• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Samsung May Be Looking At Some Trouble

HamptonCaught said:
It may sound simplistic, but I honestly don't know why people are so upset about this ruling (other than this is an Android forum, of course). If we're all honest, it's fairly clear that Samsung copied elements of iOS, particularly relating to the touchscreen and therefore need to be punished for it.

If you were an illustrator or photographer, and someone used part of one of your works in one of their designs, I'm fairly sure that we'd all have something to say about it. Copyright laws are there for a reason - to protect all of us in whatever we do and I don't see why company A should stand by and watch company B using technology that has been patented by company A.

Surely, it's Samsung that's at fault here - not Apple.
Click to expand...

While it seems Samsung has been caught copying certain elements of Apple's designs, the question is really about what is patentable and what is not. Many of the patents in this case I feel are invalid because of 'prior art'. Not sure why the jury didn't think so, but that's their decision.

Keep in mind that no copyright violation its being posited here. If you copy a photo you are violating a copyright law, but if you take a photo of the same subject as someone else, that's not against any law. Samsung isn't being accused of copying anything 'verbatim' here so copyright law doesn't apply, but they did use solutions that Apple had patented. They made a bet that those patents wouldn't hold up in a court of law and lost; well at least the first battle anyway.
 
There would be several patents there that I couldn't believe held up, but at least Design Patent 504,889, or basically the "rectangle patent", was one of the patents Samsung was acquitted from copying. They lost the other patents in terms of UI, but hey, icons are easily changed.
 
chanchan05 said:
There would be several patents there that I couldn't believe held up, but at least Design Patent 504,889, or basically the "rectangle patent", was one of the patents Samsung was acquitted from copying. They lost the other patents in terms of UI, but hey, icons are easily changed.
Click to expand...


$1+ billion for simple 2D icons is so ridiculous. Where's the innovation? I could understand if the icons were 3D projections with realtime lighting effects -that would bring something truly new to the table- but not for a standard photoshop job.
 
ari-free said:
$1+ billion for simple 2D icons is so ridiculous. Where's the innovation? I could understand if the icons were 3D projections with realtime lighting effects -that would bring something truly new to the table- but not for a standard photoshop job.
Click to expand...

Hey, one of the patents Apple sued them for was the use of a picture of a sunflower on the gallery app icon. Apple's patents are frivolous, and should never have been granted in the first place.

And to quote Darren Murph:
"But let's be honest: the notion that consumers could have been willfully deceived that an Android-based Samsung phone was an iPhone is pathetic. There's a giant "Samsung" logo on it. It's about as absurd as suggesting that someone could be duped into buying a Honda Odyssey instead of a Dodge Grand Caravan. They're both minivans after all, right?"
 
Max_Headroom said:
It ain't all over till the fat lady sings.

BBC News - Samsung to appeal after $1bn Apple award in US case
Click to expand...



Samsung would be foolish not to appeal this ruling. This verdict gives Apple the ammo to go after every Android based handset maker that sells it's products here in th U.S.

I think the jury was in way over their heads trying to understand all this patent stuff. Unless I was an engineer or patent attroney I would be to. But the jury spent only 23 hours deliberating this case after weeks of evidence and testimony? I think they were more concerned about getting the heck out of the courtroom and going home than really sitting down and trying to figure all this out.

Not saying that Samsung should've gotten a free pass but it just seems like something ain't right here. :confused:
 
Been reading feedback on the ruling in the UK press. Many people in England believe this smacks if American protectionism. As a Brit I'd be interested to hear what our American friends think if this. Is it patent protection or corporate protection.

Cheers Blenc
 
Rxpert83 said:
You're not too familiar with apple's tendency to quench competition then :p

By any means necessary.

Apple's PR department does a great job of making itself look great.

Now with 100 billion dollars in cash on hand you'd think they could afford bringing some of those jobs here to america instead of factories in China where the workers have huge suicide numbers.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I've always thought that made apple such a force to be dealt with, their PR. Apple made it priority to have their products out there for all to see. Their promotional campaigns have been nothing less than genius or consistent, and I have to give them their props for it.
 
bearballz said:
Not saying that Samsung should've gotten a free pass but it just seems like something ain't right here. :confused:
Click to expand...

Something wasn't right from the very start of this trial. It's always been my stance this judge threw out anything that would've helped Samsung.
 
Blenc1 said:
Been reading feedback on the ruling in the UK press. Many people in England believe this smacks if American protectionism. As a Brit I'd be interested to hear what our American friends think if this. Is it patent protection or corporate protection.

Cheers Blenc
Click to expand...


I think there are a lot of Americans like myself that didn't buy what Apple was shoveling. Yes Apple is an American company, and yes I own IOS and Android products. I said earlier Samsung shouldn't have gotten a free pass but Apple should not have gotten as decisive a verdict as they did.

I don't think there was any grand conspiracy to coax the jury into siding with Apple because it's an American company. I think it just came down to the fact that Apple presented it's case better than Samsung, got some breaks and they had a jury who was in over their heads. Now if there were some people on that jury who decided to rationalize it that way, we'll never know.

