yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Exactly. If you didn't actually invent it, you shouldn't be able to patent it. You can invent a new take on an old idea, but one shouldn't be able to patent the entire idea itself.

Innovation would suck if all through the last century into this, huge monopolies had bought up patents on basic ideas and abused the system to stifle their rivals. If personal computers had even been developed, they'd probably still cost $10,000 and lots of scraping and bowing to IBM.

The core problem here as it relates to Apple, is that even though they make some awesome and innovative products, they've looked ahead to their own future. Their core business model, relies heavily on illusion, and illusions can't hold forever. The idea that a single company and its ideas will always be superior to countless competitors with endless ideas... it's a farce. It will run its inevitable course. I'm not saying Apple will die, just there will come a time when they're not seen as so damn "special", and just another big conglomerate, like Sony, even Samsung. And like those, they'll have to work with other companies in order to stay relevant, not pretend to invent everything out of virgin cloth.

Sure, Apple have their rabid fans that will never give up the 'lone wolf' illusion, but all companies need to grow, so that won't hold forever.

Apple knows this- so they've embarked on the path to try and patent-abuse their way out, and stifle their competition as much as they can and buy themselves more time. Like most things they embark on -love 'em or hate 'em- they're doing it damned well.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] chrisnosleep:
Those patents cover exact replicas of the product. They should be treated the same as in this case. The problem is with self proclaimed experts, like yourself, who claim that since Samsung phones are similar then they are replicas. Please learn the difference between similar and same.

Edited: Quoted reference didn't attach correctly...

Sent from my US Cellular SCH-R530U.

Know what the "i" in all of Apple's products stands for? Idiot.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] grin0048:
The patents being fought over are for particular elements of the phones (whether reasonably defined or not), not for the phones in their entirety--the fact that they're not exact replicas is irrelevant.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] wiz4769:
It will not matter in the end, this will be played up for a while and go away, you watch, it will be reversed and not 1 phone will be banned. Worse case is they lower the amount to be fined and the end....

Apple 100% steals ideas, just like everyone else, puts just a tiny spin on it and it gets an i in front of it...one of the only differences is that Apple just buys the item or idea right out and says they created it, others just borrow the idea and form it to their own name. I guess money can buy you happiness. They are scared, literally for their existence, Steve only left them enough to continue for a short time, once his little notebook of secrets is used up, its over for them and they know this, so they are trying with all the cash they have now while they got the chance or they will be history, but hey they can say "remember when we were awesome and changed the phone, I miss those days"

I will concede that Apple did change the phone/PDA world by making it "cool" but then if just the idea was the start of it all, Palm would be owning this realm as they were the ones that started the whole idea to begin with, but we know how that ended...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] redhawk668:
I'd like to put it this way, if Ford had the same attitude towards competitors like Apple now, we would still be driving T-Ford's! This bullsh*****t is seriously crippling innovation. This has to stop....

End of my rant, but that's just me...:)

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Desire HD met Tapatalk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
I look forward to the day when Apple releases its latest product, and there's no line around the block to get it. No mass hysteria. No fawning worldwide media acting like they just landed a man on mars. Just the same reaction as every other company that puts out a product. Some people going, "Huh. That looks interesting." And a lot of others going, "Ho hum."

It'll be better for the whole industry. In the long term, it'll actually be better for Apple as well. They will have to compete based on ACTUAL innovations once again, not just mass hysteria and hype. They may even be pushed to put out products and updates in a timely fashion, not just sit back with the same Mac Pro for, what is it, two years now? Or a new phone design every two years.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Nothing "expert-like" is needed for any person with average IQ to distinguish differences between replicas phones (not even mentioned in a lawsuit) and the

exact software features

of the phone being ripped off. C'mon man, you can do this.

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

How is protecting your intellectual property from being ripped off crippling the innovation? Which innovation exactly are we exactly talking about? The one that was introduced in 2007?

It's the US patent system that needs serious overhaul.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ngocdao:
I gotta give it to Apple... everything from marketing strategies to sue jobs, they sure do plot them meticulously and execute them as planned.

Like being haunted by an evil geek you bullied in grade school.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
There is a difference between "playing by the rules" and abusing a system THEY damn well know is busted. Its a little thing called ethics so excuse me for being mad at Apple even if you think it's OK because "they are playing by the rules".

You apparently have the same values and morals as they do.

Apple may really want to reconsider their stance because in all the reading and comments I've seen I have not seen one person say I'll never buy Samsung again, a lot are saying just the opposite.

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Well no problem then lets just let Apple slide? LOL seriously?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] cadams122593:
Remember apple IS the richest company in the world. Something like 200+ billion dollars or something retarded like that

. Hahah Samsung is still a better company in my eyes. Apple just has marketing down to an effing rocket science.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
It's amazing how much of a varied product line Samsung has than Apple. Samsung releases a great device- you don't see lines of groupies camped out overnight to get it. Apple releases *anything* and you see that.

It's been funny to me to watch the Apple camp go from "Apple is the underdog against the big guys like IBM and Dell and Microsoft! I love em because they're the underdog!" to: "I love Apple because they're the biggest company in the world!"

Eventually, a newer generation of consumers will be far less biased toward "the biggest company in the world". Apple will release stuff and most people will just yawn except their older diehard fans. They know the day is coming. Not anytime too soon, don't get me wrong, but eventually.

Without their near-fanatical fanbase doing a lot of their image work for them, and their playing field leveled to the same one that the actual big guys like Samsung are playing in, they just really aren't anything all that special. All they'll really have is their ability to litigate to try and stop others from wiping the floor with them on a level playing field.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
My ethics are not infringing the law rather than stealing the ideas, getting raped in court, then cry about Apple "crippling the innovation"... Innovation of the patents borrowed from Apple's 2007 unit.

And I have a problem with overall patent system, not trying to give Apple a pass, but pointing out that there are companies patenting stuff that the entire humanity or at least USA is suffering from and our governing body is not bother to do anything about. Apple is nothing compared to that.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
You're not trying to give Apple as pass... even as you give them a pass by citing the ol' "B-but other companies did it too...!" excuse.

So what company right now is tying up the courts in high profile cases to block other companies' products, citing overly-broad patents they own to do so? Is Kelloggs suing Post over "round flakes made of corn or rice eaten with milk"? Is Panasonic in court to keep JVC from using their patented "Button push on remote unit to fast forward or rewind media disk"? Who's the judge in that case again? Did Ford sue everyone else yet for their infamous "Key-code to unlock car door" patent?

Where are all these cases?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] chrisnosleep:
Mod's, can we please get rid of the above troll? He's not adding anything to the discussion and his comparisons have about as much to do with the topic as the price of eggs in China. He's stated his point of view multiple times and now he's going off on wild tangents. I notice the topic has been added to, come to read the thread, and every time I see more of his gibberish.

Sent from my US Cellular SCH-R530U.

Know what the "i" in all of Apple's products stands for? Idiot.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Wait a second... So we are only allowed to share your point of view, while at the same allowing you to flame and name call others, right?

And when you start running out of ideas, and have nothing valid to say, you start crying and call for mods. Really, how is your behavior any different than Apple's in Samsung trial?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jury-foreman-discusses-apple-samsung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA.html

So Jury foreman says that "Android did not infringe [on utility patents like pinch/tap to zoom] but Samsung did."

How the H can that possibly be? Or is it complete rubbish?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
Milan, I want you on record. You seem to walk this very shaky line of logic that has you readily admitting to the inexcusable flaws of the patent system, but at the same time defend Apple's right to protect their property through the protections granted to them by that busted system. You can't have it both ways. Part of this jury's duty was to examine the validity of the patents in question. They weren't told to tunnel vision their attention to whether or not Samsung improperly has features Apple received a patent for. Is the collective opinion of a random sampling of individuals who may or may not posses even rudimentary knowledge of technology, enough to answer whether or not your admitted issues with the patent system apply to Apple v. Samsung?

So which is it? Do you endorse the current state of the patent system, or do you concede that the outputs of a broken system are suspect to all sorts of mistakes?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
-As I said before and kept repeating myself, it's the patent system that's completely busted and that shouldn't allow broad patents like rectangular edges, etc. But since that patent has been approved even though I don't agree with it, no matter how retarded it is, OEM's should either talk to patent holder prior to releasing the competing product, or fight it in court prior the launch.

-For three software patents challenged in court, bounce-back is something Samsung really didn't have to copy. There are tons of other solutions (ICS,JB AOSP), but they went out of their way to implement it. That's infringing intellectual property.

-For pinch-to-zoom and double-tap-to-zoom it's hard to figure out who actually invented the gesture, but Apple certainly has the copyrights on it, and there should've been cross-licence happening (what Microsoft did) since to me it looks like it's an essential UI patent. But again, the question is why no one used or implemented pinch to zoom on touch screen smartphones before Apple back in 2007.

And now that we've learned that there have been talks as early as 2010, where Apple offered Samsung licenses for the UI patents and they declined, along with Google's warning to Samsung of their TouchWiz looking too similar to iOS. Knowing all that tells me that Samsung willingly and knowingly tried to test the Patent System/law as long as they possible could, which in their favor gave them a huge market share boost, and single handedly destroyed the entire Android competition.

