Slashdot Mirror
In Wake of Samsung Verdict, HTC Does Not Intend To Settle
Taco Cowboy writes "The recent lost by Samsung in a court battle against Apple apparently does not put a dent to other parties determination to fight Apple, inside and outside of the court system HTC's Chairperson, Ms. Cher Wang, has publicly re-iterated her belief that the $1 billion jury verdict against Samsung in the U.S. 'does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem.'"
...it wasn't just the shape of the tablet/phone it was about the overall deliberate copying that Samsung did. The biggest point was that Samsung had internally distributed documents comparing the Galaxy S III to the iPhone 4s, and said documents stated that their device needed to perform more like the iPhone.
"Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges"
OK I expect this from an Android fan forum, but I expect more out of Slashdot.
Apple has a trade dress patent. There are around 10 individual characteristics that make up the image of an iPhone. This includes rounded corners, grid of icons that can be swiped, lower set of icons that are static, edge to edge glass, black or white with chrome borders, etc.
Apple does not own a patent over any of the individual characteristics. To say they do is flat out ignorant. To violate trade dress, you need to copy all or almost all of the individual characteristics. Simply having rounded corners is not something that Apple has an exclusive license on.
I worked in the Semiconductor industry from the mid 70's up to around 2003. In the startup phase all startups were sued by the big guns but there was always a method to the madness. You don't sue a company that has no money unless it is defensive. They would all sit back and wait until you started to get successful. They the suits come in and throw a stack of patents 3' high on the table and say "Today we are running a special, we want 1% per foot on your revenue or we will litigate each and every one of these along with a few hundred more we did not bring today and if you settle right now we will throw in a set of Ginsu Knives" Both companies end up settling for something and a cross license deal and life goes on. It is what it is. A lot of the patents are so basic you could not make a chip without violating them. TI has one around injection molded packages that you could not make a plastic package without violation. It's probably expired by now but I'm sure they have "refreshed" it 10 times over.
"TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport?
Well, it was during the time that the PowerPC was better (by which I assume you mean faster) than Intel. Its architecture was always superior to the x86. That was most of the 90s. It was only after Motorola took it over, repositioned it and stopped trying to keep up that Intel's performance overtook it again with new architectures and technologies. Apple just did the pragmatic thing (unthinkable to some) to keep their products competitive.
Have you read the D504889 patent?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I realise your comment is limited, and I haven't read the whole claim, but doesn't the claim to any number of design choices sound ridiculous to you?
Apple owns the identity of the iPhone. You can articulate this identity by detailing a list of specific hardware and software choices that make the iPhone unique. Almost all smartphones are rectangular with rounded corners - and this by itself is completely innocent. Samsung made dozens of purposeful and willful choices to create a product that mimicked the iPhone in almost every way possible. This is not ridiculous whatsoever, and an entire jury agreed.
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg
This blatant copying should not be allowed.
Tesla innovated just fine. He died crazy and poor while lesser men made themselves the gatekeepers to his creations and robbed the masses blind, sure... but he still innovated. Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really... but the principle is the same.
Just because you're a slave doesn't mean you can't work.
Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.
Slave?? Tesla was issued at least 278 patents internationally, wikipedia has a list of his American patents. Westinghouse for example licensed Tesla's patents for large sums of money so Tesla was an 'evil IP monopolizer' or 'gatekeeper' as you put it. Also keep in mind that patent trolling was a problem in Tesla's day just like it is today so it's not exactly as if the late 19th and early 20th centuries were some sort of patent lawsuit free golden age of innovation.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow