Jury finds Apple's patents valid in Samsung trial

Reuters ^

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I guess we could argue about this all day. I quit using C when when VB came out, Quit Using VB when C#/.Net came out. That’s not to mention other Languages and tools I use on a daily basis.

Visual Studio autocomplete + F1 help + debugger stands alone for ease of use. I could throw away the damn manuals.

At the very best Apple is on par with VS and C# or Java. From my perspective it’s a poor substitute, barely on par with Eclipse. I would have expected more from the “Ease of Use” company than that.

Objective-C is but an extension supporting C++ OO capabilities, not a true OO Language, no namespaces, overloading or generics. Remember NeXt?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Cant win with capitalism, so get the courts...”

Courts exist to resolve disputes. Innovation depends on protection of that created. Protection relies on legal rights. Legal rights are disputed and upheld in courts.

[null and void]

Yup. The first mouse is on prominent display at the SRI headquarters.

SRI is another example of technological genus hampered by utter marketing idiocy.

Hey guys! I've just invented a new data input device!

Cool! What are you gonna call it?

(head scratching and conversations with the smartest people on earth follow)

I know! Let's name it after something cold, slimy and slow!

We'll call it a TURTLE!

The rest is marketing history...

[null and void]

If that was your point, I did indeed miss it completely.

[VanDeKoik]

Thanks for the kind words, edh!

You are absolutely correct.

[apoliticalone]

USA jury finds Samsung guilty and Apple innocent. That used to carry weight.

Today in our globalized industrial economy what the USA jury decides and thinks means nothing.

These so-called global corporations like Apple are going to find out that they need to satisfy every country and not just the USA. They made their bed with China and Korea, and now must sleep in it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Apple stole bought the GUI and mouse concepts from Xerox.

Apple paid in stock, which Xerox later sold for millions.

In fact, it’d be interesting to know whether Xerox’s market capitalization is worth as much today as the AAPL stock that it sold back then is would bring now if they still had it.

When are the penalties for THAT?

It wasn’t Steve Jobs’ fault that Xerox didn’t know how to, or even to, bring the GIU to the mass market. But they didn’t, and the value they got from it was selling Jobs access to their version of GUI. The Mac was Steve’s version of that GUI, different in implementation and made for “the rest of us."

[antiRepublicrat]

That'd mean the coffee tables, dining room table and kitchen table in my house violate Apple patents FFS. That's absurd.

Are your tables being sold as competing tablet computers? No? Then they can't infringe on the design patents. Your statement is absurd, not the patents.

I'm going to Comp-USA first thing tomorrow morning and buying a Samsung Windows Tablet before they get pulled off the market because of this.

Samsung Windows tablets aren't likely to infringe since Windows doesn't mimic iOS like Android does. Just remember, before the iPhone, Android phone prototypes looked and acted like Blackberrys. After the iPhone, they looked and acted like iPhones. It's pretty simple.

[antiRepublicrat]

It sure would be nice if this all american company would move the manufacturing back stateside.

That's pretty much impossible. The inevitably unionized workforce here wouldn't have the flexibility of the current workforce. Foxconn pulled like 10,000 out of bed in the middle of the night to hit the lines to make a last minute product change without pushing back the release. Do you think the unions would put up with that here?

[antiRepublicrat]

Well hello monopoly, bye bye competitive prices.

The whole point of a patent is to establish a temporary monopoly, to provide profit in return for invention.

[antiRepublicrat]

It’s trying to claim credit for such innovations as rounded rectangles and filing avalanches of lawsuits over them.

I hope you realize that "rounded rectangles" ('889 patent) was only a tiny part of this suit, and that Samsung was found not to have infringed.

Funny, the people who think they're a bad idea for Apple would probably support the fact that Ford has successfully used its design patents to stop Asian manufacturers from flooding the US market with knock-off parts. Apple does the same thing, it's bad.

and reduce competition by banning competing products

That's the effect patents are supposed to have.

[WVKayaker]

... and your ignorance shows a lack of critical thinking.

Just an observation, but you fail to establish any relationship in your own thought processes. Apparently, YOU are lacking that CT thing. Ignorance is not connected to CT...

Ignorance = the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

[usconservative]

Your statement is absurd, not the patents.

Using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity is apparently lost on some, or I didn't pull it off very well. In either case, my view is the "patents" are absurd. It doesn't matter if it's curved glass or curved wood. Patenting a "shape" of a material for a function is absurd. I'm going to run right out and patent the same shape on every form of metal and acrylic I can find, then charge for their use in another product. It's the same thing.

Samsung Windows tablets aren't likely to infringe since Windows doesn't mimic iOS like Android does. Just remember, before the iPhone, Android phone prototypes looked and acted like Blackberrys. After the iPhone, they looked and acted like iPhones. It's pretty simple.

Wish I had seen this before I ran out and actually bought one, LOL! Ahh well, it's a great device and I'm liking it already (posted this reply with it.)

[Tzfat]

Wow. Get out much?

His continued statements made in ingnorance in spite of evidence to the contrary showed that he was not interested in discovery, but maintenance of his preconceived notions. Hence, he displayed both ignorance, and a lack of critical thinking.

[zeugma]

And, no, I am not implying all Apple users are like that ... just a certain, select, elite few here on FR and worldwide :-) ... I have too many friends that love Apple to make that a blanket statement :-).

What I find to be the most disturbing thing about this thread, is the abuse heaped upon users of Apple products that  has permeated it pretty much since it was posted. Post, after post of insults to users of Apple products, yet, if you'll read through it, there is very little in the opposite direction, and what there is, is largely responsive to previous insults and abuse.

I'm not particularly a fan of Apple products (I primarily use Linux because I prefer to build in what I want and leave out what I don't), but I don't go around insulting people because they use Windows or OSX. If you have a beef with the tech, bash the tech. Bashing the users of same just sounds childish.

This happens on most tech threads, and normally follows the same patterns.

[antiRepublicrat]

Patenting a "shape" of a material for a function is absurd. I'm going to run right out and patent the same shape on every form of metal and acrylic I can find, then charge for their use in another product. It's the same thing.

No, it is not the same thing. The use has to be for the exact same kind of product that competes with the patented one. Design patents are like trademark, very specific for the market at hand. Or would you like to work hard to develop a product, produce an iconic shape instantly recognizable as your product worldwide, then have a competitor come out with something that looks the same and confuses customers into buying their product instead of yours?

Above all, this is a case of US innovation vs. the Asian copycats. It happens in many industries, ad I'm glad to see it dealt a blow again.

[usconservative]

No, it is not the same thing. The use has to be for the exact same kind of product that competes with the patented one.

Really appreciate your clarification, however I do still find it absurd that "curved glass" on a tablet can be patented, and by that will be stifling innovation where it matters most - the technology.

[antiRepublicrat]

I walked into a Game Stop the other day and said out loud when I looked at the display in the back, “They have iPads here, I didn’t know they sold iPads.” I had to be right on one to see it wasn’t an iPad, just an Asian copy. That is what design patents are meant to avoid.

They can pack all the technology they want, but I suggest they avoid copying it from the competition.