By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Stupid jury kills innovation/competition and hands Apple a monopoly

 

Describe the Jury's decision.

Smart: Apple did it first... 47 17.67%
 
Stupid: You can't patent... 216 81.20%
 
Total:263
Kasz216 on 25 August 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."


While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."


Yes. Everybody read above. This guy gets it.

You can't patent "look and feel". Apple lost against MS when they tried and Xerox lost against Apple when they tried. I guess the jurors today were stupid or  Mac fans, or stupid Mac fans.


Or the head juror owned patents and therefore benefited from a wide view of patenet law.


In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/25/jurors_knew_samsung_was_guilty_after_first_day_of_deliberations_wanted_to_send_message_with_verdict.html



Around the Network
ultima on 25 August 2012
Euphoria14 said:
ultima said:
Euphoria14 said:

I'm on a phone and can't cut down quote trees, but the GS3 is my fiancé.

I picked the 4s for games.

 

We also don't know of ps4 will run ps3 games and the only ps3 that run ps2 software are discontinued.

3gs and especially the 4 can run over 99% of all current apps and games. 

 

My eyes are also fine, Thank you. I have 20/10 Vision in my right and 20/20 in my left.

I don't know anybody who still has an iPhone 4, but two people I know used 3GS up until recently and ever since the iOS5 update, their phones were borderline unusable. Way too laggy and slow. Basic apps like messaging were taking ridiculously long to load. You can guess how games were performing on them.

Just assume backwards compatibility for the Playstation example. My aim was to show how ridiculous your justification sounds: you basically have a choice of new, old, or even older. Is that really a satisfactory pool of choices for you?

And I'm sorry for insulting your vision.

It's the same choice everyone gives you. Crap, good or great.

 

You also called me an apple fanboy. This is my very first Apple device and I've only had it since June 21st. Before that 100% Android.

 

You also said android is easier to update. All I have to do with my phone is go into settina and choose to update. With samsung you have to hook the phone up to the pc and load up Samsung keis, download the update, then wait for the installation. It also took Samsung till 2.3 to give me 2.2 on my Galaxy S.

It used to be that you had to plug your phone into iTunes to update. I wasn't aware that they finally changed it into something more intuitive. Pretty much every Android phone is updated over the air too. Samsung is the only exception here (as far as I know). And I admitted that official updates are stupid on androids. Just put custom roms on your phone and live happily ever after.

I'm not going to elaborate on the choices argument anymore. Scoobes did a good job of sealing that conversation for you.

Lastly, like I said, I don't care what Apple devices you have and since when you had them. I did call you a fanboy and I explained why. If it wasn't clear the first time, I'll do it again. It's because you're siding with Apple here when they're clearly doing something wrong.



           

ultima on 25 August 2012
ishiki said:
ultima said:
ishiki said:

ultima said:

I do play consoles. Which argument would that be?

Read ClassicGamingWizz's original message and Euphoria's response to that. It sounds like Euphoria accepted what was said by CGW, despite the message not being directed towards him/her specifically. And one of the things in that message was, "they want to give [apple] the monopoly."

LOL. Nobody says apple has a monopoly. But they really want a monopoly from the way they're acting: they want to eliminate all of their competition through lawsuits.

That's how a lot of businesses get that big... that's what microsoft does, that's what intel does...

That's not true. I can't remember last time I heard about Microsoft or Intel abusing the legal system. In fact, the only lawsuit I ever remember involving Intel was a couple of years back when AMD accused them of unfair business practices. What apple is doing is blatant abuse of the legal and patent system.

I guess you haven't worked or known anyone to work against a microsoft or intel competitor. If they see a technology want they try to buy out the company they want. If the small company doesn't budge they abuse the legal system by stealing the idea anywayas and the small company's can't keep up with the legal fees. (apple does this too).

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/NY-attorney-general-ends-lawsuit-against-Intel-3207727.php 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601121.html

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/what-happened-microsoft-ruling

Here's some articles on just some of the issues microsoft and intel has had to deal with for being a "monopoly"

The thing is these big company's (samsung is a huge company btw) is just a circle jerk of suing eachother while doing business with eachother it's not just apple suing everyone. Here's one of google (android suing apple).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/21/and-now-google-sues-apple/

And consoles are closed like the iphone... android is open like PC, that was my point. Yet consoles are fine to be closed, but an Iphone isn't?Though you can jailbreak all of them. :)

Those articles involve antitrust laws, and the corporations were hurting the industry by doing something illegal. What bugs me about this case is that Apple is hurting the industry, but they aren't doing a single illegal thing.

And iPhone's closed, but that doesn't bother me. What made you think I was against that?



           

ultima on 25 August 2012
Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."


While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."

Truer words have yet to be spoken in this thread.



           

deskpro2k3 on 25 August 2012

Apple just wants more cheap labor in China.



CPU: Ryzen 9950X3D
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5 PRO
Around the Network
Chris Hu on 25 August 2012

I think its a pretty dumb lawsuit considering that Apple has been ripping off ideas from other companies pretty much since its beginnings.



kain_kusanagi on 26 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."


While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."


Yes. Everybody read above. This guy gets it.

You can't patent "look and feel". Apple lost against MS when they tried and Xerox lost against Apple when they tried. I guess the jurors today were stupid or  Mac fans, or stupid Mac fans.


Or the head juror owned patents and therefore benefited from a wide view of patenet law.


In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/25/jurors_knew_samsung_was_guilty_after_first_day_of_deliberations_wanted_to_send_message_with_verdict.html

Wow. Thanks for the source on that. I bet "Do you hold any patents" was the first question Apple's attorney's asked the potential jurors.

Maybe Samsung can use this info to have the decision thrown out. It's probably not enough though.



ishiki on 26 August 2012
ultima said:
ishiki said:
ultima said:
ishiki said:

ultima said:

I do play consoles. Which argument would that be?

Read ClassicGamingWizz's original message and Euphoria's response to that. It sounds like Euphoria accepted what was said by CGW, despite the message not being directed towards him/her specifically. And one of the things in that message was, "they want to give [apple] the monopoly."

LOL. Nobody says apple has a monopoly. But they really want a monopoly from the way they're acting: they want to eliminate all of their competition through lawsuits.

That's how a lot of businesses get that big... that's what microsoft does, that's what intel does...

That's not true. I can't remember last time I heard about Microsoft or Intel abusing the legal system. In fact, the only lawsuit I ever remember involving Intel was a couple of years back when AMD accused them of unfair business practices. What apple is doing is blatant abuse of the legal and patent system.

I guess you haven't worked or known anyone to work against a microsoft or intel competitor. If they see a technology want they try to buy out the company they want. If the small company doesn't budge they abuse the legal system by stealing the idea anywayas and the small company's can't keep up with the legal fees. (apple does this too).

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/NY-attorney-general-ends-lawsuit-against-Intel-3207727.php 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601121.html

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/what-happened-microsoft-ruling

Here's some articles on just some of the issues microsoft and intel has had to deal with for being a "monopoly"

The thing is these big company's (samsung is a huge company btw) is just a circle jerk of suing eachother while doing business with eachother it's not just apple suing everyone. Here's one of google (android suing apple).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/21/and-now-google-sues-apple/

And consoles are closed like the iphone... android is open like PC, that was my point. Yet consoles are fine to be closed, but an Iphone isn't?Though you can jailbreak all of them. :)

Those articles involve antitrust laws, and the corporations were hurting the industry by doing something illegal. What bugs me about this case is that Apple is hurting the industry, but they aren't doing a single illegal thing.

And iPhone's closed, but that doesn't bother me. What made you think I was against that?

IDK a lot of people in this thread, maybe it wasn't directed at you.

so it's better to hurt the industry doing illegal things (which apple probably does)? Than doing it legally?

As I said before the problem is with the system and the laws. Apple and the other company's will take advantage of it until something is changed. When company's get so big, their bottom line is what matters and if there is a legal way to exploit it they will. (big business's always force themselves to get huge tax breaks to 'stay' in a city to 'provide' jobs for people, while local small business's rarely get such benefit).

Again Apple, Intel, Google, Microsoft all do shady things. Maybe some a bit more than other's.



Kasz216 on 26 August 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."


While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."


Yes. Everybody read above. This guy gets it.

You can't patent "look and feel". Apple lost against MS when they tried and Xerox lost against Apple when they tried. I guess the jurors today were stupid or  Mac fans, or stupid Mac fans.


Or the head juror owned patents and therefore benefited from a wide view of patenet law.


In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/25/jurors_knew_samsung_was_guilty_after_first_day_of_deliberations_wanted_to_send_message_with_verdict.html

Wow. Thanks for the source on that. I bet "Do you hold any patents" was the first question Apple's attorney's asked the potential jurors.

Maybe Samsung can use this info to have the decision thrown out. It's probably not enough though.

Wouldn't matter.  Samsung was there when they selected the jury.   Samsung heard he owned patenets.   Samsung didn't challenge.

No doubt Samsung misread the guy in trial selection.



kain_kusanagi on 26 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."


While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."


Yes. Everybody read above. This guy gets it.

You can't patent "look and feel". Apple lost against MS when they tried and Xerox lost against Apple when they tried. I guess the jurors today were stupid or  Mac fans, or stupid Mac fans.


Or the head juror owned patents and therefore benefited from a wide view of patenet law.


In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/25/jurors_knew_samsung_was_guilty_after_first_day_of_deliberations_wanted_to_send_message_with_verdict.html

Wow. Thanks for the source on that. I bet "Do you hold any patents" was the first question Apple's attorney's asked the potential jurors.

Maybe Samsung can use this info to have the decision thrown out. It's probably not enough though.

Wouldn't matter.  Samsung was there when they selected the jury.   Samsung heard he owned patenets.   Samsung didn't challenge.

No doubt Samsung misread the guy in trial selection.


Is that what happened? I believe there is a limit of how many jurors an attorney can ask to be dismissed. Maybe it could have been worse. Either way Samsung could take it to a higher court and get the case overturned.