Apple Corporation is Bad for Technology

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Apple is currently in a world wide legal battle to destroy competitors through litigation.

With rulings against Samsung for extremely vague and generic patents like

- White color

- Black color

- Rounded Corners

How can we expect a fair marketplace for technology?

Apple itself has derived itself from stolen/copied material.

- Apple was incompetent at making an operating system, so they used Unix (Free BSD) for OS10 and later

- Their original graphical computer originated from Xerox

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs

Here's a link with more detailed information on Apple's patent win, brought to you by a jury of idiots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html

To make a point, a tech show had a contest "Has Apple Really Ever Invented Anything?" where users had to submit Apple inventions that a) Were not created by the genius Steve Wozniak and B ) Were not software. They really have to stretch some submissions to give people ballots in the draw.

Edited August 27, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Handsome Rob]

Apple's patents included

-Trade Dress ('Packaging, appearance, basically marketing').

-Tap to zoom

-Pinch to zoom

-Single VS MultTouch

-Bounceback on overscroll

-Rounded Rectangle ('They failed on it')

And a few others, none signifigant:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html#project%3DAPPLESAMSUNGVERDICT%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

All are nonsense at any rate, and this will most likely end up a mistrial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Really outrageous stuff coming out of that jury, what a huge joke.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Handsome Rob

[TimG]

With rulings against Samsung for extremely vague and generic patents like

- White color

- Black color

- Rounded Corners

There are two issues here. Some of Apples patents are for 'design' and good 'design' is one of the things that Apple has brought to the tech world so it is reasonable that if they can get patents so stuff like rounded corners on icons. There is no technical reason that prevents a competitor from offering products without rounded icons that are just as good technically.

The trouble is the functional patents such as multi-touch, one finger scroll and pinch and zoom. There are only so many ways to create a touch interface and Apple DID steal these ideas from other companies so they have no business preventing others from using the ideas.

That said, the biggest thing that pissed me off is the relative value given to Apple's patents vs. Samsung's patents on wireless technology. Without access to the Samsung patents the iPhone could not be a phone yet Samsung agreed to license those patents at a fraction of the value assigned to Apples patents by the US jury. I would have rather seen Apple win the trial but be awarded damages that valued the patents the same as Samsung's patents.

Edited August 27, 2012 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

There are two issues here. Some of Apples patents are for 'design' and good 'design' is one of the things that Apple has brought to the tech world so it is reasonable that if they can get patents so stuff like rounded corners on icons. There is no technical reason that prevents a competitor from offering products without rounded icons that are just as good technically.

Ok. But there are no specifications for the degree of roundedness... If you copy exactly, get fined. If you mimic similarly, there should be NO PENALTY.

Edited August 27, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[kimmy]

My former special guy had a patent, and worked with others who had patents. He said that the entire process was a complete joke.

If rectangles with rounded corners are patentable, I think Zest has "prior art" to nullify Apple's patent and sue their asses.

-k

[eyeball]

My former special guy had a patent, and worked with others who had patents. He said that the entire process was a complete joke.

If rectangles with rounded corners are patentable, I think Zest has "prior art" to nullify Apple's patent and sue their asses.

-k

PEZ candy was around long before Zest.

[Boges]

The thing about this trial is that it was held in Apple's backyard. I think the jurors knew that if they ruled in favour of Samsung they could perhaps have their houses egged.

Earlier Friday South Korea also ruled on the same issue and came back a bit more even handed.

SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korea's Samsung won a home court ruling in its global smartphone battle against Apple on Friday when judges in Seoul said the company didn't copy the look and feel of the U.S. company's iPhone, and that Apple infringed on Samsung's wireless technology.

However, in a split decision on patents, the panel also said Samsung violated Apple technology behind the bounce-back feature when scrolling on touch screens, and ordered both sides to pay limited damages.

The Seoul Central District Court ruling called for a partial ban on sales of products including iPads and smartphones from both companies, though the verdict did not affect the latest-generation phones -- Apple's iPhone 4S or Samsung's Galaxy S3.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/south-korean-court-rules-samsung-didn-t-copy-apple-s-iphone-design-1.928415#ixzz24kRtJYJZ

Now of course that's Samsung's home court. Samsung says they'll take this to the Supreme Court.

What I find revolting is how the stock market reacts to this BS. Samsung's stock is plummeting while under whelming rumours of the iPhone 5 and a mini iPad (which you could argue is Apple copying some of the successful 7" tabs that are on the market) have made Apple the most valuable company in history.

The thing is that Google really has to answer for how the Android platform works and not Samsung. I like Android better but that's because it does what iOS does better.

I call that good competition not copying.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

"History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation." - Samsung

Apple is a company I want to see crash because of their actions to push planned obsolescence, restrict use of technology for corporate gain, and attack anyone who does something better.

The sad part is they have a religious following of twits who can't see past glossy surfaces to see what they are are actually supporting.

What gets on my nerves the most in Ontario are the Apple zombies who slander RIM day and night to justify their religious indoctrination.

Edited August 27, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Boges]

"History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation." - Samsung

Apple is a company I want to see crash because of their actions to push planned obsolescence, restrict use of technology for corporate gain, and attack anyone who does something better.

The sad part is they have a religious following of twits who can't see past glossy surfaces to see what they are are actually supporting.

What gets on my nerves the most in Ontario are the Apple zombies who slander RIM day and night to justify their religious indoctrination.

It'll be interesting to see what the iSheep have to say about having to buy all new connectors and docks because the already ridiculous 30-pin charger is being replaced with a 19-pin one.

iSheep are also perfectly happy owning a phone they think is innovative that has yet to have 4G/LTE capability.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Boges

[cybercoma]

\

If rectangles with rounded corners are patentable, I think Zest has "prior art" to nullify Apple's patent and sue their asses.

-k

You're talking about something different. Soap manufacturers most certainly do have patents on their product shapes. Why not phone manufacturers? Coke has a patent on the shape of their bottles for crying out loud. It's a design element that makes their devices identifiable.

Edited to say: They're actually trademarks, but I think the idea is the same. Some companies trademark colour. For instance, DeWalt is a certain shade of yellow that other tool companies cannot replicate, Milwaukee is red, Makita that cyan colour, etc.

Edited August 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You're talking about something different. Soap manufacturers most certainly do have patents on their product shapes. Why not phone manufacturers? Coke has a patent on the shape of their bottles for crying out loud. It's a design element that makes their devices identifiable.

The real issue is if the 'design patent' makes it impossible to sell a usable competing product. If it does restrict consumers choices then it should not be granted. e.g. other tool vendors are not blocked by a trademark on the shade of yellow. Nor do I think cell phone vendors will be blocked if they have to add corners to their phones. But the patents on gestures will block competing products and should not have been allowed. Edited August 28, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The real issue is if the 'design patent' makes it impossible to sell a usable competing product. If it does restrict consumers choices then it should not be granted. e.g. other tool vendors are not blocked by a trademark on the shade of yellow. Nor do I think cell phone vendors will be blocked if they have to add corners to their phones. But the patents on gestures will block competing products and should not have been allowed.

The court doesn't decide whether or not the patent ought to have been granted. If the patent exists, they enforce it. Nor was Samsung's defence that the patents were invalid. Edited August 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

The court doesn't decide whether or not the patent ought to have been granted. If the patent exists, they enforce it.

I agree. I'm in favour of enforcing patents. Patent laws enoucage innovation, because without them why spend the money on R&D? Why not just wait around until someone else makes a good idea and then steal it for free?

The problem isn't the decision that samsung stole the patented ideas, the porblem i think is the billion+ in damages they have to pay Apple. These patents mean something to samsung products, but were they worth over a billion dollars in revenue? If samsung had not use these patented features and replaced them with something else would they have lost a billion+ in business? Not likely. The touch features are many the most significant patents here.

[TimG]

The court doesn't decide whether or not the patent ought to have been granted. If the patent exists, they enforce it. Nor was Samsung's defence that the patents were invalid.

Actually that was Samsung's argument. i.e. the patents should have never been granted and for many of them Samsung has a case. The trouble is the jury system is a dumb way to decide patent trials. Edited August 28, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

If samsung had not use these patented features and replaced them with something else would they have lost a billion+ in business? Not likely. The touch features are many the most significant patents here.

To add insult to injury - iPhones would be useless without access to Samsung's patents so any award should have valued Apple's patents less than Samsung's patents.

[cybercoma]

I agree. I'm in favour of enforcing patents. Patent laws enoucage innovation, because without them why spend the money on R&D? Why not just wait around until someone else makes a good idea and then steal it for free?

The problem isn't the decision that samsung stole the patented ideas, the porblem i think is the billion+ in damages they have to pay Apple. These patents mean something to samsung products, but were they worth over a billion dollars in revenue? If samsung had not use these patented features and replaced them with something else would they have lost a billion+ in business? Not likely. The touch features are many the most significant patents here.

The question you have to ask is if they didn't use the Apple patents, would they have made $1billion less and Apple $1billion more.

Regardless what happens here, Apple products are filled with Samsung parts. Their 13.3" Macbook Airs come with Samsung LCDs built into them (sometimes LG). This is the odd situations business gets itself into these days.

[cybercoma]

To add insult to injury - iPhones would be useless without access to Samsung's patents so any award should have valued Apple's patents less than Samsung's patents.

It's the system that's in place. There's no point discussing some hypothetical situation that you wish existed.

[wyly]

You're talking about something different. Soap manufacturers most certainly do have patents on their product shapes. Why not phone manufacturers? Coke has a patent on the shape of their bottles for crying out loud. It's a design element that makes their devices identifiable.

but there has to be a reasonable limit to what can patented...cars are all generally the same shape they, almost all have 4 wheels is it reasonable for company to own a shape? did apple invent the rectangle or round corners? some of the complaints were that the phones feel too similar, well how can they not be? ergonomics dictate how we design objects to interact with our bodies particularly our hands...are courts giving to much credit to designers?

Edited to say: They're actually trademarks, but I think the idea is the same. Some companies trademark colour. For instance, DeWalt is a certain shade of yellow that other tool companies cannot replicate, Milwaukee is red, Makita that cyan colour, etc.

and none of those companys own those colours, for marketing purposes it helps with brand identity but is it reasonable/fair for makita to own "cyan", Milwakee red or deWalt yellow...Powerfist makes yellow cordless tools I don't think de walt can do anything about it ... Edited August 28, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

It's the system that's in place. There's no point discussing some hypothetical situation that you wish existed.

That rich. So you are saying no one should ever say that things need to change?

[dre]

Intellectual property law badly needs to be reformed. Patents should only be granted for truly innovative property (not a common color or common shape) and they should expire way faster.

3M invented Dispersive signal technology... they should get a patent. This is a new way to make a touch screen work. Tyco invented Acoustic pulse recognition... another innovative way of making a touchscreen work. They should get a patent. They should get protected for maybe 3 - 5 years to make sure they get first movers advantage but thats it.

Apple rounded off sqaure corners . Something drywallers have been doing since the 80's. They should make a lot of money because their products are appealing to customers, but they shouldnt have even been considered for a patent for this alone. They are a perfect illustration of why first movers advantage, and good product developing and marketing are all thats required to make a boatload of money from an idea.

Design patents last 14 years... Utility patents last 20 years.

I would consider eliminating patent protection completely or drastically reducing it. Patents are state granted monopolies that limit both innovation and free trade. For almost all industries patent litigation actually exceeds the investment required to develop a technology, which essentially means that the government is intervening in favor of larger entities against smaller ones. And the idea that nobody would invent anything unless the government promised to give them a monopoly is simply false.

Edited August 28, 2012 by dre

[Cameron]

It'll be interesting to see what the iSheep have to say about having to buy all new connectors and docks because the already ridiculous 30-pin charger is being replaced with a 19-pin one.

iSheep are also perfectly happy owning a phone they think is innovative that has yet to have 4G/LTE capability.

So the same way Blackberry went from a Mini USB to Micro USB a few years back? I bought aftermarket adapters and I'm sure they'll be a work-around with Apple.

[Boges]

So the same way Blackberry went from a Mini USB to Micro USB a few years back? I bought aftermarket adapters and I'm sure they'll be a work-around with Apple.

Why would Apple want a work-around? They want everyone to buy new stuff. It'll be funny if someone just bought an iPad and then will buy an iPhone. They both need a different adapter.

[GostHacked]

Why would Apple want a work-around? They want everyone to buy new stuff. It'll be funny if someone just bought an iPad and then will buy an iPhone. They both need a different adapter.

If the other end of the cable is a standard USB connector then you can just buy one cable to replace all the others. I have one of those wall plug ins for my blackberry and I can use the same connector to charge my iPods with. I just plug the other usb cable into it.

But this is how companies try to stay relevant. Instead of trying to reduce the amount of waste making things more compatible, this goes in the opposite direction. Old devices/connectors/cables obsolete... what do you do with them?

[Boges]

Here's an interesting article I just read implying that ultimately Samsung will overcome this and that the iPhone 5 might end up being the last relevant smartphone Apple makes.

My link

The white handset icon set against a green background is a critical part in fully understanding how similar the Samsung phone is to the iPhone. In fact, Apple designer Susan Kare actually testified that when she was playing with the Samsung phone, she swore it was an Apple iPhone! Her testimony was quite convincing. It convinced millions of people that for a lot less money, they can get an iPhone by buying Samsung's phone. Genius!

But it gets worse.

Apple made a big deal about its patents on the bezel, the angles of the corner curves, and other designs it apparently patented. People in general reacted with astonishment that anyone could get a patent for a curve or straight line or flat surface.

This sent two messages through the brains of consumers: First, this is an idiotic patent and Apple is grasping for straws. Second, the company is spending too much time on minutiae rather than actual functionality.

And now, go back and compare Samsung's calling icon with Apple's. The Samsung art for the handset is better than Apple's simplistic art. Samsung's just looks more modern. I'm sure this is one of the reasons Susan Kare confused the Android phone with the Apple phone as she assumed the slicker version of the exact same phone would be Apple, by default.

I consider this situation to be dire for Apple. When the iPhone 5 arrives shortly, it will be crunch time for the company. If this is the end of the line for the iPhone, you can point to this lawsuit as the tipping point. It may be the last important iPhone.

I'm reminded of how the little-known MP3 gained popularity when the RIAA filed various lawsuits. Apple may have pulled a similar stunt by alerting the public that the Samsung phone is the exact same thing as an iPhone, or better.

A billion dollars well spent.

I think we all agree that the Apple didn't invest the stuff they sued Apple over, they just successfully patented them. Meaning there success is being good at understanding patent law more than actually creating innovative products.

By any objective standard, the top-end devices Samsung offers provide more to the customer for less. Unless you're an Apple Fan Boi how can you objectively justify getting an iPhone 5? The Galaxy S3 will cost less and it'll probably be better.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Boges

[Boges]

Apple is getting really cheeky now.

http://www.thestar.com/business/sciencetech/article/1248119--apple-lists-8-samsung-products-it-wants-banned

SAN FRANCISCO —Apple Inc. on Monday gave a federal judge a list of eight Samsung Electronics Co. products it wants pulled from shelves and banned from the U.S. market, including popular Galaxy model smartphones.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked for the list after a jury in San Jose last week slammed Samsung with a $1.05 billion verdict, finding that the South Korean technology giant had “willfully” copied Apple’s iPhone and iPad in creating and marketing the products. Samsung plans an appeal.

The products Apple wants out are all smartphones: Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S2 AT&T, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 T-Mobile, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Droid Charge and Galaxy Prevail.

Koh on June 26 banned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from the U.S. market after finding it likely violated a “design patent.” Samsung is now asking for that ban to be lifted after the jury found the computer tablet didn’t infringe that particular patent, but it did find it infringed three Apple’s software patents that cover the popular “bounce-back” and pinch-to-zoom features.

I own an S2 Skyrocket. Nowhere on the Interwebs have I found an article on how this affects Canadian carriers. From what I can tell Rogers and Bell spend far more time and effort promoting Android phones because they utilize the 4G/LTE network.

Since the S3 is out and they don't want that phone banned this really doesn't do much. If and/or when these phones do end up getting banned most new users will be on to the S3 or another phone. That is, unless they make it illegal to own one, If so then I'll gladly accept an S3 to replace my S2 from Rogers.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Boges