• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BoberFett said:
You seem to have missed the part where many of us don't give a shit about the technicalities of the procedures involved, because the entire thing is a sham based on bad law to begin with.

I suppose you supported slavery too? After all, it was legal. Just stop arguing, the attorney's said so. 🙄

Attorneys are truly the worst kind of person.
Click to expand...

Closely followed by apple cultist/supporters/hipster/douchebags
 
Last edited:
Short of Samsungs own documents saying "we copied the iPhone", android fans still don't want to believe it.

Even google told Samsung to stop copying and explore different directions. Samsung has done this for years and now they're crying that they got caught. Samsung blackjack or blade anyone?
 
BoberFett said:
You seem to have missed the part where many of us don't give a shit about the technicalities of the procedures involved, because the entire thing is a sham based on bad law to begin with.

I suppose you supported slavery too? After all, it was legal. Just stop arguing, the attorney's said so. 🙄

Attorneys are truly the worst kind of person.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear, what you are saying is that Apple is evil/bad because it obtained patents under existing laws and sought to enforce those patents? If that is incorrect, please clarify your position.

MotionMan
 
Corporate patent lawyers and lawyers in general wield great influence in the United States. One Japanese book is titled "Litigating a Country to Death -- The United States of America". Like in Britain, the patent system ran out of control rather early in the US. In the 80s, this was partially reinterpreted as an american national "pro-patent" policy by which Japan and east-asian tiger states could be kept at bay. The US has been and is allowing patent lawyers to determine its policy in multilateral rounds such as WIPO as well as in bilateral negotiations. These patent lawyers have, without much regard for US national interest, been using the muscle of the US government in order to press other countries into allowing patentability of everything under the sun according to US standards. At WIPO, the US is pushing for a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) which rules out any limitation on subject matter and threatening to walk out if this is not achieved. Be it WIPO, WSIS or OECD, wherever unlimited patentability is not the target, the US delegation boycotts the work and instead relies on bilateral muscle-flexing. Jordan signed a bilateral agreement with the US in this sense in 2000. Japan was heavily lobbied and followed in every detail, even to extent of passing a law that obliges Japan to push for software and business method patents worldwide. US pressure has made itself felt in Europe, so that many, including French president Chirac, have spoken about a strategic need to resist the US pressure. Whether this US pressure is really based on US national interest may be doubted. But without doubt the USA is in the position of the early adopter of software patentability. While others were still not taking the (illegal) expansionism of their local patent offices seriously, software patents became -- very much against the will of most US software businesses -- firmly entrenched in the USA, leaving US companies no choice but to adapt. About 2/3 of the European (illegal) software patents are in US hands, and many at the US companies (and at some large european companies who are active in the US market) would like to be able to leverage their assets in Europe also.
 
PlatinumRice said:
Corporate patent lawyers and lawyers in general wield great influence in the United States. One Japanese book is titled "Litigating a Country to Death -- The United States of America". Like in Britain, the patent system ran out of control rather early in the US. In the 80s, this was partially reinterpreted as an american national "pro-patent" policy by which Japan and east-asian tiger states could be kept at bay. The US has been and is allowing patent lawyers to determine its policy in multilateral rounds such as WIPO as well as in bilateral negotiations. These patent lawyers have, without much regard for US national interest, been using the muscle of the US government in order to press other countries into allowing patentability of everything under the sun according to US standards. At WIPO, the US is pushing for a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) which rules out any limitation on subject matter and threatening to walk out if this is not achieved. Be it WIPO, WSIS or OECD, wherever unlimited patentability is not the target, the US delegation boycotts the work and instead relies on bilateral muscle-flexing. Jordan signed a bilateral agreement with the US in this sense in 2000. Japan was heavily lobbied and followed in every detail, even to extent of passing a law that obliges Japan to push for software and business method patents worldwide. US pressure has made itself felt in Europe, so that many, including French president Chirac, have spoken about a strategic need to resist the US pressure. Whether this US pressure is really based on US national interest may be doubted. But without doubt the USA is in the position of the early adopter of software patentability. While others were still not taking the (illegal) expansionism of their local patent offices seriously, software patents became -- very much against the will of most US software businesses -- firmly entrenched in the USA, leaving US companies no choice but to adapt. About 2/3 of the European (illegal) software patents are in US hands, and many at the US companies (and at some large european companies who are active in the US market) would like to be able to leverage their assets in Europe also.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell your Samscum boyfriend to stop copying others. They have blatently copied Nokia, Motorola, and RIM. They did with Apple but Apple vehemently objected to it. This case has less to do with patents and more to do with an out of control company that runs roughshod over its countrymen and the success of others. Samscum needs to stop thieving...
 
Dari said:
Why don't you tell your Samscum boyfriend to stop copying others. They have blatently copied Nokia, Motorola, and RIM. They did with Apple but Apple vehemently objected to it. This case has less to do with patents and more to do with an out of control company that runs roughshod over its countrymen and the success of others. Samscum needs to stop thieving...
Click to expand...

it's okay to copy, and copying =/= infringing valid patents
 
Do we really need the "Apple & Apple supporters are <insert derogatory term>" comments. This is what this thread has turned into.

Seriously, some of you Android proponents make a lot of claims about how bad Apple proponents are, but you are just as bad if not worse. You glorify in pointing out how bad Apple fans behave, never looking in the mirror. Pot. Kettle. Black.
 
PlatinumRice said:
if a 9 year old could have patented it, then it should not have been patentable in the first place.
Click to expand...

Such simple logic. No wonder you're on the wrong side of history. People like you are what's wrong with the world. You feel you have the right to steal from others.
 
MrX8503 said:
Short of Samsungs own documents saying "we copied the iPhone", android fans still don't want to believe it.

Even google told Samsung to stop copying and explore different directions. Samsung has done this for years and now they're crying that they got caught. Samsung blackjack or blade anyone?
Click to expand...

But but but! It's easier to ignore this and talk about the patent system in general than discuss the internal Samsung documents.
 
Ok internal Samsung document fanboys - can you point out where the Galaxy S3 is mentioned? And point out how the Galaxy S3 is substantially similar to the iPhone? To the point that users are confused about what they are buying?
 
abaez said:
Ok internal Samsung document fanboys - can you point out where the Galaxy S3 is mentioned?
Click to expand...

Post a link to the documents and I will look for the references.

And point out how the Galaxy S3 is substantially similar to the iPhone? To the point that users are confused about what they are buying?
Click to expand...

The jury answered that question already.

MotionMan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top