Apple wins law suit

[Whoaru99]

Probably not going after Amazon, but apparently Google is in their sights.

BTW, today Samsung finally pushed the Android Ice Cream Sandwich OS update to my Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9. That said, this lawsuit is more targeted at phone devices.

[delcecchi]

If you are really interested there are a couple of sites which have considerable detail. Groklaw is my favorite. Search for it. I try not to post links.

[CAMAN]

[Valv]

Since Apple was already on my $hit list and Samsung made my list recently, I'll not knowingly spend another dime on products from either.

x2. I was considering an Iphony again, but after this lawsuit, and my last experience with a Droid Charge, Apple and Samsung are on same list as Whoaru99.

[deerminator]

It's simple. Apple came up with an extremely innovative idea. Another company copied it without playing by the rules and got called on it. You can say it's a simple idea. That you could have come up with it. But you didn't. Apple did and filed a patent. End of story.

[delcecchi]

It's simple. Apple came up with an extremely innovative idea. Another company copied it without playing by the rules and got called on it. You can say it's a simple idea. That you could have come up with it. But you didn't. Apple did and filed a patent. End of story.

Patent office not always good at prior art, especially in software. Back in the day we used to joke about Japanese companies patenting the motorola data book, so sometimes not hardware either.

And the foreman of the jury might have been a little off in his interpretation of prior art and obviousness and ignored judge instruction. Check out the discussion or wait for the appeal.

[Whoaru99]

It's simple. Apple came up with an extremely innovative idea. Another company copied it without playing by the rules and got called on it. You can say it's a simple idea. That you could have come up with it. But you didn't. Apple did and filed a patent. End of story.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

[delcecchi]

And saying you could have come up with it may or may not be true. And if it really was obvious "to one skilled in the art" or even one not skilled in the art, it is not patentable.

Lots of cases about obviousness.

That refers to "utility patents" which is what people usually think of as a patent. There are also "design patents" to prevent someone from copying the design or the way something looks.

[Whoaru99]

That previous post wasn't really even about the content or whether or not Apple should have won. It was about the hypocrisy of Apple suing for patent infringement when they're not above stealing a good idea themselves, and bragging about it.

They're right there, neck and neck, with Monster Cable who is notorious for suing just about anyone and anything for using the word "Monster" or making anything that remotely resembles a phono plug (RCA plug) incorporating a somewhat sleek metal back shell.

[delcecchi]

Yeah, the reply really should have been to Deerminator, not you. I was a little sloppy on that. Sorry.

[SledNeck]

Good to see an American company sticking it to the asians who have been making products based off American innovations for decades

[Kyhl]

They're right there, neck and neck, with Monster Cable who is notorious for suing just about anyone and anything for using the word "Monster" or making anything that remotely resembles a phono plug (RCA plug) incorporating a somewhat sleek metal back shell.

I have never really been an apple fan and accepted that they made a slightly different product that appealed to many.

In my book, the filing of the lawsuits put them into the same category as Monster and Bose. Each has become a branding/marketing company.

Then there is the whole, largest company in the history of the world thing. They have outgrown their alternative feel when they became the most dominate player.

[Scott K]

I will have to say that the first iphone took the smart phone to a whole new level. Then after the iphone came out, everyone had a wantabe phone that looked/worked just like the iphone. Also look at the ipad, and what was before, and after it was released. Was there infringements? There is no doubt in my mind, hardware, and software.

Look at all the smartphones prior to 2007, then look at them after 07, and look at the iphone. They were sure made to look, and operate almost identically. I dont feel bad at all for Samsung, and the other phone companies that copied them as well.

But I also dont feel bad for Apple, when Samsung raises their prices on their chips to recover the amount from the lawsuits. It will eventually force Apple to make their own chips, which will just make the market that much more competitive.

My question is, what will become of the Samsung phones now? Will they be forced to push a different OS in them? Something unique only of their own? Will they have to stop selling the hardware that is in question? My son wants a new Galaxy 2 or 3, and I like the 2 better, because it is cheaper I know the copyright lawsuit isnt near over, but Samsung will only be shooting themselves in the foot, if they dont stop selling the items that they are being sued for.

[Scott K]

Quote:

Apple Now Targeting Samsung Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note

Just 10 days after claiming a $1.05 billion court victory over Samsung, Apple (NSDQ:AAPL) filed a new claim with the U.S. District Court of Northern California, this time firing off infringement accusations at some of its rival's newest smartphones and tablets, including the Samsung Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note.

Apple last week filed an amended patent infringement complaint accusing 21 Samsung mobile devices of infringing on its designs for the iPad and iPhone. All devices targeted in the new claim were launched after August 2011, or after Apple's original claim for the U.S. trial that ended in its favor just more than a week ago.

"Since then [April 2011], Samsung has continued to release new infringing products, including its current flagship device, the Galaxy S III," Apple wrote in the new claim. "While Samsung's new products infringe many of the same design patents, utility patents, trademarks, and trade dress rights that are at issue in the Earlier Case, Samsung's new products also infringe additional utility patents, some of which issued after Apple filed the Earlier Case."

In addition to the Galaxy S III, Samsung's most recent Android-based smartphone that launched in June, Apple is claiming that Samsung's Galaxy Note and new Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet also infringe on its patents.

Unlike the 28 Samsung devices that were targeted by Apple during the first U.S. case, the new list of smartphones and tablets being called into question allegedly infringe on Apple's patents related to the iPhone and iPad user experience, rather than their physical look and feel. The iPhone and iPad patents being examined in the new claim include those for features such as slide-to-unlock, word recommendation and search. A total of eight patents were included in the new claim.

Samsung refuted Apple's claim this weekend, saying its rival was attempting to stifle consumer choice in the mobile market.

"Apple continues to resort to litigation over market competition in an effort to limit consumer choice," Samsung said in a statement to the Associated Press. "We will continue to take the necessary legal measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products in the United States."

Should Apple successfully prove it has suffered irreparable harm as a result of the Galaxy Note or Galaxy S III, a preliminary injunction preventing U.S. sales of these devices could be put into place. Samsung has sold nearly 10 million Galaxy S III smartphones since its launch earlier this year, a figure that has propelled the South Korean tech giant to the top seat in the global smartphone market, where it currently holds 36.5 percent of the global market, according to IDC.

Samsung's second-generation Galaxy Note II, which it just introduced last week, is not included in Apple's claim.

Apple is separately seeking a permanent ban on eight Samsung smartphones and the cellular version of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 device following its victory in the first court hearing. These devices are mostly older Samsung models, however, including its first and second-generation Galaxy smartphones.

PUBLISHED SEPT. 4, 2012

[upnorth]

The OS is different, it is more the look and feel. They may be required to change the User Interface a bit.

[Whoaru99]

My question is, what will become of the Samsung phones now? Will they be forced to push a different OS in them? Something unique only of their own? Will they have to stop selling the hardware that is in question? My son wants a new Galaxy 2 or 3, and I like the 2 better, because it is cheaper I know the copyright lawsuit isnt near over, but Samsung will only be shooting themselves in the foot, if they dont stop selling the items that they are being sued for.

My advice would be to avoid taking any future firmware updates, if you have a choice.

[Scott K]

I see Apple just announced their announcment of their new products will be on 9/12. We will see if the new iphone has anything new to drool over. I have the iphone 3, and it still works well. The iphone 4 didnt impress me at all, so if the iphone 5 doesnt have some sort of levitating device, or laser beam, or time travel app, I will probably be getting a Galaxy 3 as well. My daughter has the 4gs, and there is much improvement from my old pile to the 4g, but I dont like the squared corners.

[LMITOUT]

Well, those squared corners are extra special ya know. They even patented them, cuz nobody had seen squared corners before Apple came along.

[itchmesir]

Lets not forget Apple's "Revolution in portable computing"

Guess Gates should have rounded the corners

[delcecchi]

X

I have never really been an apple fan and accepted that they made a slightly different product that appealed to many.

In my book, the filing of the lawsuits put them into the same category as Monster and Bose. Each has become a branding/marketing company.

Then there is the whole, largest company in the history of the world thing. They have outgrown their alternative feel when they became the most dominate player.

They developed the design and got the patents according to USA law. They are entitled to the benefits of their patents.

If the patents are not really valid for any one of several possible reasons that will be decided in court, ultimately by the supreme court.

But to be upset because they enforced their rights to their property against someone found to have used that property without compensation is inappropriate in my view.

Do you a problem with private property? Or only that property belonging to large companies? (Apple is largest by stock value. Others are larger by other measures)

[delcecchi]

Lets not forget Apple's "Revolution in portable computing"

Guess Gates should have rounded the corners

Guess Gates should have built a product people want to buy. I have no sympathy for Microsoft after the stuff they pulled with DOS, Windows, OS/2 and their dealings with IBM. They make Apple look like choirboys.

[Kyhl]

They developed the design and got the patents according to USA law. They are entitled to the benefits of their patents.

If the patents are not really valid for any one of several possible reasons that will be decided in court, ultimately by the supreme court.

But to be upset because they enforced their rights to their property against someone found to have used that property without compensation is inappropriate in my view.

Do you a problem with private property? Or only that property belonging to large companies? (Apple is largest by stock value. Others are larger by other measures)

No problem here with property rights. I've been up front about defending the music industry for years about their right to be paid per copy of music they own. Example, buying a cd, making a copy then selling the CD while keeping the digital copy is an infringement in my book because that person just made a copy available without the property owner receiving payment.

Just an example.

But I desagree with what Apple is trying to patent. I often confuse models and even makes of cars. The teardrop shapes all look alike to me. Should BMW sue Gov't motors for making the LaCrosse look like a BMW, down to the shark fin? Instead, BMW restyles itself.

Just because an item is rectangular with a touchscreen and certain angles of bevels does not make it a copy. They use differrent engines to accomplish the same task.

All this sue happiness only rewards the lawyers at the expense of consumers and innovation.

What I see is Apple lost at their own game and now they are using their deep pockets to try to stifle their competition through litigation instead of innovating.

[upnorth]

Apple does stuff like this and leads to their own demise. The computer world tires of extremely proprietary systems. Apple's protectionism and unwillingness to work with the rest of the world will be their downfall again. With our connection based culture and the differing systems and apps and all the rest, Apple wanting to just keep to itself will do to Apple, what it did to Apple in the past. Novell did the same thing.

You don't go where the rest of the world is going and you the rest of the world will go without you and find someone who will get it done.

[SledNeck]

Apple does stuff like this and leads to their own demise. The computer world tires of extremely proprietary systems. Apple's protectionism and unwillingness to work with the rest of the world will be their downfall again. .

[upnorth]

Give it time, the original Macs did well til the rest of the world moved on and they continued to only work with other Macs. Droid products are already making dramatic inroads in the smartphone world and taking a bigger slice all the time.