1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apple's patent claims vs. Samsung.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Digital Doctor, Aug 11, 2012.

  1. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    0xym0r0n likes this.
  2. 0xym0r0n

    0xym0r0n Well-Known Member

    Wow I'm sorry but some of this is just ridiculous. I think Apple is just angry.

    Love my galaxy S and it's even better because I can root it and do other amazing things with it after it's 'outdated'. As opposed to my old Apple Iphone that is basically a paperweight (should be recycled).

    And the swipe??? Seriously??? That's absolutely dumb. IDK about the latest Iphones but my old iphone only had the option for a slide bar. Samsung galaxy can use a bar, a page, a wallpaper, and so many other things with widgets.

    I've always loved my samsungs. (Excluding the behold II, that was disappointing).
     
    Darkimmortal likes this.
  3. steven s

    steven s Well-Known Member

  4. Shelley

    Shelley Well-Known Member

  5. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    At least Apple has nice end products ;)
     
    Sage Knight, Veer and 0xym0r0n like this.
  6. MagnusB

    MagnusB Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    0xym0r0n likes this.
  7. craigiri

    craigiri Well-Known Member

    I'd say 80% of it is BS.

    But there may be a small part of it which holds true...

    We'll see. My guess is that some very limited claims may be upheld, but most of it will not.
    I agree that patents on this stuff have gone WAY overboard, but that's the way it is. I think the first really big one was Amazon, who patented "one click". Wow.
     
  8. MagnusB

    MagnusB Well-Known Member

    There is a patent for double click as well.

    Apple has not hidden their intention versus Android, I think Steve Jobs said he was willing to use every single cent of Apple's money to stop them, or something along those lines.
     
  9. Jason

    Jason Well-Known Member

    Yeah, pretty ridiculous. The whole patent system is broken. Software patents should be abolished, imo.

    "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack

    Except it's worse than that. Working code is not required, to be granted a patent.
     
  10. dutchbb

    dutchbb Well-Known Member

    So any product may have patents expect for software? How is that fair to software developers?

    They have invested in the creativity with a lot of time and capital, so why should any company just be able to copy that in a matter of days and make a huge profit on their investment? You really have to think these things through before you start hating on Apple. They are not IB. IB is trying to claim ownership on things that are totally unrelated to any patent.

    Certainly the patents can be discussed, some may be inapplicable because they are too restrictive, but we have to be careful not to jump from one extreme to the other.
     
    0xym0r0n and RastaLulz like this.
  11. Shelley

    Shelley Well-Known Member

    Okay. This thread has me concerned. I am the owner of a refrigerator. It's kind of the same shape so the question I'm asking is, Can I be sued by Apple? :( #sleeplessnights

    Jokery aside. Apple are not inventors, they take existing technologies and build from them and then sue But like the xf fanclub, the apple fanatics association will dispute this and fight for their beloved devices like a mountain lion would protecting her cub.
     
    0xym0r0n and Forsaken like this.
  12. Klaas

    Klaas Member

    I disagree. They have either invented, reinvented, or improved products, hence the success of the products. iOS has introduced many new features, many copied by competition. It's funny you talk about fanatics when it seems to me you are the anti-Apple fanatic. ;)
     
  13. Shelley

    Shelley Well-Known Member

    They've invented the art of suing. If I took anything from your post which of course I didn't.

    I'm sure they have introduced many new features. I'm not blind to the fact they are/were early innovators but present day I'm afraid not. But of course I'm talking nonsense it doesn't fall inline with apple owners way of thought.
     
  14. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    Apple has few inventions to their name, at least after Wozniak left.

    The majority of their 'inventions' were either things like the mini display port, or a manufacturing process for unibody designs (Which is ridiculously wasteful).

    They did not invent the computer, they made one of the first that could be considered a home or personal computer.

    They did not create the MP3 player, they only took an existing idea and presented a better design and interface.

    They did not create the the laptop, netbook or ultrabook. They made a nice design, however it was similar to a previous design by ASUS or another company (I forget which exactly).

    They did not create the first smartphone. Very few things about the iPhone are original: The design is based off of the LG Prada, and take design cues from previous phone form factors; the icon designs were copied, however the icons themselves are standard icons used for years in design. Apple should not own rights to them; the majority of other points are of similar nature. The iPhone was revolutionary for sure, however it was never original.

