FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[myownalias]

Every company uses litigation. Google bought Motorola so they would own Motorola's patents. There are tech companies that all they do is litigate based on their patents. So it's unfair to single out Apple in that.

Alternatively, you can argue that Google bought Motorola Mobility as a result of Apple's legal action against all the manufacturers that make Android devices to protect themselves.

I'm amazed how you guys can sling mud at Apple for not innovating but yet there isn't a single innovation that you can point to that's been put forward by a Samsung/HTC product. In the last few years anyway. Devices are homogenous and the upgrades are simply incremental hardware upgrades and there is zero visual interest between devices.

Agreed, a smartphone can only look a certain way, a large screen with icons with text underneath in a grid, Apple weren't the first company to come up with this concept, yet Apple are suing other companies claiming that they have copied the iPhone when it reality the iPhone is a copy of non-patented designs that came before. You're right, there is very little true innovation, but I believe that the open source Android platform is doing more to push the development race forward than Apple, who I consider to be a marketing and packaging company more than a tech company!

[atommo]

It annoys me quite a lot that Apple sue other companies for making things similar to their own products yet Apple weren't the first ones to make tablet phones/that sort of stuff. Technology existed that could do very similar things [To Apple's products] prior to Apple releasing their first "i"product. Copyright was made originally so people couldn't steal things off someone else and claim it as their own. However other companies have not made clones, there are differences. I understand why intellectual property exists (Copyright) but its being abused. Technically so long as you mention who made the thing you're using in your product then you aren't violating copyright. You acknowledge that you didn't create that specific thing and you give credit to the person/people who did.

However if the people who made it don't want you to use it then it breaks the system in a way, as someone else may have invented it if the other person hadn't so just because you made something, doesn't mean you have 100% ownership of it. Its like someone who made a recipe for a tasty dish saying you aren't allowed to use that recipe. You might have come up with it yourself otherwise so the creator doesn't have the right to prohibit the use of his/her creation.

Well it seems to me like this argument is a little hard to follow but the thing I'm getting from whats just been written is claiming ownership of something doesn't work all the time. I guess in a way ownership is an illusion.

[vaptin]

It annoys me quite a lot that Apple sue other companies for making things similar to their own products yet Apple weren't the first ones to make tablet phones/that sort of stuff. Technology existed that could do very similar things [To Apple's products] prior to Apple releasing their first "i"product. Copyright was made originally so people couldn't steal things off someone else and claim it as their own. However other companies have not made clones, there are differences. I understand why intellectual property exists (Copyright) but its being abused. Technically so long as you mention who made the thing you're using in your product then you aren't violating copyright. You acknowledge that you didn't create that specific thing and you give credit to the person/people who did.

However if the people who made it don't want you to use it then it breaks the system in a way, as someone else may have invented it if the other person hadn't so just because you made something, doesn't mean you have 100% ownership of it. Its like someone who made a recipe for a tasty dish saying you aren't allowed to use that recipe. You might have come up with it yourself otherwise so the creator doesn't have the right to prohibit the use of his/her creation.

Well it seems to me like this argument is a little hard to follow but the thing I'm getting from whats just been written is claiming ownership of something doesn't work all the time. I guess in a way ownership is an illusion.

Copyright is different to patents and trademarks. It's an argument that is thrown at censored companies, the counter is: We spent loads of time and money developing this, why should someone else get to use it without our permission? The argument against your argument is it removes the incentive to put time and money into it, as well as moral arguments about right for private ownership.

censored.l What the ? Whose been messing around with the filter. We cannot refer to the name for a company that researches, produces and sells drugs and medicines

[atommo]

I guess that means theres a stalemate between the two sides unless they can come to a reasonable agreement.

[myownalias]

The issue at hand here is the patent system, patents can be very broad, these need to be much more specific and much shorter in timescale. The Apple Vs Samsung case was about form more than function, all these Samsung devices cited apparently look too much like an iPhone, a rectangular device with rounded corners, large touch screen with icons and text in a grid pattern. I think that description covers 99% of the smartphones. Apple, Samsung, HTC and Google/Motorola Mobility need to just come up with a cross licencing deal, they all use each other's design and technology.

[What's Burning?]

i get a kick out of that... rounded corners, is a patent.

[darwin dali]

The issue at hand here is the patent system, patents can be very broad, these need to be much more specific and much shorter in timescale. The Apple Vs Samsung case was about form more than function, all these Samsung devices cited apparently look too much like an iPhone, a rectangular device with rounded corners, large touch screen with icons and text in a grid pattern. I think that description covers 99% of the smartphones. Apple, Samsung, HTC and Google/Motorola Mobility need to just come up with a cross licencing deal, they all use each other's design and technology.

I guess Apple learned from their bad experiences with Windoze copying Mac OS since the beginning of time, so they're more proactive in this new market segment.

[myownalias]

The issue at hand here is the patent system, patents can be very broad, these need to be much more specific and much shorter in timescale. The Apple Vs Samsung case was about form more than function, all these Samsung devices cited apparently look too much like an iPhone, a rectangular device with rounded corners, large touch screen with icons and text in a grid pattern. I think that description covers 99% of the smartphones. Apple, Samsung, HTC and Google/Motorola Mobility need to just come up with a cross licencing deal, they all use each other's design and technology.

I guess Apple learned from their bad experiences with Windoze copying Mac OS since the beginning of time, so they're more proactive in this new market segment.

I thought that Bill Gates stole OS/2 from IBM to make Windows... I don't know anything about early Mac OSes, not being a Mac user!

[darwin dali]

The issue at hand here is the patent system, patents can be very broad, these need to be much more specific and much shorter in timescale. The Apple Vs Samsung case was about form more than function, all these Samsung devices cited apparently look too much like an iPhone, a rectangular device with rounded corners, large touch screen with icons and text in a grid pattern. I think that description covers 99% of the smartphones. Apple, Samsung, HTC and Google/Motorola Mobility need to just come up with a cross licencing deal, they all use each other's design and technology.

I guess Apple learned from their bad experiences with Windoze copying Mac OS since the beginning of time, so they're more proactive in this new market segment.

I thought that Bill Gates stole OS/2 from IBM to make Windows... I don't know anything about early Mac OSes, not being a Mac user!

http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinv ... indows.htm (especially pg. 2)

[Jabberwocky]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/ ... lagiarism/

[What's Burning?]

http://pocketnow.com/2012/09/08/att-sam ... reenshots/

this is a very useable device.

[myownalias]

Really? Apple winning their patent case against Samsung has set a bad precedent for the future, when will it stop?

Apple, fresh from a patent victory against South Korean rival Samsung, has turned its sights on a smaller target - Polish online grocery website A.pl.

The Polish patent office said on Tuesday the U.S. maker of the iPad, iPhone and iPod had filed a complaint, accusing the website of copying one of Apple's icons to its logo and riding its coattails to win customers.

"Apple brand is widely recognised and the company says that A.pl, by using the name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation," patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said.

A.pl chief executive Radoslaw Celinski said: "The accusation is ludicrous". The firm, which is not currently using the logo in question, is looking at Apple's complaint.

A date for an official hearing has not been set yet.

The law firm Baker & McKenzie, which represents Apple in Poland, was not available to comment.

Apple was expected to launch a new iPhone on Wednesday.

SRC: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1 ... HD20120911

[vlad]

Aaaa, FFS, would someone get those people something to f*ck and to shut up?!?!?!

[bud]

That happens everywhere though, for example a local state basketball club here 'Norwood Flames' was sued by the Miami Heat for using a similar logo to their own.

[myownalias]

That happens everywhere though, for example a local state basketball club here 'Norwood Flames' was sued by the Miami Heat for using a similar logo to their own.

It happened with mikerowesoft as well, Microsoft sued for the domain name because users may get confused.

Doesn't make it right; this is much worse than suing another giant company like Samsung.