Samsung, Apple and Google are all publicly traded global companies that sell their products all over the planet and employ literally thousands of people all over the planet. These are not some small Mom and Pop set ups.

In the end all of us who love and buy technology lost, doesn't matter where you live or where these companies are based.:(
 
Here's two links I found last night.

The first is apparently a Samsung internal document, where they, allegedly, knowingly mimic the iphone (Galaxy S development): http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-internal-document-mimicry/

Final verdict: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266813/apple-vs-samsung-jury-final-verdict-form

As for whose side I'm on, Samsung's. To the man in the street this smacks of Apple being greedy and wanting to create a monopoly.

Gadgetry has brand labels on all manner of different products; they all do the same thing but with different tweaks here and there. Competition is healthy for innovation.

I don't know enough about the evolution of smartphones to give a fully-educated verdict, but I did read that HTC's Magician was apparently the first all-touchscreen phone, before iphone (not sure if it's true).

Also that Apple tried the same with HTC and it got thrown out of court (?). In the EU this Samsung Vs Apple case got thrown out.

It's well-known that Apple aren't exactly snowy-white when it comes to stealing ideas. Didn't Steve Jobs himself say, "good artists copy, great artists steal"?.
 
Blenc1 said:
Been reading feedback on the ruling in the UK press. Many people in England believe this smacks if American protectionism. As a Brit I'd be interested to hear what our American friends think if this. Is it patent protection or corporate protection.

Cheers Blenc
Click to expand...

This is probably another indictment against our patent law changes from the dot com days, a national embarrassment as far as I am concerned.

Over here, we granted a patent on the Bread Refreshing Method - making toast at a particular temperature.

Korea tends towards protectionism, and this case there ended up with both sides owing each other.

Either the Samsung legal team here was weak or the jury wasn't well educated on the facts - probably some of both.

Apple doesn't use American manufacturers to produce mobile products and Samsung has a sizable work force here.

Could the jury have been tricked into protectionist thinking? Sure, who knows?
 
Delurking (while my three-day-old Galaxy SIII charges - woot!)

I have been puzzling this over as to what is likely to happen, because obviously I don't want to see my new phone gunked up by a forced OTA update (though I am now understanding from several sources that the SIII is not named in this particular suit - I don't take a lot of comfort from that since the SIII has several of the features named in the ruling.)

What I think is MOST likely - what makes sense for Apple and Samsung - is to put aside the emnity, sit down and work out a licensing agreement that allows Samsung, HTC and everyone else to pay a pretty sum for those features the court found to have been infringing.

The alternative is hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of appellate litigation for both sides (the "injunction wars" alone are going to be significantly costly, let alone the attack on the original verdict, which the Groklaw posting does a brilliant job of illuminating) and uncertainty. A settlement puts all that behind both companies and sets a road map for other Android device makers.

I see one emotional and three rational reasons for Apple - nominally the victor - to sit down and talk about a settlement:

*The emotional - Steve Jobs, the one with vendetta on his brain, has passed. Jobs was a genius, but I think few would contest that he was also a petulant, vindictive sort who would ignore the business case for a decision and continue to demand blood.

*The rational.
--First, this gives Apple tremendous bragging rights; the ability to boast that their innovations are so integral to the architecture of the Android phone.

--Second, it gives Apple a huge flush of revenue (as if it needed more cash) from a segment of the market it was probably never going to monetize otherwise. AT&T customers, and later Verizon and Sprint, had a choice to buy an iPhone or an Android - they CHOSE the Android and REJECTED the iPhone. Now Apple could get a cut of their money anyway. While working out such a deal, Apple and the other parties could also create a framework to work out other emerging issues, such as the voice-recognition disputes. Even if it doesn't do that, Apple gets a chunk of its next-biggest competitor (the settlement could even include a significant slice of Samsung itself). Smells like win to me.

-- Third, it's a resolution that most people will probably perceive as fair, with the least visibility to/inconvenience to the customer. Apple would be able to combat a reputation as a ruthless monopolist, a title that might actually matter to the smug'n'crunchy crowd that prizes itself on its iNdividuality while all carrying iDentical, iBoring little white or black iBoxes.*

I think a settlement just makes the most sense for everyone, most of all the consumer. I really hope the legal eagles in Cupertino see it that way as well.


* Sorry, had to sneak one little jab in there.
 
While I suspect there are a multitude of possible reasons why the court ruled in the way they did, all we really know (at this time) is how they ruled. In time we might get more hints about what specifically transpired during this court case.

If I were to venture a guess, I'll guess that maybe someone at Apple quietly went to Diane Feinstein and/or Barbara Boxer and suggested that a loss in court might force Apple to relocate their headquarters to some place more supportive of Apple's needs. A move like that could cost the State of California untold millions of dollars in both lost revenue and jobs...

At that point California's two influential senators went to their buddy Harry Reid and one or more of them discretely had a meeting with certain influential members of the administration. And from there a representative of the administration contacted some influential ranking judges and suggested that a certain type of ruling might help certain judges to retain their seats or achieve higher seats within the court system.

