Print 66 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Jan 4 at 6:06 AM

Samsung says release damages it competitively; federal judge says "too bad", sides with local firm, Apple

Source: Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/2/2013 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
A few of the things Google was ripping from Apple illegally based on patent rights.

embedded hyperlink phone numbers

Where's the patents on what you listed?

RE: Glad to see it
By ritualm on 1/3/2013 2:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Google ripping off Apple on software gestures? LOL

Software patents are full of bullcrap. So are your posts.

RE: Glad to see it
By nafhan on 1/3/2013 10:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your examples are great illustrations of one of the current problems with IP law: they're not innovations worthy of protection. Nonsense like this is exactly why we've got companies spending more on lawyers than R&D.

You'd like to slow down innovation in order to protect a simple method for creating folders on a touchscreen. WHY?

RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/3/2013 11:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I see the merit in protecting IP work. It's very much similar to protecting a bunch of oil paint and canvas mixed together in a specific way to produce a highly valued work of art.

At its root, a painting that gains worldwide recognition and multi-million-dollar value is nothing more than a smearing of paints on a simple canvas. But the value comes not only from the way the smearing of paint was done, but also by whom it was done.

Anyone can spear paint on a canvas. But that doesn't lead to value. Anyone can produce a swipe-lock effect, but the originator of the effect takes the crown.

RE: Glad to see it
By nafhan on 1/3/2013 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Part of protecting IP is creating reasonable criteria for determining which IP is valuable. I'm not discussing IP vs. no IP. I'm discussing protecting IP at a reasonable level vs. what we have now - which is skewed towards incumbents and legal posturing rather than innovation, research, and benefit for the consumer (i.e. ideas in line with the original intent of IP). If that ends up looking "anti-Apple", that may be because you care about Apple and only Apple - not the larger environment of technology and innovation.

RE: Glad to see it
By Strunf on 1/4/2013 6:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
What you fail to see is that you can make 1 million different paintings or more, the chances that 2 people come up with the same painting is virtually impossible, that's why you can put a copyright on it just so no one copies it.

On a smart-phone touch sensitive or not there are very few possibilities, if you want to unlock a phone and it's touch sensitive the very basic would be touch to unlock or touch and move to unlock, the barn at my grandmother farm has a slide to unlock door, there's really nothing new on a slide to unlock. The same with the two fingers thing to zoom, this has been around for ages on science fiction movies...

At the end of the day you use your fingers to operate a touch-sensitive device so it's perfectly normal to admit than you never really come up with a unique input method.

RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/3/2013 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
I have to resort to this because of the censorship here.

RE: Glad to see it
By ritualm on 1/3/2013 5:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you really think DT is censoring you on purpose, wait until you're in North Korea.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki