|
|
|
Apple injunction case against Samsung will begin in December
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 31 August, 2012
After its victory over Samsung, Apple asked for an injunction on a few of the Korean giant's current devices.
The bans would be on the Galaxy S 4G, two versions of the Galaxy S II, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Droid Charge, and the Galaxy Prevail. None of those devices are really "new" persay, but some still command some sales.
Unfortunately for Apple, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
31. August 2012 @ 10:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now that the iPud tech has been marched before the courts has it been made public record? You know, all design parameters & the likes. Aren't they afraid that someone will come along & steal their designs & copy them?
Seems to me, on one hand how would someone know NOT to copy these bastards if you didn't know what was already out there? Certainly this isn't Samsung's case & for (deity choice) who the hell would want to copy them? Sure every squirrel gets a nut (some subtleties were mirrored), but not enough to plant a forest.
I mean, these super trolls are dancing so hard in their happy piss puddle so much that their going to screw up the rest of the sentencing & possibly cause a back blast. I.e., get f*ked with their own rules.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. August 2012 @ 11:01
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
31. August 2012 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
The iFail crap was already public record; patents are public records. You can look them up on google. Plus, who would want to copy them except Chinese knock-off companies that go so far as to put fake Apple logos on (and who are immune from lawsuits for various reasons)? If a company wants to make a good Android or Windows mobile device, they copy Samsung! Just look at all the 5" phones coming out after Samsung proved that even a carrier-locked Galaxy Note could sell like crazy...now Samsung is releasing a 5.5" phone, and you can bet that every other Android device maker has their teams working on 5.4-5.6" devices.
I'm still waiting for HP to sue them into the stone age for copying the iPaq...but since HP didn't patent the features due to them being prior art, I'm not sure they would have a case (plus, Apple is really good at bribery)...plus any juror who ever had an HP printer or laptop would rule against them out of spite.
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
31. August 2012 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
I'd like to know what ALL the "patents" are that Apple claims rights to. In all fairness, zooming could have been done another way by Samsung and the rest of phones makers rather than "Pinch-to-zoom".
There's tap-to-zoom, and clockwise circle-to-zoom, counterclockwise circle-to-zoom, double tap and drag up/down-to-zoom to name a few.
However, why aren't all others being pursued legally for pinching-to-zoom. This unanswered question alone makes me want to "pinch-a-loaf".
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. September 2012 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hearme0:
I'd like to know what ALL the "patents" are that Apple claims rights to. In all fairness, zooming could have been done another way by Samsung and the rest of phones makers rather than "Pinch-to-zoom".
There's tap-to-zoom, and clockwise circle-to-zoom, counterclockwise circle-to-zoom, double tap and drag up/down-to-zoom to name a few.
However, why aren't all others being pursued legally for pinching-to-zoom. This unanswered question alone makes me want to "pinch-a-loaf".
Here is a copy-n-paste from a post I made in another thread...you are right; zooming could be done in a way that apple didn't patent; in fact, Samsung has always done it in another way!
Quote:
Apple Claims:
7469381 & 7844915 - "Bouncing" - Even if Samsung did copy this, I doubt anyone would cry if they removed it. Personally, I turn this off on every phone I get right after rooting.
7864163 - "Single-tap zooming" - Samsung does not have this, nor have they ever had it. Samsung has double-tap zooming to prevent accidental zooming.
D504889 - A design patent that seems to be for the iPad, with almost no detail...it almost looks like an incomplete filing for one of the hundreds of tablet PCs that came before.
D593087 & D618677 - Design patents for iPhone, showing a single round button and a very wide dock connector, Samsung has neither.
D604305 - Design patent for layout of iPhone screen, where the physical buttons of Android are shown as on-screen icons, and other icons are shown in the same way as seen in Windows Mobile 2003.
Samsung Claims:
7675941 - Automatic compression and decompression of transmitted data
7447516 - Automatic selection & optimization of best radio signal
7698711 - Playing MP3s and controlling them while another window is open - Samsung did have this before apple, but it is so specific to MP3s that it is hard to defend.
7577460 - Allowing a phone that has a camera built in to act as both camera and phone - Filed 2006, long after the first camera phones were released.
7456893 - Allowing a phone with storage and display to store and display images - Filed 2005, long after this was on other devices.
So, Apple might have a half-legitimate claim on 7469381 & 7844915, but Samsung could just remove that (not that Samsung created it; it is part of Android). D504889 might also be halfway valid due to lack of detail...but then, it is also pretty much invalid for the same reason...I have an old HP iPaq sitting in a drawer at home that would infringe on it, and it was made in 2003.
Samsung's patents are not much better, but then they didn't start this whole mess; they are just trying to defend themselves.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
2. September 2012 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just have to see what happens at the end of the day.
I think this will go a bit different to the last case though.
The judge might look over it far more closely than the last one.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
2. September 2012 @ 09:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Just have to see what happens at the end of the day.
I think this will go a bit different to the last case though.
The judge might look over it far more closely than the last one.
Yeah...if he actually looks at it and can make an argument, Apple is sure to give him a bigger bribe than the last judge.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
