| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Samsung derides Android's multitouch, Apple praises it |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-09-08 11:58:22 |
| "While Apple's technology is a 'very nice invention', the technique used in Android differs from the iOS solution, argued Bas Berghuis van Woortman, one of Samsung's lawyers. Because the Android based method is more hierarchical the system is more complex and therefore harder for developers to use, he said. [...] Apple disagrees. 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true', said Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme to judge Peter Blok, who presided over a team of three judges, in a response to Samsung's claim." I just wish these companies and their lawyers could see and hear themselves. If only for a few seconds. Not even Monty Python could write this. By the way, all these patents were already thrown out last year by the Dutch courts, but Apple started a 'bottom procedure', a more thorough handling of the case. Three expert IP judges preside, and due to the earlier ruling, Apple is fighting an uphill battle. |
|
| RE[18]: The patent troll apple again |
| By Janvl on 2012-09-09 13:39:01 |
|
@ MOS6510 Just for the record, where would the IT industry be today had IBM forbidden to clone the first PC's? |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[19]: The patent troll apple again |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-09-09 13:55:10 |
|
There is no way to know for sure. The period in which there were a large number of different computer systems probably would have lasted much longer. Commodore and Atari may have had a longer run or even still be around today. New companies would have had a chance to bring out new systems with some hope of grabbing enough marketshare to survive. The difference between a Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc... is really just the logo they stick on the front. Even an Apple iMac is just a x86 PC running OS X. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[20]: The patent troll apple again |
| By Janvl on 2012-09-09 17:15:35 |
| I guess you just gave proof that patents are no good. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[21]: The patent troll apple again |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-09-09 17:23:44 |
| Never said they were, my only claim is that simply copying does nothing to improve choice. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[7]: The patent troll apple again |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-09-09 18:06:36 |
|
http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/po... This sort of back and forth could go on a long time. It seems to me that one should clarify what one is arguing about. Does anyone think that Samsung did not deliberately try to copy Apple's iPhone, iOS and trade dress (packaging , retails styles etc)? There seems to be a lot of evidence that they did, not just lists of obviously similar designs (in some cases very, very similar) but also the documents that came out in the trial that showed that copying Apple was a strategy. It's probably not really worth arguing about whether they did or did not because if you think they did not, in face of the huge amount of evidence that they did, then I doubt anything would change your mind. A more interesting argument is that which says that Samsung did copy but there is nothing wrong in doing that and that there should be no legal restraint on copying (or at least the sort of copying Samsung undertook). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[10]: The patent troll apple again |
| By BallmerKnowsBest on 2012-09-09 19:16:10 |
|
> If I replace my house with a pyramid and a few months later my neighbor suddenly also lives in a pyramid then I'd conclude he copied me. Yes, pyramids have been around since aliens visited earth thousands of years ago, but really where did my neighbor get the idea from? A better parallel would be if several other people on your street had purchased pyramids before you - but you still conclude your neighbor copied you specifically, because of some superficial similarity. That's not only an example of the post hoc fallacy, but a sign of narcissistic personality disorder: assuming that everything is somehow about you. Apple fanboism is nothing more than narcissistic personality disorder by proxy: iFanboys assume that everything is somehow about Apple. And if there's anything more pathetic than a narcissist, it's a narcissist who needs a proxy. > Samsung copied Nokia, BlackBerry and now Apple. And, in turn, Apple copied Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Palm, and Nokia with the iPhone - Apple released a smartphone years afterward, so the only possible conclusion is that they were copying. Or, at least, that's the conclusion you would reach if you were honest enough to apply your "post hoc" reasoning consistently. Of course, that's just SOP for Apple. They couldn't even be bothered to come up with an original name for their smartphone, and instead choose willful infringement of CISCO's "IPhone" trademark. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[11]: The patent troll apple again |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-09-09 19:23:24 |
| If the neighbor has a dossier on his living room table titled "How to make our crappy pyramid look like the next door one" I think it's safe to assume who he is copying. Even more when his dad told him not to be so obvious about it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[8]: The patent troll apple again |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-09-09 19:26:38 |
|
A lot of people deny human induced climate change and I'm starting to suspect these are the same people who deny Samsung copied Apple. Samsung admitted they did it via their how-to-copy-Apple documents. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[9]: The patent troll apple again |
| By Mellin on 2012-09-09 20:42:11 |
| Troll!!! |
| - Score: 0 |
| to copy or not to copy |
| By Janvl on 2012-09-09 21:55:39 |
|
It does not matter whether Samsung "copied" the iPhone or iPad. Both are not "unique designs" as apple wants us to believe. Patenting a "rectangle with rounded corners" shows how sick that (us)-system is. There is loads of prior art and apple as a company has always taken designs from others for their products. Apple is good in marketing but not in designing nor in technique, it never was. If you look at the smartphone market they all look alike: thin, touchscreen, rounded edges in some way. That should not be patentable. If one should mix up the two brands although the name is pretty large on both, then I doubt such one is able to use the device. So Apple has become a patenttrol and I don't like patentrolls. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |