WSJ: Verdict: Samsung Violated Apple Patents

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
vta;4683993 said:
Boing. 1bn smacks. They should hit up Mayor Bloomberg for a loan. He has around a 22 Billion net worth. I wonder if in cases like these, do the companies actual pay that penalty?

_61866917_appledes.gif
You can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/sams...ld-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.
 

vta

The Proletariat
Messages
8,753
Reaction score
11
theogt;4684002 said:
You can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/sams...ld-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Is there really any difference between what Apple is doing and what Gibson did in suing Ibanez for coping it's designs back in the 70's? It seems pretty much the same to me and standard business practice.
 

a_minimalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,762
Reaction score
193
theogt;4684002 said:
You can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/sams...ld-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.

The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.
 

vta

The Proletariat
Messages
8,753
Reaction score
11
a_minimalist;4684007 said:
The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.

Idea is one thing, identity is another. Taking a concept and making it your own is pretty much legal; taking the look, feel and identifiable characters of a thing isn't.
 

a_minimalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,762
Reaction score
193
vta;4684010 said:
Idea is one thing, identity is another. Taking a concept and making it your own is pretty much legal; taking the look, feel and identifiable characters of a thing isn't.

Apple did that with the mouse, to IBM, and they admit it. It's just hypocritical. Trust me though, I hate saying things like this because for the past 6 or 7 years I've been preaching about buying Apple product.
 

vta

The Proletariat
Messages
8,753
Reaction score
11
a_minimalist;4684011 said:
Apple did that with the mouse, to IBM, and they admit it. It's just hypocritical. Trust me though, I hate saying things like this because for the past 6 or 7 years I've been preaching about buying Apple product.

Not really, Xerox created the idea for the mouse and they as a company rejected it, saying no one would buy into it, so Apple took it.

Apple didn't invent the MP3, the smart phone, the all-in-one or the computer in general, but they've brought their own vision to those things and they've done a good job of branding. Nothing wrong with that and any company can make a smartphone - look at those Androids, they look nothing like the iPhone. Samsung took the cheap (or so they thought) way out and just carbon copied the design itself.

And I own a Samsung phone. :p
It sucks.
 

Lodeus

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,121
vta;4684015 said:
Not really, Xerox created the idea for the mouse and they as a company rejected it, saying no one would buy into it, so Apple took it.

Apple didn't invent the MP3, the smart phone, the all-in-one or the computer in general, but they've brought their own vision to those things and they've done a good job of branding. Nothing wrong with that and any company can make a smartphone - look at those Androids, they look nothing like the iPhone. Samsung took the cheap (or so they thought) way out and just carbon copied the design itself.

And I own a Samsung phone. :p
It sucks.

But if you square out the icons on a Android doesn't it look a lot more similar to an iPhone.

I mean what designs did they steal. A smartphone being the shape of a rectangle? The whole thing seems odd to me.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
a_minimalist;4684007 said:
The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.
Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.
 

vta

The Proletariat
Messages
8,753
Reaction score
11
Lodeus;4684018 said:
But if you square out the icons on a Android doesn't it look a lot more similar to an iPhone.

I mean what designs did they steal. A smartphone being the shape of a rectangle? The whole thing seems odd to me.

Look at the pic above, that's pretty much using tracing paper on a Michelangelo and calling yourself an artist. In general it doesn't bother me - I don't own a smartphone and wouldn't care if I did, as long as mine works.

But I don't see why many are mad at Apple. It's not unprecedented or unreasonable, especially when you attach a great part of your business on the look as well as the performance. Like Gibson's Les Paul that Ibanez copped and got successfully sued over. That body shape is signature.
 

kmp77

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,276
Reaction score
370
This one still kills me...it's like Samsung didn't even try :lmao2: :lmao2:

samsung.jpg
 

arglebargle

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,373
Reaction score
409
theogt;4683963 said:
Yes, not being able to buy illegally produced products increases customer costs. That's an awfully myopic view of what is "good" or "bad" for customers, however.

Patent system is irretrievable broken. Lots of people making money while producing squat.
 

SaltwaterServr

Blank Paper Offends Me
Messages
8,124
Reaction score
1
theogt;4684021 said:
Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Not posted from my ripped off (samsung)iPhone. ;)
 

a_minimalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,762
Reaction score
193
theogt;4684021 said:
Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.

Thanks for this. You broke it down really well and made it really easy to understand. I wonder if this will prevent the two from working with each other.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
arglebargle;4684044 said:
Patent system is irretrievable broken. Lots of people making money while producing squat.
The intellectual property system could be completely re-written and redesigned in one congressional session. The question is whether it needs to be.
 

kmd24

Active Member
Messages
3,436
Reaction score
0
theogt;4684021 said:
Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect.

This is a really good description of part of the problem. I saw a tweet that said $1B is a pretty good price to get the best designers in the world to design your mobile devices. I agree with that sentiment.

OTOH, this wasn't just an attack on Samsung, it was also an attack on Google/Android.

And that's where it gets a little dicey in my mind. I haven't followed the case that closely, but from what I understand, some of the patents violated were pinch-to-zoom, swipe-to-open, the "bounce back" effect on UITableView widgets and other UI metaphors. Some of those items were prior art, and some might argue that they are obvious. I for one hoped that those patents would be invalidated by the jury. It basically amounts to patenting right click on a mouse. As a developer who develops on both iOS and Android, I am afraid that this ruling is going to make a mess of the landscape.

I have less of a problem with the ruling on the trade dress patents. It's abundantly clear that Samsung was blatantly stealing the entire look and feel of Apple devices.

Court is the wrong place to decide these things, IMO. It should be done at the patent office, but it seems like they are overwhelmed with applications and likely lack the technical savvy to decide whether things like touch gestures on a touch device ought to be patentable, and they're just passing the buck.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
kmd24;4684167 said:
This is a really good description of part of the problem. I saw a tweet that said $1B is a pretty good price to get the best designers in the world to design your mobile devices. I agree with that sentiment.

OTOH, this wasn't just an attack on Samsung, it was also an attack on Google/Android.

And that's where it gets a little dicey in my mind. I haven't followed the case that closely, but from what I understand, some of the patents violated were pinch-to-zoom, swipe-to-open, the "bounce back" effect on UITableView widgets and other UI metaphors. Some of those items were prior art, and some might argue that they are obvious. I for one hoped that those patents would be invalidated by the jury. It basically amounts to patenting right click on a mouse. As a developer who develops on both iOS and Android, I am afraid that this ruling is going to make a mess of the landscape.

I have less of a problem with the ruling on the trade dress patents. It's abundantly clear that Samsung was blatantly stealing the entire look and feel of Apple devices.

Court is the wrong place to decide these things, IMO. It should be done at the patent office, but it seems like they are overwhelmed with applications and likely lack the technical savvy to decide whether things like touch gestures on a touch device ought to be patentable, and they're just passing the buck.
I haven't really studied each of the patents in this case in terms of the legal arguments about validity. But I disagree with the argument that the court is the wrong place to decide these things. The patent application process isn't an adversarial proceeding, so it's impossible to get proper vetting (and you're right that they're understaffed and couldn't possibly ever have enough staff to review in depth the mountain of patent applications, which is why they send disputes to the court system).
 

ajk23az

Through Pain Comes Clarity
Messages
7,953
Reaction score
422
a_minimalist;4683964 said:
Steve Jobs didn't say that, Picasso did.

On another note, something tells me Sam isn't going to be very happy about this.

Picasso might have originally said it, but Jobs definitely SAID it, believed it, and followed it as well.

[youtube]CW0DUg63lqU[/youtube]
 

a_minimalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,762
Reaction score
193
ajk23az;4684275 said:
Picasso might have originally said it, but Jobs definitely SAID it, believed it, and followed it as well.

[youtube]CW0DUg63lqU[/youtube]

I thought you were talking about who coined the phrase. My bad
 

kmd24

Active Member
Messages
3,436
Reaction score
0
theogt;4684270 said:
But I disagree with the argument that the court is the wrong place to decide these things. The patent application process isn't an adversarial proceeding, so it's impossible to get proper vetting (and you're right that they're understaffed and couldn't possibly ever have enough staff to review in depth the mountain of patent applications, which is why they send disputes to the court system).

The patent office is supposed to do a substantive review of applications to determine whether inventions are novel and inventive whether the invention is in an excluded area, and whether the application complies with patent law.

Things that are obvious and non-inventive shouldn't be granted patents. That is basically the charter of the USPTO.

To force these things to be decided in court turns patents into weapons that can be used to extort those who can't afford to defend themselves (e.g., the many Lodsys suits from about a year ago).
 
Top