yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
I've seen the details of a lot of these suits. Specifically, the SGS3 suit was ridiculous. They sued over multi-search- basically it's Apple claiming to have invented the multi-search engine like Dogpile or others have had since the 90's. And against a product based around, of all things,Google's technology.

In the case of the Nexus, they sued for features that there's no way in hell Apple should 'own'. Like spell check that offers suggested words as corrections (are you freakin' kidding me? Apple owns that? Bull****.) And identifying phone numbers in a email so they can be added to a user's phone book. (Yeah right, Apple invented that and 'owns' it.) And of course we all know about the infamous slide-to-unlock baloney patent.

People are trying to smokescreen the trade dress issues over the fact that Apple's also suing over a lot of bull**** patent claims for BASIC features that in an unbroken patent system, there's no way anyone would have given any one company 'ownership' of the ideas.

And Apple could have made these same bull**** claims against virtually any company making Android phones. But they go after Samsung because the whole point is really throwing a monkey wrench at their largest competitors.

This isn't just about Samsung. It's more about the fact that the patent system is crippled in this country. Big companies should not be able to buy up overly broad patents on basic concepts and ideas and act like they invented them, and then sue their competition because they don't want to have to compete. This type of rotten business isn't going to hurt Samsung in the end- it's going to hurt the consumer.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
Call me silly but those Lumia designs are rectangle AND THIN and look just like every other touch screen phone except its running MS software. I've never used one but do they have pinch to zoom, tap to zoom, how do you unlock it etc etc?

This is nothing new and ,as many have pointed out, every product has had look alike competitors. The only difference IMO is that those companies didn't patent every little thing in the hopes of stifling their competition down the road like Steve Jobs and Apple did. (I bet they even had a few laughs when they were actually granted some of those patents because they couldn't believe they actually were granted)

You can back Apple all you want but after they get ALL touch screen phones and tablets off the market have fun paying even higher prices for your iPhone since there will be nothing even remotely close to it for many years. They aren't competing they are stifling the competition with BS patents and its us that will pay the price if they are allowed to stand.

I said it once but I'll say it again if they are allowed EVERY company will start patenting BS crap and keeping away competition . In case you don't know it competition is good for the consumer. This is BIGGER than just the mobile phone market it could potentially limit choice across all consumer products.

I'm betting this battle goes all the way to our Supreme Court.

PS I could be completely wrong :)

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

It really doesn't matter how well it worked for them. Juries have a history of not understanding the tech involved in these kinds of trails and history has shown they got it wrong many times. Christ they had 100+ pages of instructions and 600 Questions to answer so they probably just wanted to go home and to top it off it was in Apples back yard. Apples hasn't fared as well in other parts of the world, I wonder why?

oh well its not over yet you can bet on that and it looks like there will be an all out war soon.

I'm going to stop this now and go flash something on my GS3 iPhone clone now before the Apple police come take it away. Later!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Imagine if back in the day IBM had managed to get a patent for something ridiculous like "An electronic device that runs an operating system."

Then along comes some brash upstart company run out of someone's garage (gee, I think I heard a story once about a company starting out like that, can't remember the name... think it started with an A...). And this company tried to make what? IBM: "Hell no. We own that. Got a few billion to take us to court over it? No? Get lost."

Yeah, great for consumers. Whoever has the most lawyers and money to throw around buying up basic concepts wins, everyone else loses.

Some think this is fine and dandy so long as it's a company they like doing it. But what happens when big companies you don't want to see bully every one else out of their markets start doing the same?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
yes we all are right. Patents suck you can't simply patent a rectangular phone. And I believe that's the only "patent" they didn't win in this trial. But here is the bottom line. No matter how much patent law sucks, Samsung knew all about it, and while the others tried not to infringe, Samsung (according to their leaked internal docs) went out of their way to copy and ultimately infringe like it was an open season. And Apple did what any other company would do.

So let's look at it from the consumer prospective for a second. We aren't losing anything. All those infringing phones are 2 years old. New Samsung phones are beautiful and at this point they'll only get better.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Sorry, you're just wrong. They blocked the Galaxy Nexus in July. Actually blocked it from sale, until Google "complied" with the bull**** patent claims. This hurt consumers by removing features that in NO WAY should Apple be allowed to 'own' or dictate to others not to use.

They sought to block the Galaxy S 3 from sale in the US too, and Samsung was forced to do the same. There have been other recent high-profile Android handsets Apple has tried to block as well.

And most other companies (so far) are not behaving like this.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
You're just confirming my point. Samsung KNOWS which patent Apple owns yet they kept pushing their button, almost like waiting to get sued to see how far they can go. Again, certain patents shouldn't exist, but unfortunately THEY DO, and Samsung knows that very well.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] droidstyle:
these patent infringements are petty bull**** plain and simple. Apple is on its way down, thier sales are reflecting this. Android is gaining ground by the day and this is just another attempt by Apple to slow down the ground Android is gaining. If the dumb asses would just release a newly designed device with a screen you dont need a magnifying glass to see instead of suing companies that are innovating new products, well they imo would not be losing much ground. Apple had the smartphone industry by the balls, but let it slide after releasing the same device with minor updates for 5yrs.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
This! +1

Although I do have to agree that samsung did blatently copy apple on a few of their products/ideas (pictures further back in this thread) the issue is that apple was granted patents that cover the very basics of phone use, and no one seemed to have a problem when the rest of the world started using them (because they wouldn't have had much ground as it became the industry standard) until apple began going downhill and now they need to take out their competitor. It's things like the pinch to zoom, double tap, slide to unlock, etc, when was the last time you saw a phone or device that didn't have these things? Only the really old or dumbed down devices are missing them. It would be like (as the other guy said) IBM patenting an electronic device with an operating system, then ten years later acting upon that patent, it just isn't going to happen.

Not only that but it stifles innovation, something apple seems to love. Going back to the IBM example, can you imagine what the world would be like if they were granted that patent and they tried to protect it? We would probably see the equivelent of windows 95 coming out next year. Competition is good, it forces companies to come up with new ideas to make their product better than the competitors. The idea of the patent system wasn't so much to make an idea solely belong to a single company, more or less it was to prevent other (larger) companies from taking said idea and outright copying them. All it takes is one small change to make it different and it technically becomes a whole new product.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
But here is the thing. If you created the very first touch screen smart phone, and was the very first to bring pinch to zoom experience, double tap to zoom (that actually needs tons of coding to do it right), and slide to unlock (there are tons of ways to make this one different), to the consumer smartphone world, wouldn't you want to patent those experiences, protect your intellectual property? Those were patented well before the original iPhone shipped, and the fact that those become the standard shows us how good Apple engineers actually are.

We have no idea how many OEMs have been in licensing agreement with Apple over these over the past few years, but the fact that Samsung went out of their way to copy everything from shipping boxes all the way to the actual UI, even after Google asked them to distinguish themselves from Apple UI, and declined to license anything tells me that their business conduct is the bottom of the barrel.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Oh please. It's been pointed out how bull**** most of these patents are.

With a straight face, you're going to tell me that it's legit that Apple owns "spell check that offers suggested words as corrections" and other completely bogus things that Apple didn't invent, and should have no right to dictate to others?

You and others miss the big picture. Allowing huge companies to patent basic ideas and then stifle all competition is a horrible situation for the consumer. This isn't just about Samsung vs. Apple, or some company you may dislike vs. one you do. It's about setting the precedent for blatant abuses of the patent and legal system to halt competition, by companies with the money to do so, vs. everyone else, all against the consumer.

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

It was pointed out by Samsung's attorneys that in just about all of those claims, there was prior art. But as we now know, the jury ignored instructions and didn't even consider the prior art claims.

And again, Apple didn't invent touch screens, pinch to zoom, double tap to zoom, or slide to unlock, etc. I can't believe people even buy that those and other ridiculous basic functions are all Apple's to claim.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Then by your logic we shouldn't have patents, all your innovations, intellectual property is for everyone to grab. Sounds a LOT like communism to me. Even in China they started to have some kind of patent rules!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Mulox:
Just insane.... wonder how long it will take them to appeal?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
Yes this much I agree with. I think the majority of Apple's patents are complete BS, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Sammy definitely copied apple. One of the things I didn't like about the phone when I first got it is how un-android like the launcher was. It felt too close to the iPhone to me, and as pointed out earlier in this thread their older devices did look almost identical, and in all honesty if you had rubbed off the samsung logo and put an apple sticker on the back, you probably could have fooled quite a few people.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Now your 'arguments' are just getting ridiculous. Just give it up.

So I take it you would have been perfectly fine with IBM patenting the idea of "an electronic device running an operating system" and then using that to put the brakes on the entire computer industry that's since taken place, including Apple? Right? Hey, they had the money to patent that, so it must be valid, right? So unless we allow huge corporations with billions for lawyers and buying up overly-broad patent ideas to stifle their competition, it's "communism". :rolleyes:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Not really. That's a nice segway to the next topic "How ridiculous US Patent System is?" Most definitely needs a serious overhaul.

Which has nothing to do with Apple or Samsung. It is what it is, and everyone has to play by the rules.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AttachedSilver:
I hope I live long enough to see Apple die :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
The rules are what we allow them to remain. Existing patents or not, there is no grandfathering in of absurdity. Milan you can't claim the patent system needs an overhaul, but give Apple or any company that sues others into oblivion via the broken system a pass because right now the system is still in place. The jury wasn't obligated to ignore the validity of the patents. It was perfectly within their rights to overturn any of the patents involved in the case. Judges overturn patents all the time. We are constantly adjusting the law to better fit the world.

I suggest you read the juror's own testimony if you haven't already. Every interview they give reeks of shirked duty.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] chrisnosleep:
Listen big fella, I can tell by all your posts you must really think you know your ****. Well, I'm here to tell you, you don't know ****. I'm not sure when you or the rest of you iFans started following technology, but its pretty clear to me that it wasn't that long ago. Instead of continuing to embarrass yourselves, do a little research before posting any more of this gibberish.

Besides all the other ideas that you should be able to overrule for yourselves, if you do some research of the smartphone industry, the packaging is one that keeps coming up. Let me assure you, every Palm and Windows Smartphone that I owned pre-iphone came packaged nearly identically to how the iphone and Samsung products have been. Not to mention, its a ****ing box!

Yes, I know, you're going to argue, "but Chris, that jury decided and thats the way it is." Well just ask yourselves, how would you vote if someone came to your home town or alma-mater, cried foul and expected you to dish out your victory cup that you'd been trying to achieve for nearly 30 years, and said to give it back? My point here is that there was simply no way to have a fair trial anywhere near that city or state for that matter.

Another interesting point: Why didn't Apple sue the company's that really are copying their product and making the exact replica of the iphone? In my opinion, thats the ONLY companies that should be fit to be sued on such matters. Who gives a **** if some moron picks up two phones and can't distinguish between the two? Thats just it, they're moron's to technology. Take that same moron to technology, sit them down in front of an Apple computer and a PC, and they're going to make the same ignorant conclusion. They won't be able to tell the difference. Same as people going to foreign lands, looking out amongst a crowd and thinking how everyone looks the same. Those people don't think they look the same, just the moron trying to make the generalization.

Lastly, can a mod close this thread, this is going to lead to no good at this rate.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] RootedUser:
+1

---------- Post added at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 AM ----------

+1
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] FirePheonex:
What about we wait for apple to add a 3D feature to i**** and be considered a new and innovative design,

The iPod Classic 180 GB,worst buy i ever had,that crap lasted for 2 months and died of a faulty hard drive.

hmmm i can already smell Nokia suing every phone ever that included a SMS option lolol
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] chrisnosleep:
And another thing about this case that doesn't hold water, every cell phone carrier has a return period of at least a week. So the moron who bought a superior device(Samsung), but really wanted a iJunk(crApple), should have had ample time to return and/or exchange the product.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Umm carriers will go with the product that makes them the most money. Since Samsung's been able to roll with infringing Apple patents for years and never paid for it, carriers will roll with it as long as they can make their revenue goals. Not to mention that only ONE carrier had an iPhone for almost 4 years, so your post really doesn't hold water my man.

The only solution is to completely overhaul our federal patent rules and requirements, and revise Apple's broad patents.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

Can we please avoid name calling? Why flaming? Let's be civilized here. http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1822819
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] pdubya:
Its just not good all the way around. In the end the consumer is the one going to get the shaft with a lesser product that cost more. However, it might all come out in the wash if Samsung wins cases in other countries.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] OmidoStyle:
A rectangle with rounded edges.. what a joke.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] grin0048:
I think maybe there's a little more to the case than you suggest.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] roflonmywaffle:
I'm sorry but this is what slows the progression of innovation in technology. It is quite sad trhat this is what Apple has been spending money on. If big tech companies wouldn't waste time like this they could be more devoted to something that the world can benefit. It's not all about who brings in so much money, but about how they influenced the world. Apple has indeed done that, but they will not reign forever. They cannot rule the world. Someone will one day outdo them, and that should be seen as a sign as progress. We all know this move by Apple shows desperation and greed for cntrol of the tech industry. Too many people have been sucked into the Apple dillusion that they think Apple invented the damn world.I am too drunk to contionue on, but we all feel the same way I hope.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
There is, but that doesn't negate the fact they were granted permission for "a rectangular phone with equally rounded edges"... go into photoshop or any photo editing program for that matter, and try and draw a rounded rectangle. They will ALL have equally rounded edges, it's a joke really.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] MunkinDrunky:
Whats most unnerving is the futility of the argument- the argument based on the question: when are ones boundaries actually infringed upon? I'd be very wary when companies think they can control such broad definitions of creativity. Vagueness its the true culprit at work. Maybe Apple loves to un-rightfully dominate some innovations that in their essence are not anyones to own. Maybe Samsung acted out of such vagaries. I bet if this trial were to be repeated a billion times over (not in this universe) Samsung would win 50% and Apple would win 50% of the time. Really we all just loose.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] buhohitr:
The best solution would be limited the patent to max 1-2 years, enough for the inventors to make money. After 2 years, anyone can duplicate the technology. This way, the inventors will make money (if the original stills superior over the replica then the inventors will continue to make money) and the consumers will have more choices. Just my 2 cent opinion.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
I think one of the big issues is the fact that these aren't so much patents, but copyrights "or at least the should be" Patents were really supposed to be for new inventions, physically, tangible products, not ideas, designs and concepts, that's what copyrights were for.

The other issue is in the fact that technically according to the patent system, all it takes is the smallest little tweak and it's a whole new product. This is why intellectual property should not be patented. The idea of "Bounce back" "Slide to unlock" etc are no longer a violation of the patent unless they are exact duplicated, but the idea of a patent should have been on a phone, and then if you change the physical design and function of the phone enough that it is unrecognizable, it is now an entirely different product.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
If Monsanto can patent pretty much any agricultural seeds on any plant, why does it make you think that Apple wasn't gonna be able to patent touch screen gestures?

The US patent law has been broken for quite some time, no need to get angry at Apple over that. They're simply playing by the rules, and Samsung is blatantly breaking the law. We shouldn't be wasting our time on what should or shouldn't be patented, it is what it is.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
That right there... can you imagine if blacks, or women said the same thing about voting rights? "Meh, it is what it is". That is the exact reason people should begin to speak out, point out what's wrong in order to constructively critique the system in order to make change and make it better.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Start that thought with the likes of Monsanto with seed patents (basically holding a monopoly on what kind (their own) of corn is allowed to be planted), carry away with huge pharmaceutical conglomerates, and end with massive Oil companies. Ask yourself why no one was allowed to succesfully fixed those issues. Those've been the ongoing issues for DECADES.

THAT RIGHT THERE has to change. Apple's patents are way less important to humanity.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Raegx:
This Apple vs Samsung is pretty interesting. On the industry side we have the fact that Apple won in a situation where they probably shouldn't have. However we also have Apple publicly stating that Samsung produces a similar product with specific design features. While I know most of us who care about the industry know that that is a pretty puffy statement; consider what a layman is going to hear. They won't understand the full context or even the true meaning of it, they will get a tl;dr that roughly translate to "Apple == Samsung".
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
I'm not trying to say that this is the deciding factor, and that we've all been holding back to change the system until now, I'm just saying this is one more demonstration of the corrupt system among many. One of the big differences this time is the amount of publicity this is getting, but yes, there are obviously more important matters than Apple vs Sammy.