MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Tech News (http://forums.macnn.com/tech-news/)
-   -   Apple proposed $30-40 Samsung license fee per device (http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-news/491138/apple-proposed-30-40-samsung-license/)

 
NewsPoster Aug 10, 2012 07:29 PM
Apple proposed $30-40 Samsung license fee per device
Friday's events in the <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/264714==http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/31/samsung.defends.design.concepts.as.predating.apple/" rel='nofollow'>Apple vs. Samsung trial</a> in Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom in San Francisco today included two University of Toronto professors, an MIT marketing professor and two market research experts as Apple begins to wrap up its case against Samsung, clearing the way for Samsung to present its own charges next week. A presentation entered into evidence showed that Apple had warned Samsung it was infringing in 2010, and proposed a license of $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.<br><br>The October 2010 patent license meeting proposed Samsung pay a base rate of $30 per touchscreen phone, and $40 per tablet regardless of operating system, with tablet fees decreasing to $30 over two years. A royalty discount would apply depending on the phone features. Phones with Apple patents that Microsoft had already licensed would give 40 percent off, a cross-licensing deal on Samsung's patents would apply another 20 percent, and a QWERTY form-factor design would deduct a further 20 percent.

Apple had given a presentation to Samsung executives in August of 2010 -- the first of two such presentations -- warning Samsung that Android infringed on many Apple patents (with dozens of examples) and that the platform would "lead companies to imitate the iPhone." The slideshow (seen in full below) showed examples both of areas where Android was infringing Apple patents as well as specific instances where Samsung was doing so as well. The second presentation (not yet available) was the one where Apple proposed the licensing of many, but not all, of Apple's iOS-related patents.

In other events, trademark survey expert Hal Poret took the stand first for the completion of Samsung's cross examination begun on Thursday. Poret conducted a survey for Apple demonstrating that a large proportion of customers could identify the iPad and iPhone, even when unique labeling on the home button and icons were masked.

The expert claimed that the general look and feel of the device -- the "trade dress" -- is what allows customers to clearly identify Apple versus its competitors. The same survey showed a large percentage of consumers confusing Samsung devices with Apple-produced phones and tablets. Samsung attempted to prove that the identification of Apple's devices has only recently manifested itself, and Samsung's devices caused no market confusion.

The second expert for the day, market research expert Kent Van Liere, added that consumers were apt to be confused if they observed someone using a device -- an experience he called a "post-sales environment." Van Liere detailed another survey showing consumers clearly-branded and also unbranded Samsung products, asking if they resembled any other company's devices, as well as other surveys where customers were shown videos of Samsung devices from the side and front. His surveys found that about one-third of the people surveyed by video saw Samsung tablets and thought they were iPads, with 24 percent of people confusing the Barnes and Noble Nook with an iPad as well.

The methodology of the surveys was questioned by Samsung lawyers, asking why the device wasn't simply handed to the consumer. Van Liere responded that the survey wasn't designed for an observer to interact with the device, but was modeled to demonstrate how customers respond to the devices when in use by another person.

Computer scientist and University of Toronto computer science professor Ravin Balakrishnan claimed that many Samsung phones violated Apple patents, and played videos demonstrating his points. Balakrishnan discussed Apple's "bounce-back" patent which is utilized when the user over-scrolls content, and the screen snaps back into place, and noted that Samsung internal documents noting that the bounce-back feature "generates fun for the user with a visual element that seems to bounce." On cross examination, Balakrishnan admitted that a bounce effect can be implemented without violating the patent, but emphasized that to not violate, the effect would have to be notably different. On cross-examination, some phones were shown that don't utilize the "bounce-back" feature, but Balakrishnan noted that the ones he examined did.

Doctor Karan Singh, also from the University of Toronto, was called after lunch. She believed that 24 Samsung products violated Apple's pinch-to-resize patent. The jury was shown source code, not displayed to the press or public, notable as being one of the few elements Judge Koh has sealed as proprietary information. Apple lawyers produced another internal Samsung document which recommended to its design engineers should use the iPhone interface as a "design benchmark" for similar features in Samsung phones.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology marketing professor John Hauser testified about a survey he conducted that found that customers would pay extra for Apple's technologies in Samsung phones, perhaps laying the groundwork for damages. He did admit to the results not predicting to the dollar what customers would actually pay in the market. Hauser's survey found that customers said they would pay around $100 more in order to have the specific features Apple is claiming Samsung copied, though Samsung noted that if the same question had been asked about other features, customers might have added up thousands of dollars for all the features of a modern smartphone, which typically sells for $200 or less with a contract.

