Samsung, Apple... and YOU

[catnipkiller]

Apple is a joke of a company that only hipsters and children use. I hope they get sued by everyone.

 

[Frick]

Meanwhile, Google owned Motorola is attacking Apple. Apple has made its position very clear and how they're going to operate and at this point the only way to get Apple to play fair is to beat them into submission.

yes and no imo. We wouldn't have the phones we have today if the iPhone never existed. Apple haven't been that triggerhappy about things afaik, only about Samsung and alleged infringement (which i agree with in some ways). Is the system broken? Yes, but i dont want to hold apple guilty of using the system pretty much everyone uses.

And its interesting how apple gets more hate because of this than actual copyrirght trolls.

 

[Solaris17]

yes and no imo. We wouldn't have the phones we have today if the iPhone never existed. Apple haven't been that triggerhappy about things afaik, only about Samsung and alleged infringement (which i agree with in some ways). Is the system broken? Yes, but i dont want to hold apple guilty of using the system pretty much everyone uses.

And its interesting how apple gets more hate because of this than actual copyrirght trolls.

but apple is the copyright troll they have been systematically going after everyone.

 

[Frick]

but apple is the copyright troll they have been systematically going after everyone.

You have more info?

 

[Solaris17]

You have more info?

everything including current vs samsung and then some iv never even heard of


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

 

[Frick]

everything including current vs samsung and then some iv never even heard of


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

The only ones about copyright they initiated are Samsung and HTC. Didn't happen anything in the HTC case. There are a few where Apple are being sued though.

 

[KainXS]

let the good times roll
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_...-apple-if-lte-device-is-released-report-says/
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...y_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html
expect more of this from now on.

Judge: whats wrong honey
Apple: Samsung copied my phone mommy
Court: Good lord no:shadedshu, why do you say that honey
Apple: My phones a rectangle(sniff) and so is theiiiiiiiirs(sniff)
Court: how could they, those bastards will pay
Jury: Did you hear, Samsung stole Apples rectangle, those bastards:shadedshu
Apple: Do SOMETHING MOMMY, DO SOMETHING WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Court: Don't worry baby we'll show them(annoying brat)

1 month later

Court: You pay my little apple 1 billion dollars for no good reason
Samsung: WTF, the numbers don't even add up come onnnn, this is not over

1 week later

Samsung: Were gonna sue you if your next rectangle has LTE because we have 12% of the patents
Apple: But thats stupid
Samsung: We know
Apple: Then I'm gonna get all your rectangles blocked, MOOOMMMMYYYYY they did it agggaaaiinnnn

samsung should not have threatened apple by saying they would block the LTE on the next iphone(which they can't do), now it seems apple is going to sue them again, it never ends:shadedshu

 

[Drone]

Poor Samsung, $1.05 billion is a helluva big prize for that and even that didn't make Apple happy. They has filed a fresh patent infringement action It's moronic. Apple products have Samsung parts. I bet if Samsung rebels Apple will fall.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Apple will find another supplier if Samsung cuts ties. They maybe already did for the iPhone 5 which is launching soon.

 

[entropy13]

Copy-pasta from somewhere else:

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I was waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?" Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book" Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone. Wife: "Oh wow, " looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

I put my Samsung QX 410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, "Sorry, you don't mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?"

"Oh, no worries, it was $700." I replied.

I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, "Mind if I have a look?" he asked.

So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X... By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

... Now, the punchline:

I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don't know the details, they don't really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple ... and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products — for nearly everything.

Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)... Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, it's disgusting that nothing "tech" matters unless it appears in the same sentence as "Apple." People ought to know better.

 

[Iceni]

what gets me is the patents infringed seem to be whimsical at best.

Had apple gone after samsung for manufacturing and assembly methods, then i could see that patent holding water.

Only apple use a milled housing with a glued on screen. It's an apple design feature, and it's also an ascetic one as well since it minimises lines on the rear of the device.

However all samsung devices are assembled in the normal fashion Screen first back last. Meaning more lines, removable back panels ect.


The USA courts have just proven what a mess their legal system is. Allowing a minimalist patent to hold water just sets the flood gates open for larger companies to patent a mish mash of concepts based on nothing other than ideas. What happens now when apple patents all rectangles of all sizes with a glass fronted screen and for multiple different tasks.

Here's a minimalist infra red box. (all touch screen TV remote's are gone)
Here's a minimalist screen with a GPS capability. (all GPS/sat navs are gone)


What upsets me the most however is a lot of countries have thrown out the apple/samsung debate, The USA failing to do this has probably stunted the market. Now small companies are going to be wary of Android, and it's similarities to apple. And without the financial grunt of samsung those companies are left without a defence if apple wants to intervene.


Hopefully samsung has secured the patents on those fold-able amolded screens, and plans to implement them without allowing apple to benefit. But also licences the technology to everyone else. That would just be pudding ATM.

http://www.applebitch.com

 

[micropage7]

let the good times roll
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_...-apple-if-lte-device-is-released-report-says/
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...y_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html
expect more of this from now on.



samsung should not have threatened apple by saying they would block the LTE on the next iphone(which they can't do), now it seems apple is going to sue them again, it never ends:shadedshu

yeah, thats pretty sick. big company just sue other company again and again and again coz they say the other competitors copy their patent. why dont apple sue other company that make stuff like their product 100%?
like this

 

[KainXS]

suing those tiny chinese clone companies is much much harder than suing a larger company like samsung

why go through the trouble when you have patent mines everywhere.

 

[KainXS]

You guys didn't think it was over did you . . . . . .

I like to keep up with the news and I must say . . . . . . If I saw the nonsense unfolding in a movie I would be like ". . . . . . ummm . . . . . no."

Hogan the foreman was sued by Seagate in 1993 but The lawyer who sued Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung, this resulted in hogan becoming bankrupt and nearly ruined him.

So Either Samsungs lawyers did not do their job or they knew it
Or Apples lawyers are did not do their job

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013.pdf

The Preliminary Injunction on the Galaxy Tab has also now been dissolved by the judge

 

[eidairaman1]

Yeah, it's disgusting that nothing "tech" matters unless it appears in the same sentence as "Apple." People ought to know better.

beyond that Samsung probably have made their displays incompatible with Apple computers too along with the no name parts they make under a different label (every company has one)

Honestly Apple can go fuck themselves with their own apple

 

[Super XP]

beyond that Samsung probably have made their displays incompatible with Apple computers too along with the no name parts they make under a different label (every company has one)

Honestly Apple can go fuck themselves with their own apple

AMEN to that.

 

[HossHuge]

So the jury foreman is a patent holder?

Does that sound strange to anyone else?

It seems I was on to something.....

Samsung has called for a retrial of a recent patent dispute case, claiming the jury foreman had "failed to answer [questions] truthfully" and might have been biased.

So, I guess it sounded strange to Samsung as well.

source

 

[Sasqui]

Didn't know this thread was still alive...

There are a few where Apple are being sued though.

Most of them are retaliatory, like kids in a sandbox "He started it!" And Apple did start it, they are pure evil incarnate.

Most often, large companies use patents as a defensive mechanism. Apple obviously went on the offensive, and the rest are being both offensive and defensive in response.

 

[WhiteLotus]

I can not for the life of me find the thread where it was discussed where Apple lost the litigation in the UK and was forced to post an apology.
This is the apology:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

 

[DannibusX]

That's no apology. It's a slap in the face.

 

[eidairaman1]

yup and guess what happens to Apple, certain ICs etc being made by samsung will no longer be in apple products.

 

[entropy13]

Apple's Samsung statement reprimanded by court of appeal

The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe the iPad tablet's registered design, and ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage – rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December.

The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.

At a hearing in the court in London on Thursday morning, the judge told Apple that it had to change the wording of the statement within 48 hours, carry it on its home page, and use at least 11-point font.

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".

Darren Smyth of EIP Partners said: "The objection was that Apple had added to the statement that the court of appeal had ordered, so did not comply with the original order, and furthermore that the additions were not accurate.

"Apple must now within 48 hours publish a correction on their homepage with a link to the corrected statement in not less than 11-point font."

The tech giant was originally ordered by the court of appeal to correct the statement carried on its website relating to its tablet battle with Samsung, in which it was ordered to acknowledge that its rival did not copy the iPad's design.

Though Apple did do that, it also added in details from other court cases in the US relating to other non-design patents to suggest that other courts had found against Samsung.

The acknowledgement – which was depicted as an apology, though neither the court of appeal nor the original high court judgment described it as such – was intended to be a factual statement ordered by His Honour Judge Birss QC in the high court. Apple has also been told it must take out adverts with the same statements in the Financial Times, The Guardian, Daily Mail, T3 magazine and Mobile magazine. Those adverts are not thought to have appeared.

The ruling is the latest in a long-running battle between the South Korean and Californian electronics giants, in which Apple and Samsung have since 2010 been at loggerheads over patents and designs used in their respective smartphones and tablets, with lawsuits around the world.

In the UK one, Apple had claimed that Samsung infringed its European "registered design" for the iPad tablet with the Galaxy Tab; Samsung disagreed, and won a ruling from Birss in July.

He then ordered Apple to issue a corrective statement about Samsung's designs. Apple appealed, but lost that case in October. The same three judges sat on Thursday as in the October case.

While Apple's statement on its site did contain the elements it was instructed to contain according to the court of appeal and high court rulings, Apple added four paragraphs – including extracts from Birss's ruling in July where he called Apple's designs "cool", and contrasted them against Samsung's, which he said lacked the same qualities.

Bloomberg quoted Jacob as saying Apple's statement was "a plain breach of the order".

Bloomberg said that Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty".

Apple declined to comment on the new ruling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

 

[WhiteLotus]

Nothing like a slap in the face to Apple.