Is anyone following the Apple v Samsung battle?
-
"A nickel weighs 5g. It would take 2,755 18-wheeler trucks (max legal tare 80,000 lbs) to carry the money."
I remember story some years ago where a person paid a fine by writing the payment amount and bank account details on a cow, then stuck an appropriate postage stamp on the cow and delivered it the the fine office. Seemingly it was a legal method of payment at the time! In those days cheques were always returned to the payer so the cow had to be returned. It turned into a messy situation
-
If Samsung had really paid Apple in coins....at least those 30 trucks worth...they would be my all time favourite company.
-
I'm not sure if anyone has ever looked up the register of registered designs but when you do it is a real shock! The simplicity of schematic representation that can be registered would be I'd suggest likened to that of a station wagon versus a train!
-
Just saw on the FoxNews ticker...
A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung did NOT violate Apple patents.
Battle between jurisdictions.
-
Interesting..
http://gizmodo.com/5937493/samsung-vs-apple-the-south-korean-verdict-is-in
@unknownuser said:
A judge in Seoul ruled Friday that Apple infringed on two of Samsung's technology patents and must stop selling the infringing products in South Korea. In addition, the judge said Samsung infringed on Apple's "bounceback" design patent, but not its icon design patent.
The judges ordered Apple to pay 20 million won, or $17,650 in damages for each violated patent. Samsung was ordered to pay 25 million won, or $22,000. Both companies had sought damages of 100 million won, or about $90,000, from the other.@unknownuser said:
The patent-infringing products banned from sale are: Apple's iPhone 4 and iPad 2, Samsung's Galaxy SII and Galaxy Nexus smartphones, and the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy 10.1 tablet computers.
-
Makes you wonder if some of these court cases are mutual publicity stunts. Looking at some of the claims and counter claims then the final balance is probably quite small in relation to a global advertising campaign that would raise both companies profiles to the same level, although that last USA decision looked eye wateringly expensive for Samsung.
Wasn't there a company called Micro$oft that had some new product in development...
-
@arcad-uk said:
Wasn't there a company called Micro$oft that had some new product in development...
Just got pulled as it has an "on" button and so does the samsung and ipad!
-
@dan rathbun said:
Just saw on the FoxNews ticker...
A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung did NOT violate Apple patents.
Battle between jurisdictions.
I expected that
-
Apples shenanigans got me thinking...
-
Some time ago we had a long discussion in our office about patents, copyrights and our architectural design.
Some facts are listed below...-
music/publishing etc
The term of protection or duration of copyright varies depending on the type of copyright work. The term of protection in the UK for an original written (literary), theatrical (dramatic) musical or artistic work lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the year in which he/she died. -
patents - complex engines, ground braking solutions etc
Protection in EU - for up to a maximum of 20 years - renewal every year -
design patents
Protection in EU - for up to a maximum of 25 years - renewal every 5 years
And now...
The design patent is getting tricky as we can see in the Apple vs Samsung case.
Some simple, basic shapes should not be protected for years - you could have 12-24-36 months protection dependent on the 'complexity'.In Apple's IPhone and IPad scenario it could be 12-24 months of protection but, the technology behind it's a completely different animal.
If Apple gets $1 bilion for 'shape' infringement, I wonder how much Sumsung would get for each technological infringement?
The judge asked both parties to speak to each other before jury begins deliberating as he knows that there is more to come.
The current approach of Apple and Sumsung (and others) would get more complex soon...In my humble opinion the International Law should set some standards as the Law of The Land would always produce contradicting results between countries.
There are a few other Apple's cases where, apparently the Apple's brand infringement took place:
- in a Cafe logo design.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-takes-on-German-cafe-over-logo.html - over Appstore wording
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12817083
and so on.
The trademark should be protected by the Copyright Law but, infringement of shape similarities and dictionary words are starting to be questionable in some cases.
Just some thought in relation to the ground breaking Invention of Fire
-
-
I think Samsung should pull out the big guns (they developed) and stomp the hell out of apple. Some cider should be nice.
-
@marian said:
I think Samsung should pull out the big guns (they developed) and stomp the hell out of apple. Some cider should be nice.
-
Hmmm? That was interesting reading Gregory, that Apple have threatened to protect their logo against such as a cafe chain, and NYC (the big apple) particularly when the logos are in no way similar to the true apple logo and not in the same classes. Apple surely does not have a geographical clain to "Apple" and from what I know they don't have "Apple" cafes! Trademark is considerably different to that of copyright or patent, where two people can hold the same mark but in different classes. And one can lose rights to their trademark should it be in non use - meaning even if they registered in classification of "cafes" if it is not used within 12-36mths it can be lost).
There are SO many grey areas in these laws, another for example "iPhone" can be lost by allowing it to become common language - which I would suggest it possibly has already "new for the iPhone" for example can place it in area of common language as it is not an "iPhone" but an iPhone branded mobile device - should read "new for the iPhone mobile device". The marks "Zipper" and "Escalator" are two well known trademarks to have suffered this fate! Another example of avoiding common use "Roller Blades make for great exercise" should read "Roller Blade inline skates make for great exercise" Companies with such resources normally have an attorney overlook all copy to ensure such common uses don't occur!
The other area of the Law that is grey and in the cases to which Gregory links, the dubious threat of action in the case of the cafe owner can in fact open Apple to action should they be suggesting the trademark is infringing and their actions not followed, you cant threaten if you cant back it up!
I do wonder how long it will be before Apple open themselves up to a class action for "non Competitive practices"? The link between apple products and iTunes is certainly I think ripe for such action and surprised the US gov haven't yet challanged this! Microspft has certainly suffered from such actions in the past!
-
@solo said:
Apples shenanigans got me thinking...
[attachment=0:3monivi6]<!-- ia0 -->caveman fire.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:3monivi6]
didn't make fortune 500 even once
-
They must really like judiciary battles. Otherwise I don't understand Apple: (I don't understand them anyways)
http://www.samsungtechwin.com/product/product_05_01_01.asp
Oh, and as we are about "similar" icons:
http://www.samsungtechwin.com/product/product_06_01.asp -
@unknownuser said:
Here’s how Samsung flew bloggers halfway around the world, then threatened to leave them there
-
Here's a link to some pretty in depth coverage of the dirt on a lot of law suits in progress, including the Apple/Samsung.
Neat thing about this site is it will include pdfs of a lot of the actual affidavits, so will sometimes separate fact from viral internet rumor. -
Wow - that's some darn good reading there Dale!
Funny when you read what the case is about you wonder when BRAUN ears are gonna prick and see the gains likely in an action against apple for stealing their designs from the get go!
-
Good link Dale, thanks. And yep Richard, you might well be right about BRAUN. I imagine some firm of lawyers will see the opportunity here and try to weasel their way onto the gravy train ..... I won't do my rant about lawyers
Then again! I did see Clint Eastwood's little talk with the 'chair' in support of Mitt Romney! It was quite amusing and one thing that stuck in my mind was that Clint thought there was too many lawyers in politics instead of businessmen! I think he is perfectly right!
I could not name one lawyer that ever created a product, company etc etc. Creation of Quangos doesn't count. Maybe governments around the World need to kick the lawyers out and bring in some solid businessmen go get things moving again.
BTW, I think if Steve Jobs was still at the helm, this Apple v Samsung circus would not have escalated to this level.
As I write, I have my FOCUS magazine on the table and see the back page is advertising the GALAXY SIII, there motto is 'designed by humans, inspired by nature', very clever as it doesn't look and feel like a brick to hold
-
@mike lucey said:
BTW, I think if Steve Jobs was still at the helm, this Apple v Samsung circus would not have escalated to this level.
Wasn't he at the helm, in the good old days, just after Microsoft released Windows 1.0 ?
As I remember, Apple sued Microsoft, saying that they had copied "the look and feel" of the Mac. I thought Apple lost that suit, and the decision was then that "look and feel" could not be patented.
Maybe someone can find a link to that old case ?
Advertisement