Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dutch Court Rejects Samsung Patent Claims Against Apple

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-don't-think-so dept.

Patents 148

angry tapir writes "A judge at the district court in the Hague has rejected claims that Samsung had made against Apple regarding four patents. Samsung wanted Apple to pay for licensing the patents in question, and the court to issue an injunction banning the import and sale of Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, as well as upcoming products, until licensing terms are in place. But the latter won't happen at this point. The ruling came in the in the same week that an Australian court blocked sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1."

cancel ×

148 comments

FRAND process (2, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736630)

The judge says Samsung didn't go through FRAND negotiations properly. I'm confused by this. Isn't it Apple that refused to negotiate? If so, it would seem Samsung has done their part to come to an agreement, rendering the judgement invalid.

There doesn't appear to be any question of whether Apple infringed the patents or not -- the article clarifies that the patents are for essential technology, which means you can't actually build such devices without infringing the patent.

Re:FRAND process (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736660)

No, Apple negotiated, and indeed owns a license for the 3G RAND patent pool. Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool. That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent, and tried to submarine the whole 3G standard.

Re:FRAND process (-1, Troll)

WhyYouLittleWussaaay (2486698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736680)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 1990, a little boy named George was walking down the railroad tracks that were located behind his backyard. Eventually, he decided to go back home, so he crossed the ditch that separated his yard and the railroad tracks. However, George noticed that it suddenly got very foggy. He could hardly see five feet ahead of himself!

George had his blanket over his head; part of it was dragging on the ground as he walked. While walking back to his house, he noticed a teddy bear sitting against a tree behind his shed; it was waving at him. This frightened George, who was now speed walking. George, not wanting to turn back to see the teddy bear, instinctively knew that it was following him. He saw its shadow approaching him from behind.

When it got close enough, he used his blanket and knocked it down on the ground. George was then flung into the air for seemingly no reason, and when he landed on the ground, he bounced back into the air. This happened a few more times, and each time he bounced, he would bounce about twenty feet into the air. Finally, George's bootyass landed directly on top of the teddy bear's face, and he could no longer move a single cheek.

George, although frightened, knew that something bad was going to happen. The teddy bear said, "Like, tsk, owie!" in a little boy's voice that sounded as if it was echoing throughout a room. After a few moments of silence, George heard a "vvvvvvvvvvvvv" sound that sounded like something was getting sucked into something else. He quickly realized that the teddy bear was getting sucked right up his butt as if his bootyass was a spaghetti noodle! Soon afterwards, George's bootyass became something else entirely: a rumblehouse bootyass! Then, the teddy bear started bouncing around in George's bootyass and hitting its sides whilst emitting an aura of pure malice.

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), the very same teddy bear will use your bootyass as a bouncehouse and inflict extreme amounts of tickle upon it! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Re:FRAND process (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736842)

Have you got a reference link confirming that? I've never heard that claim before and want to read up on it.

Re:FRAND process (2)

gabebear (251933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736960)

Re:FRAND process (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737004)

Thanks. Sounds as bad as RAMBUS.

Re:FRAND process (3, Informative)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736936)

FRAND != patent pool. Those are totally different things.
Since 3G patents aren't actually in a pool, Apple owns no such thing. Remember the issue with Nokia? Same thing.

Re:FRAND process (3, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737016)

From the article:

The patents are standards-essential, which means they are incorporated in internationally accepted technology standards -- in this case 3G. Standards-essential patents are licensed under so-called Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which is what Samsung has to offer Apple.

Not that it means the article or the judge were necessarily using the right terminology.

Re:FRAND process (2)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738584)

Your quote doesn't say anything about a patent pool. There is no single patent pool that you can license that covers the 3G FRAND patents. You have to go to each patent holder individually and arrange a license agreement that covers their FRAND patents. From TFA it appears the judge has found that Samsung's patents should be covered by the FRAND agreement, and has sent them back to the negotiating table. This means that Apple still needs to get a license for those patents. This puts Apple in basically the same situation as they were with Nokia; expect to see a large cash settlement.

Re:FRAND process (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739802)

Actually I expect to see a patent licensing exchange with little or no money changing hands. Don't forget Apple is suing Samsung, too. In the end, the whole thing will probably be settled out of court after they're done their patent-waving contest.

Re:FRAND process (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737014)

What stinks here is regardless of FRAND and negotiations is that one company can get another's products banned based on something utterly arbitrary and which took no amount of effort or imagination to produce (the concept of a rectangle with rounded corners) but that when that company tries to strike back using patents based on actual real solid research that cost real money to come up with and produce in the first place they're told they don't have a case.

There's something very wtf about that, Samsung's patents are based on real R&D, Apple's aren't yet Apple's warrant a ban from the marketplace and Samsungs don't? seriously?

I suspect the real issue here is that Apple is just as good at lobbying and giving backhanders to the right people as it is marketing, and Samsung, not so much.

I just simply struggle to see how this ruling is in any way fair relative to the ruling in Apple's favour, how can their ludicrous patent be upheld but Samsung's real actual patent not?

Re:FRAND process (1)

JabrTheHut (640719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737102)

I do wonder why Apple aren't going after any of the other tablet manufacturers such as Sony, Motorolla, and even Amazon. Why only Samsung, a business partner of theirs?

