Authored by: soronlin on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Post-‘pinch’? Apple patent-case win could point
to new digital age for smartphones
“I don’t know what you do
about ‘pinch and zoom,’ ” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor
critical of the ruling. “That’s the cost of this decision. All the phones have
to use less-efficient tools.” -
Personally I have never found
pinch-to-zoom particularly efficient. Granted it is obvious, but I
always get my fingers in a twist when I use it. Maybe I need more practice.
My
Galaxy S3 also offers two-fingers-and-tilt to zoom. That's just as fiddly.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
"since it is much more often a defendant in patent infringement cases, than
a plaintiff."
Isn't that true of every company that actually makes things?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stan_qaz on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/28/patent_system_bruised_or_borked/
From the article:
"Analysis Relax, everyone. While the patent system is far from perfect, a
remarkably common-sense jury decision last week in the Apple-Samsung trial has
clarified that patents are the "lifeblood of business", as inventor
James Dyson calls it.
Putting powerful short-term legal protections under inventions is overwhelmingly
more convincing than any mooted alternative. We're all richer for it. And the
verdict has also been good news in an unexpected way: it's a fillip for the jury
system too. Much to the distress of intellectual property "experts",
this is a small victory for democracy over technocracy, and against the
administration of justice by self-selecting elites.
When ordinary citizens gather to assess an intellectual property decision, they
don't let us down. The clarity of the jury foreman's thinking here is
particularly impressive. Velvin Hogan, a 67-year-old engineer, told the San Jose
Mercury that, essentially, Samsung had nobody to blame but itself."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why the Apple-Samsung verdict is GOOD for YOU, your KIDS and TECH - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Why the Apple-Samsung verdict is GOOD for YOU, your KIDS and TECH - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Why the Apple-Samsung verdict is GOOD for YOU, your KIDS and TECH - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- That's just Orlowski - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Saw the headline in my RSS reader and thought "Orlowski" and just passed. - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- Where's Florian?? (or, I have a bridge for sale to you, today only, special price, hurry!) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:03 AM EDT
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Electronic Design on The Apple/Samsung Judgment
And Our Broken Patent System
--- The Investors IP Law: The future
health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits
they are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: squib on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Whoops: I posted first in the wrong place.
Apple vs. Samsung jury foreman: 'the evidence was
overwhelming' [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win
Patents are, arguably, no longer a system of protection; they
are a system of litigation. Great numbers of patents are now filed, in an
over-burdened system, to protect not innovations but the right to litigate over
innovations. Indeed, any patent of value will ultimately be
litigated.
Apple, and its rotten phone, have a ways to
go. But karma should not be underestimated as a factor in this
game. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
Are Apple's innovations inside
us now? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
I see Mr. Yglesias references five companies in his article: Microsoft,
Nokia,
Samsung, RIM, and Apple. He then adds "But a more realistic view is that
technology companies are generally trying their best to innovate and it’s
simply
difficult. In that view, jury rulings in favor of incumbents will simply
reduce
competition and raise prices for consumers." Please remember
December 2006 and tell me if all five of those
companies were in the phone
business at the time. Yep. That's right. Apple was
the one not making phones or
phone oses. They were the new kid in the block
who hit it big. Also, he
neglects to mention — in the excerpt — that
Nokia has already sued Apple and
they settled with Apple giving Nokia money. I
suspect that Kodak and/or Nokia
sued Apple before Apple sued any one else, but
I may be wrong and it probably
doesn't matter. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
So, let me get this right ...
The Apple iPhone 5, due next month, will be a
copy of the Samsung Galaxy SIII?
Will Samsung be asking Apple to pay two or
three billion for that?
Just asking.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
Am I missing something here? Web links are just a string of characters, text.
They're suing because someone is using texting to send text? Isn't this about
the same as suing over texting sentences?
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on
the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That
changed everything right there."
"They don't count as prior art because you can't run Apple software on
them?"
I guess those guys have never been in a computer programming class where pseudo
code is used. Also, if written in a high level language, it's easily compiled
for different systems. That's why Linux is so easily ported to new hardware.
Don't these guys understand that it's the method, not the actual nut & bolts
of something that make it an invention? In the mechanical world, it would mean
using different thread sizes etc. would prevent infringing. Of course, to
follow their logic, Samsung didn't infringe at all because IOS stuff won't run
on Android and Samsung also used different hardware bits to build their phones
and tablets.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
a simpler solution,:
all one needs to do is to publish your invention idea on the net,once this is
done then it become prior art ,no patent application of the said invention /
idea will be valid (assuming the patent office is working competently!!! over
the prior art )[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|