DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Boo Apple!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 114, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2012 08:17:58 PM · #1
I don't care if they are in the legal clear or not, I can't imagine today's verdict is in any way good for the consumer. The patent world is completely broken! :(
 08/27/2012 08:18:55 PM · #2
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't care if they are in the legal clear or not, I can't imagine today's verdict is in any way good for the consumer. The patent world is completely broken! :(

Sure it is, if you own Apple stock.
08/27/2012 08:19:39 PM · #3
Ahem... I have a trademark patent on the phrase "Boo Apple!™"

I believe you owe me $1.98
 08/27/2012 08:39:08 PM · #4
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can't imagine today's verdict is in any way good for the consumer.

Then you lack imagination. Copying from others may lower prices for the consumer, but it absolutely punishes those who innovate by making them bear the cost and effort while others capitalize at minimal expense. Without protection, there's little reason to innovate and we're left with a race to the bottom as price becomes the only distinguishing feature. It took Apple's foresight to lead us out of boxy gray computers with command-line interfaces and monospaced type, music players that were cumbersome to load and operate, look-alike dumb phones and crude PDAs with limited internet, and tablet computers that nobody wanted. Exclusivity to the rewards of that work is the whole point of patents.
 08/27/2012 09:16:20 PM · #5
Well... Apple had the foresight to lead us out of the gray computers with Xerox's invention... Good thing Xerox didn't sue...

True Xerox did not market it. But you do not have to market what you invent.
08/27/2012 09:21:43 PM · #6
Originally posted by ambaker:
Well... Apple had the foresight to lead us out of the gray computers with Xerox's invention... Good thing Xerox didn't sue...

An invention is more than the sum of its parts. Xerox developed some parts, while Apple made something useful out of them.
 08/27/2012 10:18:07 PM · #7
Originally posted by scalvert:
...the whole point of patents.

I'm not sure a patent should be awarded for "inventing" rounded corners ...
 08/27/2012 10:21:33 PM · #8
Oh, so if you make "something useful" out of someone else's work, then it is OK. I get it now. Thanks for the enlightenment.
 08/27/2012 10:29:58 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not sure a patent should be awarded for "inventing" rounded corners ...

Neither did the jury. That was Samsung's lone victory, however the widespread misconception that Apple patented rounded corners is stupid. They didn't. The patent in question doesn't even mention rounded corners. It was an ornamental design patent showing the edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel and rounded corners that together describe the recognizable appearance of the iPad.

Message edited by author 2012-08-27 22:51:29.
 08/27/2012 10:32:23 PM · #10
Patents were not designed for asthetics.

I agree wit the OP that the jerdict is going to be a negative for the market. The jury was non-technical and decided the case largely on internal emails on intent, not the technical aspects of the patents. Patent law is outdated and needs to be updated. IP needs to be protected but the market should be able to handle competing products that arrive at similar solutions through different means. The lines and the rules are not clear and it needs to be fixed.
 08/27/2012 10:34:33 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not sure a patent should be awarded for "inventing" rounded corners ...

Neither did the jury. That was Samsung's lone victory.

Oh, I'd heard it had been a clean sweep. Whoop-de-doo ...
 08/27/2012 10:47:08 PM · #12
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Oh, I'd heard it had been a clean sweep. Whoop-de-doo ...

You also apparently heard that Apple patented rounded corners. They didn't (see previous post).
 08/27/2012 10:50:51 PM · #13
Originally posted by ambaker:
Oh, so if you make "something useful" out of someone else's work, then it is OK. I get it now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

You're welcome.
08/27/2012 10:51:41 PM · #14
I've dealt with working around existing patents... it's a tricky line to walk depending on how ambiguous the patents are. You sometimes have to cut it close, but you hope to have enough unique innovation in your workaround to not warrant a lawsuit. Often lots of grey area. Sounds like apple chose the right jury members. I bet they all had iphones... haha!

