backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by hexxthalion.. on Nov 24 at 1:11 PM


  (Source: wikipeers.com)
The European Commission is concerned that other firms could mimic Apple and Samsung's patent war and lead to the unfair use of intellectual property rights against rivals

Much of Apple and Samsung's 2011 has been spent duking it out over patents. Apple initially went after Samsung earlier this year and accused it of copying Apple's products when creating its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Now, the European Commission is concerned that other firms could mimic Apple and Samsung's patent war and lead to the unfair use of intellectual property rights against rivals.

Throughout the year, Apple and Samsung have gone back and forth with patent issues. Apple claimed that Samsung created its Galaxy line such as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 by ripping off Apple's design. Apple succeeded in killing Samsung's Australian tablet sales, banned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, and sought to ban Samsung's phones and Android tablets in Britain. But Samsung did some retaliating of its own by filing a 3G lawsuit against Apple in France, looking to ban iPhone 5 sales (back before it was revealed that the anticipated iPhone 5 was really the iPhone 4S), and modifying its hardware and software to prevent further lawsuits.

Earlier this month, the European Commission started looking into FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) violations associated with the Apple/Samsung patent war. Now, the EU's latest concern has to do with the potential misuse of patents in other areas of the IT sector. 

"We requested information from both Apple and Samsung," said Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner. "We have not yet received the answers. We need to look at this because IP rights can be used as a distortion of competition but we will need to look at the answers.

"In particular, in the IT sector, it is obvious it is not the only case. Apple and Samsung is only one case where IP rights can be used as an instrument to restrict competition. Standardization and IP rights are two instruments that in this new IT sector can be used as a tool to abuse."

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: The point is...
By Da W on 11/22/2011 4:23:03 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
That is a common misconception amongst Apple fan boys. Android starting making the Android OS before Google bought them out and well before iOS was even a glimmer in Steve Jobs eye.


This is a misconception amongst Google fan boys, the notion that any time somebody says something bad about android, they are automaticly Apple fan boyz.

I'm a Microsofter. I hate Apple. And i can call a cat a cat when i see one.

It is one thing to build the mechanics of a mobile OS in your garage in 2003, but it is easy and fast to add a touch only interface, with an icon grid, a dock, and the same functionality of an iPhone AFTER the iPhone as come out.

Guess what, Blackberries didn't have the same interface. Windows Mobile didn't (in fact they more copied Blackberries). but Android DOES. Android is a steal.


RE: The point is...
By ebakke on 11/22/2011 5:36:36 PM , Rating: 3
Touch interface, icon grid, and a dock? That's your criteria for an iOS copy? Lame.

A touch interface was a logical progression as touch screens became easier/cheaper to produce. Much like voice commands will become the next progression as voice recognition improves, background noise mitigation improves, etc.

An icon grid? Umm, my old school Nokia had an icon grid for the menu. It had a nice little pixelated-as-hell icon for text messages, and one for contacts, and one for the WEP browser, and for ... Sure they weren't "apps", but it was still an icon grid for specific functions of the phone.

A dock? Same lame Nokia brick. Had a row on the bottom of the main screen. Two fields (vs the iPhone's four... oh the humanity!) I could assign to whatever action I wanted. Again, I'll concede that it wasn't identical as my Nokia had text and iOS displays text and an icon, but that's hardly a drastic difference.


RE: The point is...
By Omega215D on 11/22/2011 10:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
did someone say touch interface?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g


RE: The point is...
By 91TTZ on 11/22/2011 5:50:32 PM , Rating: 4
It seems that you don't really understand what conditions need to be present to bring a product to market.

Nothing is created in a vacuum. For instance, when the first personal computers and video games came out in the mid 1970's, it wasn't because a single innovative company introduced a product and everyone copied it. Rather, it's because some key pieces of technology made the conditions right to introduce those products. The growth of computers and video games in the mid 1970's were largely due to advances in solid state electronics. Microprocessors began to go mainstream in the electronics world in the early 1970's so it shouldn't have been any surprise that computers and video games began to use them. Someone had to be first, but that doesn't mean that they were able to see something that nobody else could. When Apple released their first Apple computer, it wasn't that they invented something that nobody else had, they just bought off the shelf components, packaged it into a kit and made it popular. In reality the innovation that made it possible was the 6502 processor which came out a year prior.

The iPhone was made possible by advances in small touch-screen displays and mobile CPUs. Apple didn't invent either of these things, they just bought off-the-shelf hardware and assembled it into a finished product. At the time it seemed pretty innovative because Apple was able to bring to market a polished finished product based on commonly available hardware and they could sell it for a profit.


RE: The point is...
By sigmatau on 11/22/2011 10:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo! Apple didn't invent anything. The technology was available for them to buy and repackage.

I find it so ironic that Apple is suing companies for stupid things like how icons are arranged, yet Apple would not be able to sell their products if not for those same companies since they researched and developed the parts in Apple's products.


RE: The point is...
By Da W on 11/23/2011 9:16:03 AM , Rating: 1
That is my whole point.

Knowledge is cumulative. Nobody can create an idea out of thin air. Every idea is based on ideas previously discovered. But the fact of assembling ideas togeter is in itself an idea. So:

1) Yes apple being the first to bring to market a polished finished product based on commonly available hardware IS an innovation, and all the droids coming after it based on the same model are a copy.

2) The IP system actually hinders cumulative innovation, as we can all see with the millions of patent lawsuits in the technology industry, because the IP system is rooted in belief that innovations comes out of thin air and massive R&D spending. But this is not the case. And if every time you "invent" something, you get a patent to block anybody else to improve upon your idea, then we would have no innovation at all, and even the iphone wouldn't exist.

Funny how in a 4 paragraph article i only insert 16 words bashing android and i get gazillions of flaming replies calling me an apple fan boy and almost nobody noticed the rest of my post.

There are WAY too many Google-sheeps out here. YOU RANT AGAINST APPLE SHEEPS BUT YOU ARE YOURSELVES GOOGLE SHEEPS. And that worries me more than southern rednecks that are always voting GOP from father to son or stupid Albertains voting conservative since the dawn of times.


RE: The point is...
By Piiman on 11/23/2011 5:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
"1) Yes apple being the first to bring to market a polished finished product based on commonly available hardware IS an innovation, and all the droids coming after it based on the same model are a copy."

Wrong that is a competing product made with many of the same off the shelve parts and probably other different parts. It may be cheaper it may have more functionally etc etc. Of course it will be a similar product but it is not a copy. A copy is an identical replica of the original.
by your logic everything except the original is a copy no matter whats different.


RE: The point is...
By Piiman on 11/23/2011 5:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
You know way too much about rednecks to be French.


RE: The point is...
By DeluxeTea on 11/23/2011 11:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) Yes apple being the first to bring to market a polished finished product based on commonly available hardware IS an innovation, and all the droids coming after it based on the same model are a copy.


Huh, so you mean my Vizio LCD TV was copied from Samsung from Sony from LG from Sharp?


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki