Apple Wins $1Billion - Big Blow For Samsung And Android

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/technology/apple-samsung-verdict/index.html?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t1so apples wins and are owed a billion dollars... these patents are quite ridiculous, but i guess Samsung should've been more cautious with their design...

This is both a good and a bad thing for all smartphone/tablet producing companies. The good is that it shows that the courts will uphold patents that are held by the company and protect their design and itellectual property. However the bad is that it will cause almost everyone to rethink and redesign a large number of products currently on the martket.The redesign could mean that we will see a higher cost of new products coming out in the next year or two, as well as a lot of possibly buggy, unproven designs. On the flip side it could, and hopefully will, lead to a lot of new and diverse designs and inovations in an attempt to keep from getting sued. It also could mean that we will see a lot of companies leave the market and focus on other things.

This is both a good and a bad thing for all smartphone/tablet producing companies. The good is that it shows that the courts will uphold patents that are held by the company and protect their design and itellectual property. However the bad is that it will cause almost everyone to rethink and redesign a large number of products currently on the martket.
The redesign could mean that we will see a higher cost of new products coming out in the next year or two, as well as a lot of possibly buggy, unproven designs. On the flip side it could, and hopefully will, lead to a lot of new and diverse designs and inovations in an attempt to keep from getting sued. It also could mean that we will see a lot of companies leave the market and focus on other things.

quite true, but if you really look into the patented innovations (or so called innovations)... they are quite ridiculous

Samsung should drop their Galaxy S III flagship so more could seel in US, it's their best Phone so far and lucky they swayed away from the lool-like-iphone designs
Edited August 25, 2012 by manuleka (see edit history)

The problem is : Let's suppose that I have an idea, a ridiculous but funny thing. If I find a ridiculous feature that makes everybody love the thing I am selling, are my competitors allowed to use my feature without asking me for permission ? Especially if there is a copyright on it? If people earn a lot of money with my ridiculous trick, shouldn't they give me a part of that money, even if my trick is really ridiculous?

The problem is : Let's suppose that I have an idea, a ridiculous but funny thing. If I find a ridiculous feature that makes everybody love the thing I am selling, are my competitors allowed to use my feature without asking me for permission ? Especially if there is a copyright on it? If people earn a lot of money with my ridiculous trick, shouldn't they give me a part of that money, even if my trick is really ridiculous?

that is if your trick entirely came from your own thoughts and innovations...

but let's say your trick was inspired by someone elses... should you entirely be entitled to own that trick?

it's really hard define a fine line between inspired and copying... because our development today is based on previous work... we improve on what is already there...

so i may improve your trick, tweak it a bit and make it totally different from yours... or i looked at your trick and i created my own version of it and make it funnier

should i have the right to patent or copyright it?
Edited August 25, 2012 by manuleka (see edit history)

but let's say your trick was inspired by someone elses... should you entirely be entitled to own that trick?

That's the beauty of the patent laws. If you improve my thing, you still have to ask my permission in order to sell the improved thing. Or I can give you a salary for the time you spent working improving my idea. Simply try copyrighting your modifications. If the judges accept your copyright, I cannot say anything more. But if you have no copyright, we go to court, and the judges will decide.

Thats what I see as the problem with this whole thing over the smart phone and the tablets. Hell if they are going to sue each other over OS looks, operations, and phone design...and the court backs up apples claim, couldn't the original "smart phone" designer come out and sue EVERYONE making smartphones because they came up with it first. Granted everyone has seriously improved on the idea, but if we follow the logic of improvement is but an extention of the original idea, then they have everyright to claim infringment as well.

couldn't the original "smart phone" designer come out and sue EVERYONE making smartphones because they came up with it first.

The problem is that the original designer worked for a company. So, the company is the owner of the original copyright. As owner of this copyright, the company can ask some money for each thing sold.

Thats what I see as the problem with this whole thing over the smart phone and the tablets. Hell if they are going to sue each other over OS looks, operations, and phone design...and the court backs up apples claim, couldn't the original "smart phone" designer come out and sue EVERYONE making smartphones because they came up with it first. Granted everyone has seriously improved on the idea, but if we follow the logic of improvement is but an extention of the original idea, then they have everyright to claim infringment as well.

thats why the idea of a smartphone should have been patent by whoever came up with the idea first... that way whoever that person/company was would've been rich as by now

thats why the idea of a smartphone should have been patent by whoever came up with the idea first... that way whoever that person/company was would've been rich as by now

Of course, but a worldwide patent has a cost - about US$ 20000. So, a standard person cannot take a patent for each great idea he has. Only big companies take a patent for something which is supposed to be worth the cost and the work for establishing the patent.

I personally think the whole idea behind the Apple suite is crazy, the basis of it is that the patents are in the Physical design of the phone, i.e. the round corners. Now I can understand the basis of any code or hardware design but the phyisical aspect of a rounded corner is just ludicris. Oh well just my opinion, I just hope that it ends between the two of them and doesn't bring down the whole house of cards. If it does it will mean a major problem for the end user as we will probably see only 2 or 3 major companies left running the whole scene, just like in the mid to late '80's with the micro processor legal battles.

Of course, but a worldwide patent has a cost - about US$ 20000. So, a standard person cannot take a patent for each great idea he has. Only big companies take a patent for something which is supposed to be worth the cost and the work for establishing the patent.

if someone came up with an idea first but don't have the finance to patent it, then years later some rich person or company patents that idea, now they own it and the wee original fella gets nothing

shouldn't there be some sort of FREE patenting system? like GNU Licencing?

shouldn't there be some sort of FREE patenting system? like GNU Licencing?

GNU licencing is not valid if you go to court. The guy clicked "I agree I should not sell this" and he sells it, no problem.
And the patenting system is not free because in order to be finalized a patent neets that a lot of laywers and judges work, checking that there is no anteriority or other legal problems. That's why this thing costs a lot.

GNU licencing is not valid if you go to court. The guy clicked "I agree I should not sell this" and he sells it, no problem.And the patenting system is not free because in order to be finalized a patent neets that a lot of laywers and judges work, checking that there is no anteriority or other legal problems. That's why this thing costs a lot.

its funny that some of the patented features are actually allowed considering the number of people who analyses them... i guess with enough money you can patent some of the silliest features and sue others for using them (even if they came up with the idea themselves)

its funny that some of the patented features are actually allowed considering the number of people who analyses them... i guess with enough money you can patent some of the silliest features and sue others for using them (even if they came up with the idea themselves)

The problem is that you cannot patent something which already exists. I cannot patent a black vert vertical box for a computer, because this already exists, and has probably been patented tens of years ago!