Slashdot Mirror
After Knocked-Down Damages Claim, Apple Again Seeks to Ban Some Samsung Phones
Bloomberg reports that after Apple's patent victory in court last week over smart-phone rival Samsung, Apple is
seeking a sales ban on several specific phones from Samsung; none of them are currently flagship devices. "The nine devices targeted by Cupertino, California-based Apple for a U.S. sales ban include the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S3 and Stratosphere." Getting the competition blocked from the marketplace over patent claims is something that Apple's tried before in connection with its beef with Samsung, and the company has had mixed results, depending on jurisdiction. Last week's decision in favor of Apple hints that the jury didn't think the company deserved the entire $2.2 billion it was seeking, awarding (a mere) $120 million, instead.
Ban the fruit company!
be honest, samsung *didnt* do that to apple though. swipe to unlock? my HP pocketPC did that in 2003 and no one with and sense of feel or sight would mistake a GS for an iphone.
I dont like the idea of nuking apple if for the only reason being competition. I believe android would become stagnant if they dont have any competition
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Be honest, if Apple were the one who had stolen physical designs and software innovations from Android, you nerds would ask nothing less than nuking Apple from orbit.
Eh. Their new ring-HQ-thing would make an attractive target from high altitude I suppose; but I don't think I'd be as worked up as you give me credit for:
As with so many things patent-and-tech-related, whatever ends up being the killer app always looks simultaneously brilliantly innovative and obvious in hindsight; but attempts to actually put your finger on precisely what is patentably special about it frequently run into trouble on some mixture of university research projects that just got shelved after somebody finished his PhD, stuff IBM did in 1980 but charged approximately a zillion dollars a month to lease and hid behind an interface designed to sell you consulting services through sheer pain, or assorted bits and pieces identifiably but unhelpfully introduced in prior products that were dragged down by mediocrity in other areas.
That's what I find most unsympathetic about Apple's protracted litigation on what are basically broad look-and-feel grounds. Were they the first ones to use a capacitive touchscreen to make a smartphone that doesn't suck? Sure, no problem. And look at the giant pile of first mover advantage and cash that they got for it. Does this entitle them to a monopoly on rectangular touch sensitive objects for two decades? Less impressive case to be made. And, much to their chagrin, less impressive legal payout. As much as Apple might prefer otherwise, nailing the execution is not a patentable achievement, and a great many elegant executions break down into a lot of substantially nonpatentable, or already commonplace, bits and pieces put together correctly.
What ever will Samsung do if they aren't allowed to sell their Galaxy S2 anymore? Their customers will have no choice but to get the latest model.
I definitely don't like the idea of nuking Apple. Let the market do that for us. But Apple needs to stop using our tax dollars to defeat their competitors outside the market. They've done so since way back in the Apple II days.
We wouldn't be stuck using Windows, either, if Apple hadn't killed the competetive GUI market on the PC. They drove the GEM Desktop and GeoWorks out of competition, and set a tone where no third parties could produce windowing environments. It's Apple's fault for clearing the market entirely which made way a deep pocket competitor like Microsoft the ultimate winner.
How about if nobody has stolen anything?
I don't think anyone objects to Apple also using the obvious designs, they just object to them claiming an exclusive right to the obvious.
As much as Apple might prefer otherwise, nailing the execution is not a patentable achievement, [...] (emphasis mine)
Also, Pontius Pilatus might claim prior art...
dipshits
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If Apple is indeed competitive, because it has more lawyers than engineers.
Actually, since the jury awarded $120 million instead of the $2.2 billion, it says there was a reason the jury didn't think it was necessary to award the entire amount. "Deserve" is speculative. Nothing "dipshit" about guessing without polling the jury's motive. Comments like this (and most articles these days) are why I left Slashdot. I come back from time to time to see if Slashdot returned to "News for Nerds"... but it hasn't.
This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
You can be sure Samsung doesn't want to continue this farce.
It's basically Apple. They're too caught up in their own bullshit to understand that, hey, they AREN'T the only game in town, and that they don't have a hard-lock monopoly on good ideas and engineering.
Maybe some day, they'll pull their heads out of their asses. Until then, they'll continue burning money on these dumbshit lawsuits.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Sure, but is "intuitive user interface for capacitive touchscreen device" actually patentable? If it is, then Apple's got a case and the patent system is even worse than I thought. If it's not, then Apple's just scum trying to manipulate the legal system to win what they can't win in the market.
As for nuking Apple from orbit? I'd happily do it even if there was no such thing as iOS, Android or even cell phones. I'd nuke them even if I had to give the launch order over a landline with a rotary phone.
This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
Because Apple does not want to compete in an open market, they want to be the ONLY market. There is a reason they only have a 14% global market share vs Android (2013), their products are overpriced crap. You can get an iPhone 5S for $249.99 (AT&T) versus a Samsung Galaxy S5 for $199.99 (AT&T). But of course on the Galaxy S5 you'll have to put up with such things as a larger higher resolution screen, twice as many megapixels on your camera, twice as much internal memory, removable battery, removable MicroSD, and many many others. Apple is smart enough to know that they cannot compete on price and features, so they try to get the competition banned.