Finishing the day, Apple patent license strategist Boris Tesker was called to the stand. He recalled being shocked when Samsung introduced smartphones that strongly resembled Apple devices. A brief second-hand recounting of a meeting with Apple executives approaching Samsung two months later with a slideshow that illustrated areas Apple believed Samsung was infringing was revealed. Apple's goal, according to Tesker, was to obtain a "cost effective license to our patent portfolio" was addressed, with restrictions -- Apple would not allow Samsung to adopt "distinctive industrial design, software platforms, or feature sets." Tesker admitted Apple had a group of patents called the "unique user experience intellectual property," which he called the concepts and ideas "which make our brand identity and keep us in the marketplace."

Judge Koh declared an end to the day's trial prior to cross-examination of Tesker. Apple intends on wrapping up its case on Monday. To date, Apple has used 11 hours and 35 minutes of its allowed 25 hours, and Samsung has consumed 12 hours and 16 minutes before before beginning its case on the patents it claims Apple infringed.


<a title="View 52 on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/102594165" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">52</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/102594165/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="" scrolling="no" id="doc_82197" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>
 
wrenchy Aug 10, 2012 09:11 PM
Quote
with 24 percent of people confusing the Barnes and Noble Nook with an iPad as well.
Oh good God, people really are brain dead. I walked into a car dealership and bought what I thought was a nice Mercedes Benz. Turned out it was a 2011 Hyundai Sonata. They kinda looked the same... Both had four tires, two aerodynamic headlights. It even had this funny stylized "H" for the logo. I thought it stood for "High" performance. Turned out I was wrong. I returned it.
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 11, 2012 01:03 AM
Interestingly, Lexus saw it fit to actually LICENSE Mercedes designs for some of their early cars.

Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do.
 
wrenchy Aug 11, 2012 02:36 AM
Quote
Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do.
.... Tell that to the 24% of the bozo's that confuse the Nook for an iPad.
 
aviamquepasa Aug 11, 2012 03:40 AM
I would advice children to become lawyers, the future looks bright for them.
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 11, 2012 04:02 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by wrenchy (Post 4183252)
Quote
Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do.
.... Tell that to the 24% of the bozo's that confuse the Nook for an iPad.
That's kind of the point here.
 
chefpastry Aug 11, 2012 04:55 AM
Don't bother wasting your time with him.
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 11, 2012 05:10 AM
Ah, okay.

Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.

blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.

Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.
 
freudling Aug 11, 2012 09:26 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183265)
Ah, okay.
Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.
blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.
Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.
Why don't you play your gang up game somewhere else? Wrenchy is spot on.

So not many less people confuse a Nook tablet with an iPad then people confuse a Samsung tablet with an iPad? So should Apple sue Barnes and Noble?

I keep saying this. Tablets look similar because they are! They are a category of device. They're supposed to look similar. They're not buildings or Apples. Hey, your Apples look like mine! I'm going to sue you!

The point is that the design elements Apple is trying to make a case for itself on are obvious and not patentable. Therefore, there is no copying, no incringement, no licensing fees in order. Apple is simply arrogant and delusional.

And $30 a phone in licensing fees? That is insane. Yet, Apple vehemently argues that AFAIK licensing fees Samsung wanted to charge them were unfair. Hmmmm Apple, when are you going to stop being selfish, hypocritical bastards?

Yes, I love Apple but they're being really stupid and wasting their energy. I look at phones out like the HTC One X, the Samsung Galaxy S3, Android Sense UI. Lots of innovation, different interfaces and mulit-tasking. What is Apple trying to do to itself, back itself in a corner of design and function? Because so much is happening and being done with smartphones Apple is beginning to lag behind. And then when they in innovate they may end up copying what's already been done, knowingly or not, because so much is being done right now. And do any of us think anyone sill take mercy on Apple when they end up using some of these innovations on their phones? No. Apple is making itself out to be an enemy. They're trying to set a precedent that is going to backfire because a. They're going to lose b. They will likely get sued by others as retaliation in the industry. And sued they could be because Apple uses a lot of stuff on their phones that they were not first in.

An interesting note with a cherry on top. Like Apple's notifications? That's cool. But it's a rip off from webOS. They actually hired the guy who worked at HP on the notification system.

Good old Apple: our crap doesn't smell.

http://m.electronista.com/iphone/articles/10/06/09/apple.hints.at.new.ui.for.ios.notifications/
 
Charles Martin Aug 11, 2012 12:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
Tablets look similar because they are! They are a category of device. They're supposed to look similar.
Except that this argument is easily dismissed by having a look at the many Windows tablets that came out before the iPad. They looked nothing like it.

So, simply put, you're wrong.

Quote
The point is that the design elements Apple is trying to make a case for itself on are obvious and not patentable. Therefore, there is no copying, no incringement, no licensing fees in order. Apple is simply arrogant and delusional.
You can believe this if you want, but it's funny how this is so "obvious" and yet ... oddly enough ... none of the many courts that have looked at this case (including the ITC) seem to agree with you on this. The reason for that is because you are wrong that Apple's patents are obvious. They are obviously the right way to do this stuff NOW, but at the time of the granting of the patent the weren't.

It's like cola. You can buy 50 very similar (but not quite the same) brands of cola now. A lot of uninformed people would argue that Coke and Pepsi are essentially the exact same thing. But when the Coca-Cola company won their original patents, brown sugar water was NOT obvious. And I doubt you'd be successful arguing in court that both companies should give up their patents because you can get cola everywhere these days.

Quote
And $30 a phone in licensing fees? That is insane. Yet, Apple vehemently argues that AFAIK licensing fees Samsung wanted to charge them were unfair.
Of all the holes in your arguments, this is the largest. There is a huge difference between FRAND patents (what Apple is accusing primarily Google, Motorola, HTC and Samsung of abusing) and non-FRAND patents. License fees for non-FRAND can be whatever they are worth to you. It's FRAND patents (essential standards that are required to make the devices work at all) that require a low, non-discriminatory fee. No wonder you're so confused, you don't have even the most basic grasp of what's going on in this case.

Indeed, this whole debate in the larger context is about Apple (and Microsoft) trying to fight the FRAND abusers, while at the same time get companies like Google to stop ripping off their non-FRAND patents. As mentioned, it's not just Apple here -- Microsoft is just as active (and has so far been equally successful) at getting court orders to stop Motorola and Google from stealing from them.

I'd suggest you try reading these articles more closely and educate yourself a bit more on the facts of these matters, but really the best experience for you would be to move out from Mom's basement, go out in the real world, invent something new, patent it and then watch others steal your idea. I think it would give you a lot of perspective on how the real world works.
 
freudling Aug 11, 2012 03:46 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by chas_m (Post 4183306)
Except that this argument is easily dismissed by having a look at the many Windows tablets that came out before the iPad. They looked nothing like it.
So, simply put, you're wrong.
Here we go, another one who loves to argue. Your the one who labels things arguments. It speaks volumes of the dogma on this forum.

Fact: tablets look similar because they are.

You want to get cute? Rounded rectangle tablets came before Apple's, and a long promo video of a thin rounded rectangle prototype from 1994... obvious design elements with DEMONSTRATED prior art:

4951/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

HP Tablet from 2002:

4952/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&feature=player_embedded

Quote, Originally Posted by chas_m (Post 4183306)
You can believe this if you want, but it's funny how this is so "obvious" and yet ... oddly enough ... none of the many courts that have looked at this case (including the ITC) seem to agree with you on this. The reason for that is blah blah
The courts don't agree with Apple on many things, and even have moved to reject and question some of these design related patents and patent APPLICATIONS from Apple precisely because they are OBVIOUS WITH PRIOR ART. In fact, Apple is arguing over many design related things that they have to patents on. They're trying to use the sum total to show that their tradedress... in other words... brand has been infringed on.

http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

Quote, Originally Posted by chas_m (Post 4183306)
Of all the holes in your arguments, this is the largest. There is a huge difference between FRAND patents (what Apple is accusing primarily Google, Motorola, HTC and Samsung of abusing) and non-FRAND patents. License fees for non-FRAND can... a bunch of blahs
There is no argument. There is no anything. Just fact. Apple does not own patents to rounded icons, a rounded rectangle design, or even a touchscreen phone. Yet, they're arguing like they do. Anyone is free to make a rounded rectangle phone or tablet with a touchscreen. Anyone is free to make a phone or tablet with a multi-touch operating system as in Android.

LG Prada (2006/early 2007) and O2's XDA (2003) came FIRST, then the iPhone:

http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_4949.jpg

http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_4950.jpg

Get a grip dude, I love Apple as much as you but no amount of you arguing is going to change the facts. And we don't want Apple getting a monopoly on things like rounded rectangle phones, etc. Move on, and tell Apple to move on too. This is a dead end.
 
Charles Martin Aug 11, 2012 05:03 PM
Okay, so I see two further problems:

1. You have no idea what the word "argument" actually means (hint: not "shouting match"). I'm using the word "argument" as in a position you've taken, a case you're trying to make.

2. Again, if you think Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles (they don't, but you appear to believe that they do) and you don't think they deserve to have a patent on it because of prior art, go to the USPTO and the ITC and make your case. Get Apple's patent invalidated. THEN come back and make your case that Samsung isn't ripping them off.

Have you done that? No you have not.

Do you seriously believe you are the first person to think of this, and pursue it? No, you are not.

Conclusion: if Samsung thought they could get Apple's patents invalidated, they'd try to do that. They may have a fairly incompetent legal team, but they're not THAT stupid. In fact, there have been several court cases already where Samsung has tried to do exactly what you describe. Guess what happened? They lost. If I remember correctly, Apple has had exactly ONE patent invalidated so far, and it was not against Samsung.

So I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have patents that might possibly get invalidated. What I'm saying is that you appear to be unaware that to have even gotten to this point, the patents Apple (and Samsung, for that matter) are asserting against each other have *already been deemed valid* or this court case would not exist.

So your argument that these patents aren't valid due to prior art -- which appears to be your sole argument against Apple -- is simply wrong, as I said before. I think the biggest problem that you're having with this is that you're oversimplifying everything -- see my cola analogy in my last post. You're essentially saying that all cars have four wheels, an engine and get you from point A to point B, how could trade dress and design patents possibly exist for cars? All cars are (essentially) the same.

To you, maybe. To the designers and engineers who sweated every part and worked hard to create their own technology, not so much. Just because you ignore the details and differences doesn't mean they're not there, and that each company's contribution to the art of making automobiles (or smartphones) doesn't deserve to have protection from being stolen and exploited unfairly.

So I stand by my conclusion. You will need to put forth some other argument other than claiming Apple has patents on things it doesn't (and that those patents are bogus when, through the process of law, you've already been deemed wrong about that) if you expect to have any credibility when commenting on technical issues in a court case that you clearly don't understand.
 
bleee Aug 11, 2012 06:23 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by wrenchy (Post 4183208)
Oh good God, people really are brain dead. I walked into a car dealership and bought what I thought was a nice Mercedes Benz. Turned out it was a 2011 Hyundai Sonata. They kinda looked the same... Both had four tires, two aerodynamic headlights. It even had this funny stylized "H" for the logo. I thought it stood for "High" performance. Turned out I was wrong. I returned it.
Actually the Hyundai Genesis and Equus look very similar to a Mercedes Benz, often times just walking down the street I actually have to pause and double check to see if it is a Benz. Also the Chrysler 300 series looks alot like a Bentley even the emblems "Wings" look similar, often times I've seen 300's on the street modded to look like Bentleys. Do a Google image search for "chrysler 300 bentley" you'll see what I mean.
 
freudling Aug 11, 2012 06:51 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by chas_m (Post 4183325)
Okay, so I see two further problems:
1. You have no idea what the word "argument" actually means (hint: not "shouting match"). I'm using the word "argument" as in a position you've taken, a case you're trying to make.
2. Again, if you think Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles (they don't, but you appear to believe that they do) and you don't think they deserve to have a patent on it because of prior art, go to the USPTO and the ITC and make your case. Get Apple's patent invalidated. THEN come back and make your case that Samsung isn't ripping them off.
Have you done that? No you have not.
Do you seriously believe you are the first person to think of this, and pursue it? No, you are not.
Conclusion: if Samsung thought they could get Apple's patents invalidated, they'd try to do that. They may have a fairly incompetent legal team, but they're not THAT stupid. In fact, there have been several court cases already where Samsung has tried to do exactly what you describe. Guess what happened? They lost. If I remember correctly, Apple has had exactly ONE patent invalidated so far, and it was not against Samsung.
So I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have patents that might possibly get invalidated. What I'm saying is that you appear to be unaware that to have even gotten to this point, the patents Apple (and Samsung, for that matter) are asserting against each other have *already been deemed valid* or this court case would not exist.
So your argument that these patents aren't valid due to prior art -- which appears to be your sole argument against Apple -- is simply wrong, as I said before. I think the biggest problem that you're having with this is that you're oversimplifying everything -- see my cola analogy in my last post. You're essentially saying that all cars have four wheels, an engine and get you from point A to point B, how could trade dress and design patents possibly exist for cars? All cars are (essentially) the same.
To you, maybe. To the designers and engineers who sweated every part and worked hard to create their own technology, not so much. Just because you ignore the details and differences doesn't mean they're not there, and that each company's contribution to the art of making automobiles (or smartphones) doesn't deserve to have protection from being stolen and exploited unfairly.
So I stand by my conclusion. You will need to put forth some other argument other than claiming Apple has patents on things it doesn't (and that those patents are bogus when, through the process of law, you've already been deemed wrong about that) if you expect to have any credibility when commenting on technical issues in a court case that you clearly don't understand.
The only thing that's clear is:

1. You don't understand what you read
2. You see and hear what you want
3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 11, 2012 10:34 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183265)
Ah, okay.
Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.
blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.
Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.
Why don't you play your gang up game somewhere else? Wrenchy is spot on.

So not many less people confuse a Nook tablet with an iPad then people confuse a Samsung tablet with an iPad? So should Apple sue Barnes and Noble?
Freudling:

What the hell do you think will happen if Apple wins this case?
Why the hell do you think they're going through this trouble?

This isn't about Samsung: they're simply the biggest, most profitable example, and probably the only one that can survive this court case to the end, establishing legal precedent.

OF COURSE Apple will go after the Nook and anybody else if they win.

Point is, they wouldn't even have to sue! They can use the court decision to slap an injunction on anything deemed too close and just sit on that, demanding settlement.

A win would give them some serious argumentative clout.
 
chefpastry Aug 11, 2012 11:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183338)
The only thing that's clear is:
1. You don't understand what you read
2. You see and hear what you want
3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
I will do what Samsung does...

The only thing that's clear is:
1. You don't understand what you read
2. You see and hear what you want
3. You have next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
 
Charles Martin Aug 12, 2012 12:46 AM
1. Freudling doesn't understand what he reads
2. Freudling sees and hears what he wants
3. Freudling has next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.

Fixed that for you. :lol:

Okay, I think I see now what the real problem is -- you're not comprehending that I'm not the one challenging you. I'm the one pointing out that THE FACTS are challenging you.

You claim that Apple's patents are invalid due to prior art. Clearly, that's not the case -- these patents Samsung is being challenged on have already passed that test. It's not me calling you wrong, it's the USPTO, the ITC and the court system. Maybe you're a genius and all the people in those organisations are chumps, but as you can't even give an actual name on a forum I think I have valid reasons to question your understanding of the case when you infer that all those organizations (and Samsung itself) are too stupid to have seen this obvious issue and not dispensed with it beforehand.

I would suggest that it is YOU with the rose-coloured glasses on here, chum. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're starting from a very flawed premise that is likely to lead to a flawed assumption. It will be interesting, I'm sure, to discuss this case with you when the trial is over.
 
freudling Aug 12, 2012 03:20 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by chefpastry (Post 4183361)
I will do what Samsung does...
The only thing that's clear is:
1. You don't understand what you read
2. You see and hear what you want
3. You have next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
The only thing that's clear is:

1. You don't understand what you read
2. You see and hear what you want
3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
 
freudling Aug 12, 2012 03:21 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by chas_m (Post 4183373)
1. Freudling doesn't understand what he reads
2. Freudling sees and hears what he wants
3. Freudling has next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
Fixed that for you. :lol:
Okay, I think I see now what the real problem is -- you're not comprehending that I'm not the one challenging you. I'm the one pointing out that THE FACTS are challenging you.
You claim that Apple's patents are invalid due to prior art. Clearly, that's not the case -- these patents Samsung is being challenged on have already passed that test. It's not me calling you wrong, it's the USPTO, the ITC and the court system. Maybe you're a genius and all the people in those organisations are chumps, but as you can't even give an actual name on a forum I think I have valid reasons to question your understanding of the case when you infer that all those organizations (and Samsung itself) are too stupid to have seen this obvious issue and not dispensed with it beforehand.
I would suggest that it is YOU with the rose-coloured glasses on here, chum. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're starting from a very flawed premise that is likely to lead to a flawed assumption. It will be interesting, I'm sure, to discuss this case with you when the trial is over.
Good old chas_m, never makes it out of the starting gates...
 
freudling Aug 12, 2012 03:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183359)
Freudling:
What the hell do you think will happen if Apple wins this case?
Why the hell do you think they're going through this trouble?
This isn't about Samsung: they're simply the biggest, most profitable example, and probably the only one that can survive this court case to the end, establishing legal precedent.
OF COURSE Apple will go after the Nook and anybody else if they win.
Point is, they wouldn't even have to sue! They can use the court decision to slap an injunction on anything deemed too close and just sit on that, demanding settlement.
A win would give them some serious argumentative clout.
What the hell! Hell this and hell that!

For these reasons and more, Apple won't win.
 
DiabloConQueso Aug 12, 2012 06:53 AM
If someone says "rounded corners" one more time as if Apple is suing Samsung over that, then the proof that they clearly don't understand the court case at all, nor what a patent protects and how it's enforced.

Apple is not suing Samsung over rounded corners, nor does Apple hold a patent on rounded corners at all. If they did, they'd be suing anyone and everyone that produces a product with rounded corners -- and they're not.

Plenty of examples of devices with rounded corners have been posted here. That's not the point, though. The case hinges on the fact that Samsung produces a device that has ROUNDED CORNERS, combined with A BLACK FACE, combined with A SILVER/GRAY BEZEL, combined with ICONS THAT ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR, combined with FUNCTIONALITY LIKE SPRING-BACK ON OVERSCROLL, etc.

None of those things by themselves is the issue -- it's the combination and presence of ALL those things together.

So yeah, the "rounded corners" argument is dead, because it's being pulled out of a pool of similar features and being taken out of context. Show us artwork or a product that incorporates ALL of the features above that predates the iPhone/iPad, and now we've got a debate going on.... But until then, zeroing in on rounded corners shows lack of understanding.
 
freudling Aug 12, 2012 10:51 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by DiabloConQueso (Post 4183405)
If someone says "rounded corners" one more time as if Apple is suing Samsung over that, then the proof that they clearly don't understand the court case at all, nor what a patent protects and how it's enforced.
Apple is not suing Samsung over rounded corners, nor does Apple hold a patent on rounded corners at all. If they did, they'd be suing anyone and everyone that produces a product with rounded corners -- and they're not.
Plenty of examples of devices with rounded corners have been posted here. That's not the point, though. The case hinges on the fact that Samsung produces a device that has ROUNDED CORNERS, combined with A BLACK FACE, combined with A SILVER/GRAY BEZEL, combined with ICONS THAT ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR, combined with FUNCTIONALITY LIKE SPRING-BACK ON OVERSCROLL, etc.
None of those things by themselves is the issue -- it's the combination and presence of ALL those things together.
So yeah, the "rounded corners" argument is dead, because it's being pulled out of a pool of similar features and being taken out of context. Show us artwork or a product that incorporates ALL of the features above that predates the iPhone/iPad, and now we've got a debate going on.... But until then, zeroing in on rounded corners shows lack of understanding.
Thanks dude, like we didn't know it wasn't about the combination of these things. If you actually read this thread you'd see a lot of discussion about the combination of these things together and confusion in the market. And this has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread as well.

BUT THANKS FOR CHIMING IN WITH YOUR ALL CAPS. YOUR POST REALLY ADDED TO THE DISCUSSION. NOT.
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 12, 2012 11:47 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183388)
What the hell! Hell this and hell that!

For these reasons and more, Apple won't win.
Damn.

This would have been your one chance to actually make your point.

Oh well, I guess you're not interested.

Empty rhetoric prowess and logorrhea are of no real interest.
 
freudling Aug 12, 2012 07:29 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183432)
Damn.
This would have been your one chance to actually make your point.
Oh well, I guess you're not interested.
Empty rhetoric prowess and logorrhea are of no real interest.
What the hell! But Eddy Cue said!
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 13, 2012 12:01 AM
I'm going to try one last time:

Dear Freudling,

Should Apple win this: Do you think Apple will NOT use that legal precedent to go after any and all makers of similar products, including the Nook?

What do you believes their primary motivation for this lawsuit?
 
freudling Aug 13, 2012 01:13 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183550)
I'm going to try one last time:
Dear Freudling,
Should Apple win this: Do you think Apple will NOT use that legal precedent to go after any and all makers of similar products, including the Nook?
What do you believes their primary motivation for this lawsuit?
What the hell!!!
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 13, 2012 01:29 AM
That's just bizarre.
 
OreoCookie Aug 13, 2012 03:24 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
So not many less people confuse a Nook tablet with an iPad then people confuse a Samsung tablet with an iPad? So should Apple sue Barnes and Noble?
Samsung's internal studies show that »more than half« of the consumers confuse a Galaxy Tab with an iPad, that's a difference of at least a factor of 2 (I was unable to find a precise number, only »more than half«, although I don't know whether that is 51 % or 80 %). The survey done by Apple suggests 75 % which is a factor of 3. So even if you extract the 25 % tech illiterates, there are still plenty of regular people who are fooled.
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
I keep saying this. Tablets look similar because they are! They are a category of device. They're supposed to look similar. They're not buildings or Apples.
Samsung has a long history of copying other handsets. Back when RIM was at the top of the smartphone world, they brought to market the BlackJack and the Omnia, for instance. So the question is not whether Samsung has copied Apple, but whether and how much copying is legal if one doesn't want to pay a license fee.
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
The point is that the design elements Apple is trying to make a case for itself on are obvious and not patentable. Therefore, there is no copying, no incringement, no licensing fees in order. Apple is simply arrogant and delusional.
The whole patent system is broken, yes. But unless the patent law changes, this is the basis on which trials are decided. Even companies who complain about it (have to) use it to their advantage when it is convenient. Samsung is attacking Apple over FRAND patents while Apple is attack Samsung, because they claim they're violating their patents.
Quote, Originally Posted by freudling (Post 4183291)
And $30 a phone in licensing fees? That is insane. Yet, Apple vehemently argues that AFAIK licensing fees Samsung wanted to charge them were unfair.
Depending on which report you believe, Microsoft gets somewhere between $5 and $15 per smartphone from most Android handset makers. Given that, Apple's demand of $30 seems reasonable as an initial offer in negotiations (i. e. they high-ball and use that number as a starting point in negotiations).

Most of Samsung's patents (which are fought over in other suits) concern FRAND patents for components where the component makers already have valid license agreements with Samsung.
 
chefpastry Aug 13, 2012 05:45 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183556)
That's just bizarre.
How did you manage to get him to stop quoting War and Peace?
 
Spheric Harlot Aug 13, 2012 07:14 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by chefpastry (Post 4183585)
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183556)
That's just bizarre.
How did you manage to get him to stop quoting War and Peace?
Just nail him down with concrete questions that force him to give a clear statement in less than 500 words, apparently.

You won't get an answer, but he'll go into a sort of whimpering echolalia mode.
 
freudling Aug 13, 2012 11:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4183592)
Just nail him down with concrete questions that force him to give a clear statement in less than 500 words, apparently.
You won't get an answer, but he'll go into a sort of whimpering echolalia mode.
What the hell!!!
 
freudling Aug 13, 2012 12:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4183565)
Samsung's internal studies show that »more than half« of the consumers confuse a Galaxy Tab with an iPad, that's a difference of at least a factor of 2 (I was unable to find a precise number, only »more than half«, although I don't know whether that is 51 % or 80 %).The survey done by Apple suggests 75 % which is a factor of 3. So even if you extract the 25 % tech illiterates, there are still plenty of regular people who are fooled.
Another one. Ok, here we go.

No, Samsung's internal study did NOT show that more than half of people are confused with the Galaxy Tab over the iPad. It showed that people weren't sure that the TELEVISION COMMERCIAL was linked to Samsung. This is not the same as consumers being confused by two devices, buying one at a store then taking it home and thinking it's an iPad. Best Buy's data shows 1 in 11 thought they bought an iPad when they bought a Galaxy Tab on returns. And that has been largely invalidated because it's not clear that the people were telling the truth. That they may have been lying when they gave that reason for the return. e.g., they just wanted to try it and take it back; they legitimately wanted to use Android coming from iOS and found they didn't like it, etc.

And from the study, it looks like 35% of people can't link Apple's iPad commercials back to Apple. They don't know who it's from.

Of note, some 25% of people on a survey confused the Nook with an iPad, a device that looks nothing like an iPad. Some 33% confused a Galaxy Tab with an iPad. Not much more confusion. It shows that even devices that are so disimilar in design are being confused simply because they actually share many of the same design elements that make them look like a sea of economy cars. All design elements free to be used by anyone. Again, they're not supposed to look like apples and oranges: they are the same category of object in the world. They're supposed to look similar.

Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4183565)
Samsung has a long history of copying other handsets. Back when RIM was at the top of the smartphone world, they brought to market the BlackJack and the Omnia, for instance. So the question is not whether Samsung has copied Apple, but whether and how much copying is legal if one doesn't want to pay a license fee.
I copied someone before although this is pure conjecture. Does that mean I copied someone now? Nice logic. In fact, your reasoning is fallacious. Show and demonstrate that Samsung "copied" Apple. And what you don't get, and many others, is that what you think is copying is not. That even if Samsung "copied" Apple on things, what does that mean? Are they allowed? In fact, as I've been hammering home, all of the design elements Apple is charging Samsung with copying are NOT PATENTED BY APPLE. Apple does NOT own those design elements. Even if in total by using all of those design elements your product looks like Apple's it's tough luck because anyone is free to use those things. That's a rounded rectangle. That's a grid of icons with gradients. That's a phone icon tilted on a green gradient background. That's a multi-touch device with a large touchscreen. All of it. Just like a steering wheel, tires, headlights, etc. aren't owned by anyone. And as you'll see again, Apple wasn't first on ANY OF THESE THINGS.

Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4183565)
The whole patent system is broken, yes. But unless the patent law changes, this is the basis on which trials are decided. Even companies who complain about it (have to) use it to their advantage when it is convenient. Samsung is attacking Apple over FRAND patents while Apple is attack Samsung, because they claim they're violating their patents.
As should be clear to you now, most of this trial has been about a sum total of design elements that are NOT PATENTED by Apple. From the BS Susan Kare icon designer on the stand to that professor, each paid $80 k whatever by Apple. Then the courts deny Samsung's designer taking the stand who wasn't involved in the Galaxy S design. But they allow Susan Kare who hasn't been part of Apple for over 25 years and had nothing to do with the iPhone design.

Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4183565)
Depending on which report you believe, Microsoft gets somewhere between $5 and $15 per smartphone from most Android handset makers. Given that, Apple's demand of $30 seems reasonable as an initial offer in negotiations (i. e. they high-ball and use that number as a starting point in negotiations).
Most of Samsung's patents (which are fought over in other suits) concern FRAND patents for components where the component makers already have valid license agreements with Samsung.
Apple doesn't have a valid agreement with Samsung over their FRAND patents, and Apple tried to get those license fees from Samsung over things they mostly have NO PATENT on. That's the absurd thing about it. And $30? That's insane. What would you say as a business to someone at your doorstep trying to get license fees from you over non-patented things? Yeah, exactly.

You don't get it, and you don't see what's coming. Apple has cut its own nose off to spite its face.

It's made enemies in the industry over its arrogance, particularly enemies made in relation to its biggest suppliers. What would happen if Samsung cut off all work with Apple? Well freudling, they'd lose 8% of their income. But what if they get sick of Apple, because afterall they're owning mobile now, with massive explosive marketshare. What if they just stopped making anything for Apple? This may happen.

Well freudling, Apple will go to other suppliers like Sharp, etc. Ya, good luck getting production. Samsung is so powerful because they are one of the world's largest manufacturers of components for the industry. It's not trivial to replace them and it's not possible. Samsung: making pretty kick ass phones and owning the mobile industry + they own the manufacturing. Apple making a phone that is 2 years stale who doesn't own the manufacturing.

Next move: Apple, invest in your own manufacturing facilities and try to do the chip and memory production yourself to rely less on the industry.

And what else? Hmmmm, Apple wasn't first in a lot of things.

1. Kyocera and then Sony and Nokia invented the camera phone in beginning in 1999.
2. LG Prada and O2 XDA II came FIRST, then the iPhone. That is rounded rectangle large touchscreen phones with touch operating systems.
3. Internal phone antennae invented at Nokia years ago. Revolution in phone design ensued.
4. App Store invented by Nokia in 2005.
5. Skype App on several smartphones for years before iPhone.
6. Sending pictures by text message invented by Sony years before the iPhone.
7. iOS Notifications invented by webOS. Apple ripped it off and even hired the webOS notification designer to do it.
8. Grid of icons on mobile device invented by Psion. Later, Palm made color touchscreen mobile devices with grid of color icons on mobile operating system Palm OS. Document, spreadhsheet Apps. Games. More. Lots of mobile Apps.
9. Iconic handset phone icon invented decades ago and used around the world.
10. Lots of rounded rectangle tablets in scifi starting in the 60s, as well as in the news with prototypes and video walkthroughs, and production ones like the HP from 2002 well before the iPad. And Samsung's current Galaxy Tab design is a design they invented in 2006 with their picture frame. To say Samsung copied that design from Apple is ridiculous, regardless of function. Samsung invented the design they use. Full stop.

On and on... But Apple's crap doesn't smell. Yeah, nice try.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2