I also mentioned several huge conglomerates patenting unthinkable and rolling with it for decades. There are tons of examples of patent system being busted and yet nothing has been done to reverse those patents or to preventing corn seeds, or rectangular edges from being patented ever again. I'm pretty sure Apple has their own reasons (learnt it hard way) for applying for patents on virtually everything (Lost patent lawsuit to Microsoft in the 80's and 90's).

Now I love my S3 but i'm much happier with pure Android like CM10 loaded on it than TouchWiz for obvious reasons. :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] noingwhat:
Kinda funny how you say Samsung "stole" the ideas but Apple simply "borrowed" them. :rolleyes:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
They have the lawfully acquired patents and that's where the differences are. Didn't Sammy steal/borrowed bounce-back patent without acknowledging and made billions by doing so?

All Apple is doing is forcing samsung to innovate not replicate. So if anything, we the consumers are in good shape.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
I don't believe Samsung thought that the rectangle patent, broad as it looks, would be enforced in a way that completely ignored differences in material, thickness, external markings, logos, etc. Samsung, and every other creator of a tablet since the iPad, didn't believe it would be so broad as to allow basic shape to trump every other distinguishable cosmetic feature. Is it a coincidence that not a single other manufacturer believed it would?

I believe there are prior examples of use for all of these. That being said, this is where Samsung has the weakest defense, especially in the bounce-back. Like you said, it's a completely arbitrary feature that isn't essential to anything. Do you think that the courts made a mistake distinguishing cellphones from computers to the point where they don't treat a finger like a mouse? Double click to zoom has been around on computers for a long time. Software is software.

I agree that Samsung could have avoided some of the less defensible elements of TouchWiz. But a lot of the patents Apple sued Samsung over would technically apply to any OEM that makes a modern smartphone or tablet. Which brings us back to the issues with many of these patents in the first place. To quote this guy:

"That's a problem because 'innovation is incremental; every new step forward always builds on a long chain of prior innovations.' If any one link in the chain is allowed to block all future enhancements, then innovation stops."

At the risk of appearing lazy, I don't want to get into a discussion about how many unthinkable patents have been allowed/held up in court. It would take way too much time to look up and find a good sample of cases. Needless to say, "well Johnny did it!" isn't exactly a good excuse in my book :) Though it does take away from some of the hyperbole associated with Apple suing over bull**** patents.

Right there with you. Pure Android is fantastic.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

I think it's unfair to say Samsung made its money because of imitating a bounce-back animation. Most people NEVER would've listed that as an even memorable feature on their phone. The biggest contributor to Samsung's success (ironically enough) was Apple. Apple signing an exclusivity contract with ATT and other carriers overseas allowed Samsung to eventually gain a large market share. It's a huge leap of logic to just assume Samsung was successful because of the few software/design features that are in question here.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
I'm pretty much in agreement with you 100% From a consumer standpoint, and for the sake of innovation, I truly hope that there will be some cross-licensing agreement where every OEM will have any desired UI feature available to them, for a small fee or not. I think that transparency between the OEMs has to happen asap as that appears to be the missing link.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
Agreed, and thank you for the quoting courtesy.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
That's where the trade dress part of the lawsuit come into play. It's also the "overall look and feel" that was involved with cartoonish looking icons (which you can't and shouldnt patent), to the overall packaging experience, charger, etc... It's all the other things that kinda rolled with Samsung's phones back in 2010-2011. So since Apple couldn't really sue them for the obvious reasons, they went after the patents. The trade dress and those internal documents killed Samsung. But yeah, the fact that Apple had only AT&T definitely helped many OEM's that were struggling, like Motorola that was just about to file for bankruptcy. Android basically saved the OEMs along with iPhone-AT&T exclusivity.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

Done. Happens to me all the time lol :good:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ooofest:
Analysis: Samsung "Copies" Apple's Launcher? A Dubious Claim at Best

By Jason Mick

It's just one of various problems that seem associated with this highly broad-brushed approach the jury apparently took in their rather sizeable task. 3 days for 600 challenges? Someone in that jury room led them on a serious shortcut based on rather grand assumptions of guilt riding above the specifics, IMHO.

- ooofest
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
I don't even know what you are getting at here other than we should forget this Apple vs Samsung thing since there are bigger problems in the world?? Is that all you have now? I don't know about you but I can concern myself with more than one problem in the world at once and don't' have to forget all the others. I wonder if you would be singing the same iTune if Samsung had won?

