# Apple vs Samsung



## Edd (Aug 24, 2012)

For some reason I didn't think Apple would win but:
http://m.engadget.com/2012/08/24/apple-v-samsung-decision/?icid=eng_latest_art


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 24, 2012)

They bought the court.


----------



## andyzee (Aug 24, 2012)

The real loser is the consumer.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 24, 2012)

andyzee said:


> The real loser is the consumer.


Yup.


----------



## Nick (Aug 25, 2012)

andyzee said:


> The real loser is the consumer.



i think so as well.


----------



## jack97 (Aug 26, 2012)

its a win for less e-waste


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 27, 2012)

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/n...tml?.b=index&.ts=1346096552&.intl=us&.lang=en and it still goes on.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 27, 2012)

Makes me want to go buy a few Samsung products.


----------



## andyzee (Aug 27, 2012)

bvibert said:


> Makes me want to go buy a few Samsung products.



I was telling my wife the same thing, we should buy them while we still could


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 29, 2012)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/28/tech/innovation/google-apple-patents/index.html?c=tech


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 29, 2012)

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sa...llion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cent-coins/ this is great.


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 29, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-products-samsung-parts-193811309.html


----------



## dmc (Aug 29, 2012)

I love my iPhone - it's what we use for my job....   It's all free and works great so I'm staying out of this...

Violating patents is a big deal..  We called companies out for violating our patents on my last job all the time..  
They exist for a reason.


----------



## mattm59 (Aug 29, 2012)

After looking at decent tablets, I narrowed it down to Ipod and Galaxy. 8 gig ipod $200, 8 gig galaxy $175...16 gig ipod is $100 extra, adding 8 gigs to a galaxy is $5.69....I added 32 gigs for $19.80. Love my Galaxy; it is nicer than my kids Ipod.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 29, 2012)

dmc said:


> They exist for a reason.


True. But patents can also slow down innovation when patents are given out too liberally. I don't think anyone is arguing that patents shouldn't exist but rather that the patent system is broken and patents are being given out that probably should not be. A patent for a phone with a curved edge is a bit much, IMO.


----------



## mattm59 (Aug 29, 2012)

Apple should get on the consumer beneficial memory expansion bandwagon, but using $5 micro sd cards instead of $100 cpu mods is probably patented by every other electronics mfg. out there now hahahah


----------



## dmc (Aug 30, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> True. But patents can also slow down innovation when patents are given out too liberally. I don't think anyone is arguing that patents shouldn't exist but rather that the patent system is broken and patents are being given out that probably should not be. A patent for a phone with a curved edge is a bit much, IMO.



When I was in a startup we used patents to protect our inovation that we worked very hard on..
It took a long time to get those patents through and cost us money..  I can see that maybe some patents suck - but we had patents denied...  

When we called in the patents we took a lot of crap - but we were losing money because people were just stealing our ideas...


----------



## dmc (Aug 30, 2012)

mattm59 said:


> Apple should get on the consumer beneficial memory expansion bandwagon, but using $5 micro sd cards instead of $100 cpu mods is probably patented by every other electronics mfg. out there now hahahah



No way... I use the "cloud" to move stuff on and off my iPhone/iPad/MAC..
I don't even need to attach to a computer or storage device now for upgrades - happens over the internet...
Very seamless environment between all the devices... loving it...


----------



## Nick (Aug 30, 2012)

The problem IMO is that patents are designed to protect truly unique ideas ... not mundane design elements. Imagine if the first guy to create a ball patented the sphere. That's kind of what it's like (taken to an extreme, obviously). One of the patents violated was that when you scroll on a page and reach the end, it will overscroll and bounce back.  Something like that, IMO, should not be patentable, and I thought I heard on the radio that a precedent was set for UI design back in the 80's.

Imagine patenting rounded corners on a web page? Or a Button?  

The design of the phone I can see. But with touchscreen phones there aren't really that many design options. 

Even beyond that, the damages were way beyond what Apple actually incurred. The damages were calculated based on the fact that everyone that bought one of those Samsung devices, WOULD HAVE bought an Apple device instead. This was even for phones that were exclusive to carriers that didn't carry the iPhone .... and doesn't account at all for people that actually DO want the Samsung phone. The real damages should have been less then 200m, and even that I think would have been ridiculous. $1b is just insane.


----------



## Nick (Aug 30, 2012)

dmc said:


> When I was in a startup we used patents to protect our inovation that we worked very hard on..
> It took a long time to get those patents through and cost us money..  I can see that maybe some patents suck - but we had patents denied...
> 
> When we called in the patents we took a lot of crap - but we were losing money because people were just stealing our ideas...



Most small business tech startups today are on the anti-patent bandwagen. It takes time away from designing a truly good product, and small business almost never have the $$ in the bank to actually enforce a patent if in fact it is ever infinged upon.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 30, 2012)

Nick said:


> Most small business tech startups today are on the anti-patent bandwagen. It takes time away from designing a truly good product, and small business almost never have the $$ in the bank to actually enforce a patent if in fact it is ever infinged upon.



That's totally incorrect.   My startups all had substantial patent portfolios.   It's tough to get VC funding if you don't have a plan to create intellectual property.

For example, here's one of my patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7035289


----------



## Nick (Aug 30, 2012)

Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents. 

The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?


----------



## dmc (Aug 30, 2012)

Geoff said:


> That's totally incorrect.   My startups all had substantial patent portfolios.   It's tough to get VC funding if you don't have a plan to create intellectual property.



Yup...  The VC for my last job was big on patents..  it was a big deal..
We developed a ton of great stuff... i was almost on 2 patents but was laid off before we started the process...


----------



## dmc (Aug 30, 2012)

Nick said:


> Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents.
> 
> The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?



You'd be surprised what can be patened...


----------



## Nick (Aug 30, 2012)

http://www.patentlysilly.com/

The catchline for this is pretty funny

[h=2]Cross USB Drive[/h][h=3]patent#: US D533179[/h]_Because Jesus saves._


----------



## jack97 (Aug 31, 2012)

Nick said:


> Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents.
> 
> The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?



When a technology is at it's infancy, we get more revolutionary ideas. After this phase and the technology has stabilized, the ideas become evolutionary. IMO, more application specific, the type patents granted usually reflect this trend. 

IMO, all business wants to make sure they protect their investments even application specific ideas through the patent process. In addition, no matter how silly it may be it can be use as part of their IP portfolio for counter law suits.


----------



## Nick (Sep 1, 2012)

jack97 said:


> When a technology is at it's infancy, we get more revolutionary ideas. After this phase and the technology has stabilized, the ideas become evolutionary. IMO, more application specific, the type patents granted usually reflect this trend.
> 
> IMO, all business wants to make sure they protect their investments even application specific ideas through the patent process. In addition, no matter how silly it may be it can be use as part of their IP portfolio for counter law suits.



I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jack97 (Sep 3, 2012)

Nick said:


> I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



Patents are not immune to the predatory practices of inventors and lawyers, the most recent is the NTP vs RIM case. This is an example of a holding company which just own patents, they do not sell nor distribute products however they make a healthy business of demanding royalty or a license fees of the patent they hold. They could of have purchased or obtained such patents from defunct small businesses or failed start ups. 

IMO, its these patent trolls which has cause high tech companies to alter their thought process in treating IP..... for right or wrong.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 3, 2012)

Nick said:


> I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip



If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money.   It's not "unfortunate" at all.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 3, 2012)

Nick said:


> I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip





Geoff said:


> If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money. It's not "unfortunate" at all.




IMO, that is too much of a blanket statement. If you are trying to establish a business by producing and selling products based on your IP then I can understand the need for patent infringement lawsuits. 

What really needs reform are the holding companies that do not produce anything but they own the rights to the patents. They do nothing but search the business landscape on potential patent infringements. Typically, they settle privately... imo its more akin to blackmail.

here's the wiki link on the holding company NTP... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Patent_Lawsuit


----------



## Nick (Sep 3, 2012)

Geoff said:


> If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money.   It's not "unfortunate" at all.



It is if the damages exceed actual losses

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ScottySkis (Sep 5, 2012)

http://cnnmoney.mobi/wk_snarticle?a...iphone-5-launch-date:1&category=cnnm_business
Apple I phone 5 coming out.


----------



## Nick (Sep 5, 2012)

yeah, that's been big news for a while. Interesting to see what they do. I'm also going with LTE + bigger screen. 

Samsung should have patented a 4" screen :lol:


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 10, 2012)

This is a good article on all the work Apple did on the iPhone. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._about_apple_s_secretive_design_process_.html

If you work that hard on something I'd certainly want to protect it.


----------



## Nick (Sep 10, 2012)

I remember my wife had the first touchscreen blackberry, the Storm .... that was a HORRIBLE phone. Touchscreens have come a long way, Apple was the first to do it well; but I think the growth of touchscreen and fallaway of physical buttons was bound to happen anyway.


----------