Could it be that it's not just about rounded edges?

Re:FRAND process (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737408)

I see this as because Apple, despite catching all the flack from people here and other places, isn't actually doing the evil people are painting it to be. They are going after Samsung directly becuase Samsung had access to exact specifications of the ipad and iphone ( since they were making a considerable number of their parts ) and were a very close business partner. Samsung basically stabbed them in the back. RIM, Dell, HP, Amazon, Sony, Motorola are all companies that genuinely made their own products through their own reaseach and development.

Re:FRAND process (0)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737546)

Whoa! Very astute post, which means you'll probably be modded down as a troll or fanboy for injecting some common sense amongst all the blind Apple hatred exhibited on Slashdot.

Re:FRAND process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37738050)

WTF. Samsung has been producing decent phones before the iphone frenzy. And then these lawsuits are mostly centered around Android features, developed by Google as their own R&D. OK, exception is the design patents, those which are simple enough to work around (i.e. without injuctions, they will fail to do any impact, next gen will be redesigned).
Most dangerous by far are "multitouch" patents and the whole Oracle-vs-Google lawsuit.

Re:FRAND process (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37740104)

Before Apple came along and contracted with Samsung to build the iPhone and iPad pieces, Samsung's phones and pad's looked very different. After apple they are pretty much identical, down to the connectors, the hardware, and even the packaging. Google images on the before and after, even for the packaging. It just looks bad, and smacks of those fake Apple stores being busted up in Japan. Cloning for the sake of consumer confusion.

There is most likely a simple reason Samsung keeps loosing in every country they go to court in; the evidence is pretty damning. Each of the vendors mentioned above manages to make a distinct product that speaks to itself, has it's own flavor, look, and feel from a hardware/packaging perspective, yet Samsung ended up with a clone of Apple's, even going so far as to clone the OS GUI on their earlier smartphones, down to the 'dots' showing that more pages of icons were available, the icon images, etc.

There are also a few hardware patents in there in addition to the suit about copying product design but they never seem to get any play time with everyone so obsessed about that rounded corner nonsense.

Re:FRAND process (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738144)

Maybe Samsung are just great artists.

Re:FRAND process (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738368)

Then why is the galaxy tab such a different aspect ratio if they intended to copy it to "exact specifications"?

no. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37740128)

its because samsung's tablets started to outsell and eclipse ipads in europe.

Re:FRAND process (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737422)

Samsung shifted nearly as many Galaxy S II's as Apple did iPhones last quarter, it was something like 16 million S II's vs. 17 million iPhone 4s. That's before you factor in Samsung's other offerings - Android and WP of course.

It's entirely because Samsung is far and away Apple's biggest competitor - whilst companies like HTC have some offerings in Apple's market they also have a lot of budget phones and their userbase is spread across that. Samsung's actually cutting directly in Apple's high end market like no other, and worse for Apple, even the sales Samsung hasn't taken from it - which number in the millions - people buying iPhones are still giving money to Samsung because so much of the iPhone is produced by Samsung. Apple doesn't want this story repeated in the tablet market too, it's hard enough for them to swallow in the phone market.

It's that that Apple doesn't like - Apple can only beat them if they can push them out the market, and even there they're always going to be paying for components from them to at least some degree. Effectively Samsung could at any moment pull the rug out from under Apple - by not just producing a product that's succesful or at least almost so as the iPhone/iPad, but also by deciding to up their rates on production too leaving Apple more limited in it's ability to find a manufacturer for it's products.

Really though what Apple should do if it wants out of this mess is not resort to suing, but to invest some of those many billions in cash it has lying around in pursuing it's own manufacturing base as a longer term strategy. This would be better for everyone - excellent job creation, greater plurality in manufacturing to name a couple of benefits. It can also then ensure stability, and then compete on the merits of it's products, unless of course, they think they can't. Which I suspect is precisely where the problem is. Why pursue this route of a more stable manufacturing base if you can't be sure you're going to be able to produce products people want manufactured on such a scale forcing you to throw that investment down the drain?

It's no coincidence that since Jobs mostly stepped down and Cook took over back in Feb that all we've seen is a half-arsed iPad update, a late and abysmal iPhone refresh, a pretty weak iOS update, and then a massive escalation of lawsuits from Apple against others. Perhaps it's too early to say Apple's few years in the sun are done and it's downhill again for it from here, but let's be honest, that's certainly where it's heading without drastic change. I wouldn't like to be one of those fools who has bought their grossly overinflated shares right now, that's for sure.

Re:FRAND process (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737728)

Samsung shifted nearly as many Galaxy S II's as Apple did iPhones last quarter, it was something like 16 million S II's vs. 17 million iPhone 4s. That's before you factor in Samsung's other offerings - Android and WP of course.

Er? I'm not sure where you got that information as Samsung just announced [mobilesyrup.com] they have sold 30million Galaxy S phones total (S and S2 combined not each). The S2 has been available for 5 months and has sold 10 million with S making up the 20 million.

Apple doesn't want this story repeated in the tablet market too, it's hard enough for them to swallow in the phone market.

That premise relies on two things: (1)Your incorrect assertion above and that (2)Apple cares that they sell more smartphones than anyone else. I don't think Apple has really ever cared about having the most sales. They have always seemed concerned about having the best product first and making gads of money second. For instance, Apple might have 5% of the computer market but they are making tons of profit while other makers sell much more volume but make less profit.