Did it actually happen this way? Who knows! At this point, anything suggested here is purely guesswork and conjecture! ;)
 
Put straight Linux on the phone with Ubuntu Icons. Let the user decide where to put them. I've had icons arranged the same way on XP, Ubuntu, Palm and now Android.

From what I'm reading about Windows 8 - I wouldn't touch a windows anything with a 10 foot pole. I'll go round up working Palm devices and use the software I purchased years ago.

I know there's a couple of MVNO startups using TMO. They are BYOD. TMO does not carry the Iphone. How in hell is Apple going to get a cut of that? I prefer to buy my devices outright - I'll have the kid buy one in Europe and bring it back.

I see where carriers are getting away from subsidized devices. If all carriers make it an advantage to BYOD, that would avail Apple nothing. Apple can't force a private vendor who only sells phones and no services/subsidies to carry any brand. Apple can open as many stores as they want to compete.

If Google and Amazon can afford to put out tablets at a slight loss, the tablets work, Apple will have to lump it or match prices.

With the economy being so lousy, a lot of people have discovered that they can do with generic or "lesser" brands than brands with snob appeal. Maybe the plurality of any mfg phones has swayed people. One size doesn't fit all. How many models do Samsung and HTC have out at once? There's at least one in almost every price range. I only see one Iphone.
 
Guys guys guys, relax! Don't get all doom-and-gloom over the ruling.

The 'Sleeping Giant' May Have Awoken | XDA-Developers

With the finalized acquisition of Motorola by Google in May, it seemed like it was only a matter of time before Google would stop letting its hardware partners be attacked by Apple and would take a stand. On Friday Google did just that, filing a patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple for the following seven patents: 5,883,580, 5,922,047, 6,425,002, 6,983,370, 6,493,673,7,007,064 and 7,383,983. The products they are seeking an import ban on are the Apple’s iPod Touch, the iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S, the iPad 2 and the “new” iPad, as well as the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air and all other Apple devices “which utilize wireless communication technologies to manage various messages and content.” Motorola also argues Apple was fully aware of the patents in question.
Click to expand...

This ain't over, folks. Not by a long shot.
 
I thought this was really useful: A device-by-device breakdown of the patent infringements the jury found to have been infringed.

Martimus said:
While I suspect there are a multitude of possible reasons why the court ruled in the way they did, all we really know (at this time) is how they ruled. In time we might get more hints about what specifically transpired during this court case.

If I were to venture a guess, I'll guess that maybe someone at Apple quietly went to Diane Feinstein and/or Barbara Boxer and suggested that a loss in court might force Apple to relocate their headquarters to some place more supportive of Apple's needs. A move like that could cost the State of California untold millions of dollars in both lost revenue and jobs...

At that point California's two influential senators went to their buddy Harry Reid and one or more of them discretely had a meeting with certain influential members of the administration. And from there a representative of the administration contacted some influential ranking judges and suggested that a certain type of ruling might help certain judges to retain their seats or achieve higher seats within the court system.

Did it actually happen this way? Who knows! At this point, anything suggested here is purely guesswork and conjecture! ;)
Click to expand...

True. But guesswork and conjecture is so much fun!!

Lucy Koh is experienced in the area of patent law, and she seemed perfectly willing to bust both sides' chops during pre-trial hearings and the trial itself. Her appointment as a US District judge is for life, so there's not a lot anyone can do to her at this point ... though it is worth noting that Feinstein and Boxer were the ones who put her up for the judgeship.

And while I do agree that Apple might have had a slight "home team advantage," it's worth noting that a quick google-around shows that Samsung has in excess of 10K employees in the United States (main centers include Dallas, Austin, San Jose and New Jersey). Apple has 43,000, 30,000 of which work at Apple stores. So, while Apple may beat Samsung in a head count, both of them bring considerable U.S. jobs numbers ... add to that the implications for HTC, Motorola and the other main Android handset makers. (And that doesn't count the lawyers! :D)

Joelgp83 said:
Guys guys guys, relax! Don't get all doom-and-gloom over the ruling.
Click to expand...

I don't really see anybody in this thread doing this? More like exchanging info and discussion. I think most people understand that this is a big milestone, but not the final destination.
 
As much as I find Apple products useful and well made...I hope they don't use this as a way to jack up the price of their new iPhone because I would be pissed and hang onto my S3. Despite having numerous Apples I tend to find that most iOS users are idiots with a very low IQ. Removable battery and SD card is what made me ditch my 4S for the S3.
 
wordgirl said:
I don't really see anybody in this thread doing this? More like exchanging info and discussion. I think most people understand that this is a big milestone, but not the final destination.
Click to expand...

Eh, part of it was to set up the quote from the article, the other was that I was kinda getting the subtext that people were seriously concerned that apple could use this legal precedent to get away with wiping Samsung, HTC, Motorola, et. all out of the market permanently or that they'd force said companies to only be able to use awkward designs, thus suiciding their marketshare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom