Prosidius Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It is very strange that the Apple lawyers smiled as they entered the courtroom.. it's like they "knew" the verdict and had inside knowledge which should be actually illegal. Yeah cause its not like they knew that had a better case than Samsung and knew they'd probobly win as a result. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nominak Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It is very strange that the Apple lawyers smiled as they entered the courtroom.. it's like they "knew" the verdict and had inside knowledge which should be actually illegal. Smiling should be illegal? It's clear Samsung screwed the pooch on this one. Now. It's official that they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It is very strange that the Apple lawyers smiled as they entered the courtroom.. it's like they "knew" the verdict and had inside knowledge which should be actually illegal. Or maybe they were just smiling because they were happy the whole thing was over with and they wouldn't need to dwell about the case over the weekend? Let's not start getting all conspiracy theorist about things. Samsung asked straight away for 30 minutes post-reading to examine the jury's decision. That too makes it sound like they too had insider information but I'm 100% certain they did not. Sometimes things are just as they seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I felt the need to create this... Nashy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Nope.. Apple's proposal was insane in the first place because they knew Samsung wouldn't accept it. Apple has zero reasons now to enter cross-licensing agreement with them. Not only that, but you can fully expect Apple going after everyone (but Microsoft) who uses these obvious and natural gestures and UI designs. The only thing we can hope is that Google wins against Apple in the US with the latest lawsuit and bans all their products in US. But that's doubtful it will happen. Um no. The cross licensing agreement will earn Apple more money than a simple one-off $1 billion. If Samsung sells 50 million devices a year, at $20 a device thats already $1 billion for Apple. It is very strange that the Apple lawyers smiled as they entered the courtroom.. it's like they "knew" the verdict and had inside knowledge which should be actually illegal. Or that it was fairly obvious for a while now who was going to win. Give it up Boz. I don't like Apple anymore than you do but Samsung wasn't exactly an angel. They clearly copied stuff from the iPhone / iOS and so they clearly deserve to lose. Not only that, they were offered a cross licensing deal which they turned down. They should have taken it or they shouldn't have copied stuff. I'll admit that some of the patents Apple were granted were absolutely insane and shouldn't have been patented (or granted) in the first place, but not all of them were. +Fahim S. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Just further proof our court system is a complete joke. The government is now in the business of creating monopolies. Nogib, Brandon H, blank and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Hmm. Anyway, does it mean all future Samsungs will look like a hammered piece of soap? Because if they are not copying (be as it might), sadly, they can't design sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Just further proof our court system is a complete joke. It's not the court system necessarily. it's the software patent system. This type of thing should have never reached the court room to begin with nor allowed to patent most of that stuff Apple patented. USPTO grants patents left and right without even checking whether those patents or prior art existed and that's how you get to this point. It's clear Samsung screwed the pooch on this one. Now. It's official that they did. To be perfectly honest.. their lawyers were TERRIBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 msnbc http://www.cnbc.com/id/48783982 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nominak Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Hmm. Anyway, does it mean all future Samsungs will look like a hammered piece of soap? Because if they are not copying (be as it might), sadly, they can't design sh*t. It means they either get the same deal MS has for their designs... or they make phones without rounded edges... or any of the software patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 This patent system is stupid. But oh well. This will hurt Samsung, but it's not going to kill them. People here seem to think they are some small company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 This really rustles mah jimmies. peh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted August 24, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 24, 2012 It's not the court system necessarily. it's the software patent system. This type of thing should have never reached the court room to begin with nor allowed to patent most of that stuff Apple patented. USPTO grants patents left and right without even checking whether those patents or prior art existed and that's how you get to this point. Please give us just one example where say pinch-to-zoom was implemented before the iPhone came along? Like it or not, Apple have brought significant innovation to this space in both interaction and industrial design. If you take a totally unbiased view of this you would know that this is fact! You don't have to like Apple to admit it. Vice and John S. 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Please give us just one example where say pinch-to-zoom was implemented before the iPhone came along? Like it or not, Apple have brought significant innovation to this space in both interaction and industrial design. If you take a totally unbiased view of this you would know that this is fact! You don't have to like Apple to admit it. Who cares where it was done first? Someone invented the steering wheel first but every car has one. Patents are idiotic. Boz, Brandon H and Nogib 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 they make phones without rounded edges Or they make everything look like SIII ("designed by lawyers", stupid piece of soap and plastic). If Note 2 is anything to go by. Software side - I don't give a rat's ass. I'll see to it when Le Goog comes to the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Who cares where it was done first? Someone invented the steering wheel first but every car has one. Patents are idiotic. Exactly.. natural gestures that are obvious should have never been patentable. End of story. Nogib, Brandon H and remixedcat 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShMaunder Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Well, was hoping that one or two of Apple's software patents would be voided. But we all know that Samsung has taken the Micky mouse somewhat. However, stuff like "bounceback" is one of the most annoying animations ever - why anybody wants to implement it is beyond me. In fact, most of the animations on iOS is damn right annoying and time consuming IMO. Getting a wee bit off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Who cares where it was done first? Someone invented the steering wheel first but every car has one. Patents are idiotic. If I invented the steering wheel I'd want to be the only one selling cars with it for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted August 24, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 24, 2012 Who cares where it was done first? Someone invented the steering wheel first but every car has one. Patents are idiotic. So if you did something first and used it as a differentiating factor on your product you wouldn't want to take anyone who copied it down because they were taking away from your sales? Anyone who says no to this is just plain lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 However, stuff like "bounceback" is one of the most annoying animations ever - why anybody wants to implement it is beyond me. In fact, most of the animations on iOS is damn right annoying and time consuming IMO. Getting a wee bit off topic. If I invented the steering wheel I'd want to be the only one selling cars with it for sure. Next thing in order: Apple looks to ban all bumper cars because of bounce back effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted August 24, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 24, 2012 Just to be clear, I want Sansung to succeed, but off the back of their own innovations and not just those that they have ripped off from others. I want them to play fair when using the innovations of others. Also, I want to see Apple taken to task for when they aren't playing by the rules. That's what makes it a level playing field. Not abolishing the incentive to innovate which is what the patent system is meant to drive. Nogib 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrCheese Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It can't spur innovation when most of the obvious gesture patents are upheld. The reason Microsoft does the same thing and is able to do that is because they are in cahoots with Apple. Anyone else who does these natural gestures (double tap to zoom) and other stuff can't do it now because these Apple's ridiculous patents were voted upheld. Apple now has weapon to go after everyone competing with them in this new touch generation of devices. For once, I sorta agree with you. There's no other way to do simple things like zooming (pinch to zoom/tap) However, you can't blame them for using the patent system the way they have. If Apple hadn't, then someone else would have eventually. The system is broken and it's wrong to slap Apple for using it in this way when it would be irresponsible to their shareholders not to take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 So if you did something first and used it as a differentiating factor on your product you wouldn't want to take anyone who copied it down because they were taking away from your sales? Anyone who says no to this is just plain lying. Yes if I had done something first anyone could copy what I did. Your job is to make your version work better and not stop innovation. The only thing wrong would be if they stole the blueprints to my product and used them to make theirs which never happened here and is why the entire patent system is a joke. Brandon H 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted August 24, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 24, 2012 Yes anyone could copy what I did and I wouldn't care. Your job is to make your version work better. The only thing wrong would be if they stole the blueprints to my product and used them to make theirs. If no blue prints or source code was used then there should be no issue. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Easy to say, more difficult to live or die by when your revenue is at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosidius Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Charges are going down to 1.049 billion it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts