5 ms·
It feels good when the judgments reflect what is a common sense to a reasonable person. Glad the common sense prevailed here. It was obvious that the android de
by barista 14y ago
It feels good when the judgments reflect what is a common sense to a reasonable person. Glad the common sense prevailed here. It was obvious that the android devices were copied from iPhones.
- gsibble 14y agoI think that's what's so frustrating to me as an engineer. Samsung's technology patents were clearly violated, but did not win in court. Why? Perhaps because they aren't common sense. They are complex and intricate. THAT is what patents should be about. Not common sense.
- taligent 14y agoI take it you couldn't be bothered to understand the case. Samsung lost its counterclaims due to patent exhaustion which common sense suggests they deserved to lose. You can thank Intel for siding with Apple on this one.
- mratzloff 14y agoThis is my understanding of events: Samsung had a contract with Qualcomm that said they wouldn't sue Qualcomm or, critically, any of its customers over use of the 3G patents. Apple bought chips from Qualcomm. Samsung wanted ammunition to countersue Apple over its patent claims, so they rescinded the contract with Qualcomm. Apple then approached Samsung offering to pay a fair and reasonable amount for a license. Samsung thought they should pay much more. Apple disagreed and continued to use the chips, which was their sole violation as far as I can tell. The Dutch ruling basically forced Samsung to accept fair and reasonable licensing fees from Apple, and the US court today said Samsung was infringing on many of Apple's design patents. If I'm wrong, please correct where I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you are letting Samsung off the hook. Design patents are not necessarily common sense, just as hardware design is not necessarily "complex and intricate" to someone familiar with hardware design. Patents don't need to be complex and intricate. They simply need to be non-obvious, useful, original, and not on the list of things that aren't patentable (music, literature, etc.).
- jolohaga 14y agoGlad to read a different opinion, albeit a minority one.
- dgudkov 14y agoAnd what iPhones were copied from?
- LiroXIV 14y agoLegally, nothing.
- notatoad 14y agoIt was obvious that samsung tried to make their devices look and feel like apple devices. what isn't obvious is why apple should have exclusive ownership over things making a stretching gesture with your fingers to make something bigger. not only were they not the first to implement it, it is entirely a natural movement and is not something that should be anybody's property.
- mbreese 14y agoYeah, because I do that all the time to my newspaper to see the small print. It's a natural movement now, but in 2006, not so much.
- radley 14y agoA lot of this stuff was done in Flash for years. Multi-touch screens is what made it different, not Apple design.
- notatoad 14y agoThat's irrelevant, because apple didn't invent the gesture. Microsoft's surface table, minority report... Every time we've seen multi touch screens, we've seen pinch to zoom. When I bought my grandma an android tablet, pinching to zoom was the just about the only thing she didn't need instruction on. She didn't understand that tapping the word 'Internet' opened the internet, but she understood that stretching something made it bigger.