It's official -- Note2 infringes says Apple

Discussion in 'Mobile Devices & Gadgets' started by Brian Stirling, Nov 24, 2012.

  1. TerryMathews

    TerryMathews Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    11,474
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm not. You are. A patent has to be innovative and non-obvious to be valid. Prior art is usually a perfect example of why a patent should not be granted or upheld.

    Go read some patent decisions, especially Great Atlantic v Supermarket Equipment Corp.
     
  2. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,808
    Likes Received:
    36
     
    #227 Zaap, Nov 30, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012
  3. Tom

    Tom Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    13,290
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand what you're saying. But it isn't up to you.
     
  4. Tom

    Tom Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    13,290
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Mopetar

    Mopetar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    6
    And as I've said, if you're just going to label certain litigation as frivolous, there's no point in even having this debate with you. You'll merely say that any example I've produced is an example of non-frivolous lawsuits.

    Also, if Apple is winning many of its cases, how are they frivolous?

    Here's my old post: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33917158


    Out of curiosity I decided to look through the list again and found a few interesting results. Some company I've never heard of (Washington Research Foundation) is suing Apple. Sprint Nextel is suing someone for trademark infringement. Bayer is suing another company for patent infringement. Ericsson is suing Samsung over patents and Emerson is suing over trademark infringement, and Disney is involved in a suit.

    Those are just the ones from the companies that I recognize. There are loads more that I don't. According to the website, they've added 210 cases in just the last 7 days. Also note that these are only cases in the U.S. Who knows how many there are in other countries. Also, how many of those have been reported in the news?

    I've listed some major companies (with which I'm familiar; there may be other major companies in that list that I'm not familiar with so I've skipped them) that have filed suits in the last few days. Given the number of lawsuits that are being added all the time (We'll assume ~40 per day given that suits probably aren't filed on weekends) and it becomes fairly evident that this happens quite frequently. How many lawsuits has Apple filed in the U.S. this year? Probably 3.

    You can sue if you feel a trademark is too similar. Go ahead and try to sell watches under the Tymex brand and see how far you get.

    Not a patent so I don't see how they could infringe on it.

    Wikipedia has a pretty good history of the iPhone trademark. It would appear that it started in 1993 when a company named Infogear trademarked "I PHONE" and in 1996 trademarked "IPhone". The company produced a product using the name in 1998. Cisco acquired the company and later released a product using the mark. All of this was done in the U.S. In 2007, Cisco licensed the mark to Apple.

    Also, in 2002 Apple applied for the iPhone trademark in several other countries, although Mexico is not included on that list.

    So really, the iPhone mark, or some variation of it, predates the iFONE mark. The problem is that no one may have explicitly filed for the mark in Mexico, which means the case is much less clear cut.

    One of these is a design patent. The other is a trademark. They're not the same thing at all.

    As I've said, they're completely different things. The only comparison you can make is that they're both forms of intellectual property. Also the iFONE case is probably a lot more complex than you've made it out to be. Who knows what kind of international treaties (things like NAFTA) or other international law might come into play.

    I don't have any details of the case so I can't comment on the verdict other than Apple lost. I imagine that they've appealed, though.

    And there you go injecting personal feeling into it again, which is why even if I point out examples of other companies engaging in lawsuits, I don't think that you're likely to accept them.
     
  6. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,808
    Likes Received:
    36
    ^ Sorry but it's impossible to take you seriously.

    Litigation does not equal frivolous litigation of the type Apple engages in. I've asked for specific examples of "everybody doing the same thing" as you've claimed. Show me Coke suing Pepsi for packaging their soft drinks the same way, or copying their can. Show me a washing machine company suing because someone else uses a 'spin cycle' that they claim to own due to an overly broad patent being granted. Show us ANY example that is the same type of cases. SPECIFICS, please. If "everybody does it" that should be simple, not just you pointing to *any* litigation that you can't prove is "everybody doing the same thing".

    No one is saying there isn't legitimate litigation, just that Apple's suits aren't. You of course know that, you're just throwing up smoke, which is typical in these discussions from the Apple side.

    And once again, iFONE doesn't equal iPhone. Skipping over that blatant fact and still pretending Apple has a case (even after they've lost and proven beyond a doubt they didn't) just shows me you're not going by facts, just your belief that Apple can do what it wants. It's why no one believes you or them over things like the microphone example. When iFONE registered in 2003 can in ANY WAY be an infringement on iPhone registered in 2007, then it just proves you'll believe ANYTHING Apple ever claims about microphone icons or whatever, no matter how false and nothing like what they're claiming to own. That attitude in a nutshell is why people don't trust Apple and overly-broad patents.
     
