REVscene Automotive Forum - Jury reaches their decision in the Apple-Samsung trial

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Jury reaches their decision in the Apple-Samsung trial (https://www.revscene.net/forums/672833-jury-reaches-their-decision-apple-samsung-trial.html)

To be honest, if Apple could standardize with the rest of the industry on stuff like connectors or at least allow leasing of their connectors so the rest of the industry could choose them as a standard and not do dumb shit like wipe out your phone if you sync to an new computer then I'd probably have bought my wife an iPod/phone by now. But since they won't do that, I won't give them a penny.

Good Job Apple, You Fucked the World (by @baekdal) #opinion

Quote:

I'm appalled by this. We all knew that Samsung was copying Apple, but that's not the point. What I'm appalled by is that it is now illegal for more than two people to come up with the same idea. The things that Apple has highlighted are not inventions. It's simply solutions to common problems.

Like the tap-to-zoom. That's not an invention. That's what we do when we use touch. You see something; you want to look at it; so you tap on it. Did Apple make it first? Maybe. But look at the behavior of a toddler when they see something. What do they do? Yep, they tap on it. It's not an invention. It's normal human behavior.

The idea that one company can own non-inventions is absolutely appalling to me.

Another example. Apple apparently holds the patent for click-to-call. Meaning that if you see a phone number, you can click on it, and it will call that number.

I'm sorry Apple, but I came up with that idea before you created the iPhone. A friend of mine and I were working on a custom browser, and we needed it to be able to access resources outside the browser itself. So we implemented a special protocol that, once called, would open the external app with the command supplied with it. This way, we could match any string using Regex, and assign the result to an action outside the browser.

And that is exactly how click-to-call works.

Why didn't I patent it? Well, because it's not an invention. All I did was to find a solution to a problem. If you had the same problem you would have found the same solution. I didn't invent anything. I only looked at what we had and said "hmmm ...we need to be able to click on that..."

The idea that one company can own a solution to a problem is absolutely insane.

It's the same with Amazon's one-click patent. That's not an invention either. That is a person noticing that more clicks lead to a lower conversion rate, so..."hmmm ...maybe if we make it one-click we would sell more?"

Amazon didn't invent anything. They just solved a common problem, but now, because of the idiotic patent system, they can claim to own that solution -- despite the fact that many people are coming up with the same solution to the same problem.

And here is another one: A company actually owns the patent for making a LED light turn green during a biometric login. Here is how that works. You use a biometric device, like a fingerprint reader. It scans your finger and tells the system if it can recognize you or not. Then:

if (scanner.status = Accepted) { led.color = green; } else { led.color = red; }

Someone actually owns the patent for this. Changing the color of a LED light upon login. That's not an invention. That's one line of code that everyone would make if they tried to solve that problem.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8014226)

if everyone was like you, nothing would ever change. because "this is just the way it is", but it ISNT. you can change it. you can fight it or invent another system.

Too much garbage to sift through, but I'll comment on this one point.

"If everyone was like me, nothing would ever change?" You mean like the person that sat down on their computer and coded an App in a couple hours to demonstrate three other possible methods to replace pinch-zoom instead of just going "there's no other way to do it, so we might as well give up trying?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo (Post 8014337)

Good Job Apple, You Fucked the World (by @baekdal) #opinion

Pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole issue.

Funny how he claims to have created the same idea as Apple, but doesn't produce any evidence. Come on, Thomas Baekdal, drop the thermonuclear bomb on Apple with your working and fully coded example, please.

He talks a lot about "common problems" (like Ulic), but the really funny thing is if the problem is so common and obvious, then why didn't anyone else use it before? Everything is obvious - after you've seen it. This is why people always go "why didn't I think of that" when they see a great invention for the first time.

The more original a discovery, the more obvious it seems afterwards. Arthur Koestler, 1964

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8014391)

No offense at all, but your three methods of trying to replace Pinch-Zoom were utterly terrible and unusable. I can't imagine teaching my mom to use those methods, pinch and zoom is much better, especially for fast adjustments.

Like Ulic's reference, driving with a joystick.

It's just not a good road to be headed down. Today it's smartphone bullshit, next thing you know someone invents a safety device similar to an airbag in a car but works 90% better, But BMW made it so unless you want it you'll have to get a BMW, because they feel the need to protect their inventions by hoarding them. Oh and don't try to make something similar or they'll sue your ass...innovation at its finest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8013872)

Groklaw? ROFL. They are well known as being Anti-Apple and Anti-MS. Do you have anything to add of your own, or are you only capable of posting what others say?

Did you even read my reply to Lomac above? Companies who develop IP used in things like WiFi or USB offered their patents to be used to form a standard. They approach organizations like IEEE to use their IP and in exchange they agree to abide by FRAND rules.

IEEE has no right or authority to go to a company and say "we're going to use this technology to implement a standard, and there's nothing you can do about it."

I read it, what's your problem? Maybe you should heed your own advice and read MY post. Nowhere did I say they had the authority to force standards. My point was you, nor i, nor anyone in this world would be where we are now without it. By your own admission the only reason not to standardize would be because you can't pick and choose who uses it - even though you still get paid. Selfish much?

Edit: Oh and from the looks of it, it seems like Apple is trying to force THEIR standards on everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkyMark (Post 8014435)

most likely bmw would license its use to EVERYONE and make MUCH MORE money. (look up FRAND patents)

What Samsung is doing is trying to get away without having to do a licensing deal like microsoft.

much of what Samsung release now is fairly diverse compared to apple products but it still does not mean they didnt copy when the iphone came out in 2007 just to get into the game.

I like Nokias slide zoom more than pinch

you slide your thumb from left-right or down-up and it zooms in

can do it with 1 finger so its better than pinch imo

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo (Post 8014425)

I never claimed my three methods were better than Apple's. People keep missing the point even though I spelled it out very clearly in my video comments. It's that with a little effort you can try to come up with something different. What could 10 designers achieve if they actually spent a few days discussing other possibilities? As rsx mentioned (as I did in my comments), why not a circular motion like a virtual scroll wheel? After thinking about it I think I'm going to code a virtual scroll wheel App and post another video showing that method. You know, take feedback from rsx and come up with something better.

Who knows? After a dozen iterations maybe I'll have a zoom method comparable to pinch zoom? What will your argument be then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twstd_reality (Post 8014447)

Standards are for interoperability. Like making sure USB mice or keyboards work on any machine. Or the HDMI out of your BluRay player will work with your TV. Or your Bluetooth phone will work in a Bluetooth equipped car. Of course you need standards for those types of things otherwise nothing would work together.

However, you don't need standards for "features" like pinch to zoom. There's no harm in having to use one gesture on an iPhone and a different gesture on a Samsung phone. It has nothing to do with being selfish - it has to do with protecting your brand. Something all companies vigorously do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anjew (Post 8014486)

Ford had a known issue with the Pinto where the gas tank could rupture and cause a fire if rear-ended. Ford did a cost analysis and decided it would be cheaper to pay out lawsuits from possible claims of injuries or deaths from fires than to fix the cars.

Samsung did exactly the same thing. They decided to borrow from the iPhone to help them get into the market knowing full well they'd have to pay up eventually. Now they are well established and any penalties they might have to pay are likely less than what they gained in terms of market penetration. I can't think of any other valid reason. Samsung isn't stupid. They knew they were infringing. They knew they'd have to pay. Even Google warned them and hey still went ahead. IMO it was all planned.

^Carrier has arrived

lol, I found this as an interesting read with nice illustations
(probably a while back cause it's about the Galaxy Tab)

Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it (by @baekdal) #opinion

Quote:

Apple has told Samsung that, in order not to infringe on their design, Samsung should create a design with:

Front surface that isn't black.
Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
Display screens that aren't centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
Non-horizontal speaker slots.
No front bezel at all.
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
Profiles that aren't thin.
And the two really silly ones:

Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
Cluttered appearance.

Is this really true? or just a biased article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StylinRed (Post 8014553)

I like Nokias slide zoom more than pinch

you slide your thumb from left-right or down-up and it zooms in

can do it with 1 finger so its better than pinch imo

I don't quite understand. Is there a video example?
Wouldn't sliding left-right or down-up just pan/scroll through a webpage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthchilli (Post 8014675)

Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products - AndroidPIT
The real war begins
Google vs Apple

This is old news from last week. These are Motorola's B team patents. The backup plan. They just lost last week with their A team. All their patents against Apple were thrown out, except for one. Apple was already found to not infringe the remaining patent, but they decided to send it back to Judge Pender for another look anyway. So he may find Apple guilty or he may stick by his original ruling. We'll find out in about a year.

Motorola and Samsung have a huge war chest of patents. Unfortunately, they are mainly FRAND patents relating to standards and are useless in court. So they've been trying to use FRAND patents and are getting hammered for it. Not only losing case after case, but inviting the wrath of the EU with formal antitrust investigations against them for abuse of FRAND patents.

This is how they operate: Moto licenses FRAND patents for 3G cell phones to Company A, B and C. These companies in turn manufacture chips using the Moto patents and sell them to hundreds of cell phone OEM's who use them in their devices. Company A starts selling to Apple. Moto pulls their license. Apple then buys from Company B. Moto pulls their license. Moto then goes to Apple directly and demands payment for use of their patents. Of course, Moto wants much more from Apple directly than they were getting from Company A & B through licensing them to make chips. Apple refuses and decides to fight in court insted. FYI, nowhere in the original agreement with Company A or B was there any clause saying who they could and could not sell their chips to. Moto simply wanted more money after seeing how wildly successful Apple's iPhone was. Samsung did the exact same thing by trying to do an end-run around Qualcomm and trying to get license fees from Apple directly.

Seriously, do you people only read the blogs that bash Apple and what they are doing? Are you completely oblivious to all the shit that Samsung and Motorola have started? It's gotten so bad that even companies that would be considered "enemies" of Apple are actually sticking up for them with official statements supporting Apple's position on FRAND issues. That's because Apple's position is the same as virtually every technology company in the world. Except Moto/Goog and Samsung, who seem to be bucking the trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomes (Post 8014732)

^Carrier has arrived

No, Carrier just left port. It won't arrive for another year and when they left they forgot to load the planes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8014196)

you should have to licence it to whoever wanted to use it, if the design is actually useful and makes your life easier than whatever current design is out.

if your competitor can make the exact same thing for 3/4th the price and quality, and STILL have it be more successful than your original product, your product was flawed in price. if someone steals the idea and makes it better, then they made it better plain and simple. you helped create that idea. what more do you want me to say? you still get royalties. what more do you want?

if you make something and someone eles copies it and some people buy it, doesnt it just mean they like that product more? they prefer it because of the price? or whatever other detail over yours? whats wrong with that? if they wanted YOURS they'd go buy it. but obviously the competitor has made it more desirable to certain customers. are they really stealing your customers? or are they just providing another option to a device that is similar.

you do have an incentive to be creative, you make money of royalties.
YOU INVENTED IT AND SHARED IT WITH THE WORLD. what MORE do you want?

you suddenly might not have incentive to be creative any more, but someone else will. and they'll make it regardless of how you feel. and then someone else will try to rip it off regardless.

you wouldn't be stealing any idea, you would be buying a licence to produce the product with the same design.

plus stealing ideas, if you cant steal it here, just go to the other side of the world and do it.

so now you sue your competitor and they cant make your camera here in north america.

what's stopping you from going to china, or anywhere else in the world and doing it?

you're NOT STOPPING ANYTHING, we live in a GLOBAL world.

i didn't say it should AUTOMATICALLY be public domain. you can keep it a secret forever, and not let anyone know about it, or keep it a secret between you and your friends.

once u release something in to the public, it IS public knowledge.
it becomes part of the collective whole. that's a fact. you cannot stop it with patents, or force or whatever. it just becomes part of our history regardless of who invented it. anyone will have free reign over it whether you like it or not!

you can sue the shit out of them, but other people will keep doing it. you can sue the shit out of everyone that copies you but you're not gonna be able to sue people at the rate which they rip it off.

keeping an idea from the public, is the same thing as keeping drugs from druggies.
they're gonna get their hands on it no matter what you do. its inevitable.

the worst case scenario is they have to wait till the patent expires, which means a decade or two of innovation that could have stemmed directly from that one design.

when private 3d printers become widely avaliable, what the fuck are designers gonna do about their greed and pride huh?

everyone is gonna be able to print whatever the fuck they want.

you think the designs are gonna be "sold"? yeah maybe for corporate legal reasons.
but everyone else like me and you will just download the design from the internet, and print out whatever design we fucking want. people will download patented ideas, they will add and modify it, they WILL come up with better designs BASED on the original patents without licences without authorization. and there is not a single fucking thing anyone can do about it.

what are you gonna do? BAN 3d PRINTERS? give me a break.

we're in an age where collectivity is of higher priority. no one cares who came up with the idea, no one cares how hard it took to design it, they only care about the end product, and where other people can take it.

there is no ME or I. your idea, is our idea, our idea, is your idea. ideas are immortalized.
i know people will disagree with the above statement, but the fact is, what the fuck are they gonna do?
all they can do is disagree at a personal feeling level, everyone else will go on copying ideas and making them better. not a single fuck will be given.

How about music. If you're a musician and you create a song, you don't want someone else to use part of your song without your approval. Yes, it happens with remixes, people sampling it for other songs, etc., but usually it's not approved by the artist/record company. Remix artists love to use the fair play law (or whatever it's called), but it's still illegal. The reason why most of the time they're let slide is because they don't make any money. However, that doesn't mean it's not still illegal. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it should automatically become licenced so any movie producer or politician can use it as they see fit, provided they pay for it. I'd sure as hell wouldn't want someone like Palin, McCain or Bush to use a song I created.

As for my example with the camera crane, one reason why I would want my product to remain mine is exclusivity. If everyone built virtually the same thing with maybe a tiny variant between the rest of the line, then there's no real desire to invent anything different. I should have specified I was talking more about the software coding and board designs instead of the actual external piece.

Think about it this way: Adobe Photoshop has the automatic fill function, right? That was the result of a lot of software coding and is pretty successful, especially to people who aren't professionals with the program. That software coding is unique to Adobe. You can't find it anywhere else in any other photo altering program. Sure, other programs may offer a similar option, but they went about it their own way with different coding. It's the same with Google and their search parameter coding. It's what makes that company's product unique. It simply means their competitors need to come up with something different, even if the end result is the same. They shouldn't be forced to licence out their coding to anyone else out there if they don't want to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8014770)

How about music. If you're a musician and you create a song, you don't want someone else to use part of your song without your approval.

for some reason the first that came to mind is patent use of "uhhhh" and "shorty" in songs

:lawl:

Some more news today.

Apple and Motorola have been fighting in the German courts and it was announced today they have come to a licensing agreement. No details have been announced yet. So one fight has been settled at the same time another one has been started. The wheels keep turning - nothing's really changed.

Samsung also talked about their "strict internal firewall" between Samsung Semiconductor and Samsung Mobile to put to rest any fears people might have as to whether Samsung Mobile's recent court loss to Apple would have any effect on the relationship between Apple and Samsung Semi (Apple will buy a rumored $12 billion in components from Samsung this year alone).

Samsung Semi sure doesn't want to lose that gravy train.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomes (Post 8014732)

^Carrier has arrived

after reading the article about Google i was thinking more of gandalf leading the calvary charge from LOTR :lawl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8014770)

times have changed, music is almost free. there's nothing you can do about it.
just change with times. figure another way to make money from it. holding onto old ways are like old folks that refuse to change.

look at lady gaga or whoever it was. she knew her songs would be downloaded like mad. she made her album super duper cheap on amazon.com and tons of people STILL bought it.

there's always ways to make money, but trying to force people to buy instead of get it for free (when free is right there), is NOT the way.

it's like having a puddle of fresh water and paying for water. when they're BOTH there.
the fresh free water has come, and its here to stay. fighting it is pointless.

you wouldnt want palin, mccain, or bush to use the song you created because of ego.
but who cares if they actually use it. those people could easily be people you like or idolize as well.

you cant own creativity. that's archaic. thats all i can say.

innovation is global, creativity is global.

wanting to keep it for individual purposes is all ego/greed/etc.

i honestly think, if you can't make money doing what you're doing, you chose the wrong path. and if its because other people are "stealing" your product...
you got into the business for the wrong reasons. products will be stolen, all the time, you cant bitch and whine when someone does it. you just gotta be on top of them in some other aspect. and if they eventually beat you, well, its a dog eat dog world, they're just better than you. you have been replaced, move over or into another industry.

if i was a mucisian and my music was massively downloaded and i became popular...

i dont care man. my music would just be free.
i could make money off tours if i got any.

if i couldnt, well too bad. ill go find another job and make music part time.

but that is my views on music in particular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8014770)

As for my example with the camera crane, one reason why I would want my product to remain mine is exclusivity. If everyone built virtually the same thing with maybe a tiny variant between the rest of the line, then there's no real desire to invent anything different. I should have specified I was talking more about the software coding and board designs instead of the actual external piece.

there is desire to invent something different. someone that's more creative or bored will do it.

you're telling me if ppl are allowed to copy, no one would ever invent anything better?
up until this century ppl were allowed to copy anything all the time! things still got better.

copying doesnt prevent anything.

again... exclusivity for what purpose? so you can say ONLY you have it?
but that again boils down to ego.

why not ALL of humans have it? what's the difference?

it sounds like a little kid, that has some unique toy, and he gets hella pissed if some other kid gets the same toy or copies it or makes it himself.

but like... really... who cares... its totally just an ego thing.

big corporations dont want people to copy for profit greed reasons

small time individuals dont want people to copy for egotistical reasons.

both reasons are negative.

remember im talking about this from a GLOBAL perspective.

so your product is yours in america... lol what about china? ppl gonna copy that shit there... so whats the difference?
SOMEWHERE someone is gonna copy it no matter what.

if you want your patent to work, you should be advocating it across the globe.
but OBVIOUSLY that will NEVER happen.

and OBVIOUSLY, copying will always be dominant overall percentage wise in the globe.

there is nothing.. you can do about it. that's what im trying to get at.

if i invented something, yeah i wish i could have FULL power and control it.
but realistically, that's not a strategy i can follow, somoene is gonna copy it.
make it better or whatever.

the strategy i'd have to take is to be the first, or to get it patented and licenced out to as many people as possible before it gets copied to shit. and once it does, i have to move onto the next product. thats all there is to it man.

once its copied its old, its the past, its over, time to move on to the next great thing.

you created something, you left your mark, there's nothing greater than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8014770)

Think about it this way: Adobe Photoshop has the automatic fill function, right? That was the result of a lot of software coding and is pretty successful, especially to people who aren't professionals with the program. That software coding is unique to Adobe. You can't find it anywhere else in any other photo altering program. Sure, other programs may offer a similar option, but they went about it their own way with different coding. It's the same with Google and their search parameter coding. It's what makes that company's product unique. It simply means their competitors need to come up with something different, even if the end result is the same. They shouldn't be forced to licence out their coding to anyone else out there if they don't want to.

yeah and that automatic fill function is fucking awesome.

im sure some programmer out there is trying to copy it right now for their own photoshop.

they might just change the coding enough so its "unique" (but obviously its not, they just change it enough so they can dodge the legal issues).

or perhaps their version of "photoshop" is FREE. anything can be copied as long as its free right? what can people do about it once its up on the net?

nothing.

someone smart would just program their phones or photoshop program to be open source. people could just code free addons that ripped off ideas. no one could do jack shit about it.

that's the way its already heading.

the point im getting at is, they dont need to be forced to licence. someones just gonna copy it anyways.

law or no law. sue or no sue. its gonna get out there. because its already out there.

fighting it is stupid.

the smart people/corporations are already adapting to what the way it will be like in the near future. not trying to cling onto some archaic way of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8014603)

Samsung did exactly the same thing. They decided to borrow from the iPhone to help them get into the market knowing full well they'd have to pay up eventually. Now they are well established and any penalties they might have to pay are likely less than what they gained in terms of market penetration. I can't think of any other valid reason. Samsung isn't stupid. They knew they were infringing. They knew they'd have to pay. Even Google warned them and hey still went ahead. IMO it was all planned.[/QUOTE]

this i can totally believe, because it is something i'd totally do (not the pinto one where people die/get hurt), but the risk/cost of copying.

The cost of the 1billion dollar fine is probably less than it woulda cost to develop their own and all that shit. its just a tactic in the end anyway.

the 1billion dollar fine was the cost of copying, and if they had that risk calculated out and they still executed it, it was probably worth it.

but then again that brings us back to the point where it's just a game at the end.
so "as long as the fine is worth the cost, then ill just copy it".

so whats preventing everyone else from playing that game?

see, the problem isnt with copying, the problem is with the law. people will go around it. there's ALWAYS ways around any law, any rule, anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8014843)

this is a bandAid
I hope Google puts Apple in its place, just having them pony up money for patent INFRINGMENT is enough for me

Lomac: In the eyes of law, copyright and industrial designs are treated differently. It's not a direct comparison between an original composition and a patented highly-unique industrial design.

I would wait until Judge Koh makes her final call on September 20, and to perhaps wait for Samsung to file an application @ the Court of Appeal. Everything is 'pending' at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by too_slow (Post 8014972)

Oh, I realize that they're different. I'm just getting the impression that Ulic feels that everything should be, if not public domain, then at least attainable by anyone out there that wants to use it whether the patent holder wants it or not.

I understand the desire behind that; I really do. I just don't think it's right. It's not about ego or money, at least not to me. I simply feel that someone's work is their own, unless they decide to share it with others.