4 ms·
How is that relevant to the linked article?
by gibwell 13y ago
How is that relevant to the linked article?
- shmerl 13y agoIt would simply make such articles irrelevant :) Since in essence those patents were never valid to begin with. Samsung is of course wrong with sneaky tactics. But so is Apple with using fake patents.
- lttlrck 13y agoWell as it stands your comments are irrelevant.
- gibwell 13y agoEven if Apple's patents were invalidated it would do nothing to excuse what you are calling 'sneaky tactics' by Samsung. What they are accused of is deeply illegal, and that isn't going to change. Apple hasn't done anything illegal and their patents aren't 'fake'. If they were fake, why wouldn't Samsung have had them reviewed? It seems as though you are trying to defend Samsung by smearing Apple.
- iamshs 13y agoshmerl has been on HN for 2 years and amassed ~2K karma. I assume those other comments were not as gibberish as the ones on this story.
- shmerl 13y agoIn this case, Apple's patents are fake, because there is clear prior art. Samsung tried to use that defense, but the jury was really weird on that one. No idea why they aren't proceeding with invalidating them further. I'm not defending Samsung. They both are worth each other here. Apple started this idiocy first though - no one asked them to be patent jerks to begin with. When one crook is being bitten by another crook in a crooked fashion, because the first did something crooked to the second first, then the first one should look in a mirror, before pointing fingers to the second.
- gibwell 13y agoIf the jury didn't agree that the prior art was clear, then the prior art obviously was not clear. So really you're just saying that you don't agree with the jury. You also seem to be saying that Samsung should be allowed to abuse the court process as a way to steal secrets because Apple sued them, even though Apple won the case. I'm sorry, but you are defending Samsung.
- shmerl 13y agoThe jury was incompetent. Prior art is there. Jury dismissed it with completely invalid arguments which demonstrated that they had no clue what they were dealing with (patent law). And jury didn't even follow guidelines set for them for this case (which were intended to make them understand application of patent law better). Allowed? I didn't say anything about allowed.
- gibwell 13y agoYou seem to claim to understand the law better than the judge.
- shmerl 13y agoThe judge pointed out that jury didn't follow the guidelines. It seems that you didn't really follow the case. Anyway, Samsung should invalidate these patents for good. Otherwise Apple will use them against someone else next time.
- slaven 13y agoThere is nothing "sneaky" about this.
- cube13 13y agoNo, it wouldn't. Take the word "patent" out of the picture, and you still have very unethical and possibly illegal behavior. The information shared was confidential contracts between Apple and other companies. This information was marked as confidential for Samsung's lawyers only, not for Samsung. Someone gave them to Samsung. This would still happen with just about any business suit that could involve trade secrets.
- mitchty 13y agoHow is samsung learning of patent agreements that apple has with other vendors, and then using that against one of those vendors for their own purposes at all relevant to any of apples patents? Your comments are not only useless here but outright pointless. Apple's tactics with patents have zero bearing to this article. I think its time to remove hacker news from my daily reading list like reddit a few years ago. The partisan/biased comments lately about things like patents are starting to get beyond ludicrous. The eternal september effect is starting to wear me out on discussion sites. I'm not sure how you fix the problem though, or even if its fixable. Meh, back to work, least that is productive and useful unlike this very comment and the one before.
- jfb 13y agoI try to stick to the pure technology sorts of stories, but the particular technologies that appeal to the HN crowd aren't that interesting to me, either. Eh, whaddya gonna do.