Coffeehouse Thread

68 posts

Job's vendetta to pull Galaxy S III from shelves?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    http://news.yahoo.com/apple-throws-tantrum-being-ordered-tell-samsung-htc-001121226.html

     Apple added a bunch of new products to the never-endinglist of Samsung things they want taken off store shelves for infringing on their patents. The new list includes the following:

    • Samsung's Galaxy S III running the latest Android software (which recently passed the iPhone in global dominance)
    • Samsung's Galaxy Note 2
    • Samsung's Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wifi
    • Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 10.1
    • Samsung's Rugby Pro
    • Samsung's Galaxy S III Mini

     

    iWin

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    If you can't beat 'em... throw lawyers at them until they run away!

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    Cheer patents!

    Because you know, seuing your competitors out of business is what drives innovation!

    And we need our ideas protected, becuase there are so few ideas out there!

    Constitutioned monopolies at work Sad

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @Maddus Mattus: Prove your point to the guy who invented intermittent windshield wiper motors (vs the old constant slap) -- his non-patented invention was stolen by Ford after he presented his idea to them and was turned down.

    With your perspective, the buyers of inventions with deep pockets can ALWAYS go around the inventor. They would have no legal recourse, either.

    So you, inventor, go unpaid and your product yeilds profits to the deep-pocketed-pirate-corporation.

    Nice plan if you're rich and immoral... like Ford was with this deal, and all of Wall Street every day...

    Rule of Law is a concept that needs to be understood completely before patents can be demonized.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @JohnAskew:

    But keep in mind we are talking about a company that sits on $120 billion dollars of cash, money that mostly doesn't belong to the engineers that actually made the product. This is not David vs Goliath here, this is Goliath vs Goliath.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    @GoddersUK: No. The point here is just to take it off shelves.

    Since Apple relies on core component that only Samsung can provide, any fines subjected to them will return to themselves when the next time Samsung adjust the price for Apple when negotiating the next supply contract.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Do you guys know why Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Galaxy S III?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    @JoshRoss: No?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    @JoshRoss: Because he's dead!

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @JoshRoss: No, He is risen!

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , cheong wrote

    @GoddersUK: No. The point here is just to take it off shelves.

    Nope, the point was to extract a license fee. Documents from the US case show that Apple offered Samsung a deal before the case begun. Samsung refused so stuff went legal. 

    http://www.techspot.com/news/49768-microsoft-licensed-apple-tablet-patents-samsung-refused.html

    The important thing to note is that Apple doesn't appear to be as interested in the money as it is in the 'non-copying' clause.

    Since Apple relies on core component that only Samsung can provide, any fines subjected to them will return to themselves when the next time Samsung adjust the price for Apple when negotiating the next supply contract.

    They can get components; the problem is getting them in sufficient quantities. What Apple is finding is that they need two or more suppliers to get the same yields as Samsung. The supply of screens will be handled by Sharp and Panasonic (I think Sharp are already doing the new In-Cell screens), the chips will be made by TSMC and Global Foundries.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @JohnAskew: Ideas are not worth protecting. We have billions and billions of ideas each day, it's not like they are a scarce commodity.

    And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @JohnAskew: Ideas are not worth protecting. We have billions and billions of ideas each day, it's not like they are a scarce commodity.

    And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

    The USA was created by people who catagorically rejected the status quo royal EU model that you're today promoting.

    All ideas belong to the king. Mad 'King' Mattus.

    You knucklehead.

    Do you know any Brouns? Say hi to Lude. It's been 35 years...

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , JohnAskew wrote

    *snip*

    The USA was created by people who catagorically rejected the status quo royal EU model that you're today promoting.

    All ideas belong to the king. Mad 'King' Mattus.

    You knucklehead.

    Do you know any Brouns? Say hi to Lude. It's been 35 years...

    Now where did I promote the EU model? I'm not in favor of any model.

    All ideas do not belong to me, to Apple, to Samsung or whomever. Ideas are free to be shared and implemented by anyone. To put an ownership on a pattern of firing neurons in your brain is ludicrous and leads to the very excesses we are discussing here today.

    I don't feel the need to protect an owner of an idea, because it leads to the excesses you see before you today! And how many life saving and life changing ideas are kept from us, because otherwise some multinational would go belly up?

    Patents do more harm then good and we would be better off without them.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Constitutioned monopolies at work Sad

    ...

    Ideas are not worth protecting. 

    ...

    Now where did I promote the EU model? I'm not in favor of any model.

    ...

    Patents do more harm then good and we would be better off without them.

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Patents are fine, the patent issuing process is seriously flawed, but patents themselves aren't a problem.

    For such a staunch libertarian, you are starting to sound like a dirty hippy.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @JohnAskew: Ideas are not worth protecting. We have billions and billions of ideas each day, it's not like they are a scarce commodity.

    And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

    I'm sure we've been through this before but - not all ideas are equal.

    • Some are obvious, these deserve no protection
    • Some are obvious next steps, these also deserve no protection
    • Some involve design (in a non-engineering sense), for these we have copyright
    • Some ideas take decades to develop, these deserve protection
    • Some idea take billions of pounds to develop, these deserve protection

    Why?

    Because if they weren't protected nobody would develop them. There would be no new computer chips, no new drugs, no new materials etc... It's not really the ideas you're protecting, but the substantial investment of time, money, resources, people, etc. used to bring them to fruition you're protecting.

    Yes, in some cases, the patent system is abused. There are patent trolls. There are those who use patents to try and crush competition. Patents are granted that clearly shouldn't be valid.

    Yes, the patent system needs (urgent and substantial) reform.

    But, NO, the concept of a patent is not bad. It's not fundamentally broken. We need them.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    Also there's nothing stopping you doing a law degree and sticking your fingers in the pie too Wink

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.