    #231 Zaap, Nov 30, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012
  7. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,808
    Likes Received:
    36
    You're right not a patent, a trademark. So the only company ever to actually violate Cisco's trademark was Apple, not iFONE.
     
  8. cheezy321

    cheezy321 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Took me 2 seconds to find this with a simple 'coke sues pepsi' search:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-sues-pepsico-over-trop50-packaging/nQmWf/

    I dont see how you can seriously say Apple is the only company out there that engages in these shenanigans.
     
  9. Mopetar

    Mopetar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    6
    If it were frivolous, they wouldn't be winning any of their cases. It seems that they're probably winning about half of the time. I don't know the exact rate, but it's probably close to 50% as it seems like there are about as many stories posted about each.

    What you really mean to say is "litigation that I disagree with from a moral standpoint." As I pointed out to another poster, there's no sense even discussing that since it just goes round in circles, unless someone is going to change their opinion.

    This one took me 3 seconds to Google: http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-sues-pepsico-over-trop50-packaging/nQmWf/

    I don't know if I'll find one for spin cycles, but I did find a story about Maytag suing LG over a patent related to airflow systems in their washers and dryers. I don't know if it's an "overly broad" patent though, so you'll have to use your discretion to determine if it qualifies.

    Considering it took my under 10 seconds of googling to find both specific examples for some random examples you came up with, it would seem to suggest that, yes, this is pretty common.

    Once again, you're assuming from the start that Apple's suits aren't legitimate. There's no debating you because you've reached a conclusion (i.e. Apple's suit's aren't legitimate) and then arguing from that position. If you really want to have a discussion, please point out all suits which you don't believe to be legitimate and why you don't think they are legitimate.

    I have a feeling that your reasons won't have any legal basis and are only applicable if you apply your own morality. As I've said before, that's an utterly pointless thing to do.

    I'm not on any side, nor do I think taking sides accomplishes anything, especially when trying to have a reasonable discussion.

    It doesn't, which is now a matter of legal fact. I'm not disputing that, merely pointing out that some of your own 'facts' weren't necessarily correct, and that your representation of the case and legal implications seemed off.

    Also, the case is probably subject to appeal and who knows if Apple is persuing that or not. Also after reading the article that Tom posted, it would seem that you were incorrect about Apple being unable to sell the iPhone in Mexico.

    As I pointed out, depending on international laws and trade argeeements, trademarks registered in one country may be automatically valid in another. I don't know for certain, but merely pointed out the legal possibility. If such a thing does exist, then it's possible that the iPhone mark could predate the iFONE mark.

    And really the whole case apparently was started because Apple believed that the mark wasn't being actively used.

    Violate in the sense that it was legally upheld by a court or violate in some other sense? I don't believe that it ever came to a court verdict as the two parties reached an argeement, although it's pretty likely that if Apple was unable to show that Cisco had abandoned the mark (which some believe was certainly possible) that it's likely any court would find Apple to infringe.

    Also, I don't believe that Cisco ever attempted to sue the company that owned the iFONE mark, so really, we can only speculate about whether it would violate it or not.
     
  10. Brian Stirling

    Brian Stirling Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    For four score and seven years it was legal to own people in the USA -- didn't make it right!


    Brian
     
  11. Brian Stirling

    Brian Stirling Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's a pathetic dodge...

    It is true that Apple did not invent the idea of patenting things and it's also true that some things warrant protection by law, but what Apple is doing is carpet bombing with these patents and the goal is to achieve ownership of ideas they did NOT invent and thereby deny them to the competition. This is very anti-competitive and must come to an end.

    I think Apple has parlayed there reputation of coolness and have many MANY people, including patent clerks, starstruck.

    But, as I mentioned to Cheezy, the number and percentage of folks complaining about Apples games is increasing. A year ago you could follow a news link on an Apple lawsuit and in the comments section you see a mix of comments for and against Apples tactics. But, if you look around today you see far fewer comments supporting Apple and far more against them.

    If Apple keeps up with these games they will eventually run afoul of the DOJ and the patent office will begin to realize they are and have been played. But, even if this doesn't happen, the anger of the public will cut into there bottom line. Think about it, Apple has waged a nasty war to block there competition from being able to compete but not much has actually been blocked for very long ... meanwhile, Androids market share keeps growing and the percentage of the public that have had enough of there games keeps growing as well.


    Brian
     
  12. dguy6789

    dguy6789 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,564
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Tom

    Tom Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    13,290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other than people I meet online I don't know a single human being that gives a tinker's damn how much Apple sues anyone, whether Android sells more than other smartphones, or most of the other nonsense we like to debate..

    I don't care either. What I care about is America and our system of laws, so I object to throwing out the right of Apple, or anyone else, to work within our system to protect their rights; and to calls to dismantle our protections of intellectual property..particurlarly over such a ridiculous issue such as "fans" of a phone, which is pretty hard to take seriously.
     
  14. WelshBloke

    WelshBloke Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,079
    Likes Received:
    125
    How is that relevant? I've never met anyone IRL that cares if apple invented "slide to unlock" or the like, they just want it on their phone regardless of who made it.
     
  15. Brian Stirling

    Brian Stirling Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    For decades it was legal for one American to own another, but those laws were immoral and wrong and were eventually eliminated. Many of Apples patents will also eventually be stripped away but in the mean time they are immoral and wrong as well. The fact that they have the law on there side, for now, does not make it right -- how do you not see this...


    Brian
     
  16. Mopetar

    Mopetar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    6
    Perhaps his morality is different than yours and he doesn't see it as wrong or doesn't care. That's why arguing about what's "right" outside of the law when discussing legal matters is pretty pointless unless you're looking to change the law. And as I've said before, every large company engages in basically this same behavior, so it's silly to expect that they'll act like saints based on your moral code. The only reason Apple gets so much attention around here is because the other side happens to be something that people around here like. Face it, if Apple were suing car manufacturers, there wouldn't even be a peep about them here.

    And I think WelshBloke is pretty much spot on. Most people don't care about anything beyond the feature itself. That's why I honestly doubt this is going to have much if any impact on Apple's sales. If it were going to, it would have happened already, but given that their market share has continued to increase, I honestly can't put much stock in your assessment that they're somehow going to lose massive amounts of sales. I think that you're assuming that the general population subscribes to your morality and actually cares. Whether the first is actually true or not is irrelevant it's pretty apparent that most people don't care. Even having a discussion about this with the average person would probably put them off as much as if someone tried discussing Jersey Shore with me.
     
  17. Zink

    Zink Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Slavery is bad everyone, who's with me? Also I think Apple is bad so you guys should agree with me on that too." XD

    I think this is the kind of issue where it is too easy to take sides. The patent system seems broken but there is no question that Apple was first to make a very popular smartphone and others copied.
     
  18. Tom

    Tom Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    13,290
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have anything to say to someone who thinks owning a person is in any way comparable to owning one's own creations.
     
  19. WelshBloke

    WelshBloke Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,079
    Likes Received:
    125
    I don't think (at least I hope he wasn't) implying that. He was just pointing out that just because someone is within the law doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.

    At the moment we have escaped any really drastic results. How would you feel about the whole patent issue if some patent troll manages to take Apples entire line of mobile devices off the shelf? How would that be good for the industry or the consumer?
     
  20. Brian Stirling

    Brian Stirling Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    1

    One's own creations -- like rounded rectangles and the swipe -- please...

    What Apple did from day one with the iPhone is "patent the hell out of it" but not so much the hardware like touch screens and the like, no, they figured if they patented how you use these devices you can eliminate competition. That's the deal, they want ownership of how you USE the devices.

    So, you have a touch screen device with no mouse, how do you select text or move things on screen. Well the answer is easy and obvious ... you put your finger down and move it (swipe). This is what Apple wants to deny to others and the fools at the patent office have been beaten into submission with Apple filing and refiling and refiling again of the same patent applications.

    Again, most of these patents will eventually be overturned but in the mean time Apple is abusing the system. The fact that Apple has been granted patents for things that should not be owned doesn't make it right even if it's legal. Slavery wasn't right even though it was legal for 87 years, and while it was legal there were folks that argued slavery was OK because it was legal...


    Brian
     
  21. XenIneX

    XenIneX Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I think we've found the counterpart of Godwin's Law for relative morality of legislation...
     
  22. cheezy321

    cheezy321 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    This. Bravo sir.
     
  23. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remember all kinds of criticism of Rambus on these forums when they were abusing the legal system... not so much now that Apple is doing the same.

    I don't really care if they win some cases and lose others; a win doesn't mean they were right to sue and a loss doesn't mean they were wrong to sue.
     
  24. MrX8503

    MrX8503 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    4,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought a stylus was superior. :)
     
  25. deathBOB

    deathBOB Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't really understand the astonishment here. The iPhone interface was worlds ahead of the competition when it came out, why shouldn't Apple be able to protect elements of that interface? It's not like the underlying technology wasn't there for its competitors to use, they just had no innovation with the UI, which is the most important part of any consumer product.

    To Brian's point about selecting text: it's much more complicated than how you describe. I don't remember enough from my Evo, but I do not believe the implementation of text highlighting is identical between Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.

    So now that we've had 10 pages of this thread, can anyone identify what patents Apple claims Samsung is violating? My quick google search turned up nothing.
     
Loading...