "Wow, this is going to be easy."
In response to Reply # 220
Fri Feb-01-13 11:28 AM by wallysmith

  

          

You didn't read my response in post 216 did you? If you did, you would see that I pre-blew up THIS response from you.

Here it is, because it just shits all over your entire position:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#279880

>Apple defending technology that it patented is not bad
>business practice at all.

No, it's well within their rights. What Apple does is stretch the boundaries of common sense, both in the patent system (which is getting reformed by the USPTO) and the legal system (which was blown up by Judge Posner, when he PRESIDED over Apple vs Motorola).


> A lot of people have stock
>in Apple and bet against it so your statement proves nothing.

What does this even mean? I have a personal stake to see AAPL do well, so I rail when Apple Inc does not do well. I called out Apple's bad business practices with the very start of this thread, and everything happening in real life is bearing that out.

>More proof your trolling/blatant fanboyism is found in you not
>saying shit about Microsoft. It's clear between the previous
>fact/Apple's recent dealings with Android OEMs that don't rip
>off IP and your lack of silence that you're trolling.

And it's clear you didn't read post 216. So, to repeat myself, Apple's point in all this isn't licensing or cash (because they've got boatloads of it), it's INJUNCTIONS and SALES BANS. Microsoft is not pursuing SALES BANS, now are they? If they were (or if Samsung was) then I would be railing against that too.


>Why is any company that protects the IP it built a bad company
>that engages in horrible practices?

Because it's false IP to begin with. The UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE ruled that Apple's patents (yes, the ones used to get a $1 billion award) are INVALID. How much more clearer do I have to explain this? Do I need to use smaller words? Maybe I should record a youtube video with charts and diagrams so you can understand, because clearly you don't read (or understand) any of these links that I'm posting.


>I'm beyond rational. Seriously, go back and look a what you
>posted in this thread. You still haven't answered my question.
>How has Apple stifled innovation? You put it out there so
>explain it.

Are you rational? Are you really now? Please, provide evidence for your position that isn't just an uninformed and untimely opinion.

As for "how Apple has stifled innovation"? Seriously? I've answered this TWICE now in this thread, pointing you to a person who's FAR MORE QUALIFIED than either of us to speak on it. Honestly, it's amazing how stupid you are... this must be the fourth or fifth time I'm posting this link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

I'm just going to copy paste what I posted in 216, because clearly you have difficulties reading:

"Here it is again... an article in the Atlantic written by Judge Richard Posner, who actually stepped down to a lower jurisdiction to PRESIDE over Apple vs Motorola. He's also widely considered the most influential US judge that does not currently sit on the Supreme Court. You want to tell me this is click bait?

He eloquently explains why patents make sense for SOME industries (like pharmaceuticals, where the cost of R&D is prohibitive) and explicitly states why it does not make sense for OTHER industries (like those involved with software), including why it would stifle innovation."

Try reading the article. Seriously. They're just words. If need be, you should have a tab of dictionary.com up to help you through, but when you finally get through it, it'll explain very clearly why Apple's tactics STIFLE innovation, not encourage it.


>I'm not supporting Apple as much as I am modulating the truth
>and defending a great company's name against a fanboy's
>attack. A lot of your sources aren't credible. You posted
>swipes from android blogs.

Please tell me which swipes are from Android blogs. I would love to see it. And I love how you you're saying the following sources aren't "credible":

The Atlantic
The Verge
Groklaw
Ars Technica
CNET
Engadget
IDC (International Data Corporation)

These are the sources I posted in #216... do any of them look like android blogs?


>>Here's a direct question for you: if the patents the awards
>>were based on are found invalid, and if Judge Koh herself
>>finds that Samsung did not willfully infringe, will that $1
>>billion award still stand? Serious question... I would love
>>to see your answer to this.
>
>You swiped something and skimmed through it. Apple's bid for
>extra damages were thrown out. That's it.

Um, no. You don't read shit. The jury awarded $1 billion based on WILLFUL infringement (ie, Samsung deliberately copied Apple). The judge ruled that Samsung's infringement was NOT willful (ie, Samsung may have infringed, but they did not do so deliberately). This is HUGE. Seriously. Try reading one of these article. Not to mention the fact that the UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE tentatively invalidated two of the patents Apple used to get that award. How many times do I have to repeat myself?


>Let me break this down for you:
>Samsung LOST
>Samsung still owes $1 billion
>Samsung is still partially guilty of trade-dress.
>
>The publically released evidence shits all over this post and
>your claims by the way.
>How come you didn't post that?

Please, PLEASE post evidence of this. You aren't going to find shit because all that stuff was either INVALIDATED or THROWN OUT (and no, posting articles from 5 months ago doesn't count).

>>Edit: Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed that
>post
>>I linked to up above.
>
>I addressed it earlier but you Cuban b'd my response.

You didn't address shit. You wanted some real world analysis on AAPL's stock drop and you went ghost when I provided it.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Feb-01-13 09:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
222. "*long sigh*"
In response to Reply # 221


  

          

>You didn't read my response in post 216 did you? If you did,
>you would see that I pre-blew up THIS response from you.
>
>Here it is, because it just shits all over your entire
>position:
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#279880
>
>>Apple defending technology that it patented is not bad
>>business practice at all.
>
>No, it's well within their rights. What Apple does is stretch
>the boundaries of common sense, both in the patent system
>(which is getting reformed by the USPTO) and the legal system
>(which was blown up by Judge Posner, when he PRESIDED over
>Apple vs Motorola).

If it's within their rights then why shouldn't they use the option? Apple is defending their property just like Samsung or Motorola did in any court of law. I noticed your lack of swipes on those two company's "stifling of innovation" as you refer to it.
>
>
>> A lot of people have stock
>>in Apple and bet against it so your statement proves
>nothing.
>
>What does this even mean? I have a personal stake to see AAPL
>do well, so I rail when Apple Inc does not do well. I called
>out Apple's bad business practices with the very start of this
>thread, and everything happening in real life is bearing that
>out.
>
>>More proof your trolling/blatant fanboyism is found in you
>not
>>saying shit about Microsoft. It's clear between the previous
>>fact/Apple's recent dealings with Android OEMs that don't
>rip
>>off IP and your lack of silence that you're trolling.
>
>And it's clear you didn't read post 216. So, to repeat
>myself, Apple's point in all this isn't licensing or cash
>(because they've got boatloads of it), it's INJUNCTIONS and
>SALES BANS. Microsoft is not pursuing SALES BANS, now are
>they? If they were (or if Samsung was) then I would be
>railing against that too.

Apple point is defending its' IP. It agreed to a deal with HTC. If it were really after a sales ban it could've gone after then as well. Where's the swipe for this fact? Typical fanboy BS on your part.

>
>
>>Why is any company that protects the IP it built a bad
>company
>>that engages in horrible practices?
>
>Because it's false IP to begin with. The UNITED STATES PATENT
>OFFICE ruled that Apple's patents (yes, the ones used to get a
>$1 billion award) are INVALID. How much more clearer do I
>have to explain this? Do I need to use smaller words? Maybe
>I should record a youtube video with charts and diagrams so
>you can understand, because clearly you don't read (or
>understand) any of these links that I'm posting.

False IP my ass. Apple's patents are valid and are the reason Samsung owes $1 billion. You've clearly misinterpreted the verdict and still have a sore ass from Apple winning the trial earlier.

>
>
>>I'm beyond rational. Seriously, go back and look a what you
>>posted in this thread. You still haven't answered my
>question.
>>How has Apple stifled innovation? You put it out there so
>>explain it.
>
>Are you rational? Are you really now? Please, provide
>evidence for your position that isn't just an uninformed and
>untimely opinion.
>
>As for "how Apple has stifled innovation"? Seriously? I've
>answered this TWICE now in this thread, pointing you to a
>person who's FAR MORE QUALIFIED than either of us to speak on
>it. Honestly, it's amazing how stupid you are... this must be
>the fourth or fifth time I'm posting this link:
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

A fanboy wrote this or contributed to it. Seriously, this is your proof:

I am not enough of an expert in patent law to come down flatly in favor of any of the reforms that I have listed. I wish merely to emphasize that there appear to be serious problems with our patent system, but almost certainly effective solutions as well, and that both the problems and the possible solutions merit greater attention than they are receiving.

Apple, an American company, did what any American company would do. It defended its' IP. You still haven't shown me anything tangible that shows Apple stifled innovation. Where's the blackberry Z10 lawsuit? CRY FANBOY.

>
>I'm just going to copy paste what I posted in 216, because
>clearly you have difficulties reading:
>
>"Here it is again... an article in the Atlantic written by
>Judge Richard Posner, who actually stepped down to a lower
>jurisdiction to PRESIDE over Apple vs Motorola. He's also
>widely considered the most influential US judge that does not
>currently sit on the Supreme Court. You want to tell me this
>is click bait?
>
>He eloquently explains why patents make sense for SOME
>industries (like pharmaceuticals, where the cost of R&D is
>prohibitive) and explicitly states why it does not make sense
>for OTHER industries (like those involved with software),
>including why it would stifle innovation."
>
>Try reading the article. Seriously. They're just words. If
>need be, you should have a tab of dictionary.com up to help
>you through, but when you finally get through it, it'll
>explain very clearly why Apple's tactics STIFLE innovation,
>not encourage it.

What you copied and pasted makes no business sense whatsoever. Why should any tech company spend time patenting IP only to have competitors rip them off? We cannot throw out the patent system because Samsung lost a trial.

