mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,035
- 10,214
- 136
Apple and Samsung agree to drop all non-US patent lawsuits
Until next time.
Apple and Samsung agree to drop all non-US patent lawsuits
And other companies don't do this? Also, that's usually the case with utility patents. Design patents aren't typically refiled as they simply depict what the object in question looks like. If you look at the design patent for the iPhone it references dozens of other design patents for phones, portable music players, and other similar devices from about as many different companies.
Bottles have been around for a long time as well. Also, it's not just rounded rectangles as that's but a single part of the design. You may as well focus on the opening of the bottle and claim that Coke was trying to patent a circular opening as it was part of the design. Focusing on any single aspect is missing the forest for the trees when it's the forest that matters.
Honestly I don't think they've been that successful. They really only won one major case and that's still under appeal and the amount of money is laughable for both companies. The ITC bans typically don't matter as by the time the ruling comes in the devices are so old that they won't sell much any more. Almost all of the utility patents stopped mattering as competitors have come up with alternative designs to get around them and Samsung's phones haven't looked remotely like an iPhone for several generations now.
Until next time.
That is other BIG players, the little guys have largely decided the fight isn't worth it and there's no telling what we're missing out on because of it.
Only in bizarro apple-hater world are multi-national billion dollar corporations considered 'smaller companies'. They all have armies of lawyers and very deep pockets. Give me a break.
You want to know what is stopping innovation? The race to the bottom commoditization of the smartphone. When samsung forces everyone to compete on price all you get is the same exact phone.
My point is that Apple has spent way too much of its efforts in trying to prevent others from doing business in the same space instead of actually bringing new and innovative products to market.
They've abused the patent system in a vain hope that they could deny to all others the right to exist in this space and
This is the biggest thing I disklike about Apple's bullying in the mobile market. People forget they sued HTC, Nokia, and Motorola. They sent a message to smaller companies without armies of lawyers "don't even try" or get sued out of existence.
It's hardly unique to the tech industry either. The major car companies sue each other all the time. Ford recently threatened to sue Tesla over the name of vehicle. LG has sued Samsung several other companies over display technology for TVs and computer screens. LG has also sued several companies (and won) over patents related to washing machines.
There probably isn't much you could buy without doing business with some company that has sued a competitor over patents at one point or another.
The iPhone design is iconic. It set the stage for mobile devices as we know it for the next decade at least. Just like the StarTAC set the design language for clamshell phones for a decade.in terms of design patents, there really isn't anything innovative about any of them. They might be new, fresh, or unique, but I wouldn't call them innovative. Perhaps a small number of designs could fit into that category where they go on to influence all manner of other designs for decades to come, but I don't know if I would put many phone designs in there.
The iPhone design is iconic. It set the stage for mobile devices as we know it for the next decade at least. Just like the StarTAC set the design language for clamshell phones for a decade.
I think that the overall approach (no keyboard, almost entirely touch interface, real web-browser, etc.) to the device was far more important to shaping the direction of phones than anything else.
That and I don't think the iPhone really hit its iconic design until the 4, which was leaps and bounds above the original in terms of what I think looks good, but I'm willing to admit that it's personal preference. However, it's a design that they've largely kept and refined and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's the probably the design that most people think of when they think of an iPhone.
If the 6 changes the back so that the glass windows are gone in favor of antenna bands, I'd be more on board with that. But the 6 is probably going to be EVEN THINNER than the 5S. Do we REALLY need a 6mm thin phone?
Are people really denying that Apple has been a patent troll?
Oh God, cheezy321 has found another thread to spread his usual agenda.
Are people really denying that Apple has been a patent troll? Even Steve Jobs is laughing at them.
I don't think people care about technicalities. We don't agree with Apples antics enough to call Apple patent trolls. MKBHD calls Apple a patent troll, Washington Post calls Apple a patent troll.
I call my brother a retard because he does stupid thing, but he is technically quite smart. OJ Is technically not a murderer either...
I don't think people care about technicalities. We don't agree with Apples antics enough to call Apple patent trolls. MKBHD calls Apple a patent troll, Washington Post calls Apple a patent troll.
OJ Is technically not a murderer either...
Ok, I watched a couple of his videos. I think I might have seen a couple in the past. I'm guessing we likely have extremely different opinions about his vlogging.
That doesn't make their usage of the word correct. Some people like to call president Obama (or most any other political figure really) a terrorist or declare his actions treasonous. Just because they've latched on to a word with negative connotations and used it against a person they don't like doesn't make their usage correct.
Is it really so hard to say "I don't like Apple/Obama/whatever and I disagree with their/his/whatever actions" instead of resulting to throwing around words with negative connotations that aren't even being correctly used? It might win you some points with people who share your opinions, but it more than likely just turns off anyone who cares.
When someone says they don't like President Obama, I'm willing to at least consider their argument. When someone starts calling him a Muslim terrorist it's just going to lead to me and a lot of people tuning them out.
No, he either is or he isn't, which is open to some degree of speculation as there's no direct witness that can prove or disprove that fact with complete certainty. Regardless of whether you believe he did it or not, he either did or didn't actually kill another person. What he isn't is a convicted murderer, however he was most certainly an accused murderer. If you wanted to argue technicality, you would have to make a case that he did, in fact, kill someone, but that it was manslaughter or an act of self-defense as there are legal definitions outside of the common usage of the word.
Only in bizarro apple-hater world are multi-national billion dollar corporations considered 'smaller companies'. They all have armies of lawyers and very deep pockets. Give me a break.
Again, we don't care about technicalities. We don't agree with the patent trolling and we will call whoever a patent troll.
Merely suggesting that a mega corporation actively practicing business can NEVER be a patent troll is just ignorance.
Whether Apple is "technically" a patent troll is irrelevant. We only care if it acts like one, or worse.
. . . litigants seeking to assert patents which they owned, but did not practise and had no intention of practising; whats more, in many cases they had not even filed the patents in question, but had acquired them from third parties.
And no, OJ is technically NOT a murderer. Not guilty as murderer and double jeopardy applies. That's black and white on paper. With that said, people call him a murderer.
What's most telling to me in all of this is Apple is just as guilty if not more of ripping off everyone else and then counter suing when called on it (or worse, shifting to completely different targets after getting sued themselves.)The funny thing is that both Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first.
Abridged History:
Nokia sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Nokia
Apple sues HTC
HTC counter-sues Apple
Motorola sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Motorola
Apple sues Samsung (For trade dress, trademark, and design patents in addition to utility patents)
Samsung counter-sues Apple
What's most telling to me in all of this is Apple is just as guilty if not more of ripping off everyone else and then counter suing when called on it (or worse, shifting to completely different targets after getting sued themselves.)
It's most telling how Samsung didn't even seem to be on Apples radar until they started beating apple at what apple thought was it's own game, and after getting sued by other companies multiple times thmselves.
That they learned this tactic by being subjected to it themselves isn't the best excuse in my book.
All of this nonsense is just that, nonsense, and has served only to cheat the consumer.