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

What I find funny is that anyone thinks "bounce back" sells phones.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

Finally something we can agree on! :)

I'm not sure he ran out of ideas though but you seem to have with your "there are bigger problems in the world " direction you are now trying to take. At least you aren't calling for the thread to be locked. so +1 for taking all the heat and being very civilized about it.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Just for the record, this isn't the first lawsuit where patents in question are too broad. Just wanted to point that fact out. Didn't want people to think this lawsuit is a precedent of some kind. Yeah it's clear that some patents are rediculously broad, but this isn't the first case of rediculousness.

About the bounce-back... We all know that Samsung copies everything from Apple, icons, packaging, charger, now even the retail stores. But Apple couldn't sue them really by just saying "look it's obvious" So they went for patents, and the most obvious is bounce back. What sells phones is the entire experience, and Sammy phones between 2010-2011 smell like Apple from miles away.

I'm always up for constructed, civilized discussion :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] elliott35:
Ford didn't create the automobile.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
I hope Apple never builds a car.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] got556:
And now when the iPhone releases Sammy is saying they will sue apple for their use of LTE lol
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
I'm curious to see how's that gonna work out for Samsung. Not sure which patents they own, but if Apple goes with Qualcomm for cellular baseband provider (MDM9615), I'm pretty sure Qualcomm takes care of LTE connectivity cross-licensing before they offer their baseband chipsets to their customers. Maybe there is something w're not aware of...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] got556:
I'm trying to figure it out also. Saw it on droid-life but didn't read the comments. Maybe someone chimed in on exactly what grounds Samsung stands on.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ngocdao:
Whatever LTE radio is in the iPad
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
It's Qualcomm's first gen 45nm MDM9600. Same radio that's in HTC Thunderbolt, HTC Rezound, and handful of other LTE devices.

As far as I understand, Samsung's patents are FRAND which requires fair use. Samsung owns 8 LTE patents. We shouldn't forget that Apple bought Nortel that owns 7 essential LTE patents, also falls under fair use. I'm pretty sure that Samsung would most likely lose more than gain from a possible LTE patent related lawsuit.
[Atrix 4G General] upndwn4par:
Fudge! H8 Apple!

http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
[Atrix 4G General] tatperson:
BOYCOTT APPLE PRODUCTS!

But seriously, if something happens to Samsung, it will be a huge blow to Android. Seeing the popularity of the Galaxy series. In Singapore, the other non-Apple manufacturer that is popular among everyone is Samsung. Motorola is like nonexistent over here. Hardly anyone has one.

Sent from that Atrix.
[Atrix 4G General] DroidRunner:
Glad to see this tying up the courts while rapists and molesters await trial. Good job judicial system.
[Atrix 4G General] Jotokun:
Samsung will appeal. And hopefully when they do, they'll get proper justice.

At the very least, their tablets not infringing says that Apple does not own the rectangle.
[Atrix 4G General] DroidRunner:
I mean, if Apple did gobble up the patents on all that crap, then there really isn't much Samsung can do. As stupid as it is though, because it really is stupid.
[Atrix 4G General] eddhard:
Just wait for the out come of apple v Google. Google now own the patents for most of apples wireless communication and video playback.

This is almost as entertaining as the trash talk on american wrestling.
[Atrix 4G General] aaron.a:
Google vs Apple live action full feature... NAO!,
[Atrix 4G General] waiters:
Samsung is In an impossible position to ever win in the United States...

So yes. Hopefully Google can take over

---------- Post added at 02:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------

More surprisingly the jury found Samsung guilty of infringing Apple's U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677 and D593,087, which Apple's attorney's argued in testimony give it exclusive rights to produce rectangular smartphones with rounded edges.

Does that mean every smartphone will be banned?? I like my sgs3 and not sure how I'd feel about a sgs4 that was a square with sharp edges..
[Atrix 4G General] tatperson:
The Galaxy S3 isn't exactly a rectangle (it looks more like a pebble), so I think you're safe :) and if the GS4 does have sharp edges, I imagine it would look like the Sony Xperia Ion or the Nokia Lumia 900...

Sent from that Atrix.
[Atrix 4G General] windozeanti:
I have a feeling that Samsung is a S.Korean company, so they are fighting a loosing battle since day one. :(
[Atrix 4G General] ccrows:
*Sigh* Oh the Clone Wars, ummm i mean Patent Wars.

Oh well that's alright, wait for Googorola vs Apple. I'm looking forward to that Cage Match.

Whether it's the 80's/90's or today, Apple is always in the middle of this type of Drama. Sure they can innovative, but they also have the knack for pissing even more people off. What's old is new again with them...
[Atrix 4G General] upndwn4par:
This verdict (and possible future verdicts against Google) isn't the doom and gloom the media is making it out to be. Worst case scenario is slightly more expensive Android devices because Apple will be forced to license under FRAND. Still sucks though.