An archive of the South African PCFormat forums.
https://tuhinga.ron2k.za.net/pcformat/
In a laughable post over at LawPundit, Andis Kaulins makes an argument that Apple’s landmark $1 billion win against Samsung for patent infringement is at least partially bogus.
Why? Because Apple’s patent for bounce-back scrolling isn’t an original idea, but was, in fact, stolen from Pong, a game first released back in 1972. There are just a few problems with this idea…
Read more
Of course I can, because the foundation of those rights is total BS! If something is built on a lie, then everything that comes after is a a lie too!Stuart wrote: You cannot seriously complain about someone seeking to protect rights granted to him by law.
Then the foundation needs to be rectified. You can't start give the walls a facelift if the foundation needs to be repaired.GreyWolf wrote:Of course I can, because the foundation of those rights is total BS! If something is built on a lie, then everything that comes after is a a lie too!Stuart wrote: You cannot seriously complain about someone seeking to protect rights granted to him by law.
Its only the US that is insane in the membrane...Tokyo court gives win to Samsung after US loss
A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung Electronics did not infringe on patents held by Apple, a victory for the South Korean company.
The patent was related to transferring media content between devices.
It comes after Samsung lost a key patent case in the US last week and was ordered to pay more than $1bn (£664m) in damages.
This is one of many cases brought to courts around the world by the two smartphone market leaders.
"We welcome the court's decision, which confirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple's intellectual property," said Samsung in a statement to the BBC.
Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji dismissed the case filed by Apple in August, finding that Samsung was not in violation of Apple patents related to synchronising music and video data between devices and servers.
Sales ban
On 24 August, a US court ruled Samsung had infringed Apple patents for mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad.
The company has vowed to continue to fight against Apple saying it will appeal against the US ruling.
Apple is now seeking a ban on sales of eight Samsung phones in the US market.
On 6 December, US District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the initial trial, will hear Apple's plea for an injunction against the Samsung phones, although it does not include the most recent Samsung phone to hit the market, the Galaxy S3.
Something tells me he just woke up and realized how badly he stuffed up...
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj
Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:29 PM EDT
This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.
That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form [PDF] and the jury instructions [PDF] specifically asked them to address that very question.
Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.
And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.
He goes on to say that he understands prior art, but I think not. When asked, "Do you honestly believe that companies should be allowed to patent basic geometric forms?" he answers, Yes. He repeats the false claim that the prior art didn't count because it was not "interchangeable":Back at you, Mr. Hogan. Back at you. But someone calling himself Firewheels responded much more effectively:Wanhang:
Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?
Velvin Hogan @Wanhang
I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art.
Mr. Hogan has not replied, and it's been 4 hours. As another questioner, Bazzatoyou, phrased it after waiting an hour for a response that never came, "Looks like The Hogan has left the room ...!"Firewheels @Velvin Hogan
You're suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn't it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?
If, however, you're suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid.
Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due.
I hope Mr. Hogan's thinking deep thoughts about Firewheels' question.
One thing is for sure, this is going to be one fascinating appeal.
He probably kept his Galaxy SIII well-hidden throughout the trial.doo_much wrote:If I was a Samsung exec I'd pay for him to do the speaking circuit thing!
In the end, the court saw Samsung throwing a pity-party, claiming their multitouch is just terrible, and then Apple coming over trying to boost them up and tell them how awesome their multitouch is, just so they can turn around and slam them with the ban-hammer. Killing ‘em with kindness. What a beautiful way to win a patent case.
Read more
In "Things that make you go hmmm?", an analysis of Apple's Facebook page suggests that even its own fans were critical of the company after the court case. Or were they?
Read more
Edit: Somewhat OT, but has anyone else noticed how News24 frequently adds these little complete-out-of-context final sentences to so many of their articles? I mean, Apple's pre-orders for the iPhone 5 hardly has anything to do with this particular legal battle.In a preliminary move, a judge at the International Trade Commission has ruled that Apple doesn't violate four Samsung patents.
It's another setback for the South Korean company in a globe-spanning legal battle where Apple and Samsung accuse each other of violating patents.
The ITC judge in Washington also ruled on Friday that the patents don't apply to any domestic industry.
That will make it harder for Samsung to press its case before the full trade commission, says patent litigation expert Florian Mueller.
A jury in California last month ruled that Samsung owes Apple $1.05bn for violating patents on features of the iPhone and iPad.
Apple started taking orders for its new iPhone on Friday.
Source
Apple Inc. (AAPL) asked a judge to award the company an extra $535 million in its U.S. patent case with Samsung Electronics Co., in addition to its requested permanent injunction against sales of Samsung’s infringing products.
“The harm to Apple was deliberate, not accidental,” Apple attorneys said in court papers filed Sept. 21 in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. Samsung “willfully diluted its trade dress, taking billions in sales in the fast- growing U.S. smartphone market at a key moment in the transition between feature phones and smartphones,” attorneys said.
Read more
Oh snap dawg!petrivanzyl wrote:If Apple keeps pushing Samsung, Samsung is gonna push back and then Apple is gonna k@k
Yes, Samsung is just going to sommer cut off a revenue stream like that.petrivanzyl wrote:We shall see....
What will Apple do if Samsung stop supplying to them.
What will Apple do if they can sell only in the US? And Samsung/HTC/Android the rest of the world?
jamin_za wrote:Oh snap dawg!petrivanzyl wrote:If Apple keeps pushing Samsung, Samsung is gonna push back and then Apple is gonna k@k
For real
Samsung is gonna get served.
No need to qualify the statement or back it up with any reasons why or how... true dat!
What planet are you fromTribble wrote:if others can mimic without stealing their technology - I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to - especially if they improve it.
Surely this is what competition is all about!
Triblarziajamin_za wrote:Don't be a hater...
AlsoWhat planet are you fromTribble wrote:if others can mimic without stealing their technology - I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to - especially if they improve it.
Surely this is what competition is all about!
The fact of Apple’s having filed such a claim at all calls into question whether the company is becoming too litigious, making unreasonable claims to stir up negative press for competitors rather than because of real infringement issues.
Read more