An archive of the South African PCFormat forums.
https://tuhinga.ron2k.za.net/pcformat/
I feel the same about Samsung, considering selling my washer/dryer.Anakha56 wrote:/side note there is nothing Apple in my house and nor will there ever be, I refuse to support this company.
And what get a Apple?ryanrich wrote:I feel the same about Samsung, considering selling my washer/dryer.Anakha56 wrote:/side note there is nothing Apple in my house and nor will there ever be, I refuse to support this company.
You are not- I feel the same way. But as you're probably seeing right now, you are just wasting your breath. Which is why I no longer really say anything about it.Anakha56 wrote:But what is peeving me off is that every pleb on the street thinks Apple invented crud when in fact they stole the idea from someone else. What makes me even more angry is that Apple (and by extension its legion of its cry baby fanbois) are crying foul when people copy them but refuse to acknowledge that they (Apple) themselves are the greatest technology thieves in the tech world. Its the typical pot calling the kettle black and why am I the only person seeing this? You lot keep on defending them but as soon as it is shown that they stole the idea from someone else you get tight lipped and say "They have a patent." and carry on defending the original criminals it is infuriating. But hey lets keep on supporting the criminals and live our lives with the blinkers on, its helped them "invent" so much already...
/side note there is nothing Apple in my house and nor will there ever be, I refuse to support this company.
Its not an if. It is a farceStuart wrote:if it was much of a farce as Groklaw and rustypup think it was then the entire decision will be thrown out. We shall see.
+10000Anakha56 wrote:But what is peeving me off is that every pleb on the street thinks Apple invented crud when in fact they stole the idea from someone else. What makes me even more angry is that Apple (and by extension its legion of its cry baby fanbois) are crying foul when people copy them but refuse to acknowledge that they (Apple) themselves are the greatest technology thieves in the tech world. Its the typical pot calling the kettle black and why am I the only person seeing this? You lot keep on defending them but as soon as it is shown that they stole the idea from someone else you get tight lipped and say "They have a patent." and carry on defending the original criminals it is infuriating. But hey lets keep on supporting the criminals and live our lives with the blinkers on, its helped them "invent" so much already...
/side note there is nothing Apple in my house and nor will there ever be, I refuse to support this company.
Thanks for that link rusty. Only had time to peruse it now. Good stuff. And the reason trial by jury isn't a good idea.rustypup wrote:groklaw post on the joke...
Lol, you clearly haven't read this thread properly. Neither Ryan nor I have remotely suggested that Apple has invented everything that they've patented. In fact, quite the opposite, we've openly acknowledged that most of Apple's patents are not their own inventions.Anakha56 wrote:why am I the only person seeing this? You lot keep on defending them but as soon as it is shown that they stole the idea from someone else you get tight lipped and say "They have a patent." and carry on defending the original criminals it is infuriating.
The article I quoted is simply making the point that Samsung's S Launcher looks suspiciously like Apple's dock. Without even arguing the merits of any patent that Apple may hold on the dock, the question is quite simple: If Samsung is going to make a dock, why in the name of all that is good and holy do they not at least make it look different to Apple's dock? Are they trying to get themselves sued again?Anakha56 wrote:Oh and take a look at a non-biased read...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/sams ... windows-8/
Well, then, Mr. American Lawyer, I suppose it will certainly be declared a mistrial, in which case there is no need for you to get your panties all in a knot about the decision.THE_STIG wrote:Its not an if. It is a farceStuart wrote:if it was much of a farce as Groklaw and rustypup think it was then the entire decision will be thrown out. We shall see.
By all means then, go and buy the completely original, never seen before, 100%-invented-by-ourselves Samsung product instead.THE_STIG wrote: I would rather eat my own hand than buy something from them, its both a copy and a ripp off.
Now here we finally have someone talking some sense. I'm not intricately versed in the American legal system, but it does seem to me that this kind of trial is never something that should be put before a jury to begin with.doo_much wrote:And the reason trial by jury isn't a good idea.
Hearing on Apple injunction vs Samsung set for December
San Francisco: A US judge on Tuesday set a December 6 court date to hear Apple Inc's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics' smartphones, which could delay the potential impact of Apple's crushing legal victory.
Apple on Monday identified eight devices it will seek preliminary injunctions against, and said it would file for a permanent sales ban.
A hearing about the preliminary injunctions had been scheduled for September 20 but it is not clear if this issue will be addressed at that hearing or moved to December.
In an order on Tuesday, US District Judge Lucy Koh said that due to the scope of Apple's preliminary injunction request, she believed it was "appropriate" that various post-trial motions be consolidated.
The September 20 hearing will be devoted to Samsung's request to dissolve a sales ban against its Galaxy Tab 10.1. The jury sided with Samsung on that part of the case.
Apple's permanent injunction request will be considered in December - after attorneys file detailed legal arguments. Representatives for Apple and Samsung could not immediately be reached for comment.
Apple was awarded $1.05 billion in damages last week after a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad.
The verdict sent Samsung's shares tumbling on Monday as investors fretted about the potential impact to its sales with the peak US holiday season just months away. They have since regained some ground to trade 4.6 per cent below their pre-verdict price.
Actually, a company as a right to protect its patents regardless of how original or unoriginal those patents might be. It a patent has been granted, the company has the right to correct them.Anakha56 wrote:A company does have the right to protect its patents however they should be original patents and not something that has been used before ala Apple style.
You really think so? I dunno, it looks an awful lot like an Mac dock to me.Anakha56 wrote:I do wish Samsung would be a little more original but that dock in question looks nothing like the Mac
You are right. My apologies.Stuart wrote:Actually, a company as a right to protect its patents regardless of how original or unoriginal those patents might be. It a patent has been granted, the company has the right to correct them.Anakha56 wrote:A company does have the right to protect its patents however they should be original patents and not something that has been used before ala Apple style.
"Forget about the foundation made of matchsticks, all we have to worry about is that the walls are strong enough to support the building alterations, cos thats where all the stress is."Stuart wrote:Actually, a company as a right to protect its patents regardless of how original or unoriginal those patents might be. It a patent has been granted, the company has the right to correct them
So you're suggesting that Apple has no legal right to protect its patents?GreyWolf wrote:"Forget about the foundation made of matchsticks, all we have to worry about is that the walls are strong enough to support the building alterations, cos thats where all the stress is."Stuart wrote:Actually, a company as a right to protect its patents regardless of how original or unoriginal those patents might be. It a patent has been granted, the company has the right to correct them
If the patents themselves are questionable the yes, of course!Stuart wrote:So you're suggesting that Apple has no legal right to protect its patents?
It doesn't matter how ludicrous the patents are. If they are legally granted they are legally protected, regardless of how you feel about them.GreyWolf wrote:If the patents themselves are questionable the yes, of course!Stuart wrote:So you're suggesting that Apple has no legal right to protect its patents?
It is ludicrous to me that one can defend the right of ownership of somehting that is not theirs to own!
as amusing as it is, perhaps we can drop the apologetics and call it what it is. a patent troll is a patent troll.Stuart wrote:The problem lies not with the courts or with Apple protecting its legally granted patents, but with the n00bs at the patent office who grant the ludicrous patents to begin with.
Agreed 100% but Apple all other companies can only do so because their inane patents are legally protected. Sadly, with a phenomenal verdict like this, I suspect it's only going to drive companies to even more creative patents, and if history is anything to go by, said patents will continue to be granted (at least in the US) and things will just go from bad to worse.rustypup wrote: i would not for one moment pretend apple is alone in this silliness. they're all playing the game. but apple is pushing the absurd envelope...
As someone not schooled in American law, I'd actually be interested to know if juries do have that power. I'm acting on the assumption that they don't.CapNemo wrote:And when patent rights are evaluated the validity of the patent should also be looked at to bad the law is a bit retarded in that regard
Ah, but you see Samsung don't go around claiming they are the inventors of everything and then filing patents for something which they did not even inventStuart wrote:By all means then, go and buy the completely original, never seen before, 100%-invented-by-ourselves Samsung product instead.THE_STIG wrote:I would rather eat my own hand than buy something from them, its both a copy and a ripp off.
Nine jurors in the Federal Court of the Northern District of California, handed Apple a big victory against Samsung, awarding Apple $1.05 billion in damages, finding all seven of Apple’s patents valid, finding Samsung infringed six of Apple’s patents, and finding Apple not to have infringed any of Samsung’s five patents.
The previous biggest intellectual property award of the year was handed down on August 1, 2012 in favor of Monsanto (MON) for $1 billion against DuPont (DD), but the history of big patent awards surviving appeals does not bode well for Apple.
Read more
You got my hopes up for nothing...ryanrich wrote:Samsung pays Apple $1 Billion sending 30 trucks full of 5 cent coins
Fake but funny...
...Anakha56 wrote:You got my hopes up for nothing...ryanrich wrote:Samsung pays Apple $1 Billion sending 30 trucks full of 5 cent coins
Fake but funny...
Typical Apple fanboi
