Apple v. Samsung
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 10/23/2017 9:56:10 PM PDT by Swordmaker
(Reuters) - A U.S. judge has ordered a new trial to determine how much Samsung Electronics Co (005930.KS) should pay Apple Inc (AAPL.O) for copying the look of the iPhone.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California issued her order late on Sunday, 10 months after the U.S. Supreme Court set aside a $399 million award against Samsung, whose devices include the Galaxy.
The three Apple patents covered design elements of the iPhone such as its black rectangular front face, rounded corners, and colorful grid of icons for programs and apps.
Koh’s order is a setback for Apple, which called a retrial unnecessary and said the award should be confirmed. The Cupertino, California-based company did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Should have patented that it had a glass front and a battery for another hundred million...
Insane that rounded corners, square and a color is patented.
Apple owes me a billion, I got a rectangular coffee table that is from the 1930’s and is all dinged up...
Best justice money can buy.
They taught us that a design patent was the weakest form of IP protection of all, hardly worth the time to file unless you’ve got something truly unique, like the classic Coke bottle, that you want to prevent competitors from directly copying. One weak 2003 design patent is worth hundreds of millions? A joke.
On the other hand, would I be going out on a limb, if I said that I doubt you can do face time on your coffee table? 😀😆😄😁🇵🇭
American in the Philippines.
such as its black rectangular front face, rounded corners, and colorful grid of icons for programs and apps.
lol
Sue them for using the color black too.
Thanks for demonstrating you have zero grasp of a DESIGN patent and how it differs from a UTILITY patent. Those are elements in the design description that is REQUIRED to be granted a design patent. It was part of Samsung's campaign of disinformation surrounding the trial. . . they were not patented. Only idiots who fell for the propaganda from Samsung ever thought they were.
It was a technological marvel in its day. To take the best advantage of all of its features one had to be a little tech savvy. It was never a problem for me, but to keep it running fast and get good battery life you needed to shut down apps manually that kept running in the background. This did cause some negative reviews at the time from people who did not know how to do this.
As usual Apple latched on to many of the advance features of “smart phones” that came out years ahead of the I-phone. These phones didn't catch on the way that the I-phone did largely because of Apple's superior marketing. When I saw the first I-phone I was not impressed at all, and had a hard time understanding what the big deal was.
The first I-phone didn't even have 3G connectivity something that allowed me to tether my laptop to my PPC-6700 and was one of my primary uses since my plan at that time allowed unlimited and unrestricted tethering for a very reasonable price.
That is not ALL of the patents in question here. Sorry. These including some utility patents have been adjudicated and appealed and Samsung has lost at every turn. They infringed the patents. However, in the past, Design Patents have alway applied to the entire product, not just to the portion of the product that is designed alike. . . but that may be a problem for Samsung. . . because the design is for a black slab with rounded corners of a particular proportion, not size, with a colorful grid of icons. They did indeed copy that. . . and did so for many of their products. A 126 page internal memorandum showed to the jury demonstrated they did it deliberately to make it look and work as much like the iPhone as possible. That is the very definition of infringement. . . and why they lost.
Right. Sure. PPC-6700:
It looks nothing like the design of the first iPhone.
nice try, as you've tried before with your resistance single touch feature phone claims. it had only 128 MB internal storage. . . it was not a smartphone. HTC even referred to it as a PDA phone.
Apple patented the meaningless fluff and then stole the actual technical achievements from other “smart phones” which came years before the I-phone. I guess we can credit the mental gymnastics of the formidable army of Apple lawyers for maneuvering this albatross through the American legal system. It is the same legal system and judges that ignore the constitution when liberals are getting away with crap, and make up their own rules when it comes to the “travel ban”. It is some sort of topsy-turvy ridiculousness that only devoted Apple fan boys are capable of latching onto and defending to the death.
Swordmaker shame on you. As usual you exaggerate and mislead to make your point. The PPC-6700 was far more capable than the first I-phone by nearly every measure. They chose a slide-out keyboard rather than a touch screen which gave it a tactile feel and kept the display clear which made it far quicker to type on.
As far as and memory and storage goes... it had 128 MB (Flash memory), 64 MB Ram, and a slot for a memory card which worked seamlessly with the operating system. Most people I knew filled the slot with as big a card as they could afford. One should remember that it came out 2 years ahead of the I-phone and memory at that time was rapidly becoming more and more affordable. The first memory card that I bought had 1GB, the second had 2GBs.
When the first I-phone came out... it lacked the most important feature of the PPC-6700... high speed internet access and the ability to tether to a laptop. When the first I-phone came out I am not aware of even one useful function that it could perform that we PPC-6700 users were not already doing.
And that is the comedy of all of your arguments here. You always focus on pictures and not function. What you are referring to as far as technology are not revolutionary ideas... they are evolutionary developments. I applaud Apple for stealing so many good ideas from companies such as HTC, Samsung, and IBM and incorporating them into the first I-phone. But face it even phones with touch screens came out several years before the first I-phone. Nearly all technological devices become more capable and smaller or thinner as time goes by.
So of course two years after the HTC-6700 came out when the first I-phone was released there had been some advances in electronic components... But released the same time as the I-phone was the HTC-Titan, which did away with the external antenna stub, was thinner, came with more memory, and higher capacity memory cards. And even the PPC-6700 had cute little icons that you could use to represent apps. So your points on appearance are completely moot.
My thoughts too - seems like all the video monitor and laptop manufacturers should be suing each other too - not to mention all the OS icons. Next year Kellogg’s will sue Post for having square corners and bright pictures on their cereal boxes...
“Even after the US Supreme Court rules, Federal Judges can decide it Ain’t OVER! “
We usually don’t hear about these cases - when SCOTUS is overruled by a lower court - because most plaintiffs ruled against by a lower court do not have enough money to re-litigate back to SCOTUS, and so the lower court ruling stands - often bringing more grief than the court ruling that started the case.
It is funny by any measure.
Right, sure. Apple was the first cellular phone with a multi-touch screen on which Apple holds the patents and licenses that technology to other phone makers and that eschewed the physical keyboard AND stylus approach to data input moving to mere finger input, which to accomplish they spent years solving the problem of resolving a finger accuracy input down to pixel accuracy. Apple designed the touches, strokes, and pinch movements used on all cellular multi-touch screens in use today, and yes, copyrighted the look and feel of the multiple screens on an iPhone, and you have the unmitigated gall to claim it was they who appropriated the work of others that DID NOT EXIST UNTIL the iPhone appeared?
It is the same legal system and judges that ignore the constitution when liberals are getting away with crap, and make up their own rules when it comes to the “travel ban”.
That is a total non sequitur when discussing patent lawsuits. It is the liberal judges who are ignoring the actual Constitutional patent and case law involving patents that have resulted in this mess. . . not to mention the feather headed patent office workers who have allowed the patenting of mere ideas, rather than actual inventions.
Before the iPhone, browsers on cellular phones were dependent on mobile compliant websites, and could not see fully desk-top compliant content. The iPhone, except for FLASH content, was fully desk-top compliant and did not require a mobile browser website to use the Internet. It was more HTML compliant than Microsoft Internet Explorer.
There was a complete sea-change in the design of phones after the introduction of the iPhone. . . and anyone who thinks that somehow there was not, is delusional. It was the iPhone design and invention of a completely new interface and re-thinking of the smartphone that made that change. . . or why did all cellular smartphones after the iPhone took off suddenly take on the look, feel, and operate like the iPhone which had been DESIGNED by Apple and that people wanted more than the candy bar or flip phones?
Those cellular phone makers who did not follow Apple's design lead are no longer in the phone business. . . paging Nokia?
No, it did not work "seamlessly" with the OS. It was merely a storage media, not a usable RAM for the operating system which the iPhone had as well as storage existing on the system bus. There is a difference. The iPhone had at introduction either 4GB or 8GB of bus of fast FLASH memory. . . addressable by the processor which could be used either as storage or application space. The external Card Space you are talking about over and above the 128MB of internal RAM in the PPC-6700 was only storage for documents, pictures, etc. . . which is the case in the Androids that came later as well.
High-speed Internet. When the iPhone originally came out, 3G existed in only a few major cities, and then only spottily. I know, I was there. 2G was the standard on all systems and they were just starting to roll out the 3G networks. There was no real availability of 3G except in some very limited areas. By the time the networks had made them available, Apple had the iPhone 3G available. . . and people upgraded. So much for that argument.
AT&T's contract with Apple would not allow the iPhone to tether to a laptop. It was not that the iPhone could not. I was doing it by a work-around using the USB cable. I figured what the carrier didn't know, wasn't going to hurt them. I was paying for the bandwidth. So much for that argument.
I applaud Apple for stealing so many good ideas from companies such as HTC, Samsung, and IBM and incorporating them into the first I-phone. But face it even phones with touch screens came out several years before the first I-phone. Nearly all technological devices become more capable and smaller or thinner as time goes by.
Resistance touch screens are a completely different technology than CAPACITANCE multi-touch screens, fireman15, and Apple still holds the patent on low-voltage capacitance multi-touch screens for handheld devices. They invented them, not any of the previous makers and that was the breakthrough that enabled the functions of the iPhone. You can sing and dance all you want about the touch screen being around on phones. . . but you will find Apple at the beginning of those as well, with patents there as well. Apple even coined the name Personal Digital Assistant with the invention of the Newton PDA back in the late 1980s which was finally introduced in the early 1990s. . . and had a touch screen with a stylus. It lead the way to the PDA boom of the 1990s which preceded the touch screen phones.
Just as a slide-out keyboard is much quicker to input data on than an onscreen keyboard... the different types of touch screens each have their own advantages. With a small display the precision of a resistive touch screen vs. the sloppiness of a capacitive display makes it much more useful for a variety of tasks.
Calling the PPC-6700 a “feature phone” is a laugh. It came with a mobile versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Internet Explorer. I preferred to use Opera as my Internet Browser. I purchased a tiny Bluetooth GPS sender that gave it several moving map options. It had numerous programs available for video and music playback of just about any format. this is not to mention a plethora of other apps for both gaming and productivity. The PPC-6700 was no “feature phone... you are full of it. By the time that Apple came out with the first I-phone, Windows Mobile had an impressive head start with the amount of software that was available.
I would not dispute that Apple had a superior marketing team and strategy and they sold far more I-phones. That is what Apple does. They mostly steal ideas from other companies and people. They smooth out the rough edges, have their legal department buy up a patent or two and then market the hell out of whatever device they come up with. I would dispute that the first i-phone had a revolutionary appearance, design or feature set. It was simply an evolution from previous devices that it “borrowed” its “features” from. The first I-phone was no more capable when it came out than many other devices that came before it. The I-phone had to go through several model changes before it had the feature set that people think of today.
Microsoft is the company that started using the term “smartphone” back in 2002, but Windows CE devices first came out in 1996 long before the I-phone was even a glimmer in Steve Job's eye. I had a pda in 2000, the Sony CLIÉ seven years before the first I-phone was released. It had more useful apps available when I bought it than the first i-phone did when it was released. I also had a Blackberry phone. These were all devices that Apple “borrowed” ideas from. And by the way... they basically all were rectangular with rounded corners. If common sense prevails, Samsung will eventually have the last laugh.
Whoopee. You had a PDA in 2000. The touch screen Apple Newton preceded that by NINE YEARS and was in development for three years prior to that.
A design patent is very specific for a look and feel. It has nothing to do with the fact that other designs are rectangular and have rounded corners; that is perfectly acceptable in design patents. Only ignorant idiots keep harping on that know-nothing meme. That is merely part of the textural description that was required. The IMAGES of the patent are what is important. YOU are falling for the propaganda that Samsung pushed out at the time of the trial to push public opinion.
Once again Swordmaker, you are making it up as you go along. 3G was available in every major market long before the first I-phone was released. 3G was available in 2006 in the Tacoma-Seattle and Portland areas and down the I-5 corridor between them. I know because that is where I used it. I also was able to use 3G on a trip to Florida and the Midwest during that time period. My brother is an airline pilot; he used his Verizon 3G laptop dongle all over the country long before the first I-phone was released. Maybe you could explain to him how we wasn't actually able to use the service he subscribed to. You are just making stuff up while trying to sound authoritative and it is all BS.
As far as your other comments about the PPC-6700s limitations... you are an ignorant fool who never actually used one. The HTC-6700 had a following after it came out and it was very easy to customize. You didn't have to "root" or "jailbreak" or anything else. Users had access to every folder on the device and could easily customize the ROM to improve their performance. I have a good friend who has always loved everything Apple. He bought the first I-phone. It was a laugh when we got together so he could show it off. It simply did not have the features that I relied upon at that time. Most notable was the lack of high speed Internet access and the ability to tether to a laptop; it also wouldn't work with my Bluetooth GPS sender. It was not useful for sending and receiving emails let alone composing them; it wasn't useful for browsing the Internet. You couldn't look over a word document. At this point I can't remember why he thought it was worth buying in the first place. Maybe you can explain to us all... all the great stuff a first generation I-phone was capable of. As far as I was concerned at the time it was a pretty good looking "feature phone" that was missing nearly everything that I used a "smart phone for.
But we have been through all of this before, haven't we. You are simply pretending to be ignorant to make your arguments in front of others who really do not know and will never bother to try and verify. Your rewriting of history on behalf of Apple is still annoying to me when you go completely off the reservation. Stick to what you know... and don't try to tell those of us who have a lot of experience with other devices what they were capable of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.