Effectively Samsung could at any moment pull the rug out from under Apple - by not just producing a product that's succesful or at least almost so as the iPhone/iPad, but also by deciding to up their rates on production too leaving Apple more limited in it's ability to find a manufacturer for it's products.

Apple has already contracted TSMC to make the A5 which Samsung is the only supplier, the A5. You could say that the phone situation was the whole reason but TSMC offers a 28nm process whereas Samsung will move to a 32nm sometime in the next year. All other parts have multiple sources.

Really though what Apple should do if it wants out of this mess is not resort to suing, but to invest some of those many billions in cash it has lying around in pursuing it's own manufacturing base as a longer term strategy. . . Why pursue this route of a more stable manufacturing base if you can't be sure you're going to be able to produce products people want manufactured on such a scale forcing you to throw that investment down the drain?

Spending money on infrastructure when there is already a stable infrastructure in place? Take for instance, there are many companies that make flash memory. I would estimate that to get into the flash memory business would take 10 billion dollars just for Apple to make something which offers no advantage to their competitors and would cost more. Same thing for displays and plastics. That just doesn't make sense.

It's no coincidence that since Jobs mostly stepped down and Cook took over back in Feb that all we've seen is a half-arsed iPad update, a late and abysmal iPhone refresh, a pretty weak iOS update,

Everyone says that every time we get a new Apple product. The 3GS wasn't a huge improvement over the 3G. It still sold.

Re:FRAND process (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738454)

Don't fool yourself. They care about making gads of money first. And the impression that they have the best product is one of the big reasons they do make gads of money. For the longest time, it didn't matter if their stuff was actually better, or just seemed that way. Now consumers have more options, and tighter budgets, so they tend to make more informed choices. And apple products don't stack up nearly as well under those circumstances.

Re:FRAND process (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738926)

People have been saying that since 2008 when the recession it. It hasn't come true yet in three years at the height of the recession. Instead Apple has been making record profits and sales year after year. Eventually Apple will plateau and people will say "I told you so" but it won't because they have amazing predictive powers. Just like I can predict there will be a total solar eclipse today. Oh, it didn't happen? Then tomorrow. And then tomorrow and so on. One day I am sure to be right but it won't be because I'm good at predicting solar eclipses.

Re:FRAND process (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738914)

For instance, Apple might have 5% of the computer market but they are making tons of profit while other makers sell much more volume but make less profit.

Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits. Apple do not want a repeat of this situation. The second point to be made here is that Apple isn't actually making huge profits from the home computer business - the vast bulk of Apple's profits now come from the IOS devices where they have good market share (50%+ depending on device type).

Re:FRAND process (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739358)

According to the 3Q 2011 report, Apple made about $5B in revenue and an estimated $1.5B in profit from their computers. Now the computer division is no longer the largest part of their revenue and profits but it still is hugley profitable. By comparison, Dell made $15.7B in revenue with $1.1B in profit. HP is harder to interpret but in personal computing group, it appears they had profit of $1.8B on $29.5B revenue. If the iPod/iPhone/iPad never happened. I think Dell and HP would be jealous of Apple's profits.

Re:FRAND process (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739494)

Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits.

You make it sound like a deliberate strategy. However IBM's PC's were just as closed. When clone manufacturers sprang up they were promply sued and forced to reverse engineer the BIOS. This coupled with Microsoft's cunning decision to retain the right to license MSDOS to others evantually led to the "PC Compatible." So it was more like a comedy of errors on IBM's part than any sort of natural evolution or strategy that created the PC.

Re:FRAND process (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739538)

Apple *is* in fact making huge profits from its Mac division - about $5B last *quarter* - see http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/20/how-apples-business-grows/ [cnn.com] ... A whole lot of companies would love to have this "not huge profits" business line... Assuming they don't screw it up, that's ~ $20B/year...

Apple makes a lot *more* money from iOS devices (lumping the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch together gets you to ~60% of the company's income), but that's "only" 3x the Mac income, hardly the "vast bulk", which (to me at least) implies a completely dominant fraction of the whole - of the order of 90-odd percent, not ~60 percent...

And your analysis is wrong anyway, IMHO. I think Apple are perfectly happy to be seen as the premium brand, where they can rake in much more in profit from much less "work" by focussing on only a few product lines. Look at http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/31/fourth-quarter-mobile-phone-industry-overview/ [asymco.com] - Apple take more than 50% of the profit in the phone industry by owning only 4% of the market-share.

Businesses exist to product profit, not to product market share. *One* way to try and increase profit is to try and increase market share. Apple has another way, and it's working well for them.

Simon.

Re:FRAND process (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37740134)

Apple *is* in fact making huge profits from its Mac division - about $5B last *quarter*

That figure is for all divisions, not just personal computers. Anyway, it terms of PC manufacturers, then yes, Apple is highly profitable compared to the likes of Asus, Fujitsu etc. You may find this [businessinsider.com] interesting.

Apple take more than 50% of the profit in the phone industry by owning only 4% of the market-share.

