[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.


Recommended Posts

Too bad that's not true on Neowin and various other sites/forums. Thread comes up about Google's plan to sue Apple, and suddenly everyone's on their feet goin "DO IT, DO IT!!"

How quickly the worry over consumer choice and innovation fades. :laugh:

Countersuing a patent troll and forcing them to settle under reasonable terms - as opposed to $30-40 per device - has proven to be a very good way of protecting consumer choice and innovation. I don't see any hypocrisy here, sorry.

Look at the George Foreman grill, it's just a grill pointed downwards so the fat runs off, pretty obvious and basic but they have made billions of dollars from something like that and I believe it is patented or secured in some manner.

Fact is, Apple got there first and they spent many years and lots and lots of money to get there, Samsung could have been first but they were not.

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

  • Like 3

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with ad hominem attacks, by the way. Why do you need to be so desperate when Apple won the court case? To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with desperate ad hominem attacks. To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

Of course not. That's why you're desperately slinging ad hominem attacks instead of answering the question, amirite?

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

Grills are still sold, phones will still be sold. Just don't infringe on peoples patents that hold those design elements. A tilt on the grill obviously doesn't stop grill manufacturers from making grills and rounded edges on a phone won't stop Samsung selling phones. The fact is Apple had the patent and Samsung didn't and they should not have infringed it and I'd expect the company behind the George Forman grills to go after companies that sell tilted grills in the same way Apple has gone after Samsung.

Even if you don't agree with the patent you need to abide by it or tackle it in court before you start releasing devices utilizing it. Samsung did not do that and they were penalized for it as they should be.

This is just one of the many patents Samsung infringed upon like the tap to zoom functionality.

And I'm sorry for identifying your bitterness, I didn't realize it would make you so angry to be called out on it.

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's probably patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve? Apple is trying to patent a SHAPE here - a shape that serves no purpose to the function of the product. They might as well be trying to patent the color black, and frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if they already have.

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's most likely patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve?

Making it easier to hold in ones hand? Making it more visually pleasing. How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one. And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

Making it easier to hold in ones hand?

And the evidence of that is?

Making it more visually pleasing.

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

And the evidence of that is?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

And the evidence of that is?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

And the evidence of that is?

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

Oh, and they tried to user prior art...but the judge dismissed that claim. Were you even following the trial?

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

sorry, not trying to take sides here, but I've just gotta ask, what?

And the evidence of that is?

that people generally like holding round objects than pointy ones?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

very true :D

And the evidence of that is?

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

Except that he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

hold a phone with rounded sides &/or corners, and then hold a rectangular phone with pointy sides/corners. Which one do you like better? Which one feels better in your hand?

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

  • Like 2

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

My hands feel better when holding my sharp-edged Lumia and Xperia phone than they do when holding my iPhone. The former two phones' sharp edges don't poke me at all. Does this count as evidence invalidating the poking claim? If not, then you might begin to understand why the evidence in favor doesn't count as evidence either.

Except when he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

Because it doesn't naturally follow that a phone with rounded corners is easier to hold. That's why you need evidence. I can also say that phones with rounded corners are more difficult to hold and declare it as unassailable fact without evidence, too, but I'm not going to because such a line of argument is nonsensical. IMO, you don't understand how logic works.

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Indeed. I edited my post (while you were likely typing this one) to state the Samsung HAS brought up the prior art argument using multiple examples, and were denied.

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

You ARE aware that "can stick you" isn't the same as "WILL stick you"... right?

Maybe it's just me, but it's really ironic when someone like that tells me I looked pretty silly. Sigh. Not to mention that you're defeating your own claim. If it's impossible to make non-rounded cases without sticking into users, then there's all the more reason that rounded corners shouldn't be patentable, or at least licensed under FRAND terms.

I'm looking silly. Ooohkay. :rolleyes:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!