PCWorld Forums: Report: Apple Wins Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Report: Apple Wins Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus here

I hate Apple. Rather than innovate, they litigate.

I had just ordered one on Wednesday and it will arrive on Monday. :-)

DoneThat, on 29 June 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

They ALL do it, Samsung won a case last week where Apple owes them money. Motorola won won also. Look up the lawsuits that have been filed by all of the Brands/companies, and it's NOT only Apple.

HankRearden, on 29 June 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

All I can find on the phone is it was available last October, so it's an older phone, is there a newer version out yet?

DlBetty, on 29 June 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Tis true, sadly. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

DlBetty, on 29 June 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Who did start it?
Apple.

Apple have more function than any other device.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 02 July 2012 - 05:36 AM

funloving, on 29 June 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Who did start it? Eric Schmidt

johnnybravo, on 30 June 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Well that all depends on how you look at this. Take for example what happened with Google vs. Oracle. You could absolutely say Google started that one too. But in the end it was decided in court that Oracle, once thought to be owed billions of dollars, was owe'd nothing at all. Even though there were what looked like damming emails from Google on the subject of Java.

Personally, I think the whole look and feel, when it comes to the rectangular shape issue should be thrown out. Apple should be stripped of that patent. It is completely bogus in my opinion and does not adhere to patentability standards in the first place. I'll go even further and say I don't believe any of these new patents stand up to patentability standards. It is there where I think the patent system is completely broken. The patent in question is not supposed to be obvious to someone who works in the same field. That means someone else who would be designing a touch screen has to not come up with the same basic concept and someone else's That someone else being Apple. What Apple is creating can't be obvious.

If I am building a touch screen, of course I need it stay locked unless I touch it a certain way. Else it would be unlocking in my pocket. That is logical and obvious. Someone in the same field would likely come to the same conclusion. And thus this is not patentable. In fact it is so obvious that people are rushing to patent their obvious idea before everyone else patents the same concept. If it were not obvious Apple could simply never patent it and everyone else should be dumbfounded as to what to do.

We have a patent system that sounds good on paper, but corporations are arguing that their patents are valid when they are not, then getting them approved and using them to keep competitors out of the market. You have to have deep pockets to go through the trouble of showing the never were valid in the first place. In that regard you also have Apple, and others, asking for money for bogus patents which means you are agreeing to their bogus patents. Well, Google, Samsung and others simply don't want to go there. They'd rather just fight to prove the whole patent in question isn't valid at all. Along the way we have to go through this whole mess we are going through now.

It doesn't even matter if Apple was the first to popularize this new era in smart phones. What matters is if once done the rest of the industry would or wouldn't draw the same conclusions. They would because they are obvious conclusions. And as obvious conclusions Apple isn't trading the sharing of something unique in exchange for patent protection. They are merely saying they are first, and thus should be protected. That's simply wrong. Being first isn't enough to grant a patent. Being not unique, but not obvious is the requirement. They are neither.

funloving, on 29 June 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Indeed.

Apple showed the world what a SUCCESSFUL smartphone and a SUCCESSFUL tablet look like, now everybody wants to copy Apple's model.

Apple's competitors should do their own homework instead of shamelessly trying to get a passing grade by simply copying Apple's integration model.

Yes, integration is as important, if not more important than than the various bits of existing technology, emerging technology and business methodology on their own.

HankRearden, on 30 June 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

If people (and businesses) did things simply out of pride, diligence and glory we wouldn't need a system of patenting inventions. A true inventor would be put to shame if he/she took advantage of someone else's work. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. Effort and money in varying amounts are what drive technological innovation and there has to be the promise of possible reward at the end of the line.

Much of the work Edison is credited with is obvious to anyone who managed to stay awake throughout grade school. Vulcanization? Come on, rubber and sulphur! ... and both existed way before anyone thought of combining the two. And what if someone else had thought of combining two? Totally useless unless you can think of using the combination to make something people will buy.

Light bulbs? OF COURSE you can't heat a metallic filament to the point of glowing in the presence of oxygen and expect it not to burn. What were you thinking! The lightbulb, under your definition, would be obvious and non-patentable.

I could go on with tens of thousands of inventions we use daily which are obvious solutions to a problem, but I won't. Some of those "obvious" inventions answered questions nobody had ever thought of before seeing the "obvious" solution.

So give me a break. The system is there for a reason. Its not perfect but I don't think any of its detractors can come up with a perfect system either.

Scrapping the patent system and leaving a chaotic void in its wake just so you can get "swipe to unlock" on your favorite gadget smacks of the myopic focus, short term gain, attention deficit mentality which has brought our world economic system to the brink of collapse.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 30 June 2012 - 06:39 AM

HankRearden, on 30 June 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

You're confounding the "obviousness" of the invention with the complexity of its implementation. The most "obvious" and easily replicated invention is the one which needs patent protection, not the inverse.

Here is a question I asked in an earlier post, which nobody answered:

What is the "obvious" outcome of tracing a "Z" with two fingers on a touchscreen held horizontally while facing North?

Feel free to do a patent search.

DoneThat, on 29 June 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Your freakin kidding me right.

Apple didn't litigate when it invented the iPhone, that's one innovation
the IPod changed how we listen to music and nobody's been able to duplicate it.
The iPad is a third innovation and they were awarded patents on its design, and Samsung decided to copy it.
I tunes changed the entire music industry, that's another innovation.
They created the first ultra book. MacBook Air.
I Don't need to continue but i could
I hate when people that support the Andoid OS spread their hate for Apple. If it weren't for Apples innovation you'd still be rolling the track wheel on your blackberry.

Android is a complete ripoff of iOS. And the court battles have yet to begin. Some of Apples patents that were pending are now starting to be awarded, like pinch to Zoom. I really hope they go after every Android manufacturer and make them get rid of their multi touch gestures. Scrolling is another patent, sorry but apple invented scrolling with your finger and was just awarded its rights. Once apple gets done with Google/Android it may own it. Rightfully so it should. You say Apple should innovate, what about others stealing their innovation.

42n81, on 30 June 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

No confusion here. Entitled to my opinion just as you are.

HankRearden, on 30 June 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Its not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact that the most easily replicated inventions are the ones which need patent protection the most.

42n81, on 30 June 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Oh, and where is the proof of this fact?

ScottTreiber, on 30 June 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Here, Here, I hope Apple wins all those patent suits and corners the market so they can charge $5000 dollars instead of $500 for a tablet and then we wouldn't have to worry about NEW features at all. Apple could just sit on their prior successes and charge us an arm and leg for the exact same thing except only a little faster. OH WAIT! They already do that, iPad 1-3 whats the difference? ones a little smaller, and faster. These Patent suits just stifle innovation and your a fool if you think it doesn't.

ChrisTitus, on 30 June 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

When used the way Apple is using them, they can absolutely stifle progress. Thanks to Apple for progressing us past Blackberry and Treo, but I wouldn't have granted patent protection for much of what I'm seeing them obtain these days. Like Amazon's One-Click to purchase. Yet another bogus patent.

These conversations would be simpler if people stopped hating and started thinking.

First of all, Apple's iPhone and iPad were industry-creating innovations. Also, like it or not, android phones and tablets are attempted copies of said iPhone and iPad, and the only room for opinion is whether the copies improved on the original or whether they became fake-Rolexes. To the hardworking innovators at Apple, the whole android competition would seem like a cheat of their work.

Meanwhile, though Apple probably has a legitimate excuse to call foul over patent infringement, it doesn't mean they should. For starters, it's horrible PR and makes them look like legal d*cks. Another thing is that if Apple succeeds in crushing android, they have to worry about the US Government pulling them apart like string cheese. Finally, if Apple products are better (in my opinion, they are) why does Apple need to try so hard to crush them?

Just my thoughts.