Samsung's appeal gaffe keeps Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned in US Samsung has failed to persuade a US judge to lift a temporary sales ban on its Galaxy Tab 10.1 - even though the slab wasn't found to be infringing Apple's designs in the pair's epic patent trial. The tablet was the only piece of Sammy gear that went into the court showdown with a preliminary injunction on it, after Judge Lucy …
While it is bad to have your product banned, given that they did win in regards to it didn't infringe any IP that Apple has, that also means that Samsung can seek retribution from Apple from lost sales. The law is quite clear on this, you can't go around saying that a product infringes upon your IP when it doesn't. If that were the case, then it would be happening all of the time. Samsung could also seek willful damages from Apple as well. Maybe Samsung is trying to get the pot a little bigger?
I certainly agree that Apple deserves credit and even profits for being first. However, the objective of patents was to ENCOURAGE innovation. Now the primary use of patents seems to be to destroy competitors and prevent competition.
This is especially egregious in situations where there is only one natural or best approach or solution. In those cases, for the sake of encouraging more innovation and competition a monopoly patent is fundamentally a blockade against innovation. Yes, there are some provisions to require licensing at reasonable fees, but all of this breaks down because the factors that determine whether or not these patents are granted and how they are handled once granted is mostly the skills of the lawyers and the foolishness or gullibility of the patent office and courts.
I think this needs to be completely rethought. Instead of monopolistic patents, how about just licensing the invention in exchange for sharing it, and giving the creator a claim on future profits from ALL products that use the invention? This could be handled on a kind of speculative basis AFTER the value has been established. Basically the law would need to require that companies that make large profits reveal more information about how they made those profits. The larger the profits, the larger the incentive for the responsible innovator to step up and claim a share.
It might seem a little backwards, but the inventor would actually be freed to spend all his or her time on inventing things, without taking ANY risks on the implementation or marketing. In exchange for disclosing and sharing the inventions, the inventor can just sit back and wait for profits.
"I certainly agree that Apple deserves credit and even profits for being first."
And whilst they may have been first at some of the very specific things being talked about (e.g., use of doubleclick on a phone to do a zoom), they weren't first when it comes to things like rounded rectangles, nor were they first at the more general concept of "use doubleclick to do some action". It's a shame Samsung didn't play by the same dirty rules - they had a 4" phone years ago...
I think it's also a depressing thing about the reporting of this case - the mainstream media spin it as "Samsung copied Apple" which people, especially fans, take it to mean the whole idea of things like smartphones, which Apple were years later than Samsung.
You're right, with one exception...
Steve Jobs was a proven liar and cheat, who embezzled Wozniak's share of the payout on the first big sale they made together, which was all Wozniak's work.
The FBI has a file on Jobs, go google it sometime and you'll know why Apple is the way it is.
Jobs also never gave a dime to any charity, foundation or desaster relief, he didn't bother to help fund research on what killed him. He paid his own bill and that was it. He rejected responsibility for his own kid.
But in a greedy capitalist society, people are all too ready to overlook sociopathic and criminal behaviour, as long as the bastard is successful. Success is the new golden calf to dance around.
Some extremely rich people actually think that they have a social responsibility and try to do a good thing every now and then. Not Steve... he figured it was all for him. Then the devil came and took it from him. No big surprise there...
So, its not like Apple turned sour after he died... it was a rough and tumble company from the start, precisely due to his personality. Try talking to anybody who's been doing business with Apple since the 80's. They were a nightmare to deal with for distributors, retailers, developers. Apple was never interested in remotely fair relationships with any other businesses. Its a model of self centeredness to the extreme.
I just call them Crapple... I had an iPhone once, someone gave it to me. It was horrific, I had to waste my time jailbreaking it, before I could get data in and out normally. ("normally" meaning interfacing with tech from various manufacturers). I'm sure it works better if your whole house is filled with Apple and Ikea stuff.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
