Yes there is, this bullshit only happens in American. You think Apple didn't steal anything, think again. lol
If the case was in Korea, the outcome will be quite different, Apple might be charged instead.
Samsung Loses
- Thread starter danibbler
- Start date
Yes there is, this bullshit only happens in American. You think Apple didn't steal anything, think again. lol
If the case was in Korea, the outcome will be quite different, Apple might be charged instead.
2 days prior to the Samsung vs Apple ruling in the USA there was a ruling in S Korea
Apple vs. Samsung: S. Korea court rules iPhone not copied
Apple was found to infringe on 2 Samsung patents while Samsung infringed on 1 Apple patent. Also they ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPhone
How else do you make a touch screen product without it ending up as a rectangle or square????
Seems like all these retarded corporations do now is engage in what many believe are nothing more than 'frivolous lawsuits' where the only winners are the lawyers who laugh at them all the way to the Banks!....
I agree - I got some Apple fans upset saying the same thing. I was suggesting that their comparison of Jobs to Edison was not quite accurate - I suggested Jobs was more similar to another famous American P.T. Barnum (of Barnum & Bailey fame). Seems I hit a nerve but I don't know why - Jobs was a great marketing genius. He either stole or bought the technology but the way he incorporated it was great.
As much as he hated them - developers using jailbroken iPhones introduced many features before Jobs ever thought of putting them in his own product (true multitasking, folders, etc)
I notice that Samsung Galaxy S III is not listed by Apple. I gave up my iPhone for this product and it is way ahead of the iPhone product.
My personal feeling is that many of these patents should never have been granted because of prior art. I was changing window sizes, calling telephones, opening folders and icons on my PC long before computers were shrunk down so that they could be used in the palm of your hand. The smartphones are in every way small computers but because they relabel them phones - they get original patents. The whole thing has become insane.
Yeah, let's quote something from 1994 that's not within the context of today's innovation, technology and culture. That was 18 years ago.
Sounds like a juror from the trial. It is exactly in the context of today's 'innovation' and echos the argument Samsung made that feature attributes in common use through out the industry shouldn't be granted a patent.
I am amazed that some people can be such zealous followers that they can readily excuse obvious cold fact admissions by the man who is in the most informed position to know. Steve Jobs stole the entire McIntosh concept from Xerox. I wonder if Xerox was similar assholes and took Apple to court how many billions they could get for patent infringement.
Apple is using the legal system because in can't keep up with the innovation occurring at an incredible pace with Android. Android was unveiled to the cell phone market Nov 2007. By 2010 android was in 50% of all smartphones and in the first quarter of 2012 - the number rose to 59% of all smartphones. That is what scares Apple - they can't compete in a free market so they will try to use their billions to secure a monopoly. Apple has become worse than the worst characteristics of Microsoft once demonized by Jobs.
What I am amazed about his how often people who have not reviewed all of the evidence are in a position to quarterback the verdict.
Jobs did not steal the entire Mac concept from Xerox. The most glaring part is that he took the mouse idea and did you know that Apple actually paid Xerox for that? Did Google pay Apple for those elements that they stole? Did Samsung?
Finally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Google offers the Android OS at little to no cost (correct me if I am wrong) to smartphone makers left right and center. Apple does not. It is one company with one OS with one smartphone model a year. It's a fundamental distinction that lots of Apple haters can't seem able to grasp.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ios-vs-android-fragmentation-2012-6
The numbers don't lie there more people out there running the OS5 platform than all the IS platforms combined which results in this
http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&c...w=144&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:98
Posted from my iPhone 4s 64g
The numbers don't lie there more people out there running the OS5 platform than all the IS platforms combined which results in this
http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&c...w=144&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:98
Posted from my iPhone 4s 64g
Last edited:
shakenbake
Senior Turgid Member
Don't be so superficial. The basic shape is not what is behind the patent. You need to go deeper into the details of the design. That is why they had hundreds of pages of depositions at the trial. Also, how much do you know about the US patent process?
shakenbake
Senior Turgid Member
Do your research before you make a statement. Also, get your facts and spelling correct.
First, it is spelled `Macintosh`.
Now, for the PARC system that was just a laboratory concept that Apple brought to commercialisation with great R&D effort.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell
As far as patents are concerned;
"Some people[SUP][who?][/SUP] feel that Apple, Microsoft, and others plagiarized the GUI and other innovations from the Xerox Star, and believe that Xerox didn`t properly protect its intellectual property. The truth is more complicated. Many patent disclosures were in fact submitted for the innovations in the Star; however, at the time the 1975 Xerox Consent Decree, an FTC antitrust action, placed restrictions on what the company was able to patent.[SUP][15][/SUP] In addition, when the Star disclosures were being prepared, the Xerox patent attorneys were busy with several other new technologies such as laser printing. Finally, patents on software, particularly those relating to user interfaces, were an untested legal area at that time.Xerox did go to trial to protect the Star user interface. In 1989, after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of its Macintosh user interface in Windows, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple; however, it was thrown out because a three year statute of limitations had passed. (Apple eventually lost its lawsuit in 1994, losing all claims to the user interface).[SUP][16]"
[/SUP]
Also:
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/parc.html
"Chronology
Previous Ties
But a number of Apple engineers were already familiar with PARC, its work, or
technologies like the mouse. Bill Atkinson had read about Smalltalk as an
undergraduate. Some had worked at PARC: Jef Raskin spent time there during a
sabbatical year at Stanford, and had a number of friends who were researchers
there. Finally, there were even some Apple employees whose had learned about the
mouse while working for Douglas Engelbart at SRI in the
1960s and early 1970s, or Tymshare in the later 1970s.
Two Visits, Not One
Finally, as several authors have pointed out, there were actually two visits
by groups from Apple to Xerox PARC in 1979. Steve Jobs was on the second of the
two. Jef Raskin, who helped arranged both visits, explained that he wanted Jobs to
visit PARC to understand work that was already going on at Apple. The Macintosh
project had escaped the chopping block several times, and Raskin had tried to
explain to Jobs the significance of the technologies it was incorporating. By
showing that other companies considered this kind of work exciting, Raskin hoped
to boost the value of the Macintosh`s work in Jobs` eyes. Unbeknownst to Raskin,
Jobs had his own reasons for visiting PARC: Xerox`s venture capital arm had
recently made an investment in Apple, and had agreed to show Apple what was
going on in its lab.
Macintosh and Lisa
Both the Macintosh and Lisa projects were underway before the 1979 visit.
Documents in The Book of
Macintosh (a collection of essays, technical specs, and brainstorms
written by Jef Raskin on and others) dating from the fall of 1979-- months
before the PARC visit-- show that the Macintosh was going to feature
user-friendly interfaces; a screen that could handle multiple fonts (that is,
bitmapped screens); graphics capabilities; and a graphical input device.
The Lisa was also moving toward a bitmapped screen, under pressure from
Raskin and Lisa`s graphics engineer, Bill Atkinson. Atkinson argued that "if
you`re going to do mixed text and graphics together, you have got to use a white
background," rather than a character generator screen. "The [hardware] engineers
screamed bloody murder," he later recalled, but eventually the Lisa adopted a
bitmapped screen. Jef Raskin likewise urged Lisa project manager Ken
Rothmuller to use a bitmapped screen, and demonstrated the virtues of such a
system by showing off a Macintosh prototype.
Innovation v. Commercialization
Finally, the Promethean myth gives pride of place to the brilliant engineers
who do the initial work on a technology, and downplays the work of bringing it
to market. Whatever happens between the laboratory bench and the store shelf is
important the way parcel delivery or soybean farming is important: necessary,
but unglamorous and uninteresting. In fact, turning expensive, hard-to-use,
precision instruments into cheap, mass-producible, and reliable commercial
products requires its own ingenuity and creativity. This marketplace
intelligence is different from, but not inferior to, the intelligence of the
laboratory; it just gets far less attention by journalists and historians.
In the case of the relationship between the work at PARC and the development
of the Macintosh, this blindness leads us to underestimate the originality of
Apple`s own work, and the differences between the Alto and Macintosh. The story
of the Apple mouse in particular shows how much work
was involved in moving a technology from the laboratory to the living room, and
how different the skills required for that work were from those used in pure
research."
Pure research vesrus applied research. Also, Xerox got paid through shares for the rights to use the PARC concept through a share offering.
"Apple was already one of the hottest tech firms in the country. Everyone in the Valley wanted a piece of it. So Jobs proposed a deal: he would allow Xerox to buy a hundred thousand shares of his company for a million dollars—its highly anticipated I.P.O. was just a year away—if PARC would “open its kimono.” A lot of haggling ensued. Jobs was the fox, after all, and PARC was the henhouse. What would he be allowed to see? What wouldn’t he be allowed to see? Some at PARC thought that the whole idea was lunacy, but, in the end, Xerox went ahead with it. One PARC scientist recalls Jobs as “rambunctious”—a fresh-cheeked, caffeinated version of today’s austere digital emperor. He was given a couple of tours, and he ended up standing in front of a Xerox Alto, PARC’s prized personal computer.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz24zpp96uc"
My brother in law worked at Xerox and I saw their system (Star) long before Lisa & MakInTosh were out. There was a movie called Revenge of the Geeks' (I haven't been able to find it for bitTorrent) and they documented everything including how IBM because of sloppy negotiation, lost control over Windows and their own PC market. In the beginning they detailed how both Bill Gates & Steve Jobs visited and saw the Xerox system. For Xerox - it was just a toy and they didn't seem to have much interest.
My brother in law had one installed at his home for after hours work in his study. It was amazing at the time because it was a desk system with a huge monitor - and although I had experience in school with many languages requiring instructions for tasks - this had a mouse, file folder and a modern GUI you see on modern computers from desk to your phone. I did pull up a history of Apple's first GUI attempt - the Lisa. "Several years prior to this [i.e. Lisa project], research had been going on at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center to create a new way to organize everything on the screen, today known as the desktop. Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC in 1979. He was excited by the revolutionary mouse-driven GUI of the Xerox Alto and was keen to use these ideas back at Apple."
Do you see a little pattern with Apple here ???
The Xerox Star GUI:
The later Apple copy:
Steal the ideas - then sue for Patent infringement. The patent infringement I can't get my head around as I initiated new designs and they are patented (company) in about 7 industrial markets. I have been challenged for prior art on some of the most ridiculous stretches in the technology which cost $$$ and time. How Apple (and others) have gotten patents on slight twists oif existing technology drives me crazy.
My brother in law had one installed at his home for after hours work in his study. It was amazing at the time because it was a desk system with a huge monitor - and although I had experience in school with many languages requiring instructions for tasks - this had a mouse, file folder and a modern GUI you see on modern computers from desk to your phone. I did pull up a history of Apple's first GUI attempt - the Lisa. "Several years prior to this [i.e. Lisa project], research had been going on at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center to create a new way to organize everything on the screen, today known as the desktop. Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC in 1979. He was excited by the revolutionary mouse-driven GUI of the Xerox Alto and was keen to use these ideas back at Apple."
Do you see a little pattern with Apple here ???
The Xerox Star GUI:
The later Apple copy:
Steal the ideas - then sue for Patent infringement. The patent infringement I can't get my head around as I initiated new designs and they are patented (company) in about 7 industrial markets. I have been challenged for prior art on some of the most ridiculous stretches in the technology which cost $$$ and time. How Apple (and others) have gotten patents on slight twists oif existing technology drives me crazy.
Hackers publish the identities of over 12 million iPhone and iPad users
FBI Agent's Laptop 'Hacked' To Grab 12 Million Apple IDs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyol...ims/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
FBI Agent's Laptop 'Hacked' To Grab 12 Million Apple IDs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyol...ims/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
The big question on appeal is whether the jury followed the law.
From the reports I've read of interviews the Jury Foreman has given, the answer is a resounding NO. It has become clear that the jury foreman, who himself holds one or more patents, guided the jury and influenced them in how to apply certain principles - something that only the Judge is allowed to do, when instructing the jury.
In particular, the standard which the Foreman led the jury to use regarding "prior art" was not the correct standard under the law, and would appear to have led to several incorrect findings of infringement.
This case is FAR from over.
From the reports I've read of interviews the Jury Foreman has given, the answer is a resounding NO. It has become clear that the jury foreman, who himself holds one or more patents, guided the jury and influenced them in how to apply certain principles - something that only the Judge is allowed to do, when instructing the jury.
In particular, the standard which the Foreman led the jury to use regarding "prior art" was not the correct standard under the law, and would appear to have led to several incorrect findings of infringement.
This case is FAR from over.
