8 ms·

I seriously can't believe how much money Apple has been able to troll out of those rounded corners and that end-of-list overscroll effect. And now, to top it o

I seriously can't believe how much money Apple has been able to troll out of those rounded corners and that end-of-list overscroll effect. And now, to top it off, iOS 7 is built on the holo-principles of Android. It's almost like Apple is doing it merely to taunt its foreign competitors, saying very, very clearly: "Sorry guys. I'm untouchable". Utterly disgusting. At least their attempts to outright ban products have been less successful as of late. There's some hope for a civilized world.

rlt3 13y ago
I'm pretty sure there was more to it than rounded corners.
IBM 13y ago
You should probably read more than the title and abstract of a patent.
- patmcguire 13y ago
  How did no one create the account IBM until 30 days ago?
stevenwei 13y ago
Yeah, it's not like they went screen by screen through the iPhone and said 'hey, we need to do what they're doing...' http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 13y ago
  This is the stuff that gets missed in these debates. It's not like Apple's attorneys got up in front of the jury, drew a rectangle with rounded corners, wrote PATENTED across it, then sat down. Rather, stuff like what you linked to is what causes juries to award $1 billion. E-mails along the lines of "let's make this look more like the iPhone." Presentations along the lines of "why isn't this more like the iPhone?" Surveys along the lines of "75% of people thought this looked like an iPhone." Market data on customer confusion, etc. This particular presentation is pure gold. Slide after slide that basically convinces the jury that Samsung didn't "play fair" and copied someone else's work instead of doing their own.
  - sreque 13y ago
    You know what else gets tossed out of these debates by Apple patent defenders? The fact that Samsung is continuing to have success in invaliding the patents they are being sued for: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-halt-damages-retrial-after-uspto-action-invalidates-key-apple-patent http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-h...
    - aroch 13y ago
      Except not really. This isn't actually "final" in any way shape or form. USPTO reexaminations have to pass preponderance (aka, better than 50%) which is a terribly low bar and the Federal Circuit has a higher standard required. Apple can still amend and clarify claims to reinstate the patent.
    - IBM 13y ago
      The patent wasn't invalidated. >The Patent Office has been re-examining the claims of the '915 patent, and Apple recently responded to the agency's questions. However, in the document filed by the Patent Office on Wednesday, the group said that it "respectfully disagrees" with Apple's claims about the technology and that Apple's arguments "are not persuasive." >The Patent Office comments don't invalidate the '915 patent but mean that Apple will have to provide more information and argue for the validity of the patent. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-judge-to-halt-apple-damages-retrial/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-j... Other patents have been reaffirmed on reexamination. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirmed-all-20.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirme...
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  Apple got a presidential pardon for its IP transgressions vis-à-vis Samsung. That's what makes this seem unfair. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1....
  - josephlord 13y ago
    It was not a pardon but a dismissal of an injunction, Samsung can still get paid appropriate royalties by a Federal Court (the FTC's only sanction is an import ban so it would need to be a separate action) Samsung promised to license those on FRAND terms, Apple will pay what a court sets as FRAND rate. An injunction in such circumstances would probably be a illegal anti-competitive action (at least that is the EU view and that of many US organisations too). Also there is currently no injunction in this case against Samsung at this point. Note that in the absence of rules including FRAND licensing commitments standards setting bodies would be illegal trusts which is why this is especially relevant.
- pazimzadeh 13y ago
  Number 108 is my favorite: http://cl.ly/SbXa http://cl.ly/SbXa "Fun factor is created."
  - stevenwei 13y ago
    It's actually interesting to me to look at those slides and see just how far Android has come along in the past few years. There are some really awful mistakes in those slides, like buttons being cut off when the keyboard pops up, or things breaking when you rotate the phone.
iQuercus 13y ago
I think if you "can't believe" it might be beneficial to read the case and the patents in depth. It's a little more nuanced than is presented in most articles I've seen. It might help move you to "I disagree, but I can see how..."
bitcrusher 13y ago
I seriously can't believe that there is an entire sub-culture of people that are still trollololing about 'rounded corners' without understanding the context. Design Patents are Different than Technology Patents.
- emn13 13y ago
  In sort of the way chemical weapons are different from nuclear weapons? Indeed, they're quite different, yet the world would still be a better place without them.
  - bitcrusher 13y ago
    Even non-lethal chemical weapons? /pedant I'm not arguing for or against patents (personally, I think they're an abomination), only against 'group think' from people choosing a 'team' and then using propaganda to reinforce their positions.
TruthSHIFT 13y ago
What's a holo-principle?
patrickaljord 13y ago
At this point, for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. Samsung is eating Apple's lunch and the US is trying to stop that. The US gov keeps pushing for more free market worldwide (which is great), except that when one of its industries or great companies is in danger because of international competition, protectionism is the way. How can they be taken seriously?
- threeseed 13y ago
  How can you be taken seriously when you post such illogical dribble ? To imply that US judges have been 'bought off' by Apple or by the US government is a huge claim to make that deserves substantiation.
  - dba7dba 13y ago
    Except Apple has been this successful in court against Samsung ONLY in US. Not in Japan. Not in Europe.
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    Doesn't have to be the judge. Did you read interviews from members of the jury? They were like "yeah, apple is awesome and even though there were prior art, it was on different device so yeah, apple is awesome and all their claims are valid, let's make samsung pay a billion dollar".
  - peterashford 13y ago
    As another non-US citizen I have to agree with Patrick. The US legal system looks like it has gone out of its way to punish the foreign competitor. Or more to the point, the jury in this case. Did anyone expect a bunch of US citizens to support a Korean company competing with a US icon like Apple? As a New Zealander, this whole affair seems like a load of US-centric BS to me.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. If that is so, how would you explain that Apple has gotten several injunctions (Australia, Germany, Netherlands) and won lawsuits against Samsung outside of the US? Even in South Korea a court ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents. Also, let’s not forget, Apple is far from the only company suing Samsung over mobile patents.
a_c_s 13y ago
It isn't 'trolling' if you are actually using the patents in your products. You don't have to agree with the lawsuit, but please quit diluting the term.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  While I can see cases where a sharp divide mightn't make sense (token feature or token product) this is prominent look & feel in a flagship product. Which is to say "I agree" - I have mostly negative sentiments about patents in general and this one in particular, it's not really fair to call this "trolling".
josephlord 13y ago
If illegally copying those things and being more iPhone like than other Android devices had any bearing on Samsung getting their current market position then it was a bargain even at a billion dollars. Apple and Samsung are both raking in billions every quarter; you have to consider the market size when considering the appropriate penalty. Also note that both sides had many more patents that they thought applied but had to be selective and discard many early in the case. They got to choose the most promising ones but it is hit and miss. There may be many more patents that would actually have applied.

rlt3 13y ago

I'm pretty sure there was more to it than rounded corners.

IBM 13y ago

You should probably read more than the title and abstract of a patent.

patmcguire 13y ago
How did no one create the account IBM until 30 days ago?

stevenwei 13y ago

Yeah, it's not like they went screen by screen through the iPhone and said 'hey, we need to do what they're doing...' http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
This is the stuff that gets missed in these debates. It's not like Apple's attorneys got up in front of the jury, drew a rectangle with rounded corners, wrote PATENTED across it, then sat down. Rather, stuff like what you linked to is what causes juries to award $1 billion. E-mails along the lines of "let's make this look more like the iPhone." Presentations along the lines of "why isn't this more like the iPhone?" Surveys along the lines of "75% of people thought this looked like an iPhone." Market data on customer confusion, etc. This particular presentation is pure gold. Slide after slide that basically convinces the jury that Samsung didn't "play fair" and copied someone else's work instead of doing their own.
- sreque 13y ago
  You know what else gets tossed out of these debates by Apple patent defenders? The fact that Samsung is continuing to have success in invaliding the patents they are being sued for: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-halt-damages-retrial-after-uspto-action-invalidates-key-apple-patent http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-h...
  - aroch 13y ago
    Except not really. This isn't actually "final" in any way shape or form. USPTO reexaminations have to pass preponderance (aka, better than 50%) which is a terribly low bar and the Federal Circuit has a higher standard required. Apple can still amend and clarify claims to reinstate the patent.
  - IBM 13y ago
    The patent wasn't invalidated. >The Patent Office has been re-examining the claims of the '915 patent, and Apple recently responded to the agency's questions. However, in the document filed by the Patent Office on Wednesday, the group said that it "respectfully disagrees" with Apple's claims about the technology and that Apple's arguments "are not persuasive." >The Patent Office comments don't invalidate the '915 patent but mean that Apple will have to provide more information and argue for the validity of the patent. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-judge-to-halt-apple-damages-retrial/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-j... Other patents have been reaffirmed on reexamination. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirmed-all-20.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirme...
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Apple got a presidential pardon for its IP transgressions vis-à-vis Samsung. That's what makes this seem unfair. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1....
- josephlord 13y ago
  It was not a pardon but a dismissal of an injunction, Samsung can still get paid appropriate royalties by a Federal Court (the FTC's only sanction is an import ban so it would need to be a separate action) Samsung promised to license those on FRAND terms, Apple will pay what a court sets as FRAND rate. An injunction in such circumstances would probably be a illegal anti-competitive action (at least that is the EU view and that of many US organisations too). Also there is currently no injunction in this case against Samsung at this point. Note that in the absence of rules including FRAND licensing commitments standards setting bodies would be illegal trusts which is why this is especially relevant.
pazimzadeh 13y ago
Number 108 is my favorite: http://cl.ly/SbXa http://cl.ly/SbXa "Fun factor is created."
- stevenwei 13y ago
  It's actually interesting to me to look at those slides and see just how far Android has come along in the past few years. There are some really awful mistakes in those slides, like buttons being cut off when the keyboard pops up, or things breaking when you rotate the phone.

iQuercus 13y ago

I think if you "can't believe" it might be beneficial to read the case and the patents in depth. It's a little more nuanced than is presented in most articles I've seen. It might help move you to "I disagree, but I can see how..."

bitcrusher 13y ago

I seriously can't believe that there is an entire sub-culture of people that are still trollololing about 'rounded corners' without understanding the context. Design Patents are Different than Technology Patents.

emn13 13y ago
In sort of the way chemical weapons are different from nuclear weapons? Indeed, they're quite different, yet the world would still be a better place without them.
- bitcrusher 13y ago
  Even non-lethal chemical weapons? /pedant I'm not arguing for or against patents (personally, I think they're an abomination), only against 'group think' from people choosing a 'team' and then using propaganda to reinforce their positions.

TruthSHIFT 13y ago

What's a holo-principle?

patrickaljord 13y ago

At this point, for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. Samsung is eating Apple's lunch and the US is trying to stop that. The US gov keeps pushing for more free market worldwide (which is great), except that when one of its industries or great companies is in danger because of international competition, protectionism is the way. How can they be taken seriously?

threeseed 13y ago
How can you be taken seriously when you post such illogical dribble ? To imply that US judges have been 'bought off' by Apple or by the US government is a huge claim to make that deserves substantiation.
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Except Apple has been this successful in court against Samsung ONLY in US. Not in Japan. Not in Europe.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  Doesn't have to be the judge. Did you read interviews from members of the jury? They were like "yeah, apple is awesome and even though there were prior art, it was on different device so yeah, apple is awesome and all their claims are valid, let's make samsung pay a billion dollar".
- peterashford 13y ago
  As another non-US citizen I have to agree with Patrick. The US legal system looks like it has gone out of its way to punish the foreign competitor. Or more to the point, the jury in this case. Did anyone expect a bunch of US citizens to support a Korean company competing with a US icon like Apple? As a New Zealander, this whole affair seems like a load of US-centric BS to me.
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. If that is so, how would you explain that Apple has gotten several injunctions (Australia, Germany, Netherlands) and won lawsuits against Samsung outside of the US? Even in South Korea a court ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents. Also, let’s not forget, Apple is far from the only company suing Samsung over mobile patents.

a_c_s 13y ago

It isn't 'trolling' if you are actually using the patents in your products. You don't have to agree with the lawsuit, but please quit diluting the term.

dllthomas 13y ago
While I can see cases where a sharp divide mightn't make sense (token feature or token product) this is prominent look & feel in a flagship product. Which is to say "I agree" - I have mostly negative sentiments about patents in general and this one in particular, it's not really fair to call this "trolling".

josephlord 13y ago

If illegally copying those things and being more iPhone like than other Android devices had any bearing on Samsung getting their current market position then it was a bargain even at a billion dollars. Apple and Samsung are both raking in billions every quarter; you have to consider the market size when considering the appropriate penalty. Also note that both sides had many more patents that they thought applied but had to be selective and discard many early in the case. They got to choose the most promising ones but it is hit and miss. There may be many more patents that would actually have applied.