Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.

Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all

I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylerk36 

Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianopoet 

Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??

It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

I love all the different parallels in this image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.

It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

Lets give the straw man to samsung he needs a brain.

The ``Throw it all the wall and see what sticks'' approach will implode leaving a big rift within Samsung.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.

It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.

What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?

Samsung are just REAL petty with some of the claims that i am looking at.  I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read, it looked like a bunch of BULLSHIT.  Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.    Personally, I wonder if the US should help the South Koreans against the North Koreans..  Samsung needs to decide if they want to be a component supplier or not.  Unfortunately the Korean Government is too stupid to shut down Samsung's unethical conflict of interest business practices.

Microsoft is essentially now doing basically the same thing.  First they are just an OS and app developer and since their OEM customers can't seem to get enough market share in the smartphone and tablet market, now MIcrosoft is making the products themselves along with making money from the licenses of their OS from their OEM.