yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[General Topics] Valinorian:
population of 50 million so its not that small. Also South Korea is a gadget country, people always buy the latest phones so its a pretty big phone market. Thats why they're always the ones who get the "cool" stuff first, like when we were having fun with 3.2 and 5 mpx cameras they had 12 mpx with optical zoom :P

Finally its time for payback. Apple made one a mistake. Even though they are the biggest, they're messing with android meaning Google, HTC, Samsung, SonyEriccson, LG etc. And these arent small companies.

Also if it was 1 company and they got sued it wouldnt be that of a big deal. But having multiple companies with multiple lawsuites against you can really sting. Nothing is as annoying as a longggg ongoing lawsuit. And they are getting more then one.
[General Topics] MartyLK:
You're not giving Apple enough credibility. A company that can maintain such a successful industry and market presence as Apple isn't foolish. They don't do things frivolously. They've studied their position for years and made proper determinations. If they didn't have viable suits, they wouldn't have pursued them.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
And I think you're giving Apple too much credibility. They're losing market share to Android. And considering iOS is a big source if income for them, they're worried. These are acts of desperation. Or do you honestly believe Apple was so naive as to think that companies would just bend over and take it and would not strike back?
[General Topics] krale:
Actually, what Samsung is doing right now, is clearly an act of desperation in its legal strategy. They've seen loss after loss, and are pretty much left with two choices, which would be logical, but both are too costly for Samsung.

1) Redevelop and redesign products so they do not infringe on intellectual property of another company. This could potentially last for years, and cost millions and billions in R&D.

2) Pay royalties. Billions in question, a hurt pride, and also quite possible Apple might not agree to it.

So Samsung is desperate to come up with something. They have come up with - "let's sue them also, maybe they will settle for less?"

It wont work. Apple knows exactly how much they can win, and they are not going to settle for less. The Apple legal team has played it brilliantly - they have practically won everywhere they have sued - tells you something doesn't it?
[General Topics] Toss3:
Have you ever used an LG Prada or even seen one in real life? It and the iPhone are nothing alike. It's really annoying how people keep bringing it up, even though it was a huge failure of a product. You can keep telling yourself that samsung never copied apple's design if it helps you sleep at night. The rest of us know better than to let our bias towards android blind us. LG does the same.

I never argued that Apple invented it all, but they did take a lot of good existing technologies and combined them into one of the most functional phones ever. It's like saying Karl Benz never invented the modern car as other prototypes existed before his. If it weren't for the iPhone I very much doubt we would be using the phones we use today. Apple made the modern first consumer friendly smartphone and that is a fact(Windows mobile does not count).

HTC is one of the only companies that never copied apple's design, but went their own way instead.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Defending oneself is an act of desperation? No, defending oneself is what one *should* do when attacked. Also, loss after loss? They won in the Netherlands. Apple's community designs thrown out, one of their patents invalidated. And the one patent Samsung was found infringing is easily circumvented. Then, we'll see how stupid or not the German appeals court will be. If they aren't stupid, they'll follow the verdict of the Dutch case.

Not physically possible. It's impossible to create *anything* without incorporating a bunch of previous stuff. Do you think Apple created their devices "so they do not infringe on intellectual property of another company"? Hell no, that's why it's possible to sue them back. But apparently it's ok for Apple to do that, while the others are nasty thieves. Have you seen iOS5?

First, it wasn't a failure. It didn't set the world on fire, but it wasn't a failure.

Second, while the system is completely different, the outer appearance is pretty much the same - big frikkin' screen. So in the "general impression" (the only thing that matters according to Apple), the iPhone is a copy. The LG CEO even noted as much when the iPhone was introduced.

I'm not blind. LG Prada, Sony Ericsson UIQ, Nokia... they all had elements that Apple put into the iPhone.

And that's exactly what the LG Prada proves wrong. The tech went into this direction anyway, and would go even without Apple. It was obvious evolution when capacitive screens became affordable enough to be put into consumer products.

