Easy. Invalidate every wishy-washy patent. I.e. rounded corners, clear desktop, colours, style and anything that keeps devices standardised (i.e. finger zooming and other gestures)
shaithis
Easy. Invalidate every wishy-washy patent. I.e. rounded corners, clear desktop, colours, style and anything that keeps devices standardised (i.e. finger zooming and other gestures)
This. A patient should be something really unique - something like ‘bouncing’ isn't unique - designing a new never thought of device is. Copyright should be enough for designs/icons.
Hold both companies in contempt of court for nothing more than a territorial pi$$ing contest tell Apple it can't copyright a rectangle and to grow up. fine them both and give the money to some nice charity for people who own Windows based phones :)
then point out the obvious there is bound to be some likeness due to them being used by the same species and being anatomically designed for ease of use
If it exists in the physical world, it cannot be patented in the digital world. This applies to devices (slide to unlock on a phone, versus the slide to unlock in the stall at a public restroom) and techniques (pinch to zoom, akin to stretching something to make it larger in real life.)
Look and feel of anything should not be patentable.. if rounded corners on a shape are patentable, then the round shape should be patentable, thus making circles, patentable, thus making any shape patentable… thus making the way anything looks an infringement on an already existing patent… This is rubbish and should not be tolerated.
They should all be slapped with a wet fish.
How about throwing them both out of court and letting the market decide?
I wish Apple had won with a slightly lower award (say $600 million), and that Samsung's claims had also been upheld (granted to a lesser amount, say $150 million). Then, both sides could threaten to ban each other's devices and hopefully, either common sense woudl prevail (and they would sort out some kind of cross-licensing agreement) or common sense might finally have prevailed in the US legal/political circles when they would be faced with the prospect of banning all affected iPhones AND all the relevant Samsung phones. See what they think that would achieve for consumer choice.
Also - I think the rounded corners patent is extremely stupid, and not in any way new. I also think the Samsung FRAND patents are a stupid thing to use in court unless someoen is refusing to pay the same terms as are offered to everyone else.
Well it's hard to wade through the mounds of detail in the case but it does feel like US protectionism, Japan has just ruled in favour of Samsung in a similar case, South Korea's courts chastised both companies for being petty.
I'd be more inclined to side with Apple if they had actually invented anything, I can't think of a single product Apple came up with themselves. No doubt they produce and market products very successfully, it's just not innovation, they have invented and invigorated markets to a collosal scale which is impressive.
MS bailed Apple out years back, I think they should be more humble and respect the others in the tech world, I'm getting fed up of the extreme aggression from all sides.
'what would you do to resolve this ever-escalating patent mess?'
Scrap the entire software patent system wholesale.
Then start a discussion on whether there should even be a replacement (IMHO, no)
Tpyo
I wish Apple had won with a slightly lower award (say $600 million), and that Samsung's claims had also been upheld (granted to a lesser amount, say $150 million). . I also think the Samsung FRAND patents are a stupid thing to use in court unless someoen is refusing to pay the same terms as are offered to everyone else.
First off I was of the opinion that Apple was being petty, now I'm not so sure and
maybe they do deserve a small payment - that said I would have thought anything more than about US$10 per device was just plain extortion. And from what little I've heard on the Samsung case Apple's definition of “FRAND” is kind of odd - they seem to think that they
deserve better terms than everyone else. As***les! :censored:
brasco
Well it's hard to wade through the mounds of detail in the case but it does feel like US protectionism
This^ and what's really worrying me is that Samsung will be speaking to their government for a bit of protection of their own. And I can't see any good coming of that! :(
Our QOTW, therefore, is ‘what would you do to resolve this ever-escalating patent mess?’ Imaginative, creative and acerbic answers are all welcome.
Nuke the USPTO - seriously, these bozo's seem to be at the heart of the majority of patent trollery - in fact, that a patent troll “industry” even
exists should be a sure sign to anyone with common sense that the US trademark/patent system is fundamentally broken. That done, make “being a patent lawyer” a criminal activity, subject to prosection! :p
Okay, joking aside, I'd like the ITO to step in - there's US patents involved here that don't seem to be held as valid anywhere else. In that case, it'd surely be an improvement if - for example Samsung - could go to the ITO, get a ruling and
force the USPTO to drop the offending patent as “invalid”. Likewise, if Samsung were offering worse FRAND terms to Apple, then Apple and Samsung could be compelled to sit with the ITO as an arbiter (like a sort of global ACAS) with again the ITO offering a binding, final verdict. My naive hope is that since the ITO is a global body then we'd see less of this moronic “home advantage” wrt protectionist use of the legal system.
I just think that the whole patent system is flawed and it is clear that something needs to be done about it.
To quote the great JC (jeremy clarkson): “I'd have them all shot. I'd take them outside and execute them in front of their families” ;^)
When I was young I used to have a small little chalk board to draw on… I think Apple owes me millions for copying my early version of their now popular ipad!!!!
I'd simply ban software patents. End of.
Imagine if we were having these patent wars 20 years ago: Web servers, mail servers, GUI's and even a mouse cursor could be the case of the day.
We will look back on these current cases in 20 years and laugh at their stupidity. That or it will have held us back so much that we'll be crying.
To qualify for a patent, and invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious. Apple's patented UI elements certainly cover the first two. The third is very debatable. Looking at it through a 2012 lens, they are certainly obvious designs. However, we have to question whether or not this is due to the wide adoption of these paradigms within the industry. Today, a smartphone would feel wrong without them. The real question is, were these ideas non-obvious in 2004, 2005, 2006 while the iPhone was being developed? Were they the product of a lot of research conducted by Apple to find ways of interaction that feel natural? Or were they the obvious and only logical ways of interaction? I'm leaning towards the former - if the ideas were so obvious, why hadn't anybody beaten Apple to the punch? They didn't appear in their current guise in any smartphone or fan concept that I can find, prior to the release of the iPhone in 2007.
Since 2007, these UI patents have become so widely used that they are now basically an industry standard. People are used to using these gestures to interact with their devices. It would seem wrong to take that away from consumers. At the same time, the only reason why these ideas are now industry standard is because certain companies chose to ignore the protection granted by a patent and use the technology anyway. The legal system shouldn't support this stance - the idea that you can steal patented designs or technologies, reap the benefits and then deal with the aftermath further down the road should not be encouraged. It supports the destructive idea that patents need not apply if your pocket book is big enough. The offending companies need a thoroughly good slap.
Currently, Apple licenses these patents to certain companies (Including Microsoft. Possibly Palm/HP, Nokia and others), sues others and lets some escape litigation entirely. This isn't a fair stance. These UI paradigms have become industry-standard and are the expected methods of interaction. As such, they should be available to all. Apple should be required to license these patents under FRAND. That way, anybody can use them providing a fair and reasonable license fee is paid. This license fee would go some way towards acknowledging the contribution that Apple has made towards modern smartphones and reinforces the positive message that thinking differently pays off.
The patent for the iPhone's shape was ridiculous. If every manufacturer patented each product's shape then pretty quickly we'd be in a market with no room for manoeuvre. A Motorola would look like a Motorola because that would be the only shape(s) they'd legally be allowed to use. Was the shape of the original iPhone iconic? Yes. Did the patent offer some protection against other companies copying it? Looking at the Galaxy S, ‘some’ would be the right word. Would the market have become saturated with iPhone clones without the patent? Probably, but they'd soon get bored and… copy the next iPhone's shape (I jest - eventually someone would realise that all they need to do to stand out is make something that doesn't look like an iPhone).
On Samsung's patents… well… I'm no expert and the argument is complicated. From my limited understanding, it does seem a lot like a ‘what have we got to countersue with?’ moment, rather than a genuine complaint.
Agent
I'd simply ban software patents. End of.
Imagine if we were having these patent wars 20 years ago: Web servers, mail servers, GUI's and even a mouse cursor could be the case of the day.
We will look back on these current cases in 20 years and laugh at their stupidity. That or it will have held us back so much that we'll be crying.
Don't worry,our glorious EU politicians are following the excellent sample set by their American mates,by trying to make software patents valid in Europe.
CAT-THE-FIFTH
Don't worry,our glorious EU politicians are following the excellent sample set by their American mates,by trying to make software patents valid in Europe.
Thanks to lobbying by the major players.
I'm firmly against any form of software patents. They are simply too restrictive in any form to anyone that's not a multi-million / billion pound company.
Little Jimmy Limited gets sued by one of the big guys and it's pretty much game over instantly, over what could be the most ridiculous of things. The accused might not even be able to afford the defence as we're seeing regularly in the US.
This isn't protecting innovation, it's stifling it at the source.
I think it should be taken back to the playground and whoever comes up with the best “your mum” joke is the winner!
roguebomber
Hold both companies in contempt of court for nothing more than a territorial pi$$ing contest tell Apple it can't copyright a rectangle and to grow up. f
Totally agree, the Director/General Manager of the company's division in the country where the case was brought should also be arrested and slung in jail for 12 months and the company fined the costs of doing that as it'll teach them not to waste the court's time.
Steve Jobs behaved like a spoilt brat and while what happened to him was very sad and I wouldn't wish on anyone I did think a change in leadership at Apple might have led to an end to this nonsense or had he recovered it might have made him rethink his approach.
Only winners in a legal fight are the lawyers.
I totally agreed that software patent should be banned. Before you can even create something new you'd have to look everywhere to make sure it (or part of it) is not already patented by someone. And even when you do, from what I see, they'd find anything even remotely similar to prove you wrong in the court.
Instead of spending all those time finding out what you can't do/use/implement in your creation. Wouldn't it be far easier to just not have to think about it.
Copyright is in place, it works well enough on its own. Patenting certain function/feature is just wrong.
its nothing more tha apple acting like a sore loser they are scared the world will buy Samsung over there boring over priced stuff.
