Apple Wins Again — ITC Rules They Didn't Violate Samsung Patents

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wins Again — ITC Rules They Didn't Violate Samsung Patents

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 15, 2012 @01:27AM from the mercy-rule-goes-into-effect-soon dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A preliminary ruling from the International Trade Commission found that Apple did not violate four of Samsung's patents in the design of the iPhone. 'The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.' The complaint was filed by Samsung in 2011, and a final confirmation is due next January. Apple has similar claims against Samsung awaiting ITC judgment; the preliminary ruling is expected in mid-October."

149 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by DevIA · 2012-09-15 01:27 · Score: -1, Troll

I think we can all agree that Apple is an innovative company. It's sad to see Google trying to destroy Apple with proxy companies like Samsung. We all know Google is jealous of iOS. They want Android to be as good as iOS but it never will be because they use Java while iOS is objective-c based.

I just hope Google would stop these stupid patent wars.
1. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 01:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Wow, just wow. This level of being deluded is on level with someone who is indoctrinated by a religion.
  I guess I won't even bother trying to put holes in your arguments because they kind of speak for themselves.
2. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Dupple · 2012-09-15 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Check his post history. Single comment from a first time poster. A flame baiting troll if ever there was one
  
  --
  Watch those corners
3. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Haxagon · 2012-09-15 01:36 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Funny how Slashdot as a whole can immediately recognize this crap as trolling, but falls for the first-post MS messages every single time.
4. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  More like: DevIA actually doesn't like Apple, but knows how to troll and bring out the breathless Slashdot nerd rage posts.
5. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-15 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that God is just a representation of human weakness/suffering.
  The sort of character which would otherwise go to Church every Sunday can manifest itself in other ways.
6. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  Ditto......Samsung and others are just trying to be patent trolls to defend themselves from copying. They need to go do their own R&D and come out with original products and keep innovation alive instead of copying Apple and playing follow the leader or building off of what they have set in place.
7. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-15 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is cowardly to set up an account just to troll. A good troll does not fear alternating between insight and subtle nonsense using the same account.
8. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Nerdfest · 2012-09-15 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's harder with the MS posts, as there are three likely possibilites. There is the possibility of paid shill, troll, or in some circumstances, true fanboy. With Apple posts, I think the rate of paid shill is extremely low, if at all, but you could never tell the difference between paid shill and fanboy anyway. Same sort of problem with trolls ... some people actually believe the same statements a troll would make. It's getting hard to tell who's who around here.
9. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by tsa · 2012-09-15 02:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Funny how Slashdot as a whole can miss sarcasm even if it slaps them in the face, hard.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
10. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by youn · 2012-09-15 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Woosh! that was supposed to be (and is) funny :)
  
  --
  Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
11. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  It's too close to what actual rabid fans spout to be funny. You can also freely swap the company names and get to the other end of spectrum.
  In other words, it's not outrageous enough to be clearly sarcastic - not that I believe that being sarcastic was the reason to get a new account and first minute first post here.
12. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:01 · Score: -1
  
  Nope. Apple is a cunt. Everyone who buys apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.
13. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-15 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Like Dr. Bob!
  I miss him so....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Type44Q · 2012-09-15 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's getting hard to tell who's who around here.
  Hi,nice to meet you. I'm neither a shill nor a fanboy. I'm an ass - I don't expect you'll have any difficulty trouble telling me apart from the others. ;)
15. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Type44Q · 2012-09-15 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I also don't know how to check for typos...
16. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's too close to what in my whiny Slashdot nerd imagination rabid fans spout to be funny.
  FTFY
17. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I tend to think many of these trolls are in fact Android fanboi's hoping to get exactly the response that the second poster did, or possibly just a true troll hoping to stir up a flame war.
18. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Check his post history. Single comment from a first time poster. A flame baiting troll if ever there was one
  Poe's Law, man. This is Apple we're talking about, after all. Steve's acolytes aren't known for being sensible or subtle in the first place...
19. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by fast+turtle · 2012-09-15 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nice to meet you Type44Q. I'm a Fast Turtle and I never check for typo's. See I'm always tryen to get a frst prose
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
20. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by thetoadwarrior · 2012-09-15 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget they stole Java from oracle. This is no surprise given the fact the founders are communists one of which coming from the heart of the USSR. They're savages that just don't know how to live in an respectable society.
21. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  You know, of course, that that person was actually Grub. Check Grub's history from around that time, he made a post and signed off Dr Bob, and then admitted the whole thing when it was pointed out.
  (Unless I'm thinking of someone else, and not Dr Bob, but it is certainly the case that Grub is a troll.)
22. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-15 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us also don't really mind microsoft, and actually like some of their stuff. I do like their dev tools myself. But atm MS's biggest positive feature is that it's not Apple.
23. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? Nobody has slapped me in the face.
24. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A good troll has several accounts set up just to troll, but he actually re-uses them, and each of those has a distinct and well-developed personality, complete with a posting history going back years, that makes him look genuine even after an in-depth check. This allows for truly masterful trolling, such as having those separate accounts actually argue between themselves, calling each other shills etc, lamenting about the sorry state of Slashdot groupthink moderation, and so on. If you pick your topics right (e.g. Apple vs Google), you can get a string of +5, Insightful posts that way for both accounts, and spawn a 100+ comment follow-up thread from all sorts of folks. It's hilarious.
  Ahem. Not that I'd personally know that. Just people sayin'
25. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by SecularPenguinist · 2012-09-15 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Apple abuses the patent system, Google does not.
26. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by Dr+Max · 2012-09-15 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  We can't all agree apple is innovative. It's not even something that is upheld around apple, http://news.yahoo.com/former-apple-exec-apple-haven-t-invented-anything-151548130.html It's just something for fanboys to latch on to, so they feel like they are on the cutting edge of tech. Being successful and innovative are not necessarily linked at all.
  
  --
  Rocket Surgeon.
27. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by dontclapthrowmoney · 2012-09-15 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Apple is a cunt. Everyone who buys apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.
  Nice to see another Australian in here?
28. Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab by shentino · 2012-09-16 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  If apple is so good than it can win in the market instead of hitting below the belt by suing where it cannot compete.
Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 01:44 · Score: 0

HATE! HATE! HATE!
Software patents are evil!!!
But HATE! HATE! HATE!
Apple is teh evil!
What's a confused Slashdotter to think?
1. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  ...er, sorry. Delete the word "Software" from above. These aren't software patents. I WUZ BLINDED BY TEH HATE!!1!1
2. Re:Dissonance by DevIA · 2012-09-15 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  What you mean these aren't software patents. Even TFS says it's a method that verifies that user has been allowed to run the software/game, aka DRM.
3. Re:Dissonance by Nerdfest · 2012-09-15 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's easy: hate software patents for being weapons of anti-competition rather than protectors of innovation, and hate Apple for using the weapons.
4. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's easy: hate software patents for being weapons of anti-competition rather than protectors of innovation, and hate Apple for using the weapons.
  Actually they are both protection for innovators and weapons of anti-competition. Abolishing patents is a bit like tort reform has proven to be in the USA. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we abolish patents you will loose the protection that they do afford to inventors but the power or corporations to rip you off will not even be dented.
5. Re:Dissonance by Nerdfest · 2012-09-15 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hardware patents perhaps, but personally I don't think software patents have helped in any way to further innovation. They are only a weapon.
6. Re:Dissonance by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-09-15 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hardware patents perhaps, but personally I don't think software patents have helped in any way to further innovation. They are only a weapon.
  So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work? Creating algorithms is one example of a software development activity that is by far not always a trivial. I can see why granting a once-click-shopping patent or a slide-to-unlock patent is just plain dumb, I can also see why people are frustrated by big corporations patenting obvious stuff by the shipload and then using the expense of patent lawsuits as a tool to drive small competitors out of business. All of these are things that are wrong with the current system. However, I also fail to see why a guy developing hardware deserves patent protection but a guy developing software doesn't because that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
7. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  "So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection"
  We can stop right here and answer: Correct. No patent protection.
8. Re:Dissonance by TheTurtlesMoves · 2012-09-15 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
  No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
9. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  "So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection"
  We can stop right here and answer: Correct. No patent protection.
  Ok, I'll bite. People keep telling me that but nobody ever explains WHY, they just repeat the worn out old line that 'software patents should be abolished' which they regard as a self evident truth, kind of like religious fundamentalists who think quoting scripture is an unassailable counter to any argument. WHY are algorithms so obviously un-patentable? Explain yourself...
10. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Algorithms (and more generally mathematics) is not patentable anyway. And we seem to be progressing just fine.
11. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
  No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.
  Now tell us how abolishing software patents is going to change all that and bring power back to the little guy? All abolishing patents will accomplish is make it even easier for the big guys to rip you off. At least with the current system, even if you don't have the legal resources to take the big guys, you can always get lawyers to work on a percentage basis. What did Apple get out of that patent verdict against Samsung $1 billion wasn't it? If your suit had merit and you won, even if your lawyers take a 50% cut, you would still have come out a suit like that $500 million richer than when you started. Nobody says that suing a mega-corp is easy or cheap but under the current system at least you can sue.
12. Re:Dissonance by horza · 2012-09-15 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  Yes that is what everybody but yourself is saying. Algorithms, mathematical formulae, are not patentable for a very good reason. If we are not able to sell phones with rounded corners because a certain fruit has a monopoly then that sucks for consumers but the world goes on. If somebody is able to block research that will further the scientific developments of mankind then this is a bad thing.
  Software patents are recognised as wrong in every single country in the world except for the US. Algorithms as wrong the whole world over.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
13. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong question. Why should you pass laws to protect algorithms? If you can't prove the need, the default should be NO law. Just because I worked hard, is not a reason to forbid some from doing something.
14. Re:Dissonance by StripedCow · 2012-09-15 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Aha, so because patents on the one hand are causing a problem and on the other hand are solving one, you say that patents are a good idea?
  I get it.
  That's like saying shutting down democracy is a good idea for solving the global warming problem.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
15. Re:Dissonance by cbhacking · 2012-09-15 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  I don't personally support the current patent system, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious: because if you can't put restrictions on the use of the algorithm, your competitors are going to come along, and use it themselves without either incurring the R&D cost or compensating your for it. Thus they're able to offer competing products at a lower cost, making computer science R&D a counter-productive strategy to running a competitive business (i.e. stifling innovation). Patents are supposed to be the solution to this problem.
  Practically speaking, the current system is just broken. The basis of it is important, but the way it's being used is extremely harmful.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
16. Re:Dissonance by knarf · 2012-09-15 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work?
  As long as you implement your own version of that algorithm, yes. Software is protected by copyright, and that is enough. Just like it is enough for books and music.
  Please explain why software needs patent protection, and what benefits you see in providing that protection.
  
  --
  --frank[at]unternet.org
17. Re:Dissonance by tgibbs · 2012-09-15 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  We have patent laws to reward people and firms for investing time and money in developing new products, and also to reward them for making their discoveries public rather than trying to retain them as trade secrets. It is hard to see what makes software different. You can certainly get a patent for inventing a product that is assembled or built using standard components, which anybody could use to create a similar product (once they have the idea). Like hardware, software may be novel or not, obvious or not. Like hardware, software can add substantial value to an endeavor.
  So what, specifically, makes software patents different from hardware patents such that inventors should not be rewarded for their efforts?
  Or is it just that you don't like patents in general, and you see innovators in software as more vulnerable to attack?
18. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Please understand the difference between an idea and an implementation. Patents apply to ideas. Copyright applies to implementations.
  Patenting software is akin to patenting a literary theme such as 'story involving mythical creatures in a fight between good and evil". No-one else could ever write a story based on that theme.
  Copyright on software is equivalent to protecting the specifics of a story, e.g. the mythical creature is a small individual named Bilbo Baggins who lives in a small cavelike dwelling and is friends with a powerful wizard. No-one else can copy the unique story based on that specific character and his world.
  The coding of algorithms is properly protected by copyright, but there is absolutely no justification for patenting e.g. the idea of compressing data. That simply prevents others from creating improved methods of doing so.
19. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  So what you're saying is, a guy or company who secures a patent deserves the threat of violence by the government to help them secure a patent? And this is what helped drive innovation in some way since the inception of patent law? I'm sorry buddy, but this is a silly and time proven load of counter productive nonsense.
  Here, learn a thing or two about patents:
  http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
  learn how James Watt's steam engine patent held back the industrial revolution for about 30 years:
  http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal01.pdf
20. Re:Dissonance by Theaetetus · 2012-09-15 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
  No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.
  When the potential payout is huge - see the $1 billion Apple suit, or the half-billion i4i suit against Microsoft - you can find investors who are willing to help pay your legal budget in exchange for a share of the winnings.
21. Re:Dissonance by MacDork · 2012-09-15 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work?
  What "guy" are you talking about? Who does that? Software patents take years to acquire and cost $8000-$10,000 a piece. I've written many brilliant methods/functions/apps in various languages. I've been writing software for years. You know how many patents I have? Zero.
  You know how many people will use code if it is patent encumbered? Again, zero. Nobody wants that shit. It's the kiss of death. Hell, most companies won't even touch code under the GPL because it isn't "free" enough. They only want BSD, MIT, or Apache license so they can take everything, redistribute it as their own, and never give anything back. Just like Apple.
22. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  Your post is a reflection of what's wrong with the patent system. Patents on algorithms are regressive.
23. Re:Dissonance by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-15 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  "So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection"
  We can stop right here and answer: Correct. No patent protection.
  And no more GPL "violations" either. Finally software will be truly free.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
24. Re:Dissonance by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-15 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes that is what everybody but yourself is saying. Algorithms, mathematical formulae, are not patentable for a very good reason. If we are not able to sell phones with rounded corners because a certain fruit has a monopoly then that sucks for consumers but the world goes on. If somebody is able to block research that will further the scientific developments of mankind then this is a bad thing.
  Software patents are recognised as wrong in every single country in the world except for the US. Algorithms as wrong the whole world over.
  Phillip.
  Yeah, that's why Apple has won against Samsung over the "rubber-band" patent in how many countries now? Stop with that meme, it's clearly false.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
25. Re:Dissonance by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-15 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  You know how many people will use code if it is patent encumbered? Again, zero. Nobody wants that shit. It's the kiss of death. Hell, most companies won't even touch code under the GPL because it isn't "free" enough. They only want BSD, MIT, or Apache license so they can take everything, redistribute it as their own, and never give anything back. Just like Apple.
  Bwahahaha. Oh, you actually believe nobody is using MP3s and that Apple has never sold an iPhone.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
26. Re:Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  He should be compensated for his hard work, however the market should do that by giving him at least a years head start, where he can be on to his next version before the competition has replicated his old one. It's just they are using some one else's machine in a way that was dictated to them by some one else (not what they do but how they do it). It's kind of like patenting the directions to get from one location to another (no offence code monkeys) instead of building the road. If software patent licences were low enough in price and compulsory to licence then i can be all for it, because directions are very very useful.
27. Re:Dissonance by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-09-15 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Algorithms are mathematical expressions by nature, and math isn't supposed to be patentable. They are also ideas by nature, and ideas aren't supposed to be patentable either.
  The only way you can patent software, in fact, is by patenting "a machine which executes Algorithm X." Most sane people would agree that this is a pretty goofy loophole.
28. Re:Dissonance by Yoda222 · 2012-09-15 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  What if I develop the same algorithm at the same time, also spending a lot of ressources and significant amount of time, but I find it after you. Why should I not being compensated for my work ? Or worse, why sould I pay you for using what I develop ?
29. Re:Dissonance by Raumkraut · 2012-09-15 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  That only works for business which don't actually produce anything (non-practising entities, aka trolls), where the cost of losing is approximately zero. If you actually make practical use of a patent you hold, and a larger company infringes on it, the chances are that your small company infringes on FAR more of their patents than they do yours.
  The end result would be a counter-suit, and eventually one more small business filing for bankruptcy.
  Without such patents, a large company can indeed "rip off" a small one. But so can a small company "rip off" the larger one. Thereby, in theory, both companies thrive or die based on their ability to compete in the market, and not the courtroom.
  And FWIW, the $1billion (preliminary) Apple-Samsung judgement was about design patents and trade dress. Which have little to do with innovation, and everything to do with differentiation (see also: trademarks).
  For all the complaining nerds do about people confusing "Star Wars" and "Star Trek", because they're both "in space", and have "star" in their names; you would think they'd take more care not to confuse and conflate "design patents" with "utility patents", just because they're both "in court" and have "patent" in their names...
30. Re:Dissonance by Theaetetus · 2012-09-16 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  That only works for business which don't actually produce anything (non-practising entities, aka trolls), where the cost of losing is approximately zero. If you actually make practical use of a patent you hold, and a larger company infringes on it, the chances are that your small company infringes on FAR more of their patents than they do yours.
  Then you settle and take a cross-license. It's easy.
  
  And FWIW, the $1billion (preliminary) Apple-Samsung judgement was about design patents and trade dress. Which have little to do with innovation, and everything to do with differentiation (see also: trademarks).
  Trade dress is part of trademark law, but design patents are indeed patents, and require novelty and nonobviousness. Although there is significant overlap, they depart in that design patents do require innovation, while trade dress merely requires distinctiveness.
  Additionally, only about 80% (by damages) of the Apple-Samsung suit was design patents or trade dress... The remainder was on utility patents.
31. Re:Dissonance by shentino · 2012-09-16 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think those statements are actually mutually exclusive.
  Perhaps your premise that they are is faulty?
32. Re:Dissonance by shentino · 2012-09-16 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Settling and taking a cross license only works if the two companies involved are able to coexist peacefully.
  If one of them wants blood, they won't settle.
33. Re:Dissonance by chidorex · 2012-09-18 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree there should be software patents, but not on the algorithm or process itself but on the code. That is, the specific code that somebody when into a hard time to develop should be allowed to get a patent. However, I can develop a similar functionality with another completely different process and/or language, it should not be considered a patent violation. The issue here is allowing a company to patent the process itself. It is absurd. In this case, a swipe to unlock or a pinch-zoom funcionality. It is only natural to use that way. Innovative, yes. Then the company (Apple in this case) gets the benefit of selling a lot of iphones for being the first to market such a device. But this is very different that to allow a company to hold the rights to use that functionality they just came up with. The process should not be allowed a patent. I find it similar to patenting the process of utilizing a shoe sole from heel to toe, describing in detail how to do it and then patenting it. I could sue all shoe manufacturers for making people use the shoe that way. Or, if somebody patents the way to turn a wheel in a car with both hands: it would give somebody rights to every single car in the world. It is not only absurd. It is moronic.
  
  --
  "On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
Inherent bias? by MaWeiTao · 2012-09-15 01:47 · Score: 0

I'd be curious to know the details regarding this technology because it seems to me like it covers very specific functionality. I mean, how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design. It gets me wondering if judges and juries aren't approaching these cases with the preconceived notion that Apple is an "innovator" and couldn't possibly have used someone else's technology. It seems most people's sense of innovation is dictated by how nice industrial design looks and feels.
1. Re:Inherent bias? by BasilBrush · 2012-09-15 01:54 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.
  Pretty obviously because Samsung did copy from Apple. But Apple didn't copy from Samsung. Samsung's case was a meritless tit-for-tat lawsuit.
2. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:31 · Score: -1
  
  how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.
  Pretty obviously because Samsung did copy from Apple. But Apple didn't copy from Samsung. Samsung's case was a meritless tit-for-tat lawsuit.
  Spoken like a true Fanboi. Has St. Steve performed any miracles for you yet when you pray to him?
3. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:42 · Score: -1
  
  Maybe that is the key. Apples patent is easy - does it bonce back or takes an action when the list is in the end? Any dummy can understand that. Samsungs patent is much more complicated - it involves actual technology. So you have to be good technician to understand.
  Samsung loose, Apple wins. Conclusion: only patents on simple stuff pass.
4. Re:Inherent bias? by poetmatt · 2012-09-15 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  it's a preliminary ruling, it's not a final judgment in any sense. So at the moment, it means basically nothing.
5. Re:Inherent bias? by NicBenjamin · 2012-09-15 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with specific patents is they're specific. This is great for innovation, because it means that the patentor can't sue to stop competitors, but it means the patentor can't sue to stop competitors.
  As for Apple's patent's validity, you don;t have to like that design patents exist, you don't have to agree with the patent office for issuing them, but you do have to acknowledge that they DO EXIST and they HAVE BEEN ISSUED, which means they can be violated.
6. Re:Inherent bias? by beelsebob · 2012-09-15 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?
7. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Or, as Johnnie Cochran would put it: "If lists bounce, you must denounce!"
8. Re:Inherent bias? by fwoop · 2012-09-15 04:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The ITC is inherently biased for US companies when it comes to bans. A ban can be rejected if it is deemed to hurt the US economy, so there is almost no way a foreign firm can ever ban a US company's products. In fact, I am not sure this has ever been carried out.
9. Re:Inherent bias? by godawful · 2012-09-15 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  It could also be that ones dislike of Apple can make them just as deluded. I'm not saying one way or the other here, but you see a lot of posts on /. of people blindly bashing apple.. Blindly, I'm sure they don't think that's the case, but none the less, when you can't look at both sides objectively (and honestly, we never get _all_ the details), then of course it's going to seem outrageous.
  
  --
  Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
10. Re:Inherent bias? by itsdapead · 2012-09-15 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I mean, how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.
  Because some of the Apple design patents were not ambiguous and listed a sufficiently distinctive combination of features to make it clear that Samsung had copied the original iPhone design. Meanwhile, everybody seems to forget that the jury did chuck out the infringement claims in relation to the iPad and the iPhone 4.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
11. Re:Inherent bias? by gnasher719 · 2012-09-15 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?
  I think slashdot is so overrun by Google fans and Android fans that the exact opposite seems to be the case. There are lots of cases recently where people have been basly insulted for nothing but the crime of uttering an opinion favoring Apple.
12. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 06:48 · Score: -1
  
  Still waiting on Gene Roddenbury to step up and sue Apple for everything he can get for stealing his designs from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
  Sorry, but Apple shouldn't be able to sue for the way something looks when they stole the design themselves. Also, how can they get away with suing on an look but avoid getting sued on how something works when they are notorious for ignoring royalties on patents on just such issues.
  Me thinks that Apply has too many fanboys in the courts letting their personal feelings interfere with their jobs.
13. Re:Inherent bias? by beelsebob · 2012-09-15 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well quite –that's exactly the point I was trying to make, that it's not the courts with the "inherent bias", it's the population of slashdot, with an enormous pro-android bias.
14. Re:Inherent bias? by micheas · 2012-09-15 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  The jury somehow concluded that a clunky phone with a keyboard violated Apple's design patent while the Galaxy Tab that is a dead ringer for the iPad and is almost indistinguishable from an at 20 feet away did not.
  The jury's verdict didn't make much sense, they decided all the border line stuff in Apple's favor, and the stuff that Apple should win on unless the patents were declared invalid Samsung won. The jury decided to give Apple a little over a billion dollars and then spread the money over the claims. My calculations are that the verdict probably should have been about 1.4 billion, if they believed what my best guess is that they believed. However, if they didn't think the galaxy tab infringed, then I don't see how they came up with damages over 20 million. Just a crazy verdict.
  
  --
  Work bio at MMWD
15. Re:Inherent bias? by toriver · 2012-09-15 09:55 · Score: 2
  
  Well, given that you misspelled his name and he has been dead for 20 years now...
  
  notorious for ignoring royalties on patents
  Only in your dreams, unless you can cough up some references.
  "Fanboys in the courts"... seriously? Are Apple the new Jewish Cabal or something?
16. Re:Inherent bias? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-15 12:12 · Score: 2
  
  Patentor is not meant to be able to stop competitors completely. He should only be able to stop competitors from using his genuine inventions, prompting them to seek other solutions. When a patent is overly broad, and, in effect, applies to the idea and all possible or practical implementations of it, it doesn't do anything to promote innovation, so all that remains is the anti-competitive aspect. In other words, the bad without the good.
17. Re:Inherent bias? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-15 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  What's funny about Slashdot is that every single group hereabouts thinks that Slashdot is biased against them. Pick pretty much any topic and any side in it, and you can find a post where someone's complaining about how they're being downmodded etc because they're going against groupthink. For Google/Apple in particular, there are ample examples of people complaining about both pro-Google and pro-Apple bias.
18. Re:Inherent bias? by rtb61 · 2012-09-16 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the most appropriate response here is that, yes slashdot is, 'er' 'overrun' by computer geeks and nerds for whom 'Apple' have very little appeal being under specced over-marketed fashion statements. It's just the way computer geeks and nerds roll, get over it Apple marketdroid, overrun indeed, pfft. Of course blatant marketing biased 'opinions' will be always be targeted and not so much for the content of the opinion but to prevent the forum being flooded with those advertisements 'er' 'opinions' (it's a defence measure).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
19. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-16 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  So, after being through WW I, WW II and Cold War, we are back on square one? Protect and push "your own" industrialists, kill foreign competition... What should Samsung do now, shut down its complete US operations and let all their US employees go? Oh I forgot, they have to shut their ungrateful mouths and suck it up, or else Uncle Sam just might hand their sorry asses over to Pyongyang. Back down in your place, Koreans!
20. Re:Inherent bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-16 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's really trivial: Samsung's patents were implicitly licensed to Apple already because they are FRAND patents integrated into operating standards that Apple and every one of their competitor's licensed. The standard license itself grants all adopters license to any and all patents incorporated into the license for the price of adopting paid by all standards members. This automatically, by trivial legal technicality, prevents Samsung from trying to sue for infringement like they did. Completely epic 1Y law school fail by Samsung's lawyers.
  Apple's patents were not such "pre-licensed by standards" patents. They were fought on more traditional legal grounds of infringement. Whether you think software patents should be legal or not doesn't really enter into how the case was prosecuted and won by Apple which was pretty much like any hardware infringement case.
  The simple truth is that Apple "lawyered up" years ago when it started patenting things (1-2 decades ago) after it got burned on UI and trade dress with Microsoft and Windows. Apple is probably more aware of the laws and has their design and manufacturing tuned to the laws than almost any other tech company. Basically Samsung is weak on what it has patented, on what its patent legal strategy is and what its patent portfolio consists of.
21. Re:Inherent bias? by beelsebob · 2012-09-17 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the most appropriate response here is that, yes slashdot is, 'er' 'overrun' by computer geeks and nerds for whom 'Apple' have very little appeal
  
  Which shows your inherent bias – I am a computer geek and nerd, but Apple holds great interest to me. They make the best (as far as I'm concerned) operating system for day to day use out there, they make high quality hardware that I'm willing to pay for, and they make devices that create an enormous market for my code to be sold to... Being a geek and a nerd does not imply hatred of apple, or that apple is not appealing.
  
  It's just the way computer geeks and nerds roll, get over it Apple marketdroid
  No, it's the way that some people who identify themselves as anti-establishment/anti-fashion etc roll. There's plenty of geeks who see the benefits in apple's products.
  Your post is very revealing of your bias in fact, in that it pretty much rules out that any geek could reasonably have a positive opinion of Apple – which is inherently bias.
22. Re:Inherent bias? by rtb61 · 2012-09-19 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your poll is totally revealing of the sheep syndrome that somehow the majority must follow the minority because it is profitable for the minority, how about some disclosure when you have a vested interest. Sorry computer geeks and nerds tend not to be sheep and resist marketing pressures.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
23. Re:Inherent bias? by beelsebob · 2012-09-19 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Your poll
  What poll?
  
  is totally revealing of the sheep syndrome that somehow the majority must follow the minority because it is profitable for the minority,
  Can you explain the logic behind that assertion? No where in my post did I mention "following others" or "doing what the majority do", instead, only that a certain set of products happened to meet my needs, and the needs of other geeks. Secondly, that meeting our needs meant that we used them, and were interested in them. How is this symptomatic of "sheep syndrome" as you put it?
  
  how about some disclosure when you have a vested interest.
  My vested interest is that the products apple make are useful to me, and other geeks.
  
  Sorry computer geeks and nerds tend not to be sheep and resist marketing pressures.
  Okay, but what relevance does that have to the discussion?
24. Re:Inherent bias? by Carlos+Rodriguez · 2012-09-21 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  What's funny about human nature is that every single group hereabouts thinks that everyone else is biased against them. Pick pretty much any topic and any side in it, and you can find a situation where someone's complaining about how they're being oppressed etc because they're going against groupthink. For Google/Apple in particular, there are ample examples of people complaining about both pro-Google and pro-Apple bias.
  FTFY!
Great news by simplexion · 2012-09-15 01:48 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Now we just need to see Apple's case against Samsung thrown out and Innovation wins!
1. Re:Great news by simplexion · 2012-09-15 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... it's flamebait if people are against innovation. Are you against innovation?
Geez! by ilsaloving · 2012-09-15 01:49 · Score: 0

If i ever get in trouble, I want Apple's lawyers defending me. They can't seem to do wrong.
1. Re:Geez! by nurb432 · 2012-09-15 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  Or they are actually correct in their assertions of violations.
  While one may disagree with the laws, until they are struck down they stand.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
2. Re:Geez! by Bill+Dimm · 2012-09-15 02:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If i ever get in trouble, I want Apple's lawyers defending me. They can't seem to do wrong.
  Seems more like they can do wrong exceptionally well ;-)
3. Re:Geez! by ilsaloving · 2012-09-15 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Potayto potahto. ;)
Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Dr.+Evil · 2012-09-15 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Domestic company wins.
If this were an American company suing an American company, the ruling would be done around 2020. Then the damages would be minimized when a new government is sworn in.
1. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:25 · Score: -1
  
  Apple's strategy involves suing people rather than innovating, and paying people off to find in their favor.
  I'm actually almost happy when they win, because soon that will make them large enough for a massive anti-trust case to be levied against them, and since the US government isn't dependent on Apple the way they were dependent upon Microsoft, maybe it will actually have the balls to shut them down or break them up. Wouldn't that be awesome, Apple broken into a company called iApple and Macintosh Computer Corp.? Maybe further subdivision would be required to split up their music service from their mobile music device distribution, (iPod's) from their mobile phone company, from their tablet computer manufacturing and distribution, from the part of the company that makes computer peripherals, from the part that makes actual, real computers. Maybe even they can split off the part that writes software... Apple could be split about 6 different ways, and what a glorious day that would be.
2. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  What part of "International Trade Commission" are you having trouble wrapping your 85ish IQ around?
  Moron.
3. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Theaetetus · 2012-09-15 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Domestic company wins.
  If this were an American company suing an American company, the ruling would be done around 2020. Then the damages would be minimized when a new government is sworn in.
  Samsung has a plant in Texas.
4. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Why would that be glorious?
5. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by cinky · 2012-09-15 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  most companies have factories in China - does that make them Chinese companies?
6. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-15 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Why would that be glorious?
  Because somebody would likely upgrade the MacPro's.
  I can dream, can't I?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by scubamage · 2012-09-15 03:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because they're stifling innovation and right now that's about the only way they can be stopped. I find it funny the people expect anything other than the company with the highest worth in world history to win these cases.
8. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  I guess the point being that Samsung do have some influence in US domestic issues (apart from selling their wares). Maybe if this happens many more times they decide that any expansion of manufacturing or job creation in the US isn't at the top of their list.
9. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Windwraith · 2012-09-15 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it should.
10. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by toriver · 2012-09-15 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How are they stifling innovation if they force companies to do things in a different way - that is, to innovate? "Copy someone's success" hasn't been new for ages.
  Don't fandroids keep harping about all the new stuff in Android that iPhone doesn't? How were those innovations stifled?
11. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Threni · 2012-09-15 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Building stuff for Apple, ironically.
12. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 10:46 · Score: -1
  
  How are they stifling innovation if they force companies to do things in a different way - that is, to innovate? "Copy someone's success" hasn't been new for ages.
  Yes, yes, everyone should just redirect R&D resources to invent new shapes of a wheel. Spending time and money on workarounds for patents that shouldn't have even be granted in the first place - that's good for innovation.
  
  Don't fandroids keep harping about all the new stuff in Android that iPhone doesn't? How were those innovations stifled?
  "Well, I poked your eyes out, but didn't your hearing get awesome? How did I damage your senses?"
13. Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company by tlhIngan · 2012-09-15 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  How are they stifling innovation if they force companies to do things in a different way - that is, to innovate? "Copy someone's success" hasn't been new for ages.
  Don't fandroids keep harping about all the new stuff in Android that iPhone doesn't? How were those innovations stifled?
  Indeed. Google worked around several iPhone patents on Android. For example, the home screen and launcher are specifically designed to avoid the iPhone patents that Samsung lost (because of TouchWiz). You unlock the phone, and ... no grid of icons. You get a flexible surface to put "widgets" like clocks (by default), and a row of icons common to the home screen. Switch to the launcher and the row of icons disappear. At no time using the (as the patent describes) rounded rectangular slate with a grid of icons and a bottom row common to all screens.
  Android fans always point out the widgets as being far superior to the iPhone home screen, when it's an innovation meant to avoid the patent. If that's not innovation, I don't know what is.
  Hell, the launcher changes through Android revisions also don't violate the patent. From a drawer you pull up, to a series of panels that rise and slide to the side, I see them as not only avoiding Apple's patents, but doing it skillfully, artfully, and tastefully.
  The real problem is companies have discovered it's far easier to copy products than to innovate, and it's far cheaper to do so.
  Then again, maybe all the Android fans and users really want iPhone clones, because really, that's all we'd have in the end - Samsung, HTC, Asus, Acer - they see the success of the iPhone and start copying it. Ditto the iPad - it seems Sony is one of the few that are doing interesting things with their tablets.
Nope... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple Wins Again
Nobody wins. We all lose.
1. Re:Nope... by alexo · 2012-09-17 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Apple Wins Again
  Nobody wins. We all lose.
  Except the lawyers.
Good News Everyone! by BluPhenix316 · 2012-09-15 02:18 · Score: 1

*in his best prof farnsworth voice* Samsung and Apple finally settled their patent war in combat slaying each other. Now i've invented a new phone and we have to deliver the packets using this new ray I made that will transform the ship into radio waves.
What's that court called again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:34 · Score: -1

Is that the ITC or the iTC?
1. Re:What's that court called again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  iSeewhatyoudidthere
Gotta laugh at em! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:40 · Score: 0

http://geekbeat.tv/people-shown-a-fake-iphone-5-claim-its-way-better/
1. Re:Gotta laugh at em! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Misleading url, they're actually shown a previous iPhone and all those shown state that its better (2 of whom were definitely iPhone owners).
2. Re:Gotta laugh at em! by foofish · 2012-09-15 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that's what makes it a "fake iPhone 5".
Does Apple make 3G Chips? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 02:40 · Score: 0

I don't think apple makes the 3G chips in their phones. I think they buy them from someone else.
Samsung's going down! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:01 · Score: -1

YEAA! It's about time those fucktards get taken out of business by an honest, grassroots American company.
Are people not thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:08 · Score: 0

Apple does not make their 3G chips, they buy them companies like Infineon. And of course companies like Infineon would have licensed the patent from Samsung.
But imagine if Apple had lost, then samsung could licenses the same patent to chipset manufactures and from every company that uses those chipsets.
1. Re:Are people not thinking by Fuzi719 · 2012-09-15 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  License for the technology doesn't come automatically when purchasing the chips. Infineon might obtain a license to manufacture, but the user of the chip (in this case Apple) must then obtain a license to use it.
2. Re:Are people not thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Since you have a copy of the contract outlining all these licences can you post a copy? If not, why post bullshit and believe it is true?
3. Re:Are people not thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Opps, replied to wrong person, should have been to the dick Fuzi719 replied to...
4. Re:Are people not thinking by toriver · 2012-09-15 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not if the patent covers the manufacture that Apple doesn't do - in that case it needs to be baked into the price if they want it covered. It's not like you need to pay a separate royalty to the author when you buy a book, either...
It's about money, not law by boorack · 2012-09-15 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative

With 600B+ market cap, whole market moves every time Apple moves. And with 600B+ market cap everyone expects Apple to grow even bigger. In a world driven by money (and only money) the only possible outcome will be Apple winning on all fronts, regardless of how much harm will it cause to everyone else (including consumers). Looking forward I expect judges mysteriously ruling in favor of Apple dubious patents and punishing competition every time regardless of their arguments. And even if tables turn in this debacle and Apple gets burned for the first time, I see Congress quickly passing a law "fixing it" - basically setting competition in an uphill battle against Apple or even outright graning monopoly on consumer electronics to Apple in some way.
Welcome to crony capitalism.
With 0.3-0.6% of GDP directly attributed to Apple and its basically unlimited funds for lobbying (bribing) politicians, your lovely (US) government cannot afford letting them lose their current market cap - it would harm whole market and trigger an avalanche of failing pension funds (lots of them also heavily invested into Apple itself) which in turn would bite government crooks in their lazy asses. Wall Street crooks also cannot afford Apple bubble popping exactly for the same reasons. Given that the biggest thread to Apple's profit is margin compression caused by maturing smartphone/tablet technology, I bet that both government and wall street will do everything they can to keep competition out of this space, heavily influencing courts, panels and commisions dealing with Apple's cases.
1. Re:It's about money, not law by Robadob · 2012-09-15 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Informative Used all my mod points earlier :(
2. Re:It's about money, not law by sokoban · 2012-09-15 04:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  With 0.3-0.6% of GDP directly attributed to Apple and its basically unlimited funds for lobbying (bribing) politicians,
  Except Apple spends 1/10th as much as Google does on lobbying and doesn't have a Political action committee to funnel money to politicians like how Google does.
  
