• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple Wins $1 Billion as Jury Finds Samsung Violated Patents

Either you don't know how to read patents or you clearly are lying. Which one is it?
Patent USD504889 - Electronic device - Google Patents
From my link to the patent documents themselves.

We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device substantially as shown and described

Below the claim, there are a bunch of pictures of a thing rectangle with rounded corners.

That is the entire patent. It doesn't talk about touchscreens, wifi or anything that could be used to describe an Ipad. It simply covers anything that is electronic and looks like the figures. My claims are entirely accurate and backed with a source to the original documents, you have nothing but bluster.
 
Patent USD504889 - Electronic device - Google Patents
From my link to the patent documents themselves.

Below the claim, there are a bunch of pictures of a thing rectangle with rounded corners.

That is the entire patent. It doesn't talk about touchscreens, computers, wifi or anything that could be used to describe an Ipad. It simply covers anything that is electronic and looks like the figures. My claims are entirely accurate and backed with a source to the original documents, you have nothing but bluster.

Yes, now look at the device + usage in comparison to what you claimed:

The patent doesn't cover the ipad, it covers any electronic device than is a thin rectangle with rounded corners.

That's clearly not true. Otherwise Apple to be able to sue Texas Instruments for making calculators.
 
Yes, now look at the device + usage in comparison to what you claimed:



That's clearly not true. Otherwise Apple to be able to sue Texas Instruments for making calculators.

The only reason apple can't sue Texas Instruments is because they haven't updated their designs in 20 years.

However, the slick new design in the link below could easily get sued.
Amazon.com: Neewer Transparent Efficient Handy Solar Power Touch Screen Calculator New (Qty: 3): Electronics

You are correct that my description of the patent description leads to entirely ridiculous scenarios, not because I am wrong, but because the patent itself is horribly broken. The jury didn't foul up by ruling in favor of Apple, but because they validated patents from both Samsung and Apple that are so vague that you could sue nearly anyone.
 
The only reason apple can't sue Texas Instruments is because they haven't updated their designs in 20 years.

That's absolute nonsense. Why isn't Apple suing RIM? Why isn't it suing HP? Again - all of them have tablets - the only one Apple has an issue with is Samsung's which clearly does infringe beyond the obvious on Apple's technology.
 
That's absolute nonsense. Why isn't Apple suing RIM? Why isn't it suing HP? Again - all of them have tablets - the only one Apple has an issue with is Samsung's which clearly does infringe beyond the obvious on Apple's technology.

Let me explain how the patent system works in relations to the tech industry. There are currently so many vague BS patents like the ones in this case that it is literally impossible to make a product that doesn't infringe on at least one of them. Since everyone everyone can be sued, you can a system that resembles Mutually Assured Destruction with nuclear weapons. If you sue someone for patent infringement, you will counter-sue you and everyone loses.

If the jury had ruled with anything approaching consistency on this particular case, Apple would have been held accountable for infringing Samsungs patents and been equally screwed. They took an incredible gamble by asking for a jury trial and could have just as easily found themselves on the wrong side of the verdict. You don't see many patents lawsuits like this because most companies would rather settle than risk billions on an utterly ignorant jury.
 
Let me explain how the patent system works in relations to the tech industry. There are currently so many vague BS patents like the ones in this case that it is literally impossible to make a product that doesn't infringe on at least one of them. Since everyone everyone can be sued, you can a system that resembles Mutually Assured Destruction with nuclear weapons. If you sue someone for patent infringement, you will counter-sue you and everyone loses.

If the jury had ruled with anything approaching consistency on this particular case, Apple would have been held accountable for infringing Samsungs patents and been equally screwed. They took an incredible gamble by asking for a jury trial and could have just as easily found themselves on the wrong side of the verdict. You don't see many patents lawsuits like this because most companies would rather settle than risk billions on an utterly ignorant jury.

Don't explain to me patent issuing. I WORK with it ever day. Again, Apple didn't win the case because Samsung infringed on the shape of its design but a myriad of other things including software design, appropriation of specific bits of code etc. You're reaching rathi.
 
Google is already going after them.

And Now Google Sues Apple - Forbes

The patent wars have begun.

Half of me is horrified by the bloodshed to come while the other half is waiting for the really unorthodox suing. Imagine Samsung suing McDonald's over a broken patent. I'm sure millions of companies have broken patents somewhere along the line.
 
Patent USD504889 - Electronic device - Google Patents
From my link to the patent documents themselves.



Below the claim, there are a bunch of pictures of a thing rectangle with rounded corners.

That is the entire patent. It doesn't talk about touchscreens, wifi or anything that could be used to describe an Ipad. It simply covers anything that is electronic and looks like the figures. My claims are entirely accurate and backed with a source to the original documents, you have nothing but bluster.

:roll: It's a design patent. It's not intended to go into the technical details of how it works, it covers only how it looks.

Some of us don't understand patent law well enough to be making sweeping claims here.
 
:roll: It's a design patent. It's not intended to go into the technical details of how it works, it covers only how it looks.

Some of us don't understand patent law well enough to be making sweeping claims here.

His claim is laughable on its face. Apple didn't win the suit because Samsung created a tablet that looked just like it. If that were so Apple would have a field day with RIM, HP, Microsoft and pretty much anybody currently involved in the tablet market. It won the suit because Samsung infringed on the technological aspects of their design. Rathi either doesn't get how patents work or he's diminishing the actual infringement in order to justify his anti-Apple rant.
 
His claim is laughable on its face. Apple didn't win the suit because Samsung created a tablet that looked just like it. If that were so Apple would have a field day with RIM, HP, Microsoft and pretty much anybody currently involved in the tablet market. It won the suit because Samsung infringed on the technological aspects of their design. Rathi either doesn't get how patents work or he's diminishing the actual infringement in order to justify his anti-Apple rant.

Why would apple sue people that licensed patents from them?
 
Don't explain to me patent issuing. I WORK with it ever day. Again, Apple didn't win the case because Samsung infringed on the shape of its design but a myriad of other things including software design, appropriation of specific bits of code etc. You're reaching rathi.
You are simply making stuff up.

Here is the jury verdict.
Document: Apple-Samsung jury verdict form - SiliconValley.com

The entire trial was on patent infringement, there is no charge of Samsung stealing any specific bits of Apple code. All of the apples patents involved in the case involved either ornamental design of a physical device or the user interface.
 
His claim is laughable on its face. Apple didn't win the suit because Samsung created a tablet that looked just like it. If that were so Apple would have a field day with RIM, HP, Microsoft and pretty much anybody currently involved in the tablet market. It won the suit because Samsung infringed on the technological aspects of their design. Rathi either doesn't get how patents work or he's diminishing the actual infringement in order to justify his anti-Apple rant.

You have bought into a narrative into which the case involved a good guy and bad guy and the goal of the trial is figure out who is who. The truth is that both Apple and Samsung made patent claims that were full of crap when they should have settled this out of court. My biggest complaint with the jury is that upheld said bull**** patents for both sides. That they were utterly inconsistent in deciding who was infringing is also unacceptable, but I would have the same complaint if Samsung had come out ahead.

Probably the stupidest thing the jury did was actually in Samsungs favor. After upholding the thin rectangular electronic device patent, they decided that the Samsung galaxy tablet was not infringing it. Even a complete idiot can tell that the galaxy obviously looks exactly the figure drawn on the patent form.
 
A Japanese court has now ruled for Samsung against Apple. That makes on mixed ruling from Korea, a win for Apple in the USA and a win for Samsung in Japan.

Of course, as they mess around China is going to copy all of everything and sell versions for 1/2 price that last only a few months before they break and you have to buy a replacement.
 
I saw someone put something about Samsung making the better product and chuckled a bit. Either way what kind of tool is going to defend either one? Obviously quite a few.

I don't care who wins, i just want good product for a reasonable price
 
Apple Wins $1 Billion as Jury Finds Samsung Violated Patents - US Business News - CNBC



They are going to try to get an injunction to stop sales of Samsungs equipment. And appear to be going after Google/Android next.

It makes me wish I never bought an iMac. Greedy, monopolistic company, nothing more. I will never own another Apple product.

So Apple should just let their competitors make money off of Apple's patents, and Samsung should be able to to whatever the hell they want?
 
So Apple should just let their competitors make money off of Apple's patents, and Samsung should be able to to whatever the hell they want?

Apples patents are for obvious crap they didn't invent. Putting that aside, Apple also infringed on Samsungs (equally crap) patents, so they are guilty of the same behavior.
 
Apples patents are for obvious crap they didn't invent. Putting that aside, Apple also infringed on Samsungs (equally crap) patents, so they are guilty of the same behavior.

And in this case, Samsung ripped off Apple. Problem?
 
Apple Wins $1 Billion as Jury Finds Samsung Violated Patents - US Business News - CNBC



They are going to try to get an injunction to stop sales of Samsungs equipment. And appear to be going after Google/Android next.

It makes me wish I never bought an iMac. Greedy, monopolistic company, nothing more. I will never own another Apple product.

This helps explain why flash is no longer supported on android. I wish I would have known so I didn't upgrade to ICS and lose that feature.

It sounds like Samsung violated some basic laws so it doesn't matter how big Apple is because the law is supposed to be equally applied.
 
Back
Top Bottom