[petejh]

Apple wins US legal battle against Samsung: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/25/apple-crushes-samsung-quest-global-tech-domination

That seems very fucked-up, claiming an obvious concept like double-tapping a screen as your company's sole intellectual property and aggressively pursuing any competitors (Android); whatever next - Microsoft patenting left-clicking a mouse? Patenting 'rectangles with rounded corners' says it all.

I'm supposed to be releasing a definitive guide app for North Wales Limestone, anyone with a more informed opinion on Apple than me care to enlighten me as to why I would want to have anything to do with this dictatorship company, as I'm considering whether I really want to do anything, no matter how miniscule, that supports their brand? I might look at releasing the NW Lime app just for Android as I don't need to make any money out of it.

[Drew]

Part of my reasoning behind choosing an HTC Android phone, over an iPhone (aside from price, not wanting to copy everyone else) was the fact that Apple were getting a bit big for their boots.

[Oli]

What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261

[namnok]

What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261

My thought exactly but Apple's gripe is the firmware not the hardware.
I think at the end of the day apple just want total market share, my wife has the iPhone and compared to my Samsung s3 (not used by apple in their arguement) I much prefer mine

I do love apple computers.
Still, cunts in my view (as I type this on an iPad)

[Oli]

Granted that it's firmware/design that Apple have the issue with, but at the end of the day it's still the same company isn't it...

[butters]

What I found interesting was that according to the equivalent bbc article, Apple buy a lot of parts from Samsung including computer chips and possibly screens. Interesting approach to dealing with your suppliers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261

Apple got out of the chips designed specifically for Apple products a while back as it was too expensive running their own fab plant (or paying someone else to design and fab one) when there were perfectly good Intel chips out there that do the job just as well if not better and this is just a logical extension of that. Samsung build a huge fab plant and then sell to one and all to pay for it and all the associated R&D costs that go along with something like that no doubt. Also regardless of the ruling yesterday there is not much chance of them cutting Apple off the supplier list as not only it is a massive regular order and income for them but also the contract is probably covered by more caveats than you could shake a bushel of sticks at...

[tomtom]

My tuppence...

Anyone used an android phone and think its not based on iOS?

Apple changed the market with a series of innovations that they patented and others followed. It's a fine line between imitation and flattery and this case seemed to revolve around this..

Normal practice is to pay a fee to the co who developed the idea and Apple offered Samsung such a deal at £30 a unit in 2009.. They declined..

If I came up with a new idea, patented it, and someone else came along and started making as much ££ from it as me, I'd be pissed off and want a slice of their action...

I don't really buy this apple is big nasty company etc... They are ALL big nasty corporate plc's... Just because google 'gives' you things for free doesn't make it any better - it's just a canny business/domination plan. Samsung is a huge company.. Larry Ellison (CEO of oracle) who s one of the original jobs/gates silicone valley startup folks etc.. Used to use a Gengis Khan quote frequently to describe his companies position "in order to truly succeed, all others must fail"...

[Bubba]

These are the patents that Samsung violated:

Utility Patents
163 Enlarging documents by tapping the screen
381 'Bounce-back' feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page   
915 Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures
   

Design Patents
087 Ornamental design of the iPhone (white color)
305 Rounded square icons on interface
677 Ornamental design of the iPhone (black color)
889 Relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer



It's trival and pathetic - patenting "rounded square icons" ffs?  "Enlarging documents by tapping the screen"? Really? They've already tried to fight over "slide to unlock".

The real loser here is the consumer - Apple are just attempting to stifle innovation and competition by patenting fundamental parts of any touch OS. 

As for the "ornamental design" patents, Apple are being equally cuntish - anyone who produces a thin, flat phone with a centred screen on the front and rounded corners is now open to being sued by Apple. So now everyone else has to make bumpy phones with sharp edges? It's ridiculous.

Fuck Apple, I will never buy another one of their products because of this needless greed and attempts to put a stranglehold on an exciting era of product innovation.

[tomtom]

915's quite important..

You're right though that it is trivial and pathetic, but that's business! They've just scored a £1bn + hit on Samsung..

Gotta love capitalism eh!

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

If I came up with a new idea, patented it, and someone else came along and started making as much ££ from it as me, I'd be pissed off and want a slice of their action...

Brad Bird must be sitting on a fucking fortune then:

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

What is easily forgotten is that Apple didn't invent many of the technologies that made them successful. They didn't invent the MP3 player, they dramatically improved the user interface and created a way of easily purchasing content. They didn't create the first touch screen smart phones. Nokia and Ericsson got there first before 2000. The iPhone didn't arrive til 2007. Their first effort was undoubtedly a better attempt than other models around at the time but I'm betting they learnt a lot from the development/failure of the other models. They didn't invent online tablets, Nokia did a internet tablet before them. The point is this is not a situation like Dyson had where he had developed a brand new technology in isolation to the other manufacturers, offered to sell it to them, been rejected by all of them then they ripped him off when his product was successful. Apple are very good at refining existing products then brilliant marketing makes them very popular, quirks and all. They then use their size and power to protect their investment. Sure Google/Samsung etc have borrowed many iOS ideas for Android products, but they have improved on many elements, giving Apple a taste of its own medicine which it doesn't like hence the lawsuits. Google bought Motorola's mobile legacy of intellectual property to leverage against some of the lawsuits against Android.

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

Hmmm… 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

[JamieG]

Part of the problem to me seems to be the patent system is allowing companies to patent ridiculous things which can really be considered as innovations. Companies are just exploiting that as much as possible.

[Bubba]

Yep, I agree that the patent system itself is the real problem.

[Stu Littlefair]

These are the patents that Samsung violated:
...
915 Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures
...   
Fuck Apple, I will never buy another one of their products because of this needless greed and attempts to put a stranglehold on an exciting era of product innovation.

I agree with TomTom. 915 is actually a big deal, as anyone who tried to use a touchscreen phone before the iPhone will testify. Also, did you miss the patent on the "pinch to zoom" action, or is this part of 915?

I must say, I'm baffled by your anti-Apple rhetoric. After all, even in this case alone, Samsung were also suing Apple for violating patents, for patents which are as indefensible as the Apple ones, IMO - including emailing photos from a camera phone, and multitasking with music playing in the background!

The smartphone market has grown massively in the last few years, and there's a pitched battle for those customers. Suing and counter-suing over patents, valid and ridiculous, is one way companies are trying to get an advantage. I can't see why you think Apple are so much worse than any other company in this respect.

[SA Chris]

Be nice if the Zulu nation sued Apple over the use of "i-" as a prefix to all their products (putting "i" in front of a word in Zulu is like using "the"). They thought of it first, but probably never thought to patent it.

[tomtom]

RE Patent law etc....

I think I've had a class on this ages ago or been to a seminar on it once.. and if memory is correct there is a whole series of precedents for this sort of thing from the car/motor industry... right the way from spark plugs to fuel injection etc.. there is a system of licencing, so X allows Y to use their idea for a fee etc..

What seems to have gone off the rails here is either a. their adherence to existing rules/methods or b. that they feel that tech is somehow different and that ideas are more globally owned.. Maybe this way of thinking - in IT/Software - is spawned from the whole open source ethos? which is a pretty different business/industry model from many other industries (thinking specifically of engineering..).



Another anecdote but not related to patents.. My brother in law worked for Nokia until 3 years ago when he jumped ship, designing cases/buttons/hardware for their phones... When the first Ifern came out I remember having a chat with him at Xmas and he was saying how much of a game changer it was with the hardware and software.. For example, the capacitive touch - he explained to me at great length how they could tell how hard or soft you were tappping according to the area of finger pad in contact and its speed of response (or something) and how this type of thing was just stuff people had simply not thought of before. Alongside his admiration of the innovation bought in with the ifern was how well they'd managed to keep all this under wraps from others in the industry (i.e. himself and co-workers..).

[Bubba]

I agree with TomTom. 915 is actually a big deal, as anyone who tried to use a touchscreen phone before the iPhone will testify. Also, did you miss the patent on the "pinch to zoom" action, or is this part of 915?

Apple didn't invent multi-touch, they "stole" the idea (talking in their terms) and patented it.  They also didn't invent "pinch to zoom", again they copied it and patented it.  Both features were present on the DiamondTouch table which was released before Apple were granted these patents.

I must say, I'm baffled by your anti-Apple rhetoric.

Can't stand them, I'm sorry - I just don't like the way they steal ideas, patent them and aggressively try to stifle competition. Yes, Samsung are also guilty of pursuing Apple but who started it?  The other thing I find insane is that Samsung are a huge supplier to Apple; it's insane.

For me, the following Steve Jobs quote sums up why I hate Apple: “Picasso had a saying - 'good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

I can't see why you think Apple are so much worse than any other company in this respect.

Because I don't see any other company trying to patent insane things like a flat phone with rounded edges. I may well be misinformed and will have to burn my Samsung phone and start ranting about them too though

[slackline]

I'm supposed to be releasing a definitive guide app for North Wales Limestone, anyone with a more informed opinion on Apple than me care to enlighten me as to why I would want to have anything to do with this dictatorship company, as I'm considering whether I really want to do anything, no matter how miniscule, that supports their brand? I might look at releasing the NW Lime app just for Android as I don't need to make any money out of it.

Do it, if more people do it will make a difference (although I'm afraid there will still be enough fanboi's) that it won't make a difference.

I'm phone & can't find link (may already be in the IT news thread) but there was one prominent US judge who made an effort to be on an earlier patent dispute & the it out fir being fucking stupid. Shame he wasn't over seeing this one.

(Shouldn't this be in the computers, tech & net sub-forum?)

[Bubba]

Yes it should, I'll move it now...

[slackline]

News report I was thinking of, title says it all... http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120623/00213319445/judge-posner-rips-apart-apples-patent-litigation-strategy-being-really-annoyed-is-no-reason-to-sue.shtml] being 'really annoyed' is no rain to sue [/url]

Hopefully UK courts will http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232] continue to see sense [/url]






My view...its all convergent design evolution and shouldn't be patentable, it stifles innovation and at the root of it all competition is the source of new innovation. Plus as said apple are cunts who ripped off the tech from others in the first place.

Now based on my last post anyone who can develop a keyboard UI that corrects spelling and grammar to make sense would have a great open source project on their hands.

[Stu Littlefair]

To Bubba:

Nope, I still don't get it. Apple didn't "steal" multi-touch. They bought the technology at a fair price from fingerworks, who were developing multi touch devices in 1999.

With the introduction of the iPhone, Apple were the first to make a capacitive, multi touch device. It has clearly been revolutionary. The diamond touch was released commercially a war after the iPhone IIRC? Anyway, apple successfully patented the technology and are now defending their technology. I don't agree with it, but they are hardly alone in this strategy.

With regards to your comments about other companies not patenting ridiculous things, do you really think a patent on sending emails from a phone with a camera (Samsung) is any better?

[Stu Littlefair]

Sorry - should read "the diamond touch was released commercially *after* the iPhone".

Bloody iPhone keyboard.

[Bubba]

Ok, good point re Fingerworks getting there first but should Apple have ever been allowed to patent the technology when others clearly had the same tech?  Irrespective of whether or not the DiamondTouch was commercially released, there were videos showing pinch to zoom, etc in action on the DiamondTouch before Apple gained the patent.

I'm not saying that Samsung are angels but can you blame them for fighting back?  It was Apple that started all this. 

I'm interested as to whether Apple will still pursue Jobs' threat of spending every penny that Apple have in order to destroy Android.

Bloody iPhone keyboard.

See! If you used Android you could have Swype

[Stu Littlefair]

I don't want to get in the position of defending apples litigation. I don't really agree with patenting round rectangles, it's just that I don't see apple as any worse than anyone else. Apple did kick off this round of suing, but Samsung had already taken out these stupid patents, so they must have thought they might defend them one day.

I have some sympathy with apple going nuclear on android phones. The situation must have seemed horribly reminiscent of the dawn of the PC, with Microsoft replaced by Google as the company that would take many of apples 'innovations' and take the commercial success. Especially give the close relations apple and google had at the time. At the same time, their strategy of suing the phone makers, rather than google is interesting and I'd like to know why they are doing that...