Samsung vs. Apple - Intellectual Property Discusscion

[nbajam]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.

Outdated case? You mean the single best designed smartphone shell on the planet, right? That outdated case? I love my S2, and think it's pretty slick, but it still feels and looks like a plastic display model the moment my wife's iPhone walks into the room (iLegs!)

Out of date tech? Not really. It's not open like Android but it's a very advanced OS that is incredibly easy to use. It's very intuitive, fun, and flat out gorgeous.

I honestly don't know why Android people get so angry about Apple and the iPhone. It's helped create the market we've grown to love, and is responsible for keeping Google on its toes. This isn't a zero sum game, there's money and market for everyone.

Advanced OS? Not even close. You quite simply can't do nearly the amount of things you can do on an Android Phone with an iPhone.

We hate Apple because we see Apple has an incredibly arrogant company who doesn't innovate and simply copies what is in Android, and releases incremental updates in their one phone a year, but the iSheep line up in droves to buy one. It's pretty pathetic really.

Furthermore, if Apple had its way, it would sue every other Android manufacturer out of existence. Because they can't keep up with the pace of innovations from other manufacturers, there answer is a lawsuit. And quite ridiculous lawsuits at that, such as software patents and patenting the shape of a device. THEY'RE TRYING TO BAN THE SALES OF PRODUCTS. They're doing whatever they can to make themselves the only game in town.

 

[EarlyMon]

Posts transplanted from the Samsung Nexus forum.

Enjoy!

 

[Androidcurious]

Advanced OS? Not even close. You quite simply can't do nearly the amount of things you can do on an Android Phone with an iPhone.

We hate Apple because we see Apple has an incredibly arrogant company who doesn't innovate and simply copies what is in Android, and releases incremental updates in their one phone a year, but the iSheep line up in droves to buy one. It's pretty pathetic really.

Furthermore, if Apple had its way, it would sue every other Android manufacturer out of existence. Because they can't keep up with the pace of innovations from other manufacturers, there answer is a lawsuit. And quite ridiculous lawsuits at that, such as software patents and patenting the shape of a device. THEY'RE TRYING TO BAN THE SALES OF PRODUCTS. They're doing whatever they can to make themselves the only game in town.

You're using Google talking points note for note while calling other people sheep. There is nothing "pathetic" in smartphone choice. People use what they like. There are many smartphone power users that prefer iOS. It just so happens the OS caught the attention of the average consumer in droves. Good for them. It creates more options and competition.

We'll just agree to disagree on whether the OS is advanced or not. I believe it is, but I understand personal preference.

Google is every bit as arrogant as Apple is. I don't have a rooting interest in companies, just tech.

As far as the patent stuff, Apple is making a legal argument that may or may not hold up. Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs.

 

[burntorangefan]

You're using Google talking points note for note while calling other people sheep. There is nothing "pathetic" in smartphone choice. People use what they like. There are many smartphone power users that prefer iOS. It just so happens the OS caught the attention of the average consumer in droves. Good for them. It creates more options and competition.

We'll just agree to disagree on whether the OS is advanced or not. I believe it is, but I understand personal preference.

Google is every bit as arrogant as Apple is. I don't have a rooting interest in companies, just tech.

As far as the patent stuff, Apple is making a legal argument that may or may not hold up. Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs.

I've never owned an Apple product, but own what many would consider quite a bit of stock...Having said that, I'm not exactly an apologist for the company, but rather enjoy the fruits of their labor - yes, pun intended. To be fair, technology from Apple may be "lagging" from pure horsepower perspectives, but obviously they've figured out how to run the OS on what they have. Regarding blaming lawsuits on Apple from posts above (especially against Samsung), you'd do well to note that judges across the world are siding with Apple in these design infringement cases. As my friend CK would say, where there's smoke.......

Quite frankly, they have every right to defend patent infringement and stealing intellectual property is a very serious problem in tech. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm Galaxy Nexus or Nexus Prime all the way, but I also believe in a company's right to defend, via litigation if necessary, its intellectual property. In the big picture, all of you should care too......Just my opinion.

 

[burntsushi]

Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs.

This assumes that one agrees (with the US government) that "intellectual property" is actually something that can be legitimately owned.

 

[burntorangefan]

This assumes that one agrees (with the US government) that "intellectual property" is actually something that can be legitimately owned.

The US Govt isn't the only entity that believes in IP rights...Point in fact, there is no first world county that DOESN'T acknowledge IP rights.

 

[burntsushi]

Don't be foolish. The US Govt isn't the only entity that believes in IP rights...

I was replying to:

"Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs."

Which hinges on precisely the assumption I pointed out.

I made no claims about intellectual property itself.

Point in fact, there is no first world county that DOESN'T acknowledge IP rights.

Point in fact, you've committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
(N.B. I'd be happy to properly debate the topic of intellectual property and whether it should exist via private messaging.)

 

[TheRoosevelt]

Point in fact, you've committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

(N.B. I'd be happy to properly debate the topic of intellectual property and whether it should exist via private messaging.)

Vis a vis, cogito ergo sum, de facto est yo quiero taco bell QED.

Needless to say, I didn't understand any of that, nor do I feel like I need to...

 

[Androidcurious]

This assumes that one agrees (with the US government) that "intellectual property" is actually something that can be legitimately owned.

That is the law of the land that as of now all companies work within.

 

[burntsushi]

That is the law of the land that as of now all companies work within.

Indeed, but your claim was far more general.

Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs.

If one doesn't believe that ideas can be owned (such as I), then one certainly wouldn't advocate that one has the right to protect the supposed ownership of ideas. For example, given my belief, your statement would be more accurately rephrased as: "any company can lawfully protect ideas which they've been given license to by their corresponding government."

 

[nkk]

Indeed, but your claim was far more general.



If one doesn't believe that ideas can be owned (such as I), then one certainly wouldn't advocate that one has the right to protect the supposed ownership of ideas. For example, given my belief, your statement would be more accurately rephrased as: "any company can lawfully protect ideas which they've been given license to by their corresponding government."

Burntsushi, have you created IP? IP that could be capitalized upon, that was potentially worth a lot of money?

Quite frankly, I believe there are only two groups of people who should be listened to in the IP debate. The lawyers who know current law and those who create the IP. The people (and I am not saying you belong to this group, though many do) who contribute no IP worth anything and then say that IP should not exist, etc have no idea what it takes to create real, game changing IP.

The above post should not be taken as my support of current IP law. It is broken, but the answer is not to abolish it but to reform it.

Also, FYI, I have created IP potentially worth a lot of money to companies. It it is being published soon, and the patent application for it is being drafted.

-Nkk

 

[EarlyMon]

I'm listed on a number of money making patents. And I have been the (unsuccessful) target of patent trolls.

Whatever the dispute is, fwiw, I am certain that the present patent system is broken.

Most of this nonsense in court is a shell game.

The facts are out there and accessible, but not through the popular press or blogosphere.

OK to make a specialized thread for this, I'm sure that there are many interesting points and discussions to be had on this topic alone.

 

[nkk]

I'm listed on a number of money making patents. And I have been the (unsuccessful) target of patent trolls.

Whatever the dispute is, fwiw, I am certain that the present patent system is broken.

Most of this nonsense in court is a shell game.

The facts are out there and accessible, but not through the popular press or blogosphere.

OK to make a specialized thread for this, I'm sure that there are many interesting points and discussions to be had on this topic alone.

Because I think people would hate this discussion more than processors, I have just one last post. That's it. I promise. Unless someone begs me to post more....

I agree with everything above. However, as I said, I take great offense to those who do not create IP telling me that I have no right to claim it. My lab begs for money from various government entities and corporations, and then we spend that money (one of my experiments runs anywhere from $20 per sample to $450 per sample, and that is cheap compared so some others) while putting in hours upon hours of time. I darn well deserve credit for that work and compensation for it if someone uses it to make money.

Having said that, I think that what is allowed to be patented is absurd. The iPhone candy bar shape with one button is not a patent, nor a special design. It is pretty generic and IMO was not deserving of a patent. Note that Apple is not the only one who gets these dumb patents, but that is what came to mind for an example. The system is without a doubt broken, and the court cases are mostly for reasons other than valid protection of IP. However, the goal should be to alter the system, to give patents to only truly unique ideas or implementations, and to put hard limits on those (we already have these expiration dates, but some of them are off).

PS My patents and publications are/will be created in academia, so perhaps my view is skewed, but I truly believe that knowledge should be open and shared. However, credit should be given where credit is due, and if you make money from my hard work, part of the credit you owe me is in the form of currency, not just a citation.

I would never want a researcher who used my patent to cure cancer to pay me, but if there is a company who then uses my patent to commercialize said cure, yeah...I think I am owed something considering my hard work made that happen in part.

-Nkk

 

[burntorangefan]

Don't be foolish. I was replying to:

"Any company has the right to protect what it believes is theirs."

Which hinges on precisely the assumption I pointed out.

I made no claims about intellectual property itself.


Point in fact, you've committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy. If you don't understand logic, you quite frankly shouldn't be posting in these types of threads...Sorry to be rough, but your logic is just silly.

(N.B. I'd be happy to properly debate the topic of intellectual property and whether it should exist via private messaging.)

I think you've missed the point. The original poster believed a company had the right to protect what they believe is theirs. Your original post, which said: "This assumes that one agrees (with the US Government) that IP is something that can be legitimately owned." My point, and I wasn't making an ad populum fallacy argument, was that there are MANY countries which acknowledge intellectual property rights (most) and agree with the original poster's argument. It's not a debate in your freshman or sophomore philosophy logic class. In the real world, laws exist that govern such rights. The philosophical merit of those laws may be in question - as you've properly noted. I was trying to point out that the original poster is backed up not only in the US, but in courts all over the world. Sorry, I may not have done a good job of making that clear.

I went on to say that if you don't believe in IP rights you shouldn't be posting, which is too far. There are clearly people that believe in open source as an end all be all proposition and that no one owns ideas. Fair enough, but unfortunately, I don't have the time to debate that with you either here or in PM. Besides, it detracts from the main point of the thread which is all of our eagerness to have this phone....Let's all enjoy the newest leak, crack a cold beer (if you're of age) and enjoy the announcement tomorrow night! Take care...

EDIT: Mods sorry for posting, will move to another thread or simply not reply again...

 

[A.Nonymous]

Supposedly a judge held up a 10.1 Galaxy Tab and an iPad and asked the lawyers to stand 10 feet away and tell them which is which. No lawyer was brave enough to take them up on the offer apparently.

I think there is definitely a value in patenting things. My real problem is with patenting ideas. If I come up with the idea that you can manipulate things on your computer by waving your hand in the air that shouldn't be patentable. Microsoft comes along and somehow integrates Kinect with your PC and revolutionizes the UI of your computer and I can now sue them? I created nothing. I simply came up with an idea. Part of Apple's lawsuit is that they have patented "a slab screen that you touch" and therefore they own the rights to anything at all that has a similar form factor. That is flat out ridiculous. But legally, they may well be in the right.

 

[EarlyMon]

We ought distinguish between a patent - an invention - and a design patent - protection on the cosmetic look of a thing.

One is intellectual property, the other is just other.

Super simplification, I'll leave it to others to read up on the subjects or post here to clarify further.

~~~~~

And the judge who decided that the buttons could have been implemented differently based on what he called common sense was nothing more than a user playing designer, crossing over into inappropriate judicial activism.

~~~~~

The German judge that preempted the regular hearings by placing a ban on Samsung ban in the EU (overturned) did so against all briefs handed him by his staff.

~~~~~

There is a translation out there for what the Netherlands judge really said, and it's not what most people think. He chastised other courts and re-focused the issues back back to legal facts and square precedents. We could use a few more like him.

 

[novox77]

Supposedly a judge held up a 10.1 Galaxy Tab and an iPad and asked the lawyers to stand 10 feet away and tell them which is which. No lawyer was brave enough to take them up on the offer apparently.

surprising, given the two devices are 2 entirely different aspect ratios. Even if you wrapped them in christmas wrapping, I'd be able to tell them apart.

 

[EarlyMon]

Supposedly a judge held up a 10.1 Galaxy Tab and an iPad and asked the lawyers to stand 10 feet away and tell them which is which. No lawyer was brave enough to take them up on the offer apparently.

surprising, given the two devices are 2 entirely different aspect ratios. Even if you wrapped them in christmas wrapping, I'd be able to tell them apart.

Design patent issue, not patent issue.

Just wanted to note that.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Advanced OS? Not even close. You quite simply can't do nearly the amount of things you can do on an Android Phone with an iPhone.

We hate Apple because we see Apple has an incredibly arrogant company who doesn't innovate and simply copies what is in Android, and releases incremental updates in their one phone a year, but the iSheep line up in droves to buy one. It's pretty pathetic really.

Furthermore, if Apple had its way, it would sue every other Android manufacturer out of existence. Because they can't keep up with the pace of innovations from other manufacturers, there answer is a lawsuit. And quite ridiculous lawsuits at that, such as software patents and patenting the shape of a device. THEY'RE TRYING TO BAN THE SALES OF PRODUCTS. They're doing whatever they can to make themselves the only game in town.

For instance? What can you do to/with/on Android you cannot do to/with/on the iOS platform? And are you talking bricked (er, I mean rooted; sorry, so many Android users brick their phone, I forget a few manage to successfully root their devices) and jailbroken or stock?

Android is locked down just like iOS based devices.

Out of the box, Android can be customized and iOS is locked down. So I guess I'll give you that one. I do not own an iPhone, I do however, own an iPad. Once jailbroken, I can do everything I need to do.

And no, Apple would not sue everyone in sight. They will sue if they are being infringed, which is the proper thing to do. Stop reacting to the stuff you find on the web, for there are far too many people filling their fountain pens with bile when they write about Apple and their business practices. You yourself are clearly an Android Fanboy.

"We" do not hate Apple, so kindly speak for yourself. Nobody with a lick of sense actually hates Apple.

As for what the iSheep purchase, you apparently were not aware that manufacturers of Android devices seem to release a thousand phones every month. Trying to get it right I suppose. Smiley. iPhone users are happy and Apple's sales figures prove that.

I'll go out on a limb and say that if iOS were licensed to other phone manufacturers, you would see fewer Android phones and more iOS devices.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Supposedly a judge held up a 10.1 Galaxy Tab and an iPad and asked the lawyers to stand 10 feet away and tell them which is which. No lawyer was brave enough to take them up on the offer apparently.

Silly 'what if.' I do not a think a judge would do that and both sides would be allowed to look at the device. The word "Samsung" and no little Home Button would give it away. So there you go.

 

[Pitamakan]

So clearly, there are two distinct issues going on here:

1. Is the overall patent system in need of serious, fundamental reform? I'd say absolutely yes ... not just because of Apple/Samsung, but for a million other reasons. (The fact that Microsoft is making more money from Android patent royalties than it is from its own phone OS is my favorite example.)

2. Given the fact that the patent system is the way it is, is Apple being unduly evil in pursuing its case against Samsung? I honestly don't think so. People tend to forget what the real fiduciary mission of a corporation is, and that is to maximize shareholder value. Period. If the way to do that is to aggressively defend one's patent portfolio in court, then that's what a company's management MUST do ... if they don't, they're not fulfilling their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. It sucks in some ways, but that's simply the way our economic and legal system is structured.

 

[Bob Maxey]

So clearly, there are two distinct issues going on here:

1. Is the overall patent system in need of serious, fundamental reform? I'd say absolutely yes ... not just because of Apple/Samsung, but for a million other reasons. (The fact that Microsoft is making more money from Android patent royalties than it is from its own phone OS is my favorite example.)

OK, so why is it (MS/Android patent royalties) bad? Have you read the agreements so you can actually speak to the evil things MS is doing? Care to state specifics and a logical analyses of the problem you see in this specific case?

No sure I an understanding your specific gripe, so clarify please. Educate me.

What does it matter if MS is making money from patent royalties? For some corporations, patent licenses are a part of their business. It is not evil as you suggest; it is what has been done for a very long time.

Are you not aware that MS likely makes tens of millions or a few dollars more licensing their stuff?

So please show me why this is so bad. More to the point, show me this evil thing MS does is in any way part of the patent system and a need for reform. I do agree the system is in need of review and repair.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Silly 'what if.' I do not a think a judge would do that and both sides would be allowed to look at the device. The word "Samsung" and no little Home Button would give it away. So there you go.

But it did happen - Samsung Avoids Galaxy Tab Injunction In U.S., But Said To Infringe On iPad | paidContent

 

[Bob Maxey]

We ought distinguish between a patent - an invention - and a design patent - protection on the cosmetic look of a thing.

One is intellectual property, the other is just other.

Super simplification, I'll leave it to others to read up on the subjects or post here to clarify further.

I am not sure how I feel about Design Patents, Early. On the one hand, they serve a purpose. On the other hand, I would not like to see any company be granted a patent on a square or rectangular tablet. When that happens, nobody else can sell a tablet, period. Until it is tossed.

So I am stuck. I know the system is damaged but I know it is important. I know some patents should not be granted but I also know that once granted, they must be protected.

Some patents/trademarks/service marks/copyrights/other things are issued that should not be issued/granted, and this is part of the problem and why there needs to be review of the system.

But that is why we have judges and federal courts. Sometimes there is injustice so that is why we have appeals and sometimes we have people that just do not care about IP and that is why we have Torrent Sites, Smiley.

 

[Pitamakan]

Oh, I certainly didn't say that it was bad ... I was just using it as an example of how convoluted the web of patents is in the tech world, and how lots and lots of companies are pushing their perceived patent rights in the field. It's a complicate mess, and the entire entrepreneurial community would be better off if it were straightened out.

From a completely different perspective, I actually think it's kind of hilarious that Microsoft's smartphone patent attorneys are making the company more money than its smartphone OS designers are.