Replying to Apple Wins $1Billion - Big Blow For Samsung And Android

Funny thing is that Samsung have the first patent of rounded corners but it is not worldwide patent, people are talking around the net on how stupid the ruling was when the original rounded corners and one button in iPhone was inspired by a Samsung phone.

Companies using the original creators idea or work and then suing them for patents are not very rare, there are even tons of cases with Microsoft "borrowing" codes from other people on promise that they will use it for free products bundled with Windows and then after 1 year or 2, they will apply secretly a patent for that "borrowed" technology then later on sue the creator. There was a circulating news before on my "not so mainstream and legal" mailing list about how people gain access to windows 95, 98, win me and vista root kernels without changing any part of it by accessing the accessory programs. One them even produces watermarked contents when used put by the original programmer.

Apple also sue Samsung in relation to Icons on the android phones resembling iPhone icons, as far as I know is that all Icons on a stock Samsung phone is part or a mask of the default sets of icons that android have. Here are a link of the few subset of the icons http://androiddrawab...er.appspot.com/. Apple also sue Samsung for copying iPhone like gestures on the android phones which they failed that they are copying the android OS itself with the swipe and other gestures. Should they sue all smartphones and Google for this too? I failed to track the development regarding this OS feature issues in the battle but I am sure that if Google will be sued, they will counter sue Apple causing major set backs in the iPhone OS functionality.

It is also silly to sue a company running an OS that is free for use and have a free market for new software from a totally 3rd party source be sued for making iPhone like icons.

As far as I see it, without Steve Jobs, the man who revive Apple from the grave of a great downfall, there will be no new innovations on their line. The consequence is a decline on iPhone sales and even Apple products.


**********************

One of the basis of the Legal battle is that base on them, a Samsung android phone looks like an iPhone from a far. Funny, I never own an iPhone and have no plan on getting one but I own a Samsung phone. From a distance of 8 meters, I can easily spot which one is a Samsung and which one is an Apple. Samsung have 2 soft buttons, when the user is using the phone, they will lit up causing a huge difference. The button is also rectangular and the cameras are different. With an eye blind folded, I can tell which one is a Samsung and which one is an iPhone, Samsung bodies are made from light weight plastics.

Just an added trivia, the smiley characters are also patented and copyrighted. Apple is also using them and they are built inside their OS. Are they paying the patent owner for using them?

good points... without reading or doing further research into details of the infringements it is quite sad to see the kind of patented features involved in this case... I wonder if Apple would've patent the home button on a phone, i won't be surprised if they did try patenting it... and that's one of points Samsung was arguing over, some of these features are ridiculously obvious and patenting them would be very unreasonable...

if we look at automobiles, imagine if someone would've patent 3 wheeled motorcycle/car... this is a feature that anyone can easily come-up with, if apple was an automobile company they would've patent this 3 wheel feature
And would probably sue any company from making even toys for kids with 3 wheels on them lol

Apple had to sue Samsung and bid for a large penalty, because Samsung is becoming a real competition... I think Samsung knew this was coming that's probably why their Galaxy S III isn't in violation of the Apple patents

If Samsung will halve it's Galaxy S III prices in US... that will really disturb the Apple US Market

Funny thing is that Samsung have the first patent of rounded corners but it is not worldwide patent, people are talking around the net on how stupid the ruling was when the original rounded corners and one button in iPhone was inspired by a Samsung phone.

Companies using the original creators idea or work and then suing them for patents are not very rare, there are even tons of cases with Microsoft "borrowing" codes from other people on promise that they will use it for free products bundled with Windows and then after 1 year or 2, they will apply secretly a patent for that "borrowed" technology then later on sue the creator. There was a circulating news before on my "not so mainstream and legal" mailing list about how people gain access to windows 95, 98, win me and vista root kernels without changing any part of it by accessing the accessory programs. One them even produces watermarked contents when used put by the original programmer.

Apple also sue Samsung in relation to Icons on the android phones resembling iPhone icons, as far as I know is that all Icons on a stock Samsung phone is part or a mask of the default sets of icons that android have. Here are a link of the few subset of the icons http://androiddrawab...er.appspot.com/. Apple also sue Samsung for copying iPhone like gestures on the android phones which they failed that they are copying the android OS itself with the swipe and other gestures. Should they sue all smartphones and Google for this too? I failed to track the development regarding this OS feature issues in the battle but I am sure that if Google will be sued, they will counter sue Apple causing major set backs in the iPhone OS functionality.

It is also silly to sue a company running an OS that is free for use and have a free market for new software from a totally 3rd party source be sued for making iPhone like icons.

As far as I see it, without Steve Jobs, the man who revive Apple from the grave of a great downfall, there will be no new innovations on their line. The consequence is a decline on iPhone sales and even Apple products.


**********************

One of the basis of the Legal battle is that base on them, a Samsung android phone looks like an iPhone from a far. Funny, I never own an iPhone and have no plan on getting one but I own a Samsung phone. From a distance of 8 meters, I can easily spot which one is a Samsung and which one is an Apple. Samsung have 2 soft buttons, when the user is using the phone, they will lit up causing a huge difference. The button is also rectangular and the cameras are different. With an eye blind folded, I can tell which one is a Samsung and which one is an iPhone, Samsung bodies are made from light weight plastics.

Just an added trivia, the smiley characters are also patented and copyrighted. Apple is also using them and they are built inside their OS. Are they paying the patent owner for using them?

Apple should have win as if someone's ideas are just spectacular or whatever if it appeals to huge mass then anyone taking that idea as to be their own if implements in his /her business must contribute something to the actual generator of those ideas. So Apple truly deserved the $1billion won in the trial against Samsung but the real question is if it that win in the corridors of justice will also translate in winning in the long run in business terms too.As a different view does coexist which puts Samsung in a little beneficial position wherein it gets an ad depicting Samsung mobiles as nothing different than Apple and hence anyone can enjoy the same features of Apple
at a much affordable price by buying Samsung mobiles.

Apple had to sue Samsung and bid for a large penalty, because Samsung is becoming a real competition... I think Samsung knew this was coming that's probably why their Galaxy S III isn't in violation of the Apple patents

If Samsung will halve it's Galaxy S III prices in US... that will really disturb the Apple US Market

Apple should have win as if someone's ideas are just spectacular or whatever if it appeals to huge mass then anyone taking that idea as to be their own if implements in his /her business must contribute something to the actual generator of those ideas. So Apple truly deserved the $1billion won in the trial against Samsung but the real question is if it that win in the corridors of justice will also translate in winning in the long run in business terms too.As a different view does coexist which puts Samsung in a little beneficial position wherein it gets an ad depicting Samsung mobiles as nothing different than Apple and hence anyone can enjoy the same features of Apple
at a much affordable price by buying Samsung mobiles.

The problem is that you cannot patent something which already exists. I cannot patent a black vert vertical box for a computer, because this already exists, and has probably been patented tens of years ago!

I wonder how many patents does Apple hold... billions?

its funny that some of the patented features are actually allowed considering the number of people who analyses them... i guess with enough money you can patent some of the silliest features and sue others for using them (even if they came up with the idea themselves)

The problem is that you cannot patent something which already exists. I cannot patent a black vert vertical box for a computer, because this already exists, and has probably been patented tens of years ago!

GNU licencing is not valid if you go to court. The guy clicked "I agree I should not sell this" and he sells it, no problem.
And the patenting system is not free because in order to be finalized a patent neets that a lot of laywers and judges work, checking that there is no anteriority or other legal problems. That's why this thing costs a lot.

its funny that some of the patented features are actually allowed considering the number of people who analyses them... i guess with enough money you can patent some of the silliest features and sue others for using them (even if they came up with the idea themselves)

shouldn't there be some sort of FREE patenting system? like GNU Licencing?

GNU licencing is not valid if you go to court. The guy clicked "I agree I should not sell this" and he sells it, no problem.
And the patenting system is not free because in order to be finalized a patent neets that a lot of laywers and judges work, checking that there is no anteriority or other legal problems. That's why this thing costs a lot.

Of course, but a worldwide patent has a cost - about US$ 20000. So, a standard person cannot take a patent for each great idea he has. Only big companies take a patent for something which is supposed to be worth the cost and the work for establishing the patent.

if someone came up with an idea first but don't have the finance to patent it, then years later some rich person or company patents that idea, now they own it and the wee original fella gets nothing

shouldn't there be some sort of FREE patenting system? like GNU Licencing?

I personally think the whole idea behind the Apple suite is crazy, the basis of it is that the patents are in the Physical design of the phone, i.e. the round corners. Now I can understand the basis of any code or hardware design but the phyisical aspect of a rounded corner is just ludicris. Oh well just my opinion, I just hope that it ends between the two of them and doesn't bring down the whole house of cards. If it does it will mean a major problem for the end user as we will probably see only 2 or 3 major companies left running the whole scene, just like in the mid to late '80's with the micro processor legal battles.