[Closed] Apple v Samsung have done that yet?

there are only two companies making money from smart phones, Apple and Samsung. And as Samsung are making a fair chunk of the bits in an iPhone.

Long term Samsung are gained some great advertising. They just need to think of a way round the touchwiz/iOS look thing.

[img] [/img]

tedious claptrap IMO - can't imagine a US jury ever finding against an american corp vs [s]taiwanese [/s]korean

they're each as bad as the other; judge should've just banged their heads together and sent them to bed early

🙄

So should copyright and intellectual property rules apply if a company is successful?

Funny how the case was chucked out in the UK & in South Korea (Samsung's homeland) they ruled that both copied each other.

Interesting that Apple are now going after google's android for being a copycat, but the latest ios uses a notification bar similar to android...

It seems they're essentially trying to copyright a phone. Let them both copy each other & keep innovating I say.

on the one hand Samsung ripped off Apple's ideas but on the other how can you have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners?
couldn't give a crap really though - I own an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy and they're both great and all the better for this rivalry.

Its been pointed out that because of this judgement its just cost Samsung $1billion to be the second largest player in the smart phone market- which is still a really good deal.

don't Samsung sell more smart phones than Apple globally?

I think this is a 'good thing', the rest really were just copying apple. This is not competition or innovation, it is doing things cheaper or a bit bigger and shinier. I thought the palm thing (pebble?) was genuinely interesting, but was crushed.

I really hope that Microsoft get their game face on and get this surface business nailed. That could be really interesting.

There are stacks of very frustrating features of iOS, shirley some smart folks out there can think of better?

Just my tuppence worth.

Kev

Typical problem when you let another company make your product

I think this is a 'good thing', the rest really were just copying apple.

Its just karma equalising. Apple lifted the idea of the mouse-windows interface from Xerox.

don't Samsung sell more smart phones than Apple globally?

Probably but in the US I think they're still second to Apple.

I think this is a 'good thing', the rest really were just copying apple.
Its just karma equalising. Apple lifted the idea of the mouse-windows interface from Xerox.

Apple lifted the idea of the mouse-windows interface from Xerox.

Technically they did a deal to get it. 🙂

Didn't Microsoft nick windows then from apple?

[quote=scaredypants ]tedious claptrap IMO - can't imagine a US jury ever finding against an american corp vs taiwanese korean
+1

Here we go.

on the one hand Samsung ripped off Apple's ideas but on the other how can you have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners?

That is the sound bite from the Samsung lawyers - but it rather ignores the other software aspects of the infringement (pinch-zoom, scroll bounce etc).

ultimately I don't think these kinds of cases are very helpful to the industry as a whole. It is becomes impossible for new tech to get developed without infringing hundreds of patents.

Didn't Microsoft nick windows then from apple?

Yup. Then added another mouse button thank goodness

Luckily, before this goes down the usual bunfight route, the most pertinent point has already been made.

Its been pointed out that because of this judgement its just cost Samsung $1billion to be the second largest player in the smart phone market- which is still a really good deal.

Excellent coverage over on [url= http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266439/samsung-apple-verdict#apple-decisively-wins-samsung-trial-what-it-means ]The Verge[/url], fwiw.

No microsoft nicked windows from xerox just like apple, and digital research.. oh Gem seems to get forgoten when it come to GUI's

but it rather ignores the other software aspects of the infringement (pinch-zoom, scroll bounce etc).

how do you get the answer 4? 2+2, 3+1, 5-1, 400/100... and soforth. There are many ways to get exactly the same answer.

Fair point, but when you have an internal memo saying [i]"Hey Apple, got 4 by doing 3+1, we should do that too"[/i] then it gets a bit more damning.

Some of the features do seem to have been copied, but then Apple seems to have been doing some copying of its own.

Ultimately I think patent wars are harmful all round.

brakes - Member
on the one hand Samsung ripped off Apple's ideas but on the other how can you have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners?
couldn't give a crap really though - I own an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy and they're both great and all the better for this rivalry.

Not really, given they've actively removed features due to this. Like the universal search on the Galaxy Nexus/S2/S3 for example. Bloody annoying.

Mercedes should be suing everyone for copying their idea of the car having four wheels. Or was it Renault? anyway, you get my point.

I'm liking apple less and less everyday as a brand.

Might put the kettle on and select a nice biscuit for the Apple vs Google fight...

Wonder how many links to iPads et al get 'removed' from Google Search engines if things go badly 😉

of course you could always do the smart thing and not patent stuff when you really don't want to tell people how you do it. ie the answer might be 4, but you can get there by yourself pal. 🙂
if anyone is going to sue anyone then i'd have thought the guys who have the rights to start trek ought to be coining it right about now. wireless communicators, tablets, etc. etc.
😀

Don't care. I like apple stuff and will carry on buying it as will many others.
If people really took principled views on the type of companies they buy from, Specialized would be out of business.

Wonder how many links to iPads et al get 'removed' from Google Search engines if things go badly

All apple need to do is change the default search provider on iOS from Google to Bing and google would suffer an noticable drop in revenues.

+

Google's raison d'etre is accurate, fast serach results. If the public lose trust in their seach results they are just another Alta Vista.

Add revenue from search is all google really have.

Google knows this.

The thing I don't get is why Samsung weren't allowed to actually show evidence to support their case?

This image from Samsung suggests they had iphonealikes before the iphone...
[img] [/img]

Google pays Apple to be the default search engine of the iPad / iPhone. Rumour is, that will change with iOS6.

of course you could always do the smart thing and not patent stuff when you really don't want to tell people how you do it. ie the answer might be 4, but you can get there by yourself pal.

On the patent side, that's kind of the argument against software patents in a sentence.

If you see that on an iphone, you can pinch two fingers to zoom, you basically know everything about what is covered by their 'pinch to zoom' patent, and assuming you're a software developer, you could build software that does it. Whereas with a traditional patent, for example for a medical device, without the information given in the patent, you'd have to dissect the device to try and work out how it does whatever it does, for example you first see an x-ray machine, you know it shows pictures of the inside of the body, but you don't immediately know how you could create a machine that does it.

What they have patented is not how to zoom an image based on two finger positions using some top secret algorithm to do it (which is just basic geometry and used in pretty much any old imaging soft, so obviously not patentable in itself), rather they've been allowed to patent the very idea of tracking two pinching fingers in order to zoom into an image.

So basically, much of the stuff these user interface patent fights are about is stuff where there is a patent for doing something, rather than really a patent for a method of doing something (which could like you say be hidden in the secret sauce of the software of the device), although they do use a bit of obfuscation in the patents to make it sound vaguely like it is a method of doing something. Basically, they are outlawing 4, rather than outlawing the use of 2+2 to make 4.

Obviously Apple are very big on this type of patent, because they are primarily innovators in fancy software, whereas old-school companies who make the parts that live inside apple stuff (eg. Samsung), or old technology mobile phone companies like Nokia have far more of the patents on the actual innards of devices (eg. things like radio transmission hardware).

Obviously whether allowing that is a good idea is an open question, and I know there are very clever IP people on both sides of the fence who know a lot more about the issues than me, but that is basically how it is.

That is the sound bite from the Samsung lawyers - but it rather ignores the other software aspects of the infringement (pinch-zoom, scroll bounce etc).

They both nicked that stuff from Minority Report anyway surely 🙂

[img] ?thumb=y[/img]

Anyway I reckon there was an Ipad in 2001 and star treck next gen seem to have had them too (with rounded edges)

I don't really understand this, so how come Mercedes Benz(Daimler) didn't sue every other car maker in history for putting an engine at the front four wheels and a gearbox...

yup uhura used a tablet in TOS and they were all over the place in TNG
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I don't really understand this, so how come Mercedes Benz(Daimler) didn't sue every other car maker in history for putting an engine at the front four wheels and a gearbox...

Maybe the forgot to patent it?

uhura used a tablet in TOS

That is quite clearly one of those kids magic drawing pads that you scribble on, then lift up the cellophane to wipe it.

[img] [/img]

I bet it doesn't even have an App Store.

I don't really understand this, so how come Mercedes Benz(Daimler) didn't sue every other car maker in history for putting an engine at the front four wheels and a gearbox...

Plenty of patent battles in the past over sewing machines, steam engines and other innovations.

I don't really understand this, so how come Mercedes Benz(Daimler) didn't sue every other car maker in history for putting an engine at the front four wheels and a gearbox...

If you want to protect ( a feature of ) an item:

First you need to apply for and be granted a patent.

Second, you need to continue to pay a fee each year in order to maintain a valid patent.

Third, there is a maximum period you can maintain a patent.

Fourth, you would need to feel that legal action to enforce the patent would be in your best interests.

Its worth noting that software patents are a uniquely American thing.

You can't patent an idea in Europe, only a thing.

Software is protected by copyright.

So in Europe if X wrote some software to control pinch to zoom, the Y could also write some software to pinch to zoom, in the same way that X and Y are both free to write a love story in which the hero dies at the end.

However if Y copied X's pinch to zoom code word for word (or their love story) they would be infriging their copyright and could claim damages.

This is sensible.

The US patents harm inovation and just adds cost for the consumer. Who do you think pays for Apple's army of lawyer or Samsung's $1 billion in damages? We do. It should be stopped

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it's done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it. If that idea is stolen then the thief should be punished. No argument will ever convince me otherwise.

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it's done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it.

No its not. Its basically the only way to zoom a touch screen without the use of buttons.

And even if it wasn't specific, its an idea. You shouldn't be able to patent ideas as its uncompetitive. To stretch the car analogy its the equivalent of patenting the idea of steering the car using a wheel held by the driver!

No its not

You shouldn't be able to patent ideas as its uncompetitive.

Its basically the only way to zoom a touch screen without the use of buttons.

Mmmm... plenty of touch screens had zoom functionality before multi-touch capable displays came along: +/- buttons, magnification sliders, draggable zoom selection boxes, magnifying glass...

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it's done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it. If that idea is stolen then the thief should be punished. No argument will ever convince me otherwise.

US patent system is broken.

Yes, pinch to zoom is very specific, but as mentioned above, its the only sensible way to zoom on a touch screen. As was much lauded by the Apple lot, its intuitive! What about dragging a finger up and down the page to scroll? Could that action be patented? Or indeed panning left or right once your zoomed in? Surely the way in which we interact with devices (be it pc's, tablets, phones or just about anything else) will inevitably become standardised (kind of like a mouse generally has some buttons on it and a scrolling wheel) once the most desirable method for doing so has been established for a given media. Sure, things will evolve as firms innovate with new tech, breeding a new standard, and yes, the code for that can and should be protected, but not the action in itself.

plenty of touch screens had zoom functionality before multi-touch capable displays came along: +/- buttons, magnification sliders, draggable zoom selection boxes, magnifying glass

In case you missed it.....

Everything was an idea at some point. FSR/VPP/DW link.

Specialized patent for the FSR is only valid in the USA as its just an idea to put a pivot on the chain stay.

My bike has FSR only its not a Specialized and I bought it here.

VPP isn't patented either. Some bike companies specfic implimentations designs may be. For example the DW link is just a specific implimentation of VPP.

Patenting "pinch to zoom" is as generic as patenting rear suspension on a bike via linkages. I'd bet we would all be pretty hacked off if we could only get a proper suspension bike from Specialized and it was only URT or hard tails from everyone else.

Patenting "pinch to zoom" is as generic as patenting rear suspension on a bike via linkages.

companies do get rewarded for innovation. time to market. they're making money off their innovation while other companies are trying to work out how it's done. some things take longer than others.

If all ideas automatically become the property of industry then people will stop having them

That is obsurd. If the idea is so generic that anyone could have it then people will still have them.

But if the competitive advantage stands with having and implimenting new ideas to maintain a competitive advantage, rather than spending resources protecting old or generic ideas, then people will actually have more new ideas.

Are you realistically say that if ideas couldn't be patented in the US then my iPhone wouldn't exist?

Not only would it exist, it would be significantly better and cheaper.

A good example of how patents harm inovation is the Workmate. (often heraled as a sucess of the patent system).

The designer, a clearly inovative chap, came up with the product to fill an suprisingly obvious need. He then spent years defending the patent but the product hardly changed since it was invented. Lots of money was spent on lawyers and 1 man got very rich though.

Now the patent has expired the product has been improved, inovation has had to happen to stay competitive, but its still profitable to make them, so they still get made, people still get their money.

Are you realistically say that if ideas couldn't be patented in the US then my iPhone wouldn't exist?

No. That would be [i]obsurd [/i](sic)

The designer, a clearly inovative chap, came up with the product to fill an suprisingly obvious need. He then spent years defending the patent but the product hardly changed since it was invented. Lots of money was spent on lawyers and 1 man got very rich though.

This is absolutely correct and exactly how it should have happened. Are you saying that anyone should have been able to steal the idea and tweak it/undercut him?
Are you the poster boy for big business?

Are you saying that anyone should have been able to steal the idea and tweak it/undercut him?

Yep - That is exactly what I am saying. It certainly wouldn't harm inovation as you are saying. Exact copying shouldn't be allowed like chineese knock offs but if someone wants to take the idea and make a better version why should we stop them?

Name a sport that is famed for the speed of its inovation. F1 maybe.

Do you think F1 designers make use of patents to protect their ideas?

Unreal.

Unreal

Please expand.

Do F1 designers stop having ideas because they know within weeks someone will have copied their idea?

If instead of spending billions protecting existing ideas* we spent that money inovating imagine what we could achive.

[i]*(I'm all for protecting things. I'm not saying you can just go and copy anything and pass it off as your own)[/i]

I agree (mostly) with jfletch. I worked in the design department of a large production comapany and we would regularly file patents on products we would almost certainly never build just to stop our competitiors. We's also regulary independently develop great ideas only to have them blocked by someone else patent on a product they never produced. The system is pretty flawed

If instead of spending billions protecting existing ideas* we spent that money inovating imagine what we could achive.

It's a bit chicken and egg though isn't it? If companies spent more on development then they wouldn't need to steal ideas and no protection would be needed. When all companies try their best to outdo each other rather than nick stuff then we get real innovation (and value).

*(I'm all for protecting things. I'm not saying you can just go and copy anything and pass it off as your own)

That's how it sounds.

At least the patent on "A rectangle with rounded edges" was kicked out.

Having had the pleasure of trawling through some software patents there is some speculative sh*te in there.

The hard test is to see if the solution is an invention or just the obvious solution that the average developer would have come up with.

End of the day we now have patent trolls and people hoarding ideas in case someone else uses them. So instead of using innovation to make your product better people are using it to stop the competition doing anything.