>
>
>>I'm not supporting Apple as much as I am modulating the
>truth
>>and defending a great company's name against a fanboy's
>>attack. A lot of your sources aren't credible. You posted
>>swipes from android blogs.
>
>Please tell me which swipes are from Android blogs. I would
>love to see it. And I love how you you're saying the
>following sources aren't "credible":
>
>The Atlantic
>The Verge
>Groklaw
>Ars Technica
>CNET
>Engadget
>IDC (International Data Corporation)
>
>These are the sources I posted in #216... do any of them look
>like android blogs?

Look at this entire post. Phandroid and techcrunch with that clearly biaee headline aren't credible. That's some of the more standout links. You clearly googled android fanboy and posted whatever came up first.

>
>
>>>Here's a direct question for you: if the patents the awards
>>>were based on are found invalid, and if Judge Koh herself
>>>finds that Samsung did not willfully infringe, will that $1
>>>billion award still stand? Serious question... I would
>love
>>>to see your answer to this.
>>
>>You swiped something and skimmed through it. Apple's bid for
>>extra damages were thrown out. That's it.
>
>Um, no. You don't read shit. The jury awarded $1 billion
>based on WILLFUL infringement (ie, Samsung deliberately copied
>Apple). The judge ruled that Samsung's infringement was NOT
>willful (ie, Samsung may have infringed, but they did not do
>so deliberately). This is HUGE. Seriously. Try reading one
>of these article. Not to mention the fact that the UNITED
>STATES PATENT OFFICE tentatively invalidated two of the
>patents Apple used to get that award. How many times do I
>have to repeat myself?

NOPE! Apple won $1 billion. Samsung was not granted a retrial nor were the results thrown out. You in here crying and complaining so much I think you have a Samsung tramp stamp somewhere.

>
>
>>Let me break this down for you:
>>Samsung LOST
>>Samsung still owes $1 billion
>>Samsung is still partially guilty of trade-dress.
>>
>>The publically released evidence shits all over this post
>and
>>your claims by the way.
>>How come you didn't post that?
>
>Please, PLEASE post evidence of this. You aren't going to
>find shit because all that stuff was either INVALIDATED or
>THROWN OUT (and no, posting articles from 5 months ago doesn't
>count).

It's been released publically. Unlike you I don't believe everything I'm told. Seriously, look it up and get back to me.

>
>>>Edit: Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed that
>>post
>>>I linked to up above.
>>
>>I addressed it earlier but you Cuban b'd my response.
>
>You didn't address shit. You wanted some real world analysis
>on AAPL's stock drop and you went ghost when I provided it.

I addressed this point earlier. Yet again I ask where is the Samsung overanalysis? Their smartphone shipments are down. Where's the Samsung is doomed posts? LOL Y'all clowns brought up market share without failing to bring up the fact that less than 1/3 of Samsung's shipments were Galaxy Notes or GS3s.

Just so we can conslidate your insanity:

>And you still have yet to comment on Judge Posner's stance on stifled innovation.

You have no tangible evidence of innovation being stifled. No numbers or lawsuits or anything but a judge's interpretation.

>And my response on why Microsoft isn't a player in this.

Yes, they are a player in this because they make more off of Android than most OEMs. The same shit you accuse Apple of Microsoft's done and you never went kn a 200 replay warpath. Fanboy bullshit as usual.

>And my response on why HTC isn't a player in this.

They just agreed to a deal with Apple and are an Android OEM. *Cuts down another shitty point*

>And my response on Apple's stock price.

Look up. I ethered this up top as well.

>And my response on "publically released evidence shits all over this post".

You haven't looked at any of the evidence against Samsung. The same evidence thaf Samsung was found guilty of in a court of law. Phandroid's such a (FOHCK OUTTA HERE) credible source so check there as well.


>And my response on the difference between "willful" and "not willful" infringement.

This is far from over so you gushing because the verdict has not been overturned Samsung infringed and fhat is all the American people need to know. Samsung being found guilty of trade dress shit all over your point as well.

>And my response on invalidated patents.

That's you proving your fanboy colors. They were found guilty and the verdict was not overturned. You're delusional.

>And my response on USPTO taking steps to reform a broken system.

The USPTO needs to reform a broken system because Apple successfully defended its' IP? U MAD AS SHIT. It's okay buddy Samsung's smartphone shipments might improve next year.

>And my response on "declining" Samsung smartphone shipments.

You copping pleas hard right now on some fanboy shit. I'll reiterate my response here. Their flagships aren't selling nearly as well as they should.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Feb-01-13 10:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
218. "USPTO: Request for enhanced quality of software-related patents"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Hey look, a call for genuine reform for a terrible system:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/03/2012-31594/request-for-comments-and-notice-of-roundtable-events-for-partnership-for-enhancement-of-quality-of

Groklaw's offering:

Summary of the response

Claims on the functions of software without an accompanying algorithm result in granting rights to inventions the patentee has not invented.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130131141515562



And in other related news, Apple denied appeals bid for Galaxy Nexus injunction... GOOD:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE90U11220130131

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected Apple Inc's request to revive its bid for a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dashing the iPhone maker's attempt to recover crucial leverage in the global patent wars.

Apple had asked the full Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to revisit a decision in October by a three-judge panel of the same court. The panel rejected Apple's request to impose a sales ban on Samsung's Nexus smartphone ahead of a trial set for March 2014.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment. A Samsung representative could not immediately be reached.

The fight in appeals court comes after Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict last year against Samsung in a U.S. District Court in California. The same trial judge will preside over the legal battle surrounding the Nexus phone, which involves a patent not included in the earlier trial.

The fight has been widely viewed as a proxy war between Apple and Google Inc. Samsung's hot-selling Galaxy smartphones and tablets run on Google's Android operating system, which Apple's late co-founder, Steve Jobs, once denounced as a "stolen product."

In its October ruling against Apple, the appeals court raised the bar for potentially market-crippling injunctions on product sales based on narrow patents for phone features. The legal precedent puts Samsung in a much stronger position by allowing its products to remain on store shelves while it fights a global patent battle against Apple over smartphone technology.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, in San Jose, California, who has presided over much of the Apple/Samsung litigation in the United States, cited the appeals' court decision in a December order rejecting Apple's request for permanent sales bans on several Samsung phones. Apple has appealed Koh's ruling.

Apple wanted the full Federal Circuit of Appeals, made up of nine active judges, to reverse the earlier ruling. But in a brief order on Thursday, the court rejected Apple's request without detailed explanation or any published dissents.

Several experts had believed that Apple faced long odds, as the legal issues in play were not considered controversial enough to spur full court review.

Apple could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the high court has made it more difficult for patent plaintiffs to secure sales injunctions in recent years.

The case in the Federal Circuit is Apple Inc. vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 12-1507.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Feb-01-13 10:23 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
219. "Mark Cuban railing against stupid patents stifling innovation (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Feb-01-13 10:24 AM by wallysmith

  

          

Good read with some interesting points from the entrepreneurial side that I haven't seen before.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/31/mark-cubans-awesome-justification-for-endowing-a-chair-for-eliminating-stupid-patents/

Mark Cuban’s Awesome Justification For Endowing A Chair To ‘Eliminate Stupid Patents’

GREGORY FERENSTEIN

Outspoken billionaire, Mark Cuban, is fed up with America’s patent system. “Dumbass patents are crushing small businesses. I have had multiple small companies i am an investor in have to fight or pay trolls for patents that were patently ridiculous,” he says in an email to TechCrunch.

The noted investor and Dallas Mavericks owner is perhaps best known for his unfiltered tweets against clumsy NBA officials, who he believes are endangering his star athletes. Now, he’s leveraging his penchant for attention-grabbing headlines with a newly endowed chair at digital civil rights organization, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, dubbed “The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents.”

We interviewed Cuban and the lucky recipient of his donation, Julie Samuels, to better understand his public policy mission. As a journalist, I’m used to public figures giving bland, diplomatic answers that I have to then spice up with sense of scope and purpose. With Cuban, this was not a problem. His answers are so awesomely bold that I’ve decided to leave in their untouched, pristine form. Below each answer, Samuels and I provide more context for those who aren’t patent policy wonks.

Ferenstein: Why did you fund this chair (and where did you get the name)?

Cuban: Because dumbass patents are crushing small businesses. I have had multiple small companies i am an investor in have to fight or pay trolls for patents that were patently ridiculous. There is no place for software patents and most tech patents are not original in the first place. They are merely “remixes” of early technology.

I thought the EFF would be a great starting point to get the message to politicians that patent trolls are costing taxpayers (via trials/motions/etc.) and small businesses money that could otherwise be used for innovation and creating jobs.

I wanted a name that would get attention and not just be another announcement.

Context: Patent trolling is an opportunistic legal practice that exploits intellectual property without the intent of innovating. Acacia research, for instance, has claimed ownership of sending medical images over the Internet, threatening costly legal retribution for anyone who doesn’t pay up. Academics have found that Cuban’s experience is no exception: roughly one-third of startups have been threatened with patent violations, often from trolls.

Ferenstein: Do you have any specific policies you’d like to see implemented?

Cuban: I would like to see software patents completed eliminated, or if not eliminated have a five-year max shelf life.

I would like to see design patents eliminated. I would like to require that all patents be used in a business within five years or otherwise become public domain. The concept that patents are being held by non operating companies in hopes that someone will invent something they can sue over is Anti American, a huge tax on the economy and stymies innovation when entrepreneurs truly come up with a business only to find that the way they included tying the shoelaces on their new shoe was patented.

I would also like to see a “cold room” exception. If you can show you invented the idea using completely independent thought, you don’t violate the patent and the patent is invalidated.

Remember back in the 80s when AMD/Intel and others would clone each other and it was permissible because they came up with the features and functions completely independently? The same should apply to patents. If you didn’t copy an idea, you came up with it on your own, then the idea should not have been patented in the first place. If multiple people come up with the same idea independently, that is the definition of obvious.

You should be given the right to your idea if you come up with it independently and any patents in place for that idea should be invalidated.

Context: Right now, the patent system awards intellectual ownership in a “first to file” fashion, but great ideas are often discovered simultaneously by independent inventors. Wikipedia has an entire section on well-known instances of “multiple discovery,” including the discovery of calculus and the theory of evolution.

Ferenstein: Why don’t you think the kinds of reforms you’d like to see have been enacted yet?

Cuban: Lawyers are making too much money which means they are spending a lot of money in donations and lobbying. Why wouldn’t they? It’s easy money for law firms.

Context: Samuels explains that lobbying efforts have resulted in a one-size-fits-all system that treats multi-billion-dollar pharmaceuticals the same as time software projects. “But software operates differently. It functions uniquely as a building block technology,” she explains. “While writing code is surely not easy, it doesn’t require the kind of financial investment that pharmaceuticals do.”

Indeed, evidence that software functions differently than pharmaceuticals has led at least one influential congressman to hint that, in the near future, the government may pass laws to exempt software from strong patent protections.

Ferenstein: There was a major piece of legislation, the American Invents Act, passed recently. Do you have any thoughts on it?

Cuban: It was great for big companies. First come first serve. It did nothing to reduce the patent trolls’ impact on entrepreneurs and existing companies.

Context: Samuels explains that the American Invents Act first-to-file provision fuels trolls, since they only need to get their “hands on a crappy software patent and threaten a lawsuit.” As a result, Representative Peter Defazio is intending on passing a “loser pays” law that might scare patent trolls away from bogus lawsuits.

Ferenstein: If you could wave a magic wand and completely restructure the intellectual property system, how would you make it

Cuban: No software patents. Independently derived ideas that are turned into products and can prove they are independently derived (Again, if multiple people come up with the same idea independent of each other, that should be as definite as it is obvious, and obvious cannot be patented), then it can not be patented, and all patents for those ideas are declared invalid.*

There you have it, folks. Cuban’s unfiltered thoughts on “stupid” patents. Share your thoughts with us below.

*responses edited for grammar and clarity

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 04:17 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
223. "$1 billion? What? (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

So no injunctions, no increased damages, and the judge stated that "the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award". Like I've said above, Samsung was guilty of some, but not all, and it sounds like the retrial could result in lower damages for the balance (check the comments from Verge's contributing writer below the article).

Hopefully this will be the end of all the patent bullshit going on. The USPTO received a ton of attendants for both of its roundtables and real patent reform could actually be underway. This benefits us all, whether or not you want to believe it.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4054458/judge-cuts-damages-owed-apple-down-to-598-million-in-samsung-trial

Judge Lucy Koh has just delivered a serious blow to Cupertino in the Apple v. Samsung legal saga, cutting the damages awarded to the company down to $598,908,892 — and ordering a retrial to determine new damages for the remaining balance. In a damages order this morning, Judge Koh stated that "the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award," and as such was reducing the amount from the original $1.049 billion awarded to Apple in the trial's August verdict. Koh ordered that a new trial take place to determine new damages for the amount she cut — $450,514,650, to be precise — but said that she encouraged both sides to go through the appeals process with this order before proceeding straight to a new trial.

After the trial, both sides had filed various post-trial motions — Apple asked for more damages, while Samsung had requested a reduction or a new trial on the damages altogether. Koh did agree that Apple was owed some additional damages for sales of infringing Samsung devices that occurred after the end of the trial, but due to the number of outstanding issues said that this issue should wait until appeals in the case have been completed.

While the amount Samsung owes Apple has been reduced, Koh didn't declare that the jury was incorrect in assessing whether Samsung had infringed upon Apple's intellectual property; those decisions still stand.

Developing...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 04:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
224. "$598 million is still an L."
In response to Reply # 223
Fri Mar-01-13 04:42 PM by Kira

  

          

>So no injunctions, no increased damages, and the judge stated
>that "the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on
>which the jury based its award". Like I've said above,
>Samsung was guilty of some, but not all, and it sounds like
>the retrial could result in lower damages for the balance
>(check the comments from Verge's contributing writer below the
>article).
>
>Hopefully this will be the end of all the patent bullshit
>going on. The USPTO received a ton of attendants for both of
>its roundtables and real patent reform could actually be
>underway. This benefits us all, whether or not you want to
>believe it.
>
>http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4054458/judge-cuts-damages-owed-apple-down-to-598-million-in-samsung-trial
>
>Judge Lucy Koh has just delivered a serious blow to Cupertino
>in the Apple v. Samsung legal saga, cutting the damages
>awarded to the company down to $598,908,892 — and ordering a
>retrial to determine new damages for the remaining balance. In
>a damages order this morning, Judge Koh stated that "the Court
>identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury
>based its award," and as such was reducing the amount from the
>original $1.049 billion awarded to Apple in the trial's August
>verdict. Koh ordered that a new trial take place to determine
>new damages for the amount she cut — $450,514,650, to be
>precise — but said that she encouraged both sides to go
>through the appeals process with this order before proceeding
>straight to a new trial.
>
>After the trial, both sides had filed various post-trial
>motions — Apple asked for more damages, while Samsung had
>requested a reduction or a new trial on the damages
>altogether. Koh did agree that Apple was owed some additional
>damages for sales of infringing Samsung devices that occurred
>after the end of the trial, but due to the number of
>outstanding issues said that this issue should wait until
>appeals in the case have been completed.
>
>While the amount Samsung owes Apple has been reduced, Koh
>didn't declare that the jury was incorrect in assessing
>whether Samsung had infringed upon Apple's intellectual
>property; those decisions still stand.
>
>Developing...

CRY.

>While the amount Samsung owes Apple has been reduced, Koh
>didn't declare that the jury was incorrect in assessing
>whether Samsung had infringed upon Apple's intellectual
>property; those decisions still stand.
>

Now that I've spent a few more minutes dissecting this the additional 450 mill could turn out to be low because this isn't taking into account sales. You lost you android fanboy. How has Apple stifled innovation this year? You premature ejaculated by partying too early off this news. Next time read before you post.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 04:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
225. "^^^ Says the person that only knows how to debate a number"
In response to Reply # 224
Fri Mar-01-13 04:44 PM by wallysmith

  

          

The industry, the patent system, the marketshare and the competition are all bigger than holding onto a single number as the entire basis of your argument. What's funny is you keep saying "CRY" except I'm doing everything but.

No injunctions = Samsung's products stay on the shelves. Apple can collect all the cash they want (shit, they LOVE having a huge cash balance) but the apple on the tree (lol) they've been pursuing this whole time has been denied. Samsung can pay whatever the final verdict is on the damages while they continue to cake off a steadily growing global marketshare. Oh yeah, what happened to your "CRY over Samsung's declining smartphone shipments" argument?

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#279875

Oh wait, global smartphone figures for Q4 2012:

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQIPbh0qaSp

From my reply:

"Samsung's global marketshare went from 22.5% (36mm sold) last year to 29% (63mm sold) this year, good for a 76% year over year change.
For comparison's sake, Apple's global marketshare went from 23% (37mm sold) last year to 21.8% (47.8mm sold), good for a 29.2% year over year change."

Shit is COMICAL. You're arguing points that may have been valid two years ago. Have you even looked at the internet since then? It's funny, because this is where your myopic, juvenile arguments carry absolutely ZERO weight.



*** Inb4 "$598 million. CRY!!!!!" ***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 05:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
226. "RE: ^^^ Says the person that only knows how to debate a number"
In response to Reply # 225


  

          

>The industry, the patent system, the marketshare and the
>competition are all bigger than holding onto a single number
>as the entire basis of your argument. What's funny is you
>keep saying "CRY" except I'm doing everything but.
>
>No injunctions = Samsung's products stay on the shelves.
>Apple can collect all the cash they want (shit, they LOVE
>having a huge cash balance) but the apple on the tree (lol)
>they've been pursuing this whole time has been denied.
>Samsung can pay whatever the final verdict is on the damages
>while they continue to cake off a steadily growing global
>marketshare. Oh yeah, what happened to your "CRY over
>Samsung's declining smartphone shipments" argument?
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#279875
>
>Oh wait, global smartphone figures for Q4 2012:
>
>https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQIPbh0qaSp
>
>From my reply:
>
>"Samsung's global marketshare went from 22.5% (36mm sold) last
>year to 29% (63mm sold) this year, good for a 76% year over
>year change.
>For comparison's sake, Apple's global marketshare went from
>23% (37mm sold) last year to 21.8% (47.8mm sold), good for a
>29.2% year over year change."
>
>Shit is COMICAL. You're arguing points that may have been
>valid two years ago. Have you even looked at the internet
>since then? It's funny, because this is where your myopic,
>juvenile arguments carry absolutely ZERO weight.
>
>
>
>*** Inb4 "$598 million. CRY!!!!!" ***

The 63 million smartphones sold is highly misleading. Samsung sold 41 million low end (cheap) smartphones and 22 million high-end (Galaxy Note 2/GS3) smartphones for the year. All iphones are high end phones.Oh and while you're partying remember the Iphone 4s outsold the GS3 worldwide in both the third and fourth quarter. Therefore, my point still stands Samsung's market share is shrinking.... So much for my arguments carrying zero weight, eh.

Furthermore, Samsung spent $12 billion on ads for this. I'd like your take on Samsung's BLATANT COPYING of passbook. Where's the innovation?

CRY on a GS3 bath towel.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 05:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
227. "Nice, a real debate from you."
In response to Reply # 226


  

          

So, where are your sources? I've linked mine, so I'm happy to see yours. If you're right, great, I'll give you respect for actually making an adult argument. But uh, I'm pretty sure I can poke holes in shit you spout out your ass.

>The 63 million smartphones sold is highly misleading. Samsung
>sold 41 million low end (cheap) smartphones and 22 million
>high-end (Galaxy Note 2/GS3) smartphones for the year.

Source? Or is this just spouting shit out your ass? Did you notice that the link I provided said ***smart*** phones? In other words, "high end" phones.

If you want to talk about global phones sales though... a 2 second google search gave me this:

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616

Hmm. 106mm phones sold from Samsung in Q4, 63mm of which are smartphones (from IDC). So, you're right that about 41 million low end phones were sold... because 63mm ***smart***phones were sold at the same time (rough total: 106mm total sold). See the math? Math is our friend.

>Oh and while you're partying
>remember the Iphone 4s outsold the GS3 worldwide in both the
>third and fourth quarter.

They won the 4th because that's the yearly release of their only phone line... Samsung still beat it over the entire year (which is what really matters, yes?) Are you lying about the 3rd quarter though? Because I think you are! Do you want to continue this line of argument, or should I google it and embarass you further?


>Therefore, my point still stands
>Samsung's market share is shrinking.... So much for my
>arguments carrying zero weight, eh.

Check that Garner link I pasted above (published only a few weeks ago). If you want to go by global phone sales, Samsung's market share from 2011 to 2012 went from 17.7% to 22%. Or you could look at the IDC link for smartphones and see that Samsung's market share from 2011 to 2012 went from 22.5% to 29%. Note that both of the numbers went UP. That's how math works. If a number goes up, it's an INCREASE. Math is our friend, remember? Seriously.... how many times do I have to explain this to you? I've counted at least 5 times in this thread now. You have the logical capabilities of a five year old, and frankly I think I'm being generous.

>Furthermore, Samsung spent $12 billion on ads for this. I'd
>like your take on Samsung's BLATANT COPYING of passbook.
>Where's the innovation?

I agree, that's outright copying. Fuck it, Apple does it too. How are you enjoying your (inferior) notification bar? I love it, especially since Android had it several years before iOS did. Or how about the "i'm busy, send a text" feature? That thing is really handy, especially since I've been using it a year before iOS got it.

And oh hey, Samsung's also introduced multiple windows to smartphones. But I'm sure you'll get excited over it once Apple copies it 3 years from now (the amount of time it'll take them to expand the phone size to be able to actually use the feature).

I'm just warming up.... what else shit do you want to spout out your ass? I got a lot more to embarrass you with.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Kira
Member since Nov 14th 2004
28566 posts
Fri Mar-01-13 08:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
228. "The only thing you are embarrasing is yourself by trolling."
In response to Reply # 227


  

          

>So, where are your sources? I've linked mine, so I'm happy
>to see yours. If you're right, great, I'll give you respect
>for actually making an adult argument. But uh, I'm pretty
>sure I can poke holes in shit you spout out your ass.
>
>>The 63 million smartphones sold is highly misleading.
>Samsung
>>sold 41 million low end (cheap) smartphones and 22 million
>>high-end (Galaxy Note 2/GS3) smartphones for the year.
>
>Source? Or is this just spouting shit out your ass? Did you
>notice that the link I provided said ***smart*** phones? In
>other words, "high end" phones.

http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-q1-2012-sales-figures-72774/
"According to figures quoted by KoreaTimes.co.kr, Sammy has sold no less than 41 million smartphones in Q1 2012"

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Apple-s-Old-iPhone-The-iPhone-4S-Outsells-4293359.php

"The fact that Apple's iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are outselling Samsung's top of the line smartphone suggests that consumers don't think Apple is getting out-innovated. Consumers also don't seem to care about the size of the screen."

"Unlike Samsung, Apple releases specific figures. For instance, for fiscal year 2011 Apple sold 125m iPhones. Fiscal year 2012 began October 2011 when the “disappointing” 4S without LTE, without a bigger screen, & without NFC launched, and ended September 2012, 2 weeks after the “incremental” iPhone 5 was launched. So in 12 months Apple sold 25m more iPhones than Samsung sold Galaxy S devices in 30 months. And, this comparison is actually titled in Samsung’s favor since this comparison doesn’t take into account the Q1 2013 holiday quarter which just concluded where Apple is expected to have sold around 50m iPhones (the previous record is 37m)."

*Cooks barbecue*

Read more: http://www.consideringapple.com/why-samsung-doesnt-release-sales-figures/#ixzz2MLKCmF7F

http://blogs.strategyanalytics.com/HCST/post/2013/02/20/Strategy-Analytics-Apple-iPhone-5-Becomes-Worlds-Best-Selling-Smartphone-Model-in-Q4-2012.aspx

"Apple’s iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S are currently the world’s two most popular smartphone models."

*Grills brisket*

Samsung does not release sales numbers so we really don't know how many phones they sold. If they met estimates they would release real numbers.
>
>If you want to talk about global phones sales though... a 2
>second google search gave me this:
>
>http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616
>
>Hmm. 106mm phones sold from Samsung in Q4, 63mm of which are
>smartphones (from IDC). So, you're right that about 41
>million low end phones were sold... because 63mm
>***smart***phones were sold at the same time (rough total:
>106mm total sold). See the math? Math is our friend.
>
>>Oh and while you're partying
>>remember the Iphone 4s outsold the GS3 worldwide in both the
>>third and fourth quarter.
>
>They won the 4th because that's the yearly release of their
>only phone line... Samsung still beat it over the entire year
>(which is what really matters, yes?) Are you lying about the
>3rd quarter though? Because I think you are! Do you want to
>continue this line of argument, or should I google it and
>embarass you further?
>
>
>>Therefore, my point still stands
>>Samsung's market share is shrinking.... So much for my
>>arguments carrying zero weight, eh.
>
>Check that Garner link I pasted above (published only a few
>weeks ago). If you want to go by global phone sales,
>Samsung's market share from 2011 to 2012 went from 17.7% to
>22%. Or you could look at the IDC link for smartphones and
>see that Samsung's market share from 2011 to 2012 went from
>22.5% to 29%. Note that both of the numbers went UP. That's
>how math works. If a number goes up, it's an INCREASE. Math
>is our friend, remember? Seriously.... how many times do I
>have to explain this to you? I've counted at least 5 times in
>this thread now. You have the logical capabilities of a five
>year old, and frankly I think I'm being generous.
>
>>Furthermore, Samsung spent $12 billion on ads for this. I'd
>>like your take on Samsung's BLATANT COPYING of passbook.
>>Where's the innovation?
>
>I agree, that's outright copying. Fuck it, Apple does it too.
> How are you enjoying your (inferior) notification bar? I
>love it, especially since Android had it several years before
>iOS did. Or how about the "i'm busy, send a text" feature?
>That thing is really handy, especially since I've been using
>it a year before iOS got it.

The android operating system wasn't nearly as smooth as iOS until Jelly Bean. How are you enjoying stretched out apps, poor app quality for the most part and a fragmented ecosystem?

>
>And oh hey, Samsung's also introduced multiple windows to
>smartphones. But I'm sure you'll get excited over it once
>Apple copies it 3 years from now (the amount of time it'll
>take them to expand the phone size to be able to actually use
>the feature).
>
>I'm just warming up.... what else shit do you want to spout
>out your ass? I got a lot more to embarrass you with.

Multiples windows isn't a feature most users can take advantage of. Therefore, it's pointless. Reall innovation is touting NFC for years only to admit it's pointless for mobile payments. Don't take my word for it....

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4035064/samsung-wallet-app-apple-passbook-features

"When we asked why Samsung did not include NFC tap-to-pay features in Wallet, the company said that retailers prefer barcodes over NFC because they don't have to install any new infrastructure to support it."

The only thing embarrassing is Samsung's advertising budget relative to their phone sales.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
wallysmith
Charter member
7808 posts
Sat Mar-02-13 05:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
229. "Your reading comprehension is terrible."
In response to Reply # 228


  

          

>http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-q1-2012-sales-figures-72774/
>"According to figures quoted by KoreaTimes.co.kr, Sammy has
>sold no less than 41 million smartphones in Q1 2012"

So you call me out for using Android blogsites, then you use an Android blogsite as a source? Hypocrite.

Also, notice the date on the article: April 7, 2012... nevermind the fact that the article refers to the FIRST quarter of 2012. The two sites I linked were published Jan 24, 2013 (IDC) and Feb 13, 2013 (Gartner). So not only are you idiotic, hypocritical and have poor reading comprehension, you're blatantly stupid.

>http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Apple-s-Old-iPhone-The-iPhone-4S-Outsells-4293359.php
>
>"The fact that Apple's iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are outselling
>Samsung's top of the line smartphone suggests that consumers
>don't think Apple is getting out-innovated. Consumers also
>don't seem to care about the size of the screen."

Great, use another biased s