I'm a pretty big Samsung fan tbh, but I hate to think that this alone clouds my judgement where Apple is concerned. I remember the Apple II system, 15 or so of them in a classroom in my school never used. and I hated the fact that they weren't used. I liked the original Apple Mac, which was far more concise in its appearance and pretty much its use than the corresponding 286's and A3000's/Archimedes that schools were buying to replace the BBC Micro and Master systems that were in play at the time. I really do want Apple as a company to do well, to innovate and create new products that wow the world like the ipod did. To take a product and make it a marketable experience, to improve upon their original designs where it becomes a phone, then a tablet.
What I have been seeing tho, is a company desperate to claim every vestige of original thinking as their own, to claim past advances in technology as their own and a company willing to bend the US legal system to their own ends, which is pretty much despicable.
I heard someplace, and the story is apocryphal, that when Apple tried to sue MS over the WIMP system, that Apple claimed that Bill Gates stole the idea from Apple and he responded “I think you'll find we both stole it from Xerox”. It probably never actually happened, urban myth and all, but the sentiment is true.
Simple. invalidate ALL of apples patents till its proved they didnt steal them.
Samsung should make apple suffer. TBH apple were RETARDS for going up against a primary level supplier and for being patent bullies.
The sooner Apple gets slapped hard the better.
Not exactly original but I laughed when I was shown this.
re: the recent escalation with the request to ban the SIII, note and various SII models - going back to my original post, this is why I wish some of the Samsung patents had been upheld. With the prospect of mutually assured destruction (with neither Apple nor Samsung allowed to sell phones/tablets in the US), they'd pretty much have to sit down and talk.
mercyground
Samsung should make apple suffer. TBH apple were RETARDS for going up against a primary level supplier and for being patent bullies.
Short-term Samsung could hold up component supply and hurt Apple, yes. However, the supply contract is almost certainly very lucrative for them, being a contract may hold penalties if it is not fulfilled, and Apple would just award it to a different supplier/suppliers in future. More effective would be a (patent-based, assuming this is actually possible) export ban on said vital hardware components, enforced in S Korea/China/Taiwan/anywhere that is a major part of the supply chain or the home of a potential alternative supplier. Problem is, if there is an alternative supplier with capacity, it'd be hurting you far more than them.
Personally I would dismantle and destroy Apple.
So it's probably good that I'm not a judge.
The reason that the US is entertaining these cases is because lawyers bring in lots of taxes.
Just typical apple bullying, backed up by bias us court and patent system.
I just hope the consumers realize what their attempting to do, and that is to give you the consumer less choice and higher prices.
I hear sales of the S3 have gone through the roof since this decision, so maybe the consumers are voting against Apple , and their tactics.
The sad thing is that this is just the start of what will be a battle of the tech titans. Google/Motorola vs Apple vs Samsung vs Other. This will just keep going until one the company is satisfied with their patent monopoly.
bobfoc
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57504756-37/apple-goes-after-galaxy-s3-note-in-new-court-filing/ Looks like it's gotten a little more stupid. S3 and Note now underfire. Funny how it is only the US that is even considering these frivolous lawsuits.
Thanks for posting this - I'd missed out on that the “modern” stuff was also being sued - although I've got a real credibility problem with the idea that it's
only TouchWiz that's infringing these “patents”.
Tpyo
Not exactly original but I laughed when I was shown this.
re: the recent escalation with the request to ban the SIII, note and various SII models - going back to my original post, this is why I wish some of the Samsung patents had been upheld. With the prospect of mutually assured destruction (with neither Apple nor Samsung allowed to sell phones/tablets in the US), they'd pretty much have to sit down and talk.
Thanks for posting that image - it made
me laugh too. :rockon:
Too much sense in the idea of m.a.d. on patents - although, like you, I'd like to see it happen for the good of everyone (apart from US patent lawyers).
I agree with a lot of the other comments. Patents should be genuinely unique and have no prior incarnation be they physical or digital. This case is just bad for the consumer, whether you're an Apple or Samsung customer.
CAT-THE-FIFTH
They should all be slapped with a wet fish.
Yeah, enough said. I'm sick of these companies whining about who stole what…
The funniest thing is that the Courthouse was 10 minutes from Apple HQ, and the jurors were all residents of Silicon Valley…. who do you think they will side with, the big US employer in Silicon Valley or the evil Asian enemy?
I would have warned Samsung that they really shouldn't have crossed the similarity line, but told Apple they need to actually patent technological advancements that is actual intellectual property, not what consumers find ‘attractive’ as being so.. and finished it off with “this is how the world works” then sent them both home with the court fees and warned them that next time they come back with such stupid patents there will be consequences.
Phones were all sorts of shapes and including rectangles before Apple's iPhone. The rounded corners were also before Apple iPhone. Touch screen technology wasn't mature enough before the iPhone so they can't use that card. And I'm not even going to comment on icons..