  your lovely (US) government cannot afford letting them lose their current market cap - it would harm whole market and trigger an avalanche of failing pension funds (lots of them also heavily invested into Apple itself) which in turn would bite government crooks in their lazy asses.
  Because that really stopped antitrust cases against Microsoft in the 90's.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
3. Re:It's about money, not law by TheTurtlesMoves · 2012-09-15 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  You know that not so long ago another company had a huge market cap, it was bigger than apples once adjusted for inflation. Their market cap is *lot* smaller now. You think this will turn out different? I don't think so.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
4. Re:It's about money, not law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  They don't even need to lobby anymore. They can just sit there as an impending threat to the economy, much like the banks.
5. Re:It's about money, not law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Apple barely lobbies at all. It has come up in several earnings conference calls. Their products lobby for them . . . :)
6. Re:It's about money, not law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  With 600B+ market cap, whole market moves every time Apple moves
  So you hate Samsung more than Apple? Samsung owns 1/5 or something of the Korean GDP and is heavily corrupted with the Korean government.
7. Re:It's about money, not law by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-15 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Except Apple spends 1/10th as much as Google does on lobbying and doesn't have a Political action committee to funnel money to politicians like how Google does.
  That would be because Apple doesn't have to care about net neutrality and other goodness, while Google does due to their business model.
8. Re:It's about money, not law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  They pretty much stopped when Verizon made it more worth their while with support for Android. Google's net neutrality support is spottier than meets the eye.
9. Re:It's about money, not law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless of what arguments they're making, google is spending more money lobbying than Apple is.
  Everybody has the right to lobby, the complaint here was that Apple was spending too much money... when other smaller competitors spend a lot more.
US Court, Korean Court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the US court, it was decided that the US company Apple did not violate any of Korean company Samsung's patents. In the Korean court, it was decided that the Korean company Samsung did not violate any of US company Apple's patents.
I wonder if someone had the idea to patent the three dots in menu items to inform users that another selection window will open instead of an action being performed. I mean, if "rubber banding" and "rounded corners" are all patentable, why not other obvious things?
1. Re:US Court, Korean Court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  The Korean court found Apple violated two (FRAND) Samsung patents and Samsung violated one (non-FRAND) Apple patent.
  But don't let facts ruin your ignorance.
Old by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 05:20 · Score: 0

Everyone should note that this is not about LTE patents. We're still waiting for that smackdown to begin. Perhaps it should be like football... watch the lawsuit unfold... bring your own beer and popcorn or whatever! =)
I wonder how much it cost Apple.. by Paracelcus · 2012-09-15 06:37 · Score: 1

I wonder how much it cost Apple to bribe the ITC?
To say the I dislike Apple and Apple products would be a massive understatement!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
1. Re:I wonder how much it cost Apple.. by toriver · 2012-09-15 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think there were bribes involved? Do you think every court decision is bought instead of evaluated on the merits of evidence and arguments? Which corrupt country do you live in?
2. Re:I wonder how much it cost Apple.. by Paracelcus · 2012-09-16 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why I live in the USofA, where we have lead the planet in "government for hire" for decades now!
  
  --
  I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Nazgul 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 07:16 · Score: 0

Hmm. If they keep this up we're going to have to revise that old joke about IBM's hoard of lawyers.
A look and feel patent ?!?! by Archfeld · 2012-09-15 08:01 · Score: 1

Apple should be sued by Gene Roddenberry's estate for the look and feel of the ipad being ripped off from Star Trek Data Pads.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
1. Re:A look and feel patent ?!?! by toriver · 2012-09-15 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Even a blind person could see the difference between a Star Trek datapad prop and an iPad. http://edwardcheever.wordpress.com/tag/data-pad/
2. Re:A look and feel patent ?!?! by Archfeld · 2012-09-23 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You've Got to go back further to when the prop was just a cardboard box that went mmmm-ping.
  http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=origninal+star+trek+devices&view=detail&id=C4D225D523723052E78954A7B47BA414E9CD45A2&first=161
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 08:09 · Score: 0

Apple
1. Re:Fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-15 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah! How dare they, umm... not violate Samsung's patents!
Yes indeed by aepervius · 2012-09-15 10:00 · Score: 1

"So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work? "

There is a whole branch existing around that same concept of not getting money for algorithm you think of : that's called mathematic. You might have heard of it. Try patenting any mathematic cocnept even advanced one. A software is actually only a mathematical application in the very end. What you should be entitled to is to protect a specific implementation of such algorithm and it is called copyright. What you ask for, aptent of software, is akin to selling your cake (copyright) and then eating it (patent).

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What is best in life? by Doctor_Jest · 2012-09-15 11:46 · Score: 1

Samsung: The open steppe, a fleet horse, falcons at your breast, and the wind in your hair...

WRONG! Apple, what is best in life?

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Yesterday... by unique_parrot · 2012-09-15 18:22 · Score: 1

...i went into a shop because i wanted to buy myself a new samsung galaxy s3 phone. when i unpacked it at home i realized that i got an iphone 5. they made it look like a samsung phone because these sell like warm rolls... just kidding, i'm happy with the sgs2 running cm10...
Hmmm by Puppet+Master · 2012-09-16 04:32 · Score: 1

Wonder if the judge(s) at the ITC got a free iPhone?

--
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!