    They did not create the first tablet. The first tablet was the gridpad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad) back in 1989, made by Samsung. This is not to say that it is the first concept however, as there were concepts for tablets all the way back in the 1940's. Apple didn't even come up with the form factor themselves, as there is prior art in the form of Window XP tablets made in China, as well as Android tablets that used older versions of Android (2.1 or before); they weren't that great, but they are still prior art.

    The biggest problem I have with Apple is how when they enter a niche, and offer a popular product they feel that they should own the rights to everything relating to that niche. They patent everything, even things that they didn't create, and do so broadly so that any similar functionality would fall within their patent. This is exactly why software patents should not be allowed, or if so they should remain narrow, so as to not stifle innovation.

    I'm not saying Samsung was not wrong to copy the iPhone/iPad, however the fact is that I feel they modified things enough and that there is enough prior art that the case is completely and utterly frivolous. The designs aren't unique, and have much prior art (Including Samsung who had devices that could easily show an evolution towards what would become the SGS1, SGS2, and SGS3).

    The issue with software patents (Which is mostly what Apple uses) is that they can be used so broadly, and it stifles innovation more than hardware patents. This is especially true when you talk about things like gestures and touch screen interaction, and especially 'universal search' (How this ever got patented is plainly ridiculous, and shows the biggest issues with the patent system). With hardware patents, if they're something that are essential to a technology, you have to supply them as a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) patent. There is no such thing for software patents, and there really needs to be, especially when talking about interaction with a screen.
     
    Volion, DBA, DaveL and 4 others like this.
  15. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    The first iphone + ipod touch was pure genius. A *breakthrough* device. Excellent vision + execution. I played with one for 15 seconds and it was easy to predict it would be a huge hit.
     
  16. 0xym0r0n

    0xym0r0n Well-Known Member

    Ahhh Forskaen put words to my thoughts! So many of my friends try to argue with me when I say Apple was not the first to really do any of these 'advancements'. They were just popular enough and had some great design/marketing teams to make them appealing to us!

    The unibody designs are nice but I did not like a lot of things about the older machines. The newer ones seem great but I think I like that they're finally using intel and are opening themselves up to upgrades? I really try not to follow the Apple scene anymore... pardon my ignorance folks.

    I tried to help a friend build a hackintosh that would outlast/out perform Apples latest comparable desktop but the OS is so damn annoying and picky -.-.

    They need final cut pro and something that will go the length of their investment (not be outdated in 2 years.) He would gladly dump a sum of money on an apple if they had a better track record for money to years of use.
     
  17. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    The newer machines are an engineering nightmare.

    Read this, and you'll see just how badly they borked things for consumers who will want to open up their case to repair or upgrade things themselves: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Display-Mid-2012-Teardown/9462/
     
  18. Jason

    Jason Well-Known Member

    I'm going to assume you don't develop software for a living, and I don't mean that as an attack. Perhaps that's why you're a bit more optimistic about the situation than my colleagues and I.

    You see it as hating on Apple (though they're playing just as dirty as any one else), I see it as the patent office letting people patent the #### out of our world. They're probably good at judging new inventions for casting steel, but they don't understand software yet.

    As an optimist, you might be tempted to add "but they will eventually". Unfortunately, that might not be true. The problem with software patents is an instance of a more general one: the patent office takes awhile to understand new technology. If so, this problem is only going to get worse, because the rate of technological change is increasing. In 20 years, they may understand the sort of things we now patent as software, but there will be other new types of inventions they understand even less. It doesn't help that not even one single line of code (i.e., a working implementation) needs to even exist for a patent to be granted.

    The system needs reformed, and until that happens, we really need to rethink granting new software patents.
     
    Onimua, 0xym0r0n, jmurrayhead and 2 others like this.
  19. 0xym0r0n

    0xym0r0n Well-Known Member

    LMFAO

    "Horrible News. Apple chose to use the dreaded g-word: glue."

    And the WHOLE thing has to be replaced when some poor soul cracks the LCD it or screw it up? WTG apple. Way to keep making the moolah.

    They should patent their method of being able to coax users into purchasing their crap!
     
  20. Kevin

    Kevin Well-Known Member

    Yes. ;)
    The funny part about Apple's suit against Samsung is that as part of Apple's defense against Samsung in their countersuit Apple is claiming the patent is for an industry standard. Do as they say, not as they do.
     
    Shelley likes this.

Share This Page