Coffeehouse Thread

172 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Anyone know of a good source for Apple/Samsung court case (1 bababaillion)?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cheong wrote

    *snip*

    The foolish part that on Reuter's interview at 25th Aug, he admitted that himself. So whether he really did that with this idea in mind, Samsung would use this written prove as evidence.

    "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."

     

    Mmm. Not sure if that is enough. At most, they can get the award reduced.  The foreman says he wanted to be painful, but not unreasonable. The amount could have been $3billion and still been reasonable as the theft was wilful, and Koh is within her rights to raise it to that level on appeal. 

    And of course, the money isn't the issue: that amount is loose change to either company. What matters here is Apple sending warning other companies that they will not tolerate the theft of their design trademarks. I think they've got that message across.

    It's worth bearing in mind that of the 28 Samsung devices found to be using Apple IP, Apple is only seeking an injunction on eight of them. And of those eight, only two are considered current. This really isn't about the money.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Ray7: Isn't it weird that I as a consumer have to pay Apple when I buy a Microsoft product?

    Yes, and it's just as weird that, as a consumer, I have to pay Microsoft when I buy a Linux product.

    Neither company is setting a precedent here.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Ray7: My point exactly!

    It's a system that prevents competition and therefore innovation.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Ray7: My point exactly!

    It's a system that prevents competition and therefore innovation.

    Except that Samsung weren't innovating; they were taking design elements wholesale and using them to build their own iPhone clones. 

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Ray7: Innovating their products to be more competitive with what the customer wants, yes.

    If the consumer wants those features, why allow only one company to serve that demand?

    And how can you 'take' design elements? You can either a) copy them b) improve on them.

    If Ford was the only company in the world to allow products to be manufactured with a production line, we would have gotten nowhere as a society.

    And it's not like the Galaxy-SII has a 50%+ market share, now is it?

    The iPhone does! And it's being allowed this monopoly position with the help of patents.

    Innovation to ones products, does not always mean, we have got to discover a totally new way of doing things. Sometimes an idea just works and it's pure protectionism to deny others to implement these ideas.

  • User profile image
    CaRDiaK

    Basically unless your writing LoB apps, you might as well hang up your dev coat, they will get you, if not today, then tomorrow. This is so sad. The only people doing the stealing here are Apple. Stealing people's right to better software and innovation. I don't want to own or use an Apple product by the looks of it in time I won't have any choice. And I'll have to pay through the teeth for the (mis)pleasure of it. WTF.

    We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    Patent laws encourage invention, that's their purpose and it works. Theft is theft, nothing honorable.

     

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Ray7: Isn't it weird that I as a consumer have to pay Apple when I buy a Microsoft product?

    Not really, no. When you buy a car from Ford, some of the money goes to Dunlop/Pirelli or whomever makes the tyres. When you buy a iPhone, some of the money goes to Samsung for the chips and display etc. Why should it be any different when it's a 'software' or 'design' component rather than a physical one? How do you plan to pay the people who do that work if you take away their IP protection?

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

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

    The term "patent troll" was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits. The Patent Troll was originally depicted in "The Patents Video" which was released in 1994 and sold to corporations, universities and governmental entities. In "The Patents Video", an unsuspecting victim is surprised by the Patent Troll who strategically positions himself to collect patent licensing revenue.

    ...

    Patent troll "companies have no interest in using the patents... but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves." This gives them an advantage over manufacturers since they are relatively immune to the typical defensive tactic large entities use against small patent plaintiffs, because the cost of litigation tends to fall more heavily on an accused infringer than on a plaintiff with a contingency-fee lawyer, and because trolls have an almost-unrestricted ability to choose their preferred plaintiff-friendly forums, most prominently the Eastern District of Texas

    Apple is no patent troll.

    But, in the context of this thread, dropping in uninvited as I have, perhaps I am... Wink

    This is where patent law can defeat innovation, I apologize for being less correct earlier and now clearly enjoy invincible credibility.

    Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , AndyC wrote

    Not really, no. When you buy a car from Ford, some of the money goes to Dunlop/Pirelli or whomever makes the tyres. When you buy a iPhone, some of the money goes to Samsung for the chips and display etc. Why should it be any different when it's a 'software' or 'design' component rather than a physical one? How do you plan to pay the people who do that work if you take away their IP protection?

    Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

    By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

    @JohnAskew:

    How do you figure that it is working? 

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

    By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

    Patents expire. I don't know of any that span over 2000 years, anyway.

    @JohnAskew:

    How do you figure that it is working? 

    Who doesn't love a troll?

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

    By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

    So you're saying because you can't physically touch something then it can't be stolen?

    Seems to mirror the views of folk who think you can't steal software or music because you can't touch it.

    And not sure about your Roman argument. Is there any documentation available that proves Romans patented roads? You'll probably find they're open source.

     

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

    If the guy who invented the road were still alive, I think it'd only be right that everyone give him a few pennies to recognise his contribution to making the world a more industrious and better place.

    And the guy who invented the tire - why shouldn't he get a few pennies for every tire sold? Without his contribution to the automobile industry, I would be very much more sore when I got to work each morning.

    I think as a society we're doing ourselves a disservice if we force great inventors to have a second job to pay the bills, rather than letting them get on with the job that they're good at and that improves all of our lives - i.e. spending their time inventing stuff.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: And I would argue that we would have a whole lot more inventions and paid inventors if the business of inventing wasnt such a snakepit full of lawers.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: And I would argue that we would have a whole lot more inventions and paid inventors if the business of inventing wasnt such a snakepit full of lawers.

    I agree - the process of applying for patents should be as simple, cheap and straightforward as possible for small and independent inventors. 

    But the solution to this isn't to abolish the concept of patents, or the ability for inventors to protect their inventions through copyright and patent law. If you do that, JK Rowling would be poor and her publisher would be rich and all small innovative companies would go out of business to big companies that are good at copying and producing goods cheaply rather than inventing new products.

    The west is powered by innovation (in contrast to many of the emerging countries that are powered by manual labour). If we want to remain competitive, we really need more innovation not less, and that means reforming patent law to work - not abolishing it and letting all of our ideas pass for free to big manufacturing firms in emerging economies.

    If you abolish patents tomorrow, everyone in Silicon Valley and Redmond will be unemployed by Christmas.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Paper clip and paper flushable toilet seat cover are definitely need protections.

    As for high tech patents and trendy patents. no comment. It is too complicated for me. It is a both love and hate relationship.

    Either way, why couldn't they just settle this off the court like how MS getting some lisence fee from various Android devices? Why it turns to such nasty fight?

     

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    I agree - the process of applying for patents should be as simple, cheap and straightforward as possible for small and independent inventors. 

    Sure, it's never the fault of the system, it's the fault of people in the system, they are doing it wrong.

    If you look at what the patent system has brought us, is a whole bunch of protectionism and an army of lawyers.

    Huurah for progress!

    But the solution to this isn't to abolish the concept of patents, or the ability for inventors to protect their inventions through copyright and patent law. If you do that, JK Rowling would be poor and her publisher would be rich and all small innovative companies would go out of business to big companies that are good at copying and producing goods cheaply rather than inventing new products.

    And how would I go about checking the fact the JK Rowling wouldnt have made a fortune? You can't prove that statement, so it's not valid.

    I can however point you to the Star Wars books. You are free to write those and publish. The result is a whole host of fan and professional books that all take place in the Star Wars universe. The spinoff is it's keeping the idea alive and Lucas can still make money off his original work.

    So you have your hypothetical situations, mine is based on fact.

    The west is powered by innovation (in contrast to many of the emerging countries that are powered by manual labour). If we want to remain competitive, we really need more innovation not less, and that means reforming patent law to work - not abolishing it and letting all of our ideas pass for free to big manufacturing firms in emerging economies.

    Patents prohibit innovation. You are not allowed by law to improve upon the ideas of others.

    If we want to stay ahead of developing countries, we need to get rid of patent law.

    China and India are rapidly becoming more innovate, because they have no lawyers holding them back. If we want to stay ahead, we should even up the odds, not stack them further against us.

    If you abolish patents tomorrow, everyone in Silicon Valley and Redmond will be unemployed by Christmas.

    Your arguments always focus on the negative and are not based on facts but on emotions. This is just doom mongering.

    We've had innovation before patents, had our biggest innovation and growth then, therefore we will have innovation after patents.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Sure, it's never the fault of the system, it's the fault of people in the system, they are doing it wrong.

    If you look at what the patent system has brought us, is a whole bunch of protectionism and an army of lawyers.

    Huurah for progress!

    *snip*

    Here is a clear case where the end result is the only thing that matters to you rather than the intent or the original ideals of the system, so you want to trash the entire system.

    Yet, you cling so tightly to the ideal that the capitalist system fosters competition when in reality it creates oligarchies, which by and large are WORSE than monopolies (i.e. effectively monopolies with the regulatory cover of not being an actual monopoly).

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.