Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[This is The End]

Apple was ordered to issue a statement acknowledging the court found Samsung products did not infringe. Apple did exactly that. Adding superfluous information doesn't change the fact they did as they were told.

Is Apple a kindergartener??

That's like telling one 5 year old to apologize to another and they go "I'm sorry" while punching the other one in the face!!

So you are quite wrong. Doing anything beyond what they were told to do does invalidate it.

 

[This is The End]

Another article:

Apple accused of hiding U.K. Samsung 'apology' with code

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57544802-37/apple-accused-of-hiding-u.k-samsung-apology-with-code/

No matter how tall their browser window is or how dense their screen resolution, visitors to Apple's U.K. Web site must scroll down the page to view the "apology" to Samsung that a U.K. Court of Appeal recently ordered Apple to display.

First noted by users on news-sharing site Reddit, Apple has within the past few weeks installed JavaScript code that dynamically resizes the central image on the Apple U.K. Web site to take up the maximum amount of space possible.

As a result, the central image -- currently an iPad Mini -- takes up just enough space to push the "apology" statement out of sight, meaning visitors must scroll down the page to view it.

 

[kevsta]

well into bear market territory (20%) now. currently down to Market Cap of $516.50Billion @ P/E of 12.44

Google winning this battle too, currently still holding the important 200 day moving average that AAPL plunged through.

makes sense really being as Google have a viable long term business plan based on information distribution, not a fashion-based cult.

hope Apple at least had Braeburn short their own stock for them.

 

[This is The End]

Well apparently someone remembered from Kindergarten how to share and be nice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/t...suits-smartphone-patent-battles-continue.html

Late Saturday, Apple and HTC, the Taiwanese smartphone maker, announced they had agreed to dismiss a series of lawsuits filed against each other in a feud that started more than two years ago when Apple accused HTC of improperly copying the iPhone. The companies said their settlement includes a 10-year license agreement that grants rights to current and future patents held by both parties.

The deal was the first settlement between Apple and a maker of devices that use Android, an operating system that has rapidly swallowed most of the smartphone market and threatened Apple’s position in the mobile business in the process.

<snip>

Apple’s settlement of an Android-related lawsuit could be interpreted as a sign that Mr. Jobs’s successor at Apple, Timothy D. Cook, is eager to end the distraction and risks of patent fights.

<snip>

While he, too, has stressed his disapproval of rivals’ copying of Apple products, Mr. Cook has said publicly that he is not an enthusiastic combatant in the patent wars.

 

[kevsta]

lol. Samsung hike Apple component prices by 20%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/samsung-hits-apple-with-20-price-hike-report-2012-11-11

 

[Darat]

lol. Samsung hike Apple component prices by 20%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/samsung-hits-apple-with-20-price-hike-report-2012-11-11

You mean there is a rumour this is what they've done, given that the quoted figure is "20%" I don't believe it. Not saying there hasn't been a price increase just I don't believe this report of the amount and the rumour of why and Apple's response.

Alas much of what passes for "business" news is at best repeating of rumours and gossip.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Well, I couldnt resist this.

Apple got taken to task by the Swiss railways for blatantly stealing their registered clock design.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/12/apple_licenses_swiss_clock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/apple_payout_swiss_railways/
Had to pay up 21$ million.

Also just lost a patent case over Facetime, 368$ million this time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/apple_loses_patent_case_facetime/

“Apple says they don’t infringe. But Apple developers testified that they didn’t pay any attention to anyone’s patents when developing their system.”

Finally, relating directly to a new patent that Apple have recently been granted, for the page turn effect:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...s1=D670,713.PN.&OS=PN/D670,713&RS=PN/D670,713
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_design_patent/

Now, could some of you who had experience with this explain exactly what they are claiming to be patented? As a lay person it is not at all clear even how to navigate that page, but there are many, many examples of prior art that I can think of. How could this be granted?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, I couldnt resist this.

Apple got taken to task by the Swiss railways for blatantly stealing their registered clock design.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/12/apple_licenses_swiss_clock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/apple_payout_swiss_railways/
Had to pay up 21$ million.

Also just lost a patent case over Facetime, 368$ million this time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/apple_loses_patent_case_facetime/

“Apple says they don’t infringe. But Apple developers testified that they didn’t pay any attention to anyone’s patents when developing their system.”

Finally, relating directly to a new patent that Apple have recently been granted, for the page turn effect:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...s1=D670,713.PN.&OS=PN/D670,713&RS=PN/D670,713
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_design_patent/

Now, could some of you who had experience with this explain exactly what they are claiming to be patented? As a lay person it is not at all clear even how to navigate that page, but there are many, many examples of prior art that I can think of. How could this be granted?

It appears to be the animated "page turn" ?
(as shown in this ad -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhC40QCZML0)

What are some examples of this in prior art ?

 

[Christian Klippel]

It appears to be the animated "page turn" ?
(as shown in this ad -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhC40QCZML0)

What are some examples of this in prior art ?

As a quick example, look at this post in another forum. Note the date, 2002. Follow the first link in there.

Oh, and that forum post is the first result on a Google search for "page turn animation".

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: On O'Reilly there is a tutorial on how to create page turn effects here.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As a quick example, look at this post in another forum. Note the date, 2002. Follow the first link in there.

Oh, and that forum post is the first result on a Google search for "page turn animation".

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: On O'Reilly there is a tutorial on how to create page turn effects here.

I'm not intending to get into a patent battle over this, I really don't know, just trying to throw out some possibilities.

That does seem to be a very similar effect.

Thank you for the links.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Just in that article comments, there are many examples of prior art, Lotus Notes 97 Diary, Silverlight sample code, ancient interactive CD ROMs, point and click games from 1986, gameboy games, Lotus Organizer 1995.

A simple search on Google for Page Turn or Page Curl effect shows many examples, lots of them dated before the December 2011 date of the Apple application.

So again I am confused, it just seems wrong, but I admittedly dont know enough about the US patent system to see what is being claimed and why it is different from prior art and not obvious. I was hoping some of the earlier thread contributors could comment.


And the other links earlier were just a sly "Pot, meet Kettle" dig at Apple, who despite their grand words have been stealing other peoples ideas since day 1. Even the iPod UI was nicked from Creative Labs, they were successfully sued and had to pay up.

 

[This is The End]

We should just let the man self incriminate:

Picasso had a saying he said:

"Good artists copy.
Great artists steal."


And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.

-Steve Jobs 1994

Absolutely sickening.

There's no spinning that folks. (Though I am sure some will try. Their favorite is to try and claim that the whole thing was the Picasso quote, even though there is a long pause after the quote, not to mention the fact that it is not part of the Picasso quote!)

It doesn't get much more clear cut:




http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5682/jobstruth.jpg

 

[Darat]

Apple losing ground (but only in percentage terms) against other platforms, the actual market continues to grow: http://www.zdnet.com/in-just-three-years-android-has-crushed-the-smartphone-competition-7000007447/

 

[chulbert]

We should just let the man self incriminate:

Are there any things you might have said 20 years ago that may not necessarily reflect your current position?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Are there any things you might have said 20 years ago that may not necessarily reflect your current position?

Well, they are one step further now. Not only do they (still) shamelessly steal ides, the page turning effect being the most recent, but now they go and grab patents on the stuff they stole.

So, no, their current position obviously hasn't changed, it even got worse. Plus, there is no retraction of that statement from Jobs or his successor.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[This is The End]

Are there any things you might have said 20 years ago that may not necessarily reflect your current position?

I just knew that was going to be one of the only things you could come up with in response to that!!

"And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." is not just something said off-the-cuff at one point.

It is a summary of their very philosophy, a summary of how they operated for any number of years!!

You can't just get away with that one by saying they had a change of heart!!

I assume you believe when a mass murderer has a change of heart we should just let them out of prison??

ETA: Of course I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right, or that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". I am merely pointing out the shear audacity of the hypocrisy.

 

[This is The End]

This might be interesting if Samsung is granted full access to that case file:


Samsung Seeks Copy of Apple’s HTC Settlement Over Patents

Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) asked a court to force Apple Inc. (AAPL) to turn over a copy of its settlement with HTC Corp. (2498), arguing it is “highly relevant” to Apple’s request for an order blocking sales of Samsung smartphones.

It’s “almost certain” that Apple’s settlement with HTC covers some of the patents at issue in its dispute with Samsung, according to a filing today by the Suwon, South Korea-based company in federal court in San Jose, California. The agreement may undermine Apple’s claim that Samsung’s patent infringement can’t be resolved with license payments, according to the filing.

“Apple’s apparent willingness to license these patents supports Samsung’s argument that Apple cannot show irreparable harm because monetary damages are adequate,” Samsung said in the filing.

That (the lack of adequate monetary damages) will strike at the very core of the one victory Apple had in the US.

Apple won a $1.05 billion patent-infringement verdict in August in a jury trial against against Samsung in San Jose. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh scheduled a December hearing to consider Apple’s request for a permanent U.S. sales ban on eight Samsung smartphone models and the Tab 10.1 tablet computer. She will also consider Samsung’s bid to get the verdict thrown out based on claims of juror misconduct.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Now, could some of you who had experience with this explain exactly what they are claiming to be patented? As a lay person it is not at all clear even how to navigate that page, but there are many, many examples of prior art that I can think of. How could this be granted?

Sorry, but anyone who had any clue what they were talking about left the wackos to their rantings in this thread pages and pages ago.

I would take a second to point out, though, that design patents are very different from utility patents. They protect a very different field of product feature, and are in practice drafted and prosecuted very differently.

If you want to learn more, you're better off spending a little time on Wikipedia or even a patent office website than listening to the anti-patent chatter here. Taking the patent posts here seriously is like taking medical advice from a homeopathic forum or learning property law from Freemen on the Land. I've never understood why those in strong opposition to the status quo also seem to find it necessary to misrepresent and fail to become informed about the subject, but it does seem to represent some sort of pattern.

 

[This is The End]

Sorry, but anyone who had any clue what they were talking about left the wackos to their rantings in this thread pages and pages ago.

I humbly disagree. All I remember is self-important wackos running to the hills after several of the smarter JREF members showed them clearly how they were too ingrained in the system to notice even trivial errors in their logic.

 

[This is The End]

Taking the patent posts here seriously is like taking medical advice from a homeopathic forum or learning property law from Freemen on the Land.

Wow that analogy is so horrible I can't believe you didn't see how it backfired.

A JREF thread on the woo that is homeopathy is where you will find the truth about homeopathy, as opposed to a homeopathic forum.

Just like a JREF thread on the woo that is religion is where you will find the truth about religion, as opposed to a religion forum.

Reading a patent forum full of supposed experts would be like trying to learn government from a politician.

Someone ingrained in patent woo would be scared to death of the light of truth and logic that the JREF brings, just like those ingrained in homeopathy or religion.

The claims of several so called patent experts were thoroughly demolished in this thread.

And that was about how the broken patent system actually works, not even about how it should work, which is what they will try to claim. They will return and go "oh I know it's broken", even when we were discussing the "broken" way.

Another classic sign of them floundering is when they see someone make one error about what specifically a patent is about, then they bring it up repeatedly to attest to their superiority. It helps them avoid acknowledging actual arguments where they were clearly proven to be wrong.