4.6% is the Garner figure for all Apple phones globally. Nielsen says Apple's market-share of smartphones is 28%. I suppose it depends on whether you count smartphones as a distinct market segment or not. Most figures these days do seem to be presented in terms of smartphone market share rather than overall phone market share.

Re:FRAND process (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739084)

That premise relies on two things: [...] (2)Apple cares that they sell more smartphones than anyone else. I don't think Apple has really ever cared about having the most sales.

You can bet your last dollar that Apple cares about selling more smartphones than anyone else. Because it's not about the hardware sales, but the aftermarket iTunes, iTunes rental, andiTunes app market that they care about. The last thing they want is for the bulk of the market to operate outside their walled garden. Since phones are usually replaced every two years, the shift in the market can be huge over a very short period of time. Just ask Research in Motion. Apple is committed to maintaining major market share of after sale revenues.

They just don't want Samsung guiding customers to Amazon and Google for their music, video, and Angry Birds fix.

Re:FRAND process (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37740012)

There is a difference between having the most sales which HP and Dell care about and having the most profit. Apple would rather chase 5% of the market and make more profit than Dell (which they did last quarter) than fight with Dell, HP, and Lenovo for 95% of the low profit side. According to Apple's 3Q report [apple.com] , they made over $14B in revenue on iPhone/iPad sales (does not include iPod sales) with an estimated $4.2B in profit. Their iTunes music, video, books, apps and iPod accessories pulled in $1.6B in revenue. At best that would be $480M after the content owners take their cut. So according to you Apple is more concerned about $500M in iTunes revenue than the $14+ B in hardware revenue. They are so concerned that they pushed for music to be DRM free. Currently what is stopping Apple users from buying music on Amazon and putting it on their iOS devices? What is stopping Samsung users from buying iTunes music and putting it on their Galaxy phones?

Re:FRAND process (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737470)

If you think Apple is simply going after Samsung because of rectangle with rounded corners then you are probably being deliberately obtuse or you're not as smart as you think you are.

Re:FRAND process (2)

terminal.dk (102718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737644)

Italy makes lots of designer stuff. Stuff of same or lower value than competing products, but sold solely because how it looks. So it is important for the EU to protect designs.

EU does not recognize software patents.

BTW: Multitouch is a patent that Apple holds. So just prevent all competition from recognizing more than 1 finger would kill the competition.

Samsung is a company that had inside knowledge, producing to Apple, which is why they are in front of the competition.

Shut up about rounded corners already (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737840)

http://gigaom.com/apple/judge-samsung-does-infringe-apples-u-s-patents/ [gigaom.com]

A federal judge

“held both tablets above her head, one in each hand,” and “asked Samsung lawyers to identify which was which.” Levine said it took Samsung’s legal team “a while to do so.”

They couldn't recognize their own product right in front of them. That must have been hilarious to watch, and I'm sure it was absolutely devastating in the courtroom. But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"

Re:Shut up about rounded corners already (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738138)

But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"

It's a talking point [wikipedia.org] . For all the talk of shills and astroturfers slashdotters do all the time, they sure are quick to echo mindless nonsense planted by them if it suits their purpose.

Re:FRAND process (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738812)

If the wireless patents are essential then they should be covered by the FRAND terms of the 3G standardisation process. In contrast, Apple's patents are "design patents [wikipedia.org] " - a special type of patent that covers the form and appearance of items. These are two very different types of patents, covered by different contractual terms, and so they will get treated differently by the courts. In terms of the design patent, the Samsung photo frame [androidauthority.com] predates the iPad design patent and has a strikingly similar form, though obviously it is not a tablet.

Re:FRAND process (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739488)

Slashdot keeps parroting this rounded rectangle thing. Samsung copied a little more than that, right down to putting some of Apple's app icons on some of their marketing. Note also that there are quite a few OTHER rounded rectangles that are NOT being sued by Apple.

Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.

Re:FRAND process (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738522)

Except there is no such thing as "a license for the 3G RAND patent pool". Engadget had a patent lawyer write an understandable article on the situation [engadget.com] in 2009. Because of patent cross-licensing, and the fact that there is no independent examination of potential FRAND patents during the standardisation process, the result is that a) nobody really knows which patents are (or should be) considered FRAND, and b) there is no "fixed price" for licensing FRAND patents. "In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory' license actually is."

Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool.

Once again, there is no single "3G patent pool" to license. When you deal with these FRAND patents, you have to license the patents of each patent holder individually.

That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent

No, you are mixing up two things here. The "failure at negotiating" that the judge referred to is regarding the negotiations between Apple and Samsung in the last year. It is a completely unrelated issue to Samsung's dealings with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute who defined the 3G wireless standards a decade ago.

Re:FRAND process (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736664)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 1995, a little boy named Tom was playing with his toys in his living room. After about 15 minutes of playing, a tiny little man walked up to him and said, "May I explore the mazes of your bootyass?" Tom, surprised by this sudden occurrence, remained speechless.

After thirty seconds passed, the little man asked the exact same question that he asked previously. This time, Tom asked the little man why he would want to do such a thing. The little man said, "Because I want to explore every maze inside your bootyass." Tom, sensing no bad intentions from the little man, nodded and said, "Well, all right. But no tickle! If there's any tickle, I'll smoosh ya!" The little man nodded his head and was sucked into Tom's bootyass as if his bootyass was a gigantic spaghetti noodle.

Tom was beginning to have second thoughts about letting the little man explore the mazes of his bootyass, but he just shrugged them off. He thought, "What harm could allowing that nice, charismatic little man explore the mazes of my bootyass bring? He was so nice, charismatic, and thoughtful. I made the right choice."

However, soon enough, he discovered that he was terribly wrong. Suddenly, he was looking into his own bootyass as if he was looking through a security camera. Inside, he spotted the little man and numerous round doorways made out of bootyass; it looked like an endless maze. To Tom's surprise, the little man suddenly transformed into a red toy carrying a gigantic sack over his shoulders and began walking towards the smallest doorway of them all! "That sack will never fit through that doorway!", Tom thought.

The toy continued onwards, and eventually the sack got stuck inside the small doorway in Tom's bootyass. The toy, visibly angry, began trying to force the sack through the doorway! This inflicted tremendous amounts of tickle upon Tom's bootyass! The toy then began kicking the sides of Tom's bootyass out of frustration while laughing the entire time. Even more tickle was inflicted upon Tom's bootyass. Just when Tom thought that nothing worse could possibly happen to him, the toy forced the sack right through the doorway and went flying deeper into the mazes of Tom's bootyass and crashed into the side of it! This inflicted more tickle upon Tom's bootyass than ever before!

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), the very same toy, along with his giant sack which should fit through no doorway, will explore every single maze inside your bootyass (thereby inflicting major amounts of tickle upon it)! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Re:FRAND process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736918)

This is Whitey applying unfair protectionism (again). Australia blocked Samsung? What a shocker! Now count in those prophet drawing Danes.

Re:FRAND process (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737116)

It comes down to apple paying bigger bribes. And the worry that the judge will have had a gay encounter with an apple fanboi

Too bad (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736674)

That's really a pitty---what an injustice! I think that all alleged patent violations should lead to an immediate stop of sales. Moreover, to serve justice, patent laws must be adjusted such that all patent violations have to be investigated and punished, no matter whether the patent holder wants to or not. For the sake of innovation and the protection of "intellectual property rights" all companies that violate any patent must pay hefty fines in the range of millions or billions!

Re:Too bad (-1, Troll)

NowYaGonnaGetIt (2486700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736688)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 1998, a little boy named Tyler was relaxing in the bathtub. The tub was nearly overfilled. Suddenly, he felt something in the water zip into his bootyass! He immediately jumped up, ran out of the tub, and ran out of the bathroom door without any clothes on.

However, he backed up into a wall and crashed down to the ground. With his back against the wall, his eyes closed, and his bootyass naked bootyass sitting on the floor, he farted. He kept farting over and over, and then, suddenly, he farted out a red toy! It had brown hair, yellow skin, a round head, two painted on eyes and a mouth, a square body that was painted red, and arms that were molded into its body.

Somehow, Tyler was looking at his own bootyasscheekcrackhole as if he was looking through a security camera. The toy screamed angrily, "That's it! Now ya gonna get it!" Then, the toy put its mouth on his bootyasscheekcrackhole and began blowing! This inflicted extreme amounts of tickle upon Tyler's bootyass!

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), the very same toy will blow on your bootyasscheekcrackhole and inflict major amounts of tickle upon it! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Re:Too bad (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737048)

The patent system is hopeless, at least when it comes to software and technology. It is based under the premise that whatever you might invent yourself, in your garage, may not be yours to sell. But you don't know.

This cannot be fixed as it is the basis of the patent system.

The patent system is just nuts and should be abolished entirely.

spreading ... (3, Informative)

TESTNOK (2476330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736696)

Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's [businessweek.com] an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)

Re:spreading ... (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736704)

Unfortunately for them – those suits rely on the exact same patents the dutch ruling was about, given that one court has already said Samsung is the one in the wrong, it's not likely to help them.

Re:spreading ... (-1, Offtopic)

CursedBootyass (2486702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736728)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 1991, a little boy named Terry was sleeping soundly in his bedroom. After a few hours, he was abruptly woken up by a terrible feeling. He felt as if there was something that he absolutely had to do. He got out of bed and noticed that his entire house was extremely dark.

That's when he figured out what he had to do. Terry began kicking open every single door in his house and screaming, "I am bootyass process!" He needed to make known the extreme amounts of bootyassiousness that was being exerted from his cheeks to every single entity in the house; he needed to show them all his true power!

However, he quickly realized that this was a deadly mistake. He felt multiple entities glaring at him, and he heard evil laughing in the darkness. He then quickly retreated to his parents' bedroom and noticed that neither one of his parents were there. Panicking, he began floating in the air for reasons unknown to him. He then screamed, as a last resort, "I have my online degree in chemical mathematics again!"

He began flying around the room at the speed of light. He screamed in terror when he noticed that his clothes had vanished and he was now bootyass naked. After a few minutes of flying around the room, his bootyass crashed into an invisible entity and it was quickly sucked into his bootyass as if his bootyass was nothing more than a gigantic spaghetti noodle. Terry could sense that his bootyass was becoming something else entirely: a rumblehouse bootyass! The thing that was sucked into his bootyass was a toy, and it began using his bootyass as a bouncehouse! It bounced around inside his bootyass and hit the walls, floors, and ceilings! It inflicted extreme amounts of tickle upon his bootyass!

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), the very same entity will get sucked into your bootyass, use it as a bouncehouse, and inflict major tickle upon it (even if you are bootyass process)! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Re:spreading ... (2, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736750)

As a rule national courts do not care much about what other national courts rule.

Re:spreading ... (1, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736782)

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736820)

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason

The German court didn't.

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736926)

"They've never done that and you goddamn know it!"

Re:spreading ... (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737040)

Well, I haven't read the actual court decision (is it available anywhere?) though I know in general it's often a coin toss what the decision will be in high profile court cases.

This is because often certain terms might be lacking a strict definition (FRAND for instance is never defined, so it's up to the court itself to decide if something is FRAND or not) and even when things are defined, it can be hard to establish whether it applies to the particular situation or not.

While I might change my mind after reading the actual court text, at this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see different rulings all over.

Re:spreading ... (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737120)

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

Logic and reason? In a court? In what universe?

Re:spreading ... (1)

arkanjuca (2486784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737154)

I see what you did there, nice sarcasm.

Re:spreading ... (1)

TESTNOK (2476330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736764)

Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736818)

You are missing a small thing though. Because it is a 3G FRAND patent they can not negotiate with Apple for it, since non-discrimatory means everyone has to pay for this patent (probably even Samsung themselves). Therefor negotiations have to be done with the members of the 3G standards body.

Re:spreading ... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736840)

well, yes, but how do you conclude that negotiations have ended? you don't.

samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

Re:spreading ... (2)

peted56 (1842988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736900)

As ever it seems that apple can stop the sale of someone else's product while they fail to negotiate but other companies do not get the same deal, seems a bit cock eyed to me.

Re:spreading ... (2)

gabebear (251933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736992)

Samsung is claiming to own an international telecommunications standard(and they might)... Samsung could take every 3G capable piece of equipment off the market if this was allowed which is why patent's covering this technology are by law required to be fairly licensed to everyone.

Re:spreading ... (1)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737268)

There's a difference between non obvious (as most 3G patents would be) and bloody obvious (as any geometrical shape is).

I'd suggest the judges to measure all people (and companies) using the same rule.

Re:spreading ... (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737768)

I think you are way out of line for faulting the judge here. He didn't rule that one patent was better than the other, it was made on the contracts that Samsung had agreed to and the law. Samsung was obviously in the wrong(possibly to the point of fraud).

Re:spreading ... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737788)

There is a difference between a design patent and a function patent. After all, do you think courts should let Toyota copy the VW Beetle design and sell it as the Bug?

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737104)

Patents relating to standards are different. When you own a patent relating to a standard (3G in this case) you are obliged to license it in fair and non-discriminatory ways. Which means that Samsung can't charge Apple 10 times what it charges other companies.

Apple on the other hand is suing Samsung with patents which are not related to standards, which means that Apple is free to (offer to) sell a license (or not) to whoever it pleases at whatever price.

Re:spreading ... (2, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737020)

samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make customers think "it looks like an iPad, so it must be good". Instead they have to compete with Apple on their own merits, which is what competition is all about.

That said, Samsung can of course claim that they want to negotiate with Apple, and since this design patent is not _essential_ as shown by Sony, Toshiba, RIM, HP and many others, Apple can then just say "we are not selling any licenses" and that finishes the negotiations. Samsung's patents fall under the "essential patents" category so they cannot refuse license negotiations.

Re:spreading ... (2)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737212)

The design case is not about "a rectangle".

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

After a quick Google search, I found this one - http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001 [scribd.com] . Of course, that's from Troll-of-the-Century Florian, so keep the grains of salt handy.

Re:spreading ... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737864)

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

The main thing is that many slashdotters think Apple is claiming that they are the originators of the rectangular with rounded corners. What Apple is saying is that it is part of their design as one aspect. There are other aspects which Apple complained about. The icon placement is another. Again slashdotters will say that icon placement is necessary for a touch based phone which misses the point. Apple is complaining that Samsung copied that aspect of the iPhone (4 x 4 grid and 4 in the launch bar). Other smartphone makers use different arrangement of icons with some not having a launch bar, some using a more hexagonal arrangement, etc. It is also a cumulative effect of how many aspects Apple feels violated their design. The more they can show, the more likely they are to win. If Samsung just had the rectangular with rounded corners, they probably wouldn't have sued.

Re:spreading ... (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737964)

What you're saying implies that violating a single Community Design in Europe is not enough to get an injuction, since a rectangle with rounded corners is all that's in the one I linked to. Is that true?

Re:spreading ... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738886)

The problem again is your reduction of all of Apple's claims to the "rectangular with rounded corners". Apple had more claims in their suit. Whether you agree with them is another matter.

Re:spreading ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737630)

You'll never get these retards to understand that.

Re:spreading ... (1)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736962)

Exact same patent ("community design" of rectangle with rounded corners, no I'm not joking) that have not worked in Netherlands worked wonders in Germany.

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37738166)

You're forgetting that the Dutch court also rejected all of Apple's design patents, while injunctions on that basis have been granted in Germany and Australia. So no, this has zero effect on the outcome of any of the other lawsuits.

Re:spreading ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37738744)

Except it was the judge who was in err.... time for a judge with a brain.

ie - negotiations fell apart, Apple proceeded sans license... ergo patent violation, immediate halt of all 3g based sales/products.

All your code are belong to us. (4, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736884)

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

The companies are also on a mission to use software-patents to make the use of open source software more expensive than their own.

The fact these companies are using the legal system against open source and free software shows that they can no longer compete in the marketplace based on the merits of their own products.

The sad thing here is that they will win and open source will lose and they will become the gatekeepers to all development in the future. The days of free software innovation are coming to an end.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736924)

Pure free market capitalism restricts development of technology & the species; it is bad for all but the very few.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (0)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736940)

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

I cannot quite see how you come from a story about Samsung wanting a ban of iPhone sales because of an alleged patent infringement by Apple, to the conclusion that Apple (and Microsoft) wants to "own all your code". Can you give an example where Apple has tried to gain ownership over someone else's code?

Re:All your code are belong to us. (4, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737002)

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades. Software-patent on "a picture viewer that displays thumbnails and when clicked displays the picture in an image viewer" They got an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands for this. I could go on and on and on but that should be enough.

Now let me break it down for you ok? Software is already protected by copyright. That means that if I write a feature and you write a feature and the features are similar they are protected by copyright. If I copy your code then that is a violation. however if I file a software-patent on what my code does and your code though completely different from mine solves the problem in a similar way then I can then claim ownership of your code by suing the shit out of you until you 1) pay me a license to use/distribute your totally different code or 2) you remove your code from the marketplace. get it?

Re:All your code are belong to us. (3, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737276)

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that. And if you work hard to come up with great and totally intuitive ways of doing something you're not happy if others just copy it without any effort spent on it. Without protecting it in some way everybody could just copy it and nobody would ever bother to put much effort into coming up with own solutions. You'd get mediocre half-assed solutions all over the place.

Well, maybe this is wrong. But evidence seems to support that view. If you look at copies and ripoffs from China and elsewhere how often do you see products where someone intelligently and carefully picked the best ideas from the products he has stolen from? He should be able to afford this, or not? He doesn't has to pay licenses and can freely chose whatever he wants to copy. But what you invariably see is just badly ripping off from the currently best selling products, nothing else. Small wonder: it's much cheaper, it takes much less effort and it's much faster -- and if there is no protection, being on the market a few weeks earlier than others is imperative.

No, I think we've taken a long time to get us into that mess and we will have to take a long time and careful measures to get out of it again.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737158)

That's what Steve asked Larry to deal with. (Java API lawsuit)

The digital dark-age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37736954)

Because of corruption, lawyers are racketeering. It is extortion, plain and simple. And, it's sanctioned by the courts. I want a country where there is no intellectual rights whatsoever! Give us creators a small country where we can say there is no imaginary property. In USA you know that the oligarchs runs the courts when it comes to intellectual property. EU is going in the same direction. It's not even coding, it's affecting everything. If a country punishes people for singing and dancing, they are evil. In USA you can get hit with a lawsuit for singing and dancing, in Iran you will get prosecuted for singing and dancing. Same things, different wrapping. We live in the information-age, but there are powerful forces at work that wants absolute control of information. You all know where this road ends, it ends in 1984. And it ends in a dark age.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (0)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736956)

Do you think that it's only Apple and Microsoft? There are lots of big companies with the same idea.
Yet fanboys and companies themselves cry bloody murder, when their favourite company gets sued by a patent troll using the same "infrastructure" that the big players spend billions to maintain and enlarge...

Re:All your code are belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737028)

Hardware patent. Karma-bait.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (2)

gabebear (251933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737062)

Make sure you include Google and IBM in your list of opponents to free software.

In reality, this legal crap between Apple and Sumsung is how progress is made. What's awesome about the Samsung/Apple cases are they AREN'T SETTLING! Out of court settlements don't move law forward.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737628)

At what time and against whom has Google used a single patent offensively? Should they just allow themselves to remain defenseless against the Apple MS Oracle et al onslaught? Yeah right.

Re:All your code are belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37740168)

You're kidding, right? Google is one of the biggest supporters of open source projects, has never used a software patent offensively, and has come out in favor of abolishing them.

Nearly right (1)

joh (27088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737072)

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple or that anyone else in their position would do anything different. The patent system needs an overhaul, but just replacing one company with another wouldn't change a bit. They *can't* act different. It's not a point of "evil companies" at all. They are just doing what they must do in the position they're in.

Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so on anyone would bother to put much development efforts into anything.

There are really no easy answers to these problems. Yes, this is sad and not very satisfying.

Re:Nearly right (2, Informative)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737218)

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software. They promised this years ago. And even without the honorable mention by Microsoft it is still transparently obvious what they are doing. And well if the big players are OKing this type of software-patent malfeasance then does anyone think the trolls are not going to want to join the party?

Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so on anyone would bother to put much development efforts into anything.

I was directly referring to software-patents and the use of software-patents to take ownership of other people's code by using aggressive litigation in the marketplace. Microsoft and Apple rose to prominence rarely being threatened by software-patents throughout their early history. And they were both plenty motivated to create successful products back then without filing software-patents. Now they are using the last draw in order to push the software freedom genie back into the proverbial lamp. Software is authored works and is already protected by copyright along with books, music, movies etc. So should books be protected by patents too? If I come up with the idea in a book about wars in space should I be allowed to file a patent on that and go suing everyone that writes a book about wars in space? even if their wars in space story is completely different than mine? Authored works should not be patented and MS and Apple are abusing the patent system in the same ways they hate for it to be abused against them.

Re:Nearly right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737930)

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software.

Wait Apple is against open source code? Why do they contribute so much to it then? They own and maintain CUPS and haven't closed sourced it. They contribute all the Darwin code to an open source license despite the origins being BSD and not requiring them to. They created Bonjour and open sourced it. They wrote Webkit2 including all the awesome multi-threading and process separation stuff right in the library so all applications that use Web rendering can use it (instead of implementing it in the browser code like Google did in Chrome did and making it hard for others to re-implement). Here's a nice list [apple.com] of about 800 open source projects Apple actively contributes to. You can easily support the assertion that Apple is invested in sfotware patents as much as anyone, but to try to make them out as anti-open source is just demonstrating a lack of information.

Re:Nearly right (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737224)

Isn't it "evil" if a company lobby congress (or other law makers in other countries) to implement software patents? Is that then the same that "they can't act different"?

Or is the congress (or other politicians) the evil ones, who listen to such selfish lobbying?

I think both are to blame and both are "evil". And the people are too lazy or to stupid and let it happened. I'm really exciting to see Occupy Wall Street and similar protests in Greece and Italy. Because that is the only way to change things.

I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one right (4, Interesting)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736970)

I hate to say it, but this time I have to agree with Florian Mueller... This decision, on it's own, is a win for the industry. Simply because it reaffirms the fact that you can't use FRAND'ed patents for an injunction.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (0, Troll)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736980)

Florian Mueller is a paid for troll. I couldn't care less what you think, Florian. Stop astroturfing your crap. You aren't a lawyer and have nothing relevant to say.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737012)

Him being a paid troll doesn't make the point false. I believe Florian has his own Slashdot account...

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737894)

Nothing says Florian can't own multiple accounts. I'm not saying that you're Florian but I find it interesting that you didn't deny it. On the other hand I find it interesting you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. I'm just asking questions that's all.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37738398)

LOL! What's the point in denying anything to a loonie? Best defence is ignoring them, maybe they'll forget about the issue and move on to another shiny conspiracy theory.... remember tin foil hats?

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737712)

At least he is relatively new at it. You haven't had anything relevant to say since 9/11. Why is that?

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (1)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737128)

+1 for not blinding bashing Apple or Microsoft which seems to be the norm around here.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (1, Redundant)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739414)

On the flip side, the "sane" resolution would be for Apple's design patents to be nulled. While I agree with the judge here, I hate the fact it gives Apple reason to keep bullying because it's working. You should never be able to disrupt competition through such tenuous accusations (not even condemnations, mere accusations are enough!).

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (0)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37739980)

On the flip side, the "sane" resolution would be for Apple's design patents to be nulled. While I agree with the judge here, I hate the fact it gives Apple reason to keep bullying because it's working. You should never be able to disrupt competition through such tenuous accusations (not even condemnations, mere accusations are enough!).

Design patents exist for a reason - they're a step down from trademarks (and trust me, you DO NOT want to force everyone into trademark wars - it's a lot nastier). They're also short-lived, 5 years or so, but serve to protect the unique looks of devices. At least with design patents, the claims are important - if a design feature is shown but not claimed, it's a free for all. With trademarks, degree of similarity is important.

Of course, perhaps if Samsung stopped making their devices look like Apple it would help. I mean, I walked down the tablet aisle of Best Buy, and the only two I got mixed up were the iPads and Galaxy Tabs. All others looked distinctly different with different trim pieces applied. The closest I could find would be a PlayBook, but it's so obviously different from an iPad and Galaxy tab. Maybe Samsung has a case since it looks a lot like a 7" Galaxy tab.

Seriously. Look at how the other tablets differ visibly from an iPad other than the Galaxy Tab. Just add a trim piece or something and the lawsuit would be meaningless. Maybe a stripe around the screen?

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37740188)

The equally 'sane' resolution would be for Samsung's trademarks to be nullified.

Design patents, despite having 'patent' in the name, are much more closely related to trademarks, and serve the same purpose. (Preventing confusion in the market place, that is.)

Samsung gaining time (1)

Pierre-Arnaud (453848) | more than 2 years ago | (#37736978)

Samsung don't have a case, and never had one... They're just gaining time to establish a dominant position on the Android side. They will eventually bend over, and they know it.

For those FRAND patents, it's said they asked 2.4% on each iPhone sold, and for each one of their 13 patents... That was a stupid move, it will backfire big time...

Apple just nailed it by offering a license on their low-level patents, showing who's the sensible party here...

Sorry Samsung (0)

onezeta (2484494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37737060)

Sorry Samsung, better luck next time. I have to say though your phones are better in quality and features than Apple. Too bad, you don't a great backstory as a company to be more famous than Apple. Quick, make an SOB story about your creator or developer of some of your gizmos and gadgets.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37737832)

The Judge made his ruling while he had his bluetooth headset on that was connected to his brand new 64GB iPhone 4S

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...