Patents are different for every product so all the TV and car analogies hold absolutely no weight in this case. The fact that literally every court is ruling against Samsung says a lot, and don't give me any Apple bought the courts out garbage.
To be or not to be........................wait what was the question? This signature has been Tapatalk approved.
Anytime someone dares me to walk a mile in their shoes I do it! Because, hey free shoes and I am now a mile away from that person!
Hatred is by far the ugliest trait any human can possess (think about it)
Considering all this litigation seems to simply be related to Samsung's customization of Android's appearance, why not just switch to stock Honeycomb? I realize they perceive some value-add in their TouchWiz interface, but it's getting them in a lot more trouble, costing them a lot more legal fees, hindering sales and tarnishing their reputation a lot more than it's worth.
Push Honeycomb out to all currently-unsold tablets as a mandatory update upon activation. Offer it as an option to current customers, so you don't get them all riled-up. Then let's get on with our lives.
I'm not sure what patent law is around the world, but in the US it's supposed to be "non-obvious". I simply don't get what is so "non-obvous" about a rectangular screen with a black border. My laptop screen has a black border. My plasma tv has a silverish/black border.
As mentioned, the fact that samsung is repeatedly being ruled against in several countries says something. There's only two possible reasons: samsung is in fact infringing, or the judges are apple fanboys haha. I think logic dictates that its the former....
I always assumed there was more to it than Apple patenting a rectangle, but a judge holding them up side-by-side for comparison would appear to indicate otherwise.
Also don't read too much into the lack of challenge of other manufacturers. Samsung is rapidly gaining on Apple's smartphone share, and you don't sue all potential infringers at once. You try to get a favorable judgement and use to leverage license agreements with other potential infringers. I think Apple targeted Samsung because of additional claims with the icons and UI - i.e. the most likely target to get a favorable judgement on.
Looks like the ruling in Australia has to do with "touchscreen technology and other features". Samsung could very well be infringing on the architecture Apple patented (but otherwise I doubt touchscreen interface is patentable, Apple wasn't even the first). As a key supplier, Samsung could very well have stolen or piggy-backed some underlying Apple engineering or software to power various functionality.
In the Netherlands, they've apparently modified banned phones and are set to release them. According to Reuters, the patent at issue was a method of scrolling through photos!
Patent blogger Florian Mueller points out that the patent in question that was exercised in the case is one registered to the late Steve Jobs (among others) and concerns “heuristic touchscreen” technology.
The generality of the patent, he speculates, could be applied to a number of other tablets, not just Samsung’s, and the fact that the Australian court has chosen to support it means that Apple may now have the legal ammunition to go after other competitors looking to launch products in Australia."
Anyway, it seems like all the hub-bug over Samsung getting taken to the woodshed for "copying the look" has been a little off-target.
Last edited by kodiak799; 10-14-2011 at 04:06 PM.