Slashdot Mirror
Apple Claims New Infringement After Being Ordered To Tell Samsung HTC Secrets
An anonymous reader writes "Ordered to tell Samsung all of the company's HTC secrets, Apple throws a tantrum and adds a bunch of new products to the never-ending list of products Samsung has infringed on. Apple's tantrum stems from a ruling on Thursday that could have a large effect on the Apple lawsuit. The Apple lawsuit, which was filed in February, alleges that Samsung violated Apple patents related to user interface, technology and style. The first decision was found in favor of Apple to the tune of $1 billion, but Samsung is trying to get that ruling thrown out. But as the Apple lawsuit has gone on, the Apple lawsuit has gotten fiercer, and because of a ruling on Thursday, Apple throws a tantrum and is trying to add even more products into the lawsuit."
I completely agree. Apple certainly is not adding more devices because Samsung just did the same. That could never be the cause, it has to be they are throwing a fit.
Biased summary much?
Any value Slashdot once had as a source for tech news is entirely gone now. Sensationalistic crap for the win.
Meh.
seriously
FTA: "So, most likely in response to that judge's ruling..."
No evidence, no reasoning, just one persons unsubstantiated opinion that these two items are connected. Combine that will biased language like "tantrum" and you get a content free piece of click bait. Congratulations.
What is actually happening can probably be better summarized something like this: highly paid legal teams in huge patent lawsuit continue to jockey for position with miscellaneous legal moves.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
OMG what a tantrum. I almost threw a tantrum when I saw the news about the tantrum.
Only the finest in unbiased journalism. "Apple throws a tantrum..."
I realize that anthropomorphizing this legal quarrel gets the most pageviews but do you really have to practice tabloid style reporting by repeating phrases like "throwing a tantrum" three times in one short summary?
2000 AD: Apple begins selling its products to hipsters, more than just self-righteous gear nerds.
2012 AD: The hipster mentality takes over Apple entirely. When faced with a court ruling, Apple stamps its feet like a petulant child, lights up an "American Spirit," and talks about how music was cooler back when it was DIY and this court has never heard of that.
How can you in good conscience imply that a nine-year-old has lower abilities than a 49-year-old?
This is blatant ageism!
What if it were a gay, blind, transsexual, mentally challenged, African-American nine-year-old?
Then you'd be racist, sexist, homophobic and ableist too!
Are you trying to say that Apple threw a tantrum?
It reminds me SCO vs Linux case. Like Apple has nothing better to do.
...because your gratuitous use of "tantrum" is just bait. We don't know anything more than an addendum was filed and you add "tantrum". This is not only how rumors get started, but how you can falsely gain the label of 'idiot".
Wouldn't the HTC settlement help Apple's case? If HTC will settle patent claims with Apple, why doesn't Samsung do so on similar terms? Why does Apple have to sue Samsung when Apple is this big reasonable company that just wants to cross-license its patent portfolio at a reasonable price?
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Well, if Apple thinks their frivolous lawsuits will win them new customers or get old customers back, they'll be in for a surprise in 5-10 years from now.
Is the subject header just the most epic fail misspelling of "onions" ever? Because I'm having a hard time figuring out what other sort of sense it could make, and I'm only desperately clinging to my belief in the basic humanity of my fellow people that it's not a terminally retarded abbreviation that should've died a messy, bloody death as an example to all the first time some braindead trendwhore uttered it.
From 3 days ago, "Now Samsung has responded in kind, adding the iPad mini, 4th generation iPad and 5th generation iPod touch to the mix."
"Samsung’s additions shouldn’t come as a surprise; when a judge ruled that Apple was indeed allowed to add Android 4.2 Jelly Bean as it pertains to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, as well as the Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy S III to the proceedings, he specifically warned that in granting that alteration, Apple should be prepared for return amendments from Samsung. Specifically, he said that the iPad mini and latest iPad were likely additions."
"Samsung had previously moved to have the iPhone 5 added to the filing, and that motion was successful."
And back. And forth. And back again.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I don't believe this article made it through whatever review process slashdot uses to decide if a story should be posted or not.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30827565.jpg
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Would it help Apple, no, at best it is neutral to this case. The issue Samsung is trying to make is that Apple allowed licensing of their patents to HTC, but refuses out of hand to do the same for them. I'm not sure how much that helps Samsung even if true though, as patent law confuses me greatly probably because it is so broken at the moment.
The slashdot of today is a pale comparison of the slashdot of 3-5 years ago.
Back then it was worth reading daily, there were well thought out, reasoned, and articulated articles.
Now its become a place I come to once a week, and seeing articles like this piece of crap makes me wonder if that is too often.
Bye slashdot, I will remember your good days fondly and are deeply saddened at what you have become.
I guess you can take solace in knowing digg beat you there.
The louder one screams out against something, the less secure they feel.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot here, Apple. If you were truly the winner in this case, you wouldn't have any problem just playing the game and staying cool about it. Now you've raised eyebrows...
Wouldn't the HTC settlement help Apple's case? If HTC will settle patent claims with Apple, why doesn't Samsung do so on similar terms? Why does Apple have to sue Samsung when Apple is this big reasonable company that just wants to cross-license its patent portfolio at a reasonable price?
Well, Apple doesn't _want_ to cross-license its patents. However, the fact is that Samsung used these patents without permission, and Samsung sales have gone up, while HTC sales have gone down. So here is what most likely happened:
Someone at the negotiation table said, look, HTC isn't really Apple's enemy, Samsung is. And Apple isn't really HTCs enemy, Samsung is. So much better to join forces, license these patents to HTC, and to Microsoft, and to anyone other than Samsung. And do their best to f*** Samsung together. Samsung shouldn't be too surprised if there will be some HTC lawsuits following.
Getting goosebumps at all the innovation this is spurring?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
With the 'Threw a tantrum'.
Didn't samsung just add a whole list of products to ITs patent infringement lawsuits?
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
Stop perpetuating the hate.
But if Apple can license their patents to HTC, Samsung can ask the courts for a license at the same amount. It is possible that the court will grant that, as Apple clearly thought it was fair for a very similar competitor.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Did this story just disappear off the Slashdot homepage? I didn't know that could happen...
Samsung and Apple are going MAD (mutually assured destruction). Bottom line is after this is all said and done there will be such a high cost premiums for Apple or Samsung devices to pay each other's royalties that pretty much Microsoft will walk in offering cheap Windows 8 phones that will flood the market.
Microsoft's saving grace is that nobody wants to copy their ugly shit.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
can you please stop posting this crap?
Seriously.
Where is this escalation going to end?
Can we somehow resurrect Nixon, and reactivate Kissinger, and get some SALT talks going between Apple and Samsung?
Yes, folks, it's come to, "Nixon now, more than ever!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Because Apple wants to drive Samsung out of the smartphone/tablet business. If HTC licensed the same patents for a reasonable price, Samsung would have some leverage to get the same deal and stay in the market.
Only if said patents are FRAND. At which point they MUST. But for non-FRAND patents, they don't have to.
If they aren't, then it's perfectly fine for Apple to not license to Samsung at all - because the "ND" part doesn't apply. Hell, the "F" part doesn't have to apply as well.
And Samsung has stated clearly they are NOT willing to form any sort of agreement.
Heck, Microsoft has licensed patents with Apple (cross-licensed). Apple doesn't have to charge HTC the same rates that Microsoft is paying.
For the FRAND patents, Microsoft and Apple are arguing the rates specified by Samsung and Motorola are unfair. Unfortunately, the big issue there is no one really said what fair was as a lot of the rates include cross-licensing. And Samsung wants injunctions because Apple's violating their FRAND patents, while Samsung's arguing that since Apple licensed patents to HTC, Apple cannot force an injunction on Samsung products (the problem being that Samsung is, by FRAND forced to license, so they can't argue that they deserve an injunction for licensable patents while Apple doesn't for other potentially licensable patents).
Of course, the business case may be that it's very helpful to license it because if HTC is paying, and Samsung is paying, so should LG, Motorola/Google, ZTE and everyone else (who may include Amazon and B&N).
"Samsungâ(TM)s additions shouldnâ(TM)t come as a surprise; when a judge ruled that Apple was indeed allowed to add Android 4.2 Jelly Bean as it pertains to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, as well as the Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy S III to the proceedings, he specifically warned that in granting that alteration, Apple should be prepared for return amendments from Samsung. Specifically, he said that the iPad mini and latest iPad were likely additions."
I see what Apple is trying to do, here: they're concentrating their fire onto Samsung because it's the most successful Android company. Apple thinks that by "teaching these guys a lesson" they'll instill fear in all the rest of the Android companies, and steer them to crappier alternatives (like Windows Phone, Windows RT) that could never compete with iDevices. Like the biggest bully beating up the guy that could pose the biggest threat to his hegemony. But Apple is making a mistake, I think, for two reasons:
- The guy Apple decided to bully is proving to be a tough nut to crack, and that might, instead of discouraging, actually encourage the other vendors. If for no other reason, then because Apple is being distracted by this huge war they got themselves into.
- There are Android companies that won't stop making Android devices, regardless of what Apple does to Samsung. Win or lose, these companies will continue making Android devices, and enjoy their small profits. I am talking about all those nameless Chinese companies that are more than happy to make cheap Android tablets or phones for the masses. Yes, Apple probably doesn't much care about those, since they aren't even catering to the same market as the iDevices are, but moreover, these are nimble companies working in the gray areas that are mostly out of bounds to Apple's lawyers. But their combined effect may very well make Android the dominant player.
- Google has enough muscle to help one Android company at a time, releasing Nexus-branded Android tablets and phones. Google takes a financial hit on each of these, but it's small enough compared to the profits Google makes. This is another source of Android devices that Apple cannot easily quench. And something tells me that Google's corporate policy is one to not give in to bullies, so there might be a bit of a personal thing going on there, especially if Apple insists being dicks.
So, I personally think that Apple needs to stop doing what they're doing.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Because Apple wants to drive Samsung out of the smartphone/tablet business. If HTC licensed the same patents for a reasonable price, Samsung would have some leverage to get the same deal and stay in the market.
There is of course the argument that if A uses patents illegally and gains a competitive advantage against B, then the patent holder would quite reasonably license the patent to B so we get better competition, and not ever license the patent to A.
Wouldn't it help Apple...? No.
Apple is trying to push for an injunction barring Samsung from selling its products at all. I.e. kill Samsung sales totally. Apple has claimed that the value of it's patents is so great, or impossible to calculate, and the only possible remedy for Samsung's infringement is to stop sales entirely. Apple has claimed that it is not possible for Samsung to pay license fees for the patents.
But now, it would appear that HTC *has* licensed (at least some of) the patents, so Samsung is claiming that it *is* possible to put a value to the patents, and thus a full injunction is not necessary, because a financial solution can be found.
That is why it sucks for Apple... because, if the court agrees with Samsung, Apple a) won't be able to stop samsung sales b) will be shown to be lying about licensing
gus
.. if only.
Personally, when it's between two companies that can afford it, I love to watch this lawyer jockying. It's like watching two top athletic teams go at it on the field, but way more exciting than sports. I don't buy Apple products, so I couldn't care less how it affects their product prices. I do like Samsung displays a lot though :(
No, because Apple want to completely ban the Samsung devices and claims that money can't make up for the harm that Samsung's devices are causing. However, if Apple licensed their patents to HTC, then clearly money can make up for the harm and thus, Apple is only entitled to money damages, not a complete ban (if Samsung's devices are found to be infringing).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's time for the US Justice Department to give them the same treatment they gave Microsoft during the Clinton administration, only this time, hopefully they'll succeed. They should break Apple up into separate companies. One one for mobile devices, one for iTunes and the App Store, (with competing app stores permitted, and they can even call themselves an "app store"!) one for their line of PCs, and one for non-OS software.
Slashdot needs one!
I have dreamt for years of an application I could use to purge my 'news' of all adjectives. I was taught that good business report writing demands an absolute minimum usage of adjectives in order to focus on the facts. Apparently there's a new twist to the old saying, "Those who can, do..." It now includes an alternative to teaching; It's writing.
But Samsung didn't add more devices in a fit of pique, or a tantrum.
I miss the real Slashdot. Circa 1998.
It could also affect dollar amounts. This is the same Apple who wants to offer $1 per device total for several major feature parents from Motorola, but thinks minor design patents means Samsung should pay $30-$40 per device to Apple. Divulging the deal with HTC will likely show that Apple never negotiated in good faith with Samsung and that damages should be much lower, or perhaps change the verdict in an appeal.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
See, they did it wrong; They should have gone with MAD,GS, then we'd all love it. (Come on, you know what it stands for...)
Dress classy, litigate cheesy, my friend. ;-)
However, in a civil suit, actual damages are based on fair market value. The best guide to that is how much Apple freely chose to license the patents to third party for.
I am sorry you are so ill-informed. The patent system is not broken. It is purposefully confusing and complex to help drive innovation in fast paced industries like the smartphone sector. Don't believe me? Just ask hundreds of envious countries and tens of millions of employed American workers.
No argument from me there. American Spirits are tasty cigarettes. In fact, it's hard to go back to the 'bros or Camels after a pack of those.
To keep people from thinking I'm a hipster, I wear a suit and carry a Bible whenever I smoke one!
Having used an iPhone for almost three years, I recently decided to try an Android device. It didn't take long (maybe a few days) to realize that, in comparison to Android, i-devices are merely fucking toys, locked down beyond all imagination, devoid of flexibility or any features that would appeal to anybody with even a small amount of geekiness. The iPhone is like totalitarianism in a box. I'm sorry, I wish I didn't feel that way, but I do now that I know what Android is all about.
I'm not an Apple lover by any stretch, but any time I see such a skewed summary or article, I tend to ignore it. Wouldn't it be better to just say that Apple added several more Samsung devices to ongoing patent litigation?
The problem here is that Apple can face anti-trust issues! While it does not have to license its patents, it does have to face anti-trust issues.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Considering that the judge rolled out the red carpet and practically suggested it to Samsung, of course they did.
car manufacturers acted like mobile phone children
Dodge Omni:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Omni
vs
Vw Rabbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk1
Dodge Mirada
http://www.autogush.com/images/dodge-mirada-05.jpg
vs
Ford Futura
http://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com/ford/Fairmont%20Futura%201978%200203.jpg
Nissan Armada
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2009&make=Nissan&model=Armada
vs
Rambler
http://www.stationwagonfinder.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1959-rambler-ambassador1.jpg
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Apple throws a tantrum and adds a bunch of new products to the never-ending list of products
Great sentence there...
Apple's tantrum stems from a ruling on Thursday
There's that word again...
...but Samsung is trying to get that ruling thrown out. But as the Apple lawsuit has gone on...
Sounds like babbling.
and because of a ruling on Thursday, Apple throws a tantrum and is trying to add even more products into the lawsuit
Holy shit, didn't you already say that a few sentences ago?
Twinstiq, game news
All the posturing about "defensive" patents is now gone, the patent war is on in full force. The only thing left to do now is to wait and see how much damage the tech sector needs to take before we outlaw all these fucking software (and even worse, business method) patents.
Will we be left with a technological innovation wasteland?
Is it wrong for me to hope that Samsung gets an injunction on the iPhone and iPad at the same time that Apple gets an injunction on the Galaxy and Galaxy Tab? How about six months of both sides NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL A SINGLE FUCKING PHONE!! If it brings a stop to this inane nonsense, I'm all for it.
This shit needs to stop. As much as I generally like Apple products, I have no remaining sympathy for them when a damned patent troll takes them for a few hundred million bucks. You made your own bed, now sleep in it. Or better yet, spend your money stockpiles on convincing congress to change the idiotic patent laws we have in this country.
Because Apple wants to drive Samsung out of the smartphone/tablet business. If HTC licensed the same patents for a reasonable price, Samsung would have some leverage to get the same deal and stay in the market.
And Apple is succesfully steering Samsung out of the smartphone market. Oh wait..
IANAL but I believe the issue that Samsung has is that Apple repeatedly seeks injunctions which would bar the sale of products by Samsung because Apple claims that monetary compensation, i.e. licencing fees, is not enough. Samsung is contending that many of the patents that Apple has used to have injunctions placed on Samsung products are included in the HTC licencing deal. In other words, monetary compensation clearly IS enough, and therefore any injunctions should be removed and Samsung should be offered similar licencing deals to the one that HTC has.
Boo hoo hoo. Too bad for you Apple.
But if HTC and Samsung are both using Apple's patents (with HTC doing so legally) and HTC sales go down but Samsung sales go up, doesn't that imply it has nothing to do with Apple's patents, and everything to do with Samsung marketing and innovation?
If only lying in court was illegal.
Judge: Sorry plaintiff, turns out you lied to me, I find in favour of the defendant.
Plaintiff: Fuck, who can I sue now?
Fallacy. Because if Apple had the money upfront, they might have done A, whereas now they have to do B.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
But then the owner tells you that up front, unlike mainstream news sources like MSNBC, CBS and Fox.
And unlike them, if want to make up your own mind, Groklaw always has the original documents for you to read for yourself. You don't even have to read the commentary.
Apple wasn't ordered to tell Samsung all of the company's HTC secrets (i.e., the HTC settlement agreement).
They were ordered to hand the HTC settlement agreement over to Samsung's lawyers only (i.e., "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only").
There's a difference.
I love deep fry
Apple are claiming that no monetary amount is recompense for the patents, and so ask for a permanent injunction
They then licence the patents to HTC, indicating that a monetary amount CAN recompense.
Can you not see the disconnect there? Samsung can
From fosspatents.com...
"On Wednesday Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal held a hearing on short notice, allowing counsel to participate by phone, to discuss Samsung's motion to compel production of the complete Apple-HTC settlement agreement. As I reported, Apple's position (which I neither agreed nor disagreed with) was that the motion was "moot" because Apple was willing to produce the agreement but needed to ask HTC, and HTC also agreed, the only exception relating to 33 words setting forth the license fees due under the agreement. The mootness theory was based on Samsung not having shown good cause for access to the royalty rate information."
So basically Apple says ok.. but HTC doesn't want to disclose the fees. I doubt disclosure of the fees will hurt Apple either because Apple didn't give HTC a blanket patent license. They've kept their secret sauce stuff separate and that's the stuff they're really pissed off about with respect to Samsung.
Why do children write such articles as this and better yet, why does any one think that the crying of a big mary is worth reading?
"Nobody wants a stylus."
Once again they add a device whose primary raison d'etre is a stylus.
Before it was the Galaxy Note 10.1, now it is the Galaxy Note 2.
Apple must be selling their iShit with hidden wacom styl, to be claiming these copy Apples crap.
If only lying in court was illegal.
It is; it's called perjury.
The patents are not FRAND. They are not required to be non-discriminatory. Apple asserts that Samsung willingly and methodically violated its patents across its product line, producing cheap knockoffs and doing everything they could to ride on Apple's coattails - in other words, the assertion is that they have infringed far more seriously than HTC has.
The difference? Analogy time, and it even involves a car, in best /. tradition!
You know a guy who just ran over your dog in a fit of rage, and a best bud who might have stepped on your dog's tail once, but totally by accident, and he apologized for it. You let your best bud borrow your car one day to run some errands. The next day, the guy who ran down your dog comes along and takes your car without asking to "run some errands, too." When you call the police to have him arrested for stealing your car, he argues that "My use of your car was totally legal, you loaned it to that other guy yesterday, you have to loan it to me today!"
There's NOTHING requiring them to license to Samsung if they licensed to HTC (or under the same terms), unless these patents are FRAND patents, which everything we've seen so far they seem not to be.
You're confusing me guys. So is Apple refusing it out of hand or asking 30-40$ for glorious "pitch to zooms"?
"but refuses out of hand to do the same for them"
Sammy says they'll never settle
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57549927-37/samsung-wont-talk-settlement-with-apple-yeah-right/
"Shin said he doesn't intend to negotiate at all with Apple, illustrating just how far apart the two companies are. While Apple scored a significant victory in the U.S., there are a number of legal clashes going on around the world, all with varying levels of success so far for either side."
but asks to see the terms of the HTC settlement? Why?
Apple won't settle? but the head honcho said on the Q2 earnings call - a PUBLIC forum (if you're a shareholder)
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2972621/tim-cook-on-apple-samsung-patent-litigation-i-highly-prefer-to-settle
"Tim Cook just told analysts on Apple's Q2 2012 financial call that he's "always hated litigation, and I continue to hate it."
4 days ago when Samsung did the same thing, it was "Korean electronics giant Samsung has added three new Apple products to the list of products that the company claims infringes on its patents." But when it's the other side, suddenly, it's "Apple throws a tantrum"? Both articles were yours... Bit of a bias there, Samsungzenpus?
No, because Apple want to completely ban the Samsung devices and claims that money can't make up for the harm that Samsung's devices are causing. However, if Apple licensed their patents to HTC, then clearly money can make up for the harm and thus, Apple is only entitled to money damages, not a complete ban (if Samsung's devices are found to be infringing).
Except that it's highly unlikely that the licensed patents include the design patents at issue in this case. Design patents are more like trade dress, in that a lot of their value relies on them being distinctive. Apple can respond that if only the utility patents were infringed, then monetary damages may have been adequate, but that no such damages would be adequate for infringement of the design patents.
iNotCoolNoMore
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Here's why at best it's neutral and, at worst, it hurts them badly...
Apple claims it is irreparably harmed and nothing short of a permanent injunction can make up for infringing its patents, however...
"If" Apple licensed the same patents in question to HTC, (for monetary gains) then Samsung should, by law, be allowed to pay licensing fees instead of suffering from a permanent injunction.
In essence, "Throw an equitable amount of money at Apple" becomes the solution to the Samsung case, -not- a permanent injunction to prevent Samsung from ever selling an infringing item.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
If only lying in court was illegal.
It is; it's called perjury.
If only irony were understood.
How is it a fallacy? What they coulda done is irrelevant, only that apple claims that the patents are priceless, yet put a price on them for another person.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Except that is not where most of the claim of infringement came from, it was for utilities.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Mod parent DOWN! Calling it like you see it is NOT being biased. whimper_jeff (680366) is obviously biased in the other direction, and therefore is a loser, not a winner. Maybe a whiner.
What crApple is doing is throwing a temper tantrum, it's just their style, just as when they were compelled by a judge to post a statement on their website that some one or more Samsung products they claimed infringed on their bullshit intellectual property rights did NOT IN FACT INFRINGE, (or whatever the exact deal was, I stopped paying close attention to the drivel leaking from crApple's PR asshole a while ago). The page had been carefully and lovingly designed, and kept that clean, google.com-like single screen, non-scrolling place, a sleek and uncluttered yet still functional-as-possible landing page for years, then suddenly they re-engineer it so that you have to scroll to see the apology. They did this because they have an eight-year-old's mentality at crApple, and if all their brainwashed, brain dead, brainless sycophantic moron asshole fans hadn't traded their free-will and ability to think for themselves away to crApple Corp. a long time ago, you would be able to see that.
I really hoped that judge would jail crApple's executives for contempt, but I guess that's not likely to happen. Shame the rest of us have to live in the real world, follow the rules, or face the consequences, while this company of butt-fucking, fart-huffing, cock-sucking "artistes" masquerading as techies bitch and moan about how unfair it is that after they've stolen someone else', indeed, someone BETTER'S ideas, someone else comes out with something similar but then fails to gouge the customer like they do for the dubious privilege of having something "cool".
So enjoy Fantasyland, you crApple fanboy fairy. Leave reality to those of us who can handle it, you obviously can't.
Because Samsung refused a license. The Samsung CEO is on record saying that they won't license like HTC.
Apple and Samsung were ordered to limit their claims to a small number of patents (3-4 IIRC) without prejudice to simplify the trial. The trial occurred and was awarded in favor of Apple. Both parties are now free to bring the remainder of claims in light of the many rulings made ion the prior trial. We should expect that in 2013.
The legal system is broken and vastly overcomplicated in procedure. It is so bad only someone with over $1m in damages can even afford the expense of a full trial. That is contrary to the constitution and needs fixin'. No effort whatsoever is in process.
JJ
The Fandroid hypocrisy gets more than a little deep here at times. Apple are the new evil Microsoft when they swing their dicks around on patents, but it's just fine and dandy when it's Google or Samsung doing the same damn thing.
And before one of them whines that Google is different because they bought hardware and software patents from Motorola, as if you guys wouldn't be even more poutraged if Apple bought Nokia for their hardware patents and returned fire.
Considering that the judge rolled out the red carpet and practically suggested it to Samsung, of course they did.
All the judge did was share a Captain Obvious moment.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Circa 1998, Apple was even more unwelcome around here, so I agree with you.
You're confusing me guys. So is Apple refusing it out of hand or asking 30-40$ for glorious "pitch to zooms"?
"thermonuclear". what do you think that means? it means blocking - presumably this is because samsung is the one who made the commercially hugely successful android phone and because they figured that samsung doesn't have a bunch of patents that would force apple to pay half a billion to samsung.. licensing to htc or moto isn't such a big deal because moto and and htc aren't really doing that well.
the claim(apples view) is that apple is losing good profits money because of samsung products and that (reasonable) license fees aren't enough to compensate for that. samsung is trying to of course turn the table and show that there exists in fact reasonable licensing fee for these patents and thus the damages aren't that huge.
and apple isn't total stranger to cross licensing. nor is apple a total stranger to paying hundreds of millions to a competing company for patent rights..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Well, if the patent system is not broken, then something else isn't working. Apple hasn't done any innovation for years (endless slimming-down of the same product doesn't really count). While it would appear that Apple is in no danger of going belly-up, its business model of devoting increased resources to litigation as its relevance declines is all too reminiscent of the SCO debacle.
Or did they hold up one of the other "rectangular phones with a touchscreen on the front and rounded corners" and copy that?
It completely hurts Apple's case as they told a judge under oath that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to license their patents for mere money.
They LIED under oath... They PERJURED themselves. They committed a crime in a court.
Let's see all the senior management of Apple in prison for perjury and contempt of court!!!
Jesus this is idiotic. Slashdot is finally gone from my RSS reader. Good riddance to bad trash.
Dead on, Bob.
(Posting this rah-rah because I don't have mod points at the moment. Also: You just made my friends list.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I am sorry you are so ill-informed. The patent system is not broken.
Yes it is. Patents are supposed to be "novel" and "non-obvious". Have you seen some if the half-assed ideas they rubber stamp these days?
No sig today...
This has been going on for a while. Here's one of several online images of the "Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer" button commissioned by John Gilmore and Richard Stallman, 'way back when Apple sued Microsoft over Windows looking too much like the Lisa/Macintosh interface they licensed from Xerox - and thus threatening other programmers writing windowing systems and components of them (X, NeWs, Gnome, Display Postscript, ...).
(I got my copy of that button from John Gilmore. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Even the article referenced states that this is not the case (from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/us-patent-chief-to-software-patent-critics-give-it-a-rest-already/):
Empirical evidence backs this up. For example, in a 2008 book, the researchers James Bessen and Michael Meurer found that for nonchemical patents, the costs of patent litigation began to exceed the benefits of holding patents in the 1990s. Software and business patents were particularly prone to litigation.
David Kappos is the one who is ill informed, and how exactly is his stats include any business that has a trademark. Also how do they measure innovations from the article it sound like they use patients/copyright/trademarks to judge. Well I don't think anybody would argue that the current system doesn't produce patients, and lots of business have them.
Kappos cited a Patent Office report released earlier this year that supposedly shows that "intellectual property" industries "supported the jobs of 40 million American workers, or 27.7 percent of all US jobs." But as we pointed out at the time the report was released, those figures mostly reflect a ludicrously broad definition of "IP-intensive industry." Any industry that makes use of trademark protection is counted as an "IP" industry, meaning that (as we put it in April) "if you hang sheetrock, bag groceries, or answer phones at a paper mill for a living, you're probably in an 'IP-intensive' industry as far as the Obama administration is concerned."
Maybe you are being sarcastic.
Dishwasha reaches deep in to a worn rucksack and pulls out an uninteresting but polished wooden stick with a slightly bulbous head and makes a pointing motion at BrokenHalo and Joce640k, pauses, and then makes the same gesture to ewibble for good measure. "There, that should give you a plus 20 bonus to your next detect sarcasm skill check," says Dishwasha. "I don't have your sheets in front of me so I don't know if you have any negative intelligence modifiers, but even so you should easily pass the check. Go ahead and re-read that post again and don't roll a 1."
This is where it begins, friends. This battle is the beginning of Patent Armageddon.
There is a reason why companies refer to their patent portfolios as a "war chest". Mutually Assured Destruction, kept in reserve to keep the other guy from trying anything. But now? It's an active war. This is where it begins.
The next five years are going to be interesting, if this escalates the way I think it will.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'ts all these apple fanboys feeding those creepy lawyers a serious question of how a hipsters feed the 1% more often than normal people.
This is exactly what I was thinking. But I don't think logic and patent law are in any way related.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
The HTC agreement likely has a "do not clone" clause like Nokia's. Samsung has "cloned" Apple designs, which makes the situation different.
I'm incredibly curious to know how much Apple accepted from HTC though. It really would put a spin on the 'these are priceless' aspect they said (lied?) in court about. Apple started strong here, but they're actions continue to hoist themselves. This deal should have been done after the Samsung case was settled. Guess left hand doesn't realise what right hand is doing. Also, it's annoying WE don't get to see this. Judge Koh at first said she was going to run a transparent court, probably expecting it to hurt Samsung more, but now Apple's in a world of hurt, everything's being hidden away from the public. Not impressed with her bias.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
only 3 uses of tantrum? I think you can do better "an anonymous reader"
Like anyone can even know that
tl;dr
If only irony were understood.
It's kinda like a black fly in your Chardonnay, right?
Except we know where Apple stands on competition. They'd rather do it in the courtroom than in the labs these days. Which is why they're rushing to sue people for using black rounded rectangles, and rushing equally quickly to copy the 7" tablet form factor that they swore nobody wanted.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
apple said Samsung can't pay any price. They claim there is no price high enough, and that they would never license those patents to anyone at all. The harm to apple is so severe that Samsung must be barred from selling products practicing it world-wide.
Samsung says didn't you just license that to HTC apple? Why don't we take a look at that agreement and see if you're claim that you'd never ever license was true. Also, Samsung just won a trial in the UK which found Samsung didn't infringe one of the design patents.
apple doesn't want Samsung to be able to bring those things up because they undermine what apple claimed.
However, in a civil suit, actual damages are based on fair market value. The best guide to that is how much Apple freely chose to license the patents to third party for.
Nope, because damage aren't based on lost license fees, but on actual damages to your business. License go on top of those damages.
But if HTC and Samsung are both using Apple's patents (with HTC doing so legally) and HTC sales go down but Samsung sales go up, doesn't that imply it has nothing to do with Apple's patents, and everything to do with Samsung marketing and innovation?
So people argue that Apple doesn't innovate, but Samsung does? What the fuck did they innovate?
Tantrum rhymes with Samsung.
It completely hurts Apple's case as they told a judge under oath that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to license their patents for mere money.
Citation desperately needed.
But Samsung didn't add more devices in a fit of pique, or a tantrum.
Errm, are you denying that Samsung added more devices, or that they did so in a tantrum?
And for something you are already licensing to a 3rd party, that comes up to the fair market license fees.
It is obvious to anyone with eyes that in the past Samsung designs were remarkably similar to those of the iPhone. However the SGIII is remarkably UNlike the iPhone in any way shape or form, and that is simply one example of a Samsung product that Apple has tried to have barred from sale.
An injunction on a device that is nearly a mirror image to that which is described in your design patent is one thing, but an injunction on a product that is nothing like your product based on patents which you claim can not be properly compensated for with money, but then is compensated for by others... with money... is an entirely different thing.
But yes, you are correct, an old Samsung phone which isn't effectively on the market any more looked a lot like an iPhone.
In retaliation Samsung raises all prices on components Apple buys from them 500%. Apple should think carefully before frothing at the mouth.