Yeah, if we erase Nokia and Sony Ericsson UIQ and a few others from history. And then I'm the one being accused of bias.

It's all "big frikkin' screen" phones! They're all the same. My Motorola Defy, totally a big frikkin' screen phone. Because there's no other way to make it. That's why it's so hypocritical for one company to claim everything for themselves.
[General Topics] Tone_:
Sold in the millions and a huge failure??
[General Topics] FloatingFatMan:
Without Windows Mobile, the Smartphone industry wouldn't even EXIST (and neither would this forum), so yeah, it DOES count... A lot.
[General Topics] krale:
Yes, it is an act of desperation if you have actually FAILED to defend, and are now inventing court cases just for the sake of it. iPhone5 is not even out - how do they know it infringes on their design? (clue: they don't know!)

I would leave that yet to be seen. But lets not pretend the losses haven't hurt Samsung more - especially Australia and Europe. Worth in the millions, and maybe even billions of lost revenue.

It is actually physically possible to do it without "infringing on intellectual property of another company". It doesn't have to be brand spanking original NEW. It just means that it doesn't infringe on patents.

Samsung engineers were clearly rushing to catch up with Apple, and were ill advised legally, so they didn't protect their product and company from patent suits. It has cost them dearly.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Of course it would. There's this little thing called Symbian. Not relevant nowadays anymore, but in the past Symbian was the big thing. Nokia S60 and SonyEricsson UIQ (both Symbian-based), that's where it was at.

It's not about design in this case, it's about core communication technology. So yeah, they do know. Because it's impossible to create a phone without infringing. Unless Apple plans to sell a phone without 3G. And it's not just about the iPhone5, the previous iPhones infringe those 3G patents too.

Patents exist that cover everything. It is *not* possible. And when it's not patents, it's community designs. Apple sued over a sketch of a rectangle, do you realize that? Apparently not. The German case wasn't about patents, it was about a sketch of a rectangle, the so called "community design". Which aside from being completely ridiculous also has lots of prior art. The Dutch judge was sane enough to realize that.
[General Topics] FloatingFatMan:
Sure, there was Symbian too, but Smartphones as we generally know them grew out from PDA's, and most of those were running WindowsCE. Windows Mobile was just a shell on top of that.

Smartphone's on Symbian were never really any good, the OS wasn't suited to it until VERY late in the game.
[General Topics] krale:
I am not sure we can have a meaningful debate. You are clearly very biased.

New products are made on a daily basis and they do not infringe on patents. Courts are there to look at these things, so I would not call anyone sane or insane, because of a legal decision that was merited by evidence presented by both parties. There clearly something fishy - otherwise Apple would not be winning everywhere, and they would not be bold enough to spread this to more countries by the day.

Regarding the 3G patents - there are rules and regulations which stipulate what are so called "patents essential for functionality". If a company can demonstrate that there is no way of doing it differently, or if they can demonstrate it is a "common standard", which will be very easy for Apple to show, they have absolutely no case.

Which makes me wonder why didn't Samsung use the same strategy? Well... clearly the patents in the case against the Korean company were not "essential" or a "common standard" and could be avoided or modified as to not infringe on intellectual property owned by Apple.
[General Topics] AllGamer:
hmm... not quite,

the first few PDAs/smartphones and successful OS before WindowsCE was PalmOS

they are the real inventors, everybody else are just imitation,

including Apple

without Palm there wouldn't even be smartphones

the old ancient PDAs before Palm were more like pocket calculators + agenda + address book in a ROM

then after Palm devices became popular Windows tried to copy them using Windows CE to prevent copy right infringement, as the 2 looked completely differently, and worked completely different during that time

but now in days, all mobile devices OS looks just the same
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Crap, clicked "Thanks" instead of "Quote". Anyway...

Yeah, sure.

Of course they do. Just because someone doesn't sue, doesn't mean infringement isn't taking place. And the reason they don't sue is because they realize this way leads to MAD. Ok, that's not a solid fact that this is the reason, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Also, most companies go for cross-licensing deals. CompanyA infringes tons of stuff from CompanyB and vice versa. Instead of suing each other out of business, they cross-license. It happens all the time, but you don't know about it because they deals aren't as public as these Apple cases.

But it was not. The German judge never looked at all the prior art Samsung presented. Only looked at the sketches. The Dutch judge did look at the prior art and at actual devices. Resulting in a different verdict.

Yes, there is something fishy - the system is flawed. It's the only reason these patent wars are happening in the first place. Also, I'm not sure if being hit from all sides now (Samsung, HTC, VIA) can be seen as Apple winning. And Apple damn sure didn't win the Dutch case. Technically yes, but the one infringement Samsung can easily circumvent.

If these patents fell under those rules, it would for sure be reported by now. As it was regarding some patents Google is using in one of their cases. Also, these rules (it's called FRAND - fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) don't mean you can simply use that stuff. You still have to obtain a license to use it. Which Apple didn't.

They're not legally FRAND but they're obvious things everyone even a little versed in the area can come up with. They're not some brilliant inventions. Do you know which community design the German case is about? Do you even know what a "community design" is?

Like I said, the system is flawed. It's about amassing these trivial patents and community designs so that you can then curtail your competition, instead of competing on the merit of your products. Which in turn stifles innovation, the exact opposite of what patents were initially created for. In the Dutch case, do you even know what the one patent Samsung was found infringing is about?
[General Topics] krale:
You seem to know too many details that are not public domain, that are actually hear-say.

I am absolutely positive both the Dutch and German courts would not be as unprofessional as you suggest. Clearly, you seem to suggest that all courts are biased in Apple's favor, which is not reasonable at all.

The fact Samsung is losing everywhere a case has been heard - tells something. Apple owns something - Samsung wants it - it should ask and pay, or it will be penalized. It can't just steal stuff and claim the system of private protection is flawed. And this is being acknowledged throughout court cases, which proves my point.
[General Topics] AllGamer:
i think everyone is forgetting the actual results of those court battles

German favoured Apple in regards to the similitude of the icons... which by the way PalmOS had them way before Apple ever did, so both Apple & Samsung should really pay royalties to PalmOS, which is now owned by HP

If i was HP i would sue the crap out of them both and collect ;)

Dutch was neutral (there was no win nor loss in this case), as the only problem was the picture gallery which Samsung will replace with another picture gallery that works / looks different than the current Apple's picture gallery... but that already existing back in Windows 6, so shouldn't Apple be paying royalties to Microsoft instead?

Anyways, as you can see the judges or in this case the lawyers conveniently forgot to tell the background history and original developers for all those features being discussed in the court room, which don't really belong to either of the parties involved

LOL :D

therefore all those court cases are biased.
[General Topics] BetaTron:
Maybe we should talk to the Xerox programmers/devs whose innovation got Apple all the credit.

Apple didn't steal it but they did "borrow".

My point is, in this industry, most everything is either pirated or copied in one form or another.

When Apple copies they call it innovating, when some one else makes something similar to theirs they call it stealing.

...and I'm not just placing the blame on Apple here. There's lots of corporations who are guilty of this silly lawsuit game.
[General Topics] AllGamer:
NEWS UPDATE #2

Samsung is now also seeking to ban iPhones & iPads in Netherlands

Samsung seeks ban of iPhone and iPad in The Netherlands

another source confirming the same news

Samsung Wants Apple iPhone, iPad Banned in Netherlands

Wow! this is exiting, soon enough the fruit company will have no place to hide, if this keeps on expanding

sudden Earth feels like a gigantic Chess Board, and we are right smack in the middle of it all, WOW! :D
[General Topics] jutolapril:
Agree.

Makes sense.
[General Topics] 1stCentauri:
always nice to see the iPhone slowly die
[General Topics] jutolapril:
I think you are right. After using iPad, the Galaxy Tab in my hand just appears to be copied from it. Just my personal opinion, if I was the judge, I will stand by Apple's side.
[General Topics] krale:
Actually the results are a ban (self-imposed) in Australia, ban in Germany and a loss of 1 out of 2 patents in Holland.

About the specifics, I do not think it is necessary to go into the history. Judges don't care about history. They care about who has the patent - and Apple clearly has it, otherwise it would not be winning.

These court cases by Samsung, are just a strategy to "stretch" Apple's legal team into defense as well - but they are forgetting that they will be out-cashed anytime by the Cupertino money machine. I seriously doubt they have a case, simply because they actually have no idea what the iphone5 is.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Which parts exactly? That the German judge didn't look at anything other than the sketches? That's public knowledge. And no, it's not "hear-say". If you can't find a link that confirms it, I'll provide it. If there's anything else, point it out.

You're just throwing out vague statements, but I doubt very much you know about the specifics of the world of software patents and community designs. That you haven't answered my questions could be taken as a confirmation of this. So I'll ask again - Do you know which community design both the German and the Dutch case were about? Show me the design in question. Further, describe in short what the one patent Samsung was found infringing is about.

If you can't talk specifics but can only shell out vague statement about "intellectual property", then at least to me you don't have much merit.

Also, the part about "stealing"... Have you seen iOS5? This video is a bit overboard in certain cases, but mostly it's spot on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq-e0getf4M.

Then there's this little device: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/ <-- Introduced months before the iPad was even mentioned. Uncanny, innit? The final product is called JooJoo and looks a bit different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg. Even more uncanny.

Then let's go a bit further back: The year is 2003. Where this company called Compaq (you might have heard of them, the were pioneers in the PDA times) made the TC1000. Shorty after, a successor was released, the TC1100. Which looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tablet_HP_TC-1100.jpg. The keyboard is fully detachable, and when you do that, this is what you get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TC1100-1.JPG

Now I don't know about you, but it looks to me as if Apple is a great big "stealer" and totally "stole" Compaq's design. And Fusion Garage's (they made the JooJoo). And for iOS5 they "stole" whatever they could find in other OSes.

It seems you don't know that Samsung makes faaaaaaaaaar more money than Apple does. Samsung is the giant here, not Apple. If Samsung gets a temporary ban, the company as a whole can take it, they have revenue coming in from a lot of different areas. But Apple's main revenue stream is iOS and devices connected to it (iPhone, iPad). So if Apple gets their devices banned, it hurts them a lot more.
[General Topics] Willeo Soeurs:
The rise and fall of Apple ?

Looks like Apple got them a big trouble
[General Topics] krale:
I forgot Samsung's loss in the UK about false advertising of the SGS2 as thinnest phone, while actually providing only the thinnest point of the phone.

So, to sum up - its actually not important to go into the details of the court hearings - because what you are suggesting is completely not reasonable - courts in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK are for some reason siding with Apple, and not with Samsung. We are not talking about Saudi Arabia here - quite developed justice systems in these countries. Which means Apple really knows what their legal basis is, and is diligently working to achieve those goals.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Ok, my conclusion: You don't know the details of the cases. Which would also show how flawed the system is. You just brush off all these details, take the current system as given and do not question it. The government loves people like that. They're easier to control.

Further, I show you direct examples of prior art, which clearly shows Apple's hypocrisy, but you don't react to that at all. I seriously, *seriously* wonder who the biased one here is. Actually, I do not. It's clear that the biased one is you. Brushing off critical details as "not important" because you're unfamiliar with specifics is not how you win an argument. It's nothing more than a cop out.
[General Topics] sygeek:
Now, that is interesting. Apple's got no choice, accept or regret.

source of the quote
[General Topics] krale:
Actually, I do know the specifics quite well. I just don't think we are in a court-room right now.

The decisions of the courts, if it was lets say one court in Saudi Arabia, we would all be very inclined to think "something is fishy". But to say that not one, but ALL, and not Saudi Arabia, but developed justice systems in four different countries, are in a conspiracy against Samsung... its ludicrous - just plain crazy!

I don't believe in fairies, mermaids, people with three eyes, etc., so I am not prone to believe in these "out of your mind" conspiracy theories.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Then answer my questions. So that I'll know you know what you're talking about.

What conspiracy theories? Be specific where I'm talking "out of my mind".

Ok, it seems those patents *are* FRAND. Which makes an injunction against Apple unlikely. More likely is that the same thing will happen as with Nokia, where Apple had to pay $439 million to license some Nokia FRAND patents.
[General Topics] krale:
Your conclusion is that courts in Australia, UK, Germany and Netherlands are unfair towards Samsung, that they have not followed legal procedure, and that the system itself is flawed as to work in Apple's favor.

Sounds completely "reasonable" to me.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Nope. What is flawed is the system of software patents and community designs as a whole, and not specific to any one company. Apple is simply abusing that system (they're by far not the only ones, and the flaws of the system allow such abuse). If you actually knew how community designs work, and which design in particular the cases are about, you'd see that. So inform yourself about that. You had plenty of time to do that over the course of this discussion.

What I further think is that the German judge was sloppy. She only looked the community design in question and nothing else. That this is so is a verifiable fact.

And note I said "sloppy", which has nothing to do with mermaids.
[General Topics] krale:
And what did you expect the German judge to do? Look at whether the system is flawed, as you suggested, and there is a wider conspiracy? That's not their job.

The system is what it is, the sooner Samsung stops whining about how flawed the system that protects intellectual property is, the better for them. Its not the system, its the breaking of laws that are in effect that is the problem.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
The same thing the Dutch judge did - look at the prior art Samsung presented and based on that throw the community design out. I though you knew the details of the cases, you claimed you do. But you've just clearly showed you actually have no idea.

So we should just take the system as given, not question it in any way, not be allowed point out it's flaws, and just blindly follow it like good little sheep? Like I said, the government, and corporations even more, love people like you, people who have such an attitude.

Also, Samsung is not whining. They're instead striking back at Apple.

It *is* the system. Patents were initially created to promote innovation. How is banning Samsung devices doing that? How would having the iPad as the only tablet on the market do that? How is not allowing devices to use obvious things like pinch-zooming or swipe gestures doing that? The answer is clear: It's not. It's doing the opposite of promoting innovation, it stifles it. Because the system is flawed and allows abuse.
[General Topics] krale:
You seem to consistently ignore the *FACT* that the Dutch judge ruled in Apple's favor? Albeit not for all patents, but nevertheless, they did pronounce Samsung guilty of stealing.

Now, you can off course deal with it, or blame the system, the judge, bla bla bla.
[General Topics] sygeek:
And how do you prove these statements. As far as I know, this is COMPLETELY false.
[General Topics] krale:
Well you must be as well informed as Gusar... LOL...
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Totally and completely false. But rather than explain what actually happened in the case, I'll ask you to do it. So please do the following: Explain the community design, what the judge thought of it. And also explain what the judge was taking into account when he made the verdict about the patent. Then explain what the ramifications of the case will be.

You claimed that you know the specifics of the case, so the above shouldn't be a problem for you. If your next post isn't what I ask, it will without a doubt show that you have no clue and never had any clue about all this stuff.
[General Topics] krale:
Actually, I think you have a complex. You wish you were the judge... LOL.
[General Topics] Gusar321:
Since you didn't do as I asked, you've admitted you have no clue. Thank you for playing.

If anyone wants me to explain what krale is incapable of, say so and I'll do it. I'll also provide links that will show I'm not talking about mermaids.
[General Topics] woody_2k:
Stop *****ing the pair of you. At the end of the day nothing will be rectified untill the courts decide if the buying of the Nortel portfolio by the (let's call them a group of) bastards was unlawful or not.