I'd expect Apple to be ok with some sort of licensing agreement for use of the patents... but as a result you can expect prices to go up.
 08/27/2012 10:55:11 PM · #15
This isn't over by a long shot. Apple is a pathetic company that is pulling out all the stops ever since Jobs passed on, because they've been bleeding ever since. It's a desperate, frightened company that pulls this kind of thing, especially around patents that are unbelievably vague. Anyone of any kind of intelligence could never argue that a Samsung phone or tablet would ever be mistaken for an iPhone or iPad. It's absurd and ridiculous.

Anyone remember an early Apple advertisement? Had a dystopian setting with a runner that came and threw a hammer through a video screen of some dictator like overlord(s) speaking to the brainwashed masses?

Yah.

Apple IS that overlord now. They will never, EVER see any business from me.
 08/27/2012 11:06:40 PM · #16
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Apple is a pathetic company that is pulling out all the stops ever since Jobs passed on, because they've been bleeding ever since... Anyone of any kind of intelligence could never argue that a Samsung phone or tablet would ever be mistaken for an iPhone or iPad. It's absurd and ridiculous.

Wow... you got three strikes in one swing. The lawsuits were filed while Jobs was running the company at his own insistence, Apple has posted record sales and profits since then, and part of the testimony revealed that a significant number of people returned Samsung phones and tablets to Best Buy because they mistook them for an iPhone or iPad.
 08/27/2012 11:08:29 PM · #17
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Apple is a pathetic company that is pulling out all the stops ever since Jobs passed on, because they've been bleeding ever since... Anyone of any kind of intelligence could never argue that a Samsung phone or tablet would ever be mistaken for an iPhone or iPad. It's absurd and ridiculous.

Wow... you got three strikes in one swing. The lawsuits were filed while Jobs was running the company at his own insistence, Apple has posted record sales and profits since then, and part of the testimony revealed that a significant number of people returned Samsung phones and tablets to Best Buy because they mistook them for an iPhone or iPad.


I said intelligent people.

Message edited by author 2012-08-27 23:08:46.
 08/27/2012 11:15:31 PM · #18
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Anyone of any kind of intelligence could never argue that a Samsung phone or tablet would ever be mistaken for an iPhone or iPad. It's absurd and ridiculous.

I said intelligent people.

You said nothing about the intelligence of the buyers– only that intelligent people couldn't make the argument. Given clear evidence that buyers do mistake the products, intelligent people would ONLY make that argument.

Message edited by author 2012-08-27 23:15:46.
 08/27/2012 11:21:31 PM · #19
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Anyone of any kind of intelligence could never argue that a Samsung phone or tablet would ever be mistaken for an iPhone or iPad. It's absurd and ridiculous.

I said intelligent people.

You said nothing about the intelligence of the buyers– only that intelligent people couldn't make the argument. Given clear evidence that buyers do mistake the products, intelligent people would ONLY make that argument.


That's not clear evidence that buyers mistake the product by any stretch of the imagination. It is merely evidence that the unwashed masses think EVERYTHING on the shelf is "apple". Then, when they get home because they chose something they liked the feel of better and get told that it's not an apple by some friend or family member, do they return it out of embarassment.

There's just no way you can look at any phone that isn't an iPhone and go, "OH, this is an Apple!" You just can't. It's absurd.

Also, I never said Jobs didn't order the rulings, just that Apple has been in trouble since his passing, and quite frankly, they have been. Samsung has been outselling them 2 to 1 in the last quarter.

The pretentiousness of Apple will cost them in the end, mark my words. Samsung has never had better free advertising.
 08/27/2012 11:37:20 PM · #20
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There's just no way you can look at any phone that isn't an iPhone and go, "OH, this is an Apple!" You just can't. It's absurd.

Psst... Samsung's LAWYER couldn't tell the difference between their tablets during the trial.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Apple has been in trouble since his passing, and quite frankly, they have been. Samsung has been outselling them 2 to 1 in the last quarter.

Apple has posted record revenue for each quarter since jobs passed, while one of the details revealed in court was that Samsung's sales don't come anywhere near Apple's. You appear to be confusing shipments with sales.

Message edited by author 2012-08-27 23:43:07.
 08/27/2012 11:51:03 PM · #21
Isn't this dpc-where people squeal when their images are inappropriately taken? Jobs felt violated when his designs were taken-just like we do when our photos are taken. This community always supported strong copyright enforcement. Why the disconnect in this case?
 08/27/2012 11:53:48 PM · #22
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Why the disconnect in this case?

Because big companies are "The Man." If this case took place when Apple was struggling and Microsoft was the 800lb gorilla, the scorn would be reversed.
 08/28/2012 12:19:03 AM · #23
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Well... Apple had the foresight to lead us out of the gray computers with Xerox's invention... Good thing Xerox didn't sue...

An invention is more than the sum of its parts. Xerox developed some parts, while Apple made something useful out of them.


It's no secret you're an Apple fan, but if you want to depend them perhaps you should get your facts straight. Not the "facts" as presented in the "Pirates of Silicon Valley" or any other Apple endorsed computer history site.

I worked for Xerox...for years. I KNOW a lot of the very people who worked at PARC and developed all the technology that you consider to be just "parts" that Apple somehow magically took and made something of. The facts of the matter are that Xerox developed the first complete personal computer including the operating system. It wasn't parts...it was a complete system. Xerox invented the Ethernet card, Xerox was the first to put a GUI, mouse, keyboard and monitor together. If that's not the first computer than what is. They invented WYSIWYG, bitmaps, laser printing, object-oriented programming. The Alto was a working computer that sold around 2000 units. Xerox was doing this a decade before Apple even launched their first computer. So to say that all Xerox had was some parts is grossly in denial and it is often used to further the myth that Apple created something special out of nearly nothing. Totally false, and misleading. The Xerox Star was the first commercially sold personal computer to incorporate all the above. Not an Apple product.

Apple was never given rights to use the technology that Xerox developed. They never licensed anything of that nature from Xerox. In exchange for some stock in Apple and some cash they were allowed to meet with Xerox engineers for a consultation. To pick the brains and ask questions, but NOT to outright steal the hard work of Xerox. Xerox DID sue Apple when it was obvious what was going on, but it was a different time and a different world and unfortunately there was a statute of limitations and the case was thrown out.

On the other hand...Microsoft legitimately licensed software and hardware rights from Xerox and did it legally. So for the whole...Microsoft stole the GUI and moused based system from Apple is a load of crap. Xerox invented it all and Microsoft did things the ethical and legal way. Apple did not, and then went on to brag that they were such brilliant inventors for the rest of Steve Job's sorry life.

Apple did not invent the MP3 player. I had the first mass marketed mp3 player sold in the US...the Diamond Rio. It worked just fine other than the battery compartment door that would come open easily if you moved the wrong way. Still I loved the incredible song of it, and it was easy to connect to my computer and load songs into.

Apple didn't invent the smartphone. There were well known products long before the iPhone came out that many many people happy. To say they were dumb phones before the iPhone is again not accurate.

Steve Jobs was good at marketing, but unfortunately he had to lie to so his best selling. He rode the wave on the back of others hard work, and not his own. Karma came knocking eventually. He was not an inventor, nor was he a programmer. He was just a carnie with a loud mouth and a bigger ego.

Dave
 08/28/2012 12:34:36 AM · #24
Apple killed the Enterprise.
 08/28/2012 12:37:02 AM · #25
I just like to see the fanboys get their undies in a knot. How a lack of competition could actually be good for us, I don't know (Shannon does own apple stock, so it IS good for him). How anybody can confuse a Samsung for an iPad any more than a Pepsi for a Coke or McDonalds fries for Burger King's is beyond me. I also take some sort of perverse satisfaction from knowing way ahead of the game that Apple would act like Microsoft when the time came. I wish I was wrong, but I knew I would not be.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 06:48:27 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 06:48:27 PM EDT.