4 ms·
Patents themselves have only partial importance in the dispute. Mild form of patent violations do occur in the industry, but they are set aside most of them tim
by jsnk 15y ago
Patents themselves have only partial importance in the dispute. Mild form of patent violations do occur in the industry, but they are set aside most of them times, because most companies have violated some form of patents one way or the other. They want to avoid this type of battle Apple and Samsung are engaged in.
The real motive on the both sides is to reduce the sales of the opponents. I think both Apple and Samsung thinks that 2011 and 2012 are critical years that would determine the mobile phone trend in next few years to come. So despite the huge pain both parties go through, they may think that it's all worth it.
- Steko 15y ago"The real motive on the both sides is to reduce the sales of the opponents." Only so much as they want to increase their own sales. Samsung is looking for validation that their close copying is not illegal so they can continue doing so and reaping the benefits. Apple is looking to force Samsung to differentiate their products more through court order or public shaming.
- jsnk 15y agoI don't agree with the claim that only Samsung is the one copying in this dispute. There is definitely traits of derivative designs from Samsung. So for laymen like us, it would appear that Samsung is on the wrong, but there may be a whole host of actual hardware infringements Apple might actually be engaged. No one other than selective few in the industry will know how much copying and infringement of patents have been going on. But if you were to ask me, both sides are probably both guilty.
- Steko 15y agoApple apparently infringed on Nokia's IP which is why they wrote Nokia a multi-billion dollar check plus future royalties. People love to paint Apple as the big bad patent bully but they have paid more in patent settlements then all these other companies put together. Apparently they're allowed to violate but Android gets a free pass because, you know, "open".
- vogonj 15y agothis is Google's actual legal reasoning as to why they shouldn't be held liable for contributory patent infringement in Oracle v. Google: "[S]ection 271(c) applies only to offers for sale, sales, and importation, but Google does not sell, offer to sell, or import Android or Android SDK. [...] The ordinary meaning of 'sale' requires transfer of ownership for a price. [...] Android and Android SDK are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to download them off the Internet, however, and there is no evidence that Google ever receives any consideration in return. That undisputed fact precludes a finding of contributory infringement." http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-update-summary-judgment.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-upda...
- nitrogen 15y agoThat is just one element of a many-faceted approach to defending Android. It is misleading to suggest that making the observation that Google does not sell Android is equivalent to admitting that there is no better argument available. AFAIK (IANAL), you aren't usually allowed to raise new arguments later on in a trial (which bothers me), so both sides will raise every issue and argument they can think of at the beginning.
- X-Istence 15y agoGoogle is undercutting Microsoft, Apple, and RIM because they are releasing for free what everyone else HAS to charge for because they don't have income from advertisements to support the R&D required.