Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#131

Post by jsz0 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 5:16 AM UTC

ericdykstra wrote: post #40

Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple the company because of this? It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology (in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of copycat-like activity). Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing…

Since everyone is suing everyone else I don't know why people want to single out Apple. They got hit pretty hard by Nokia a couple years ago. I think they learned a hard lesson about how the game really works. I don't know how to draw the distinction between Apple offensively suing Samsung and Motorola offensively suing Apple -- or for that matter Samsung counter-suing Apple. It's all the same game and everyone is playing by the same rules. It seems the biggest difference is Apple (and Microsoft via licensing) are having success while companies who were best known for selling microwaves 5 years ago are losing. I don't mean to mock Samsung because they do make pretty good devices but the time-line is simply on Apple's side here.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#132

Post by dguaraglia » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 5:18 AM UTC

rogerchucker wrote: post #55

Can Google not sue to invalidate that "Siri" patent because of prior art? I thought this kind of unified search existed back in the days of Google Desktop...

Back in the day of Copernicus if you want to go far enough (lol, I wonder how many people would actually get that reference... it was an old program that'd search for your terms in a bunch of search engines and display the results in a unified interface)

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#133

Post by chacham15 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 5:30 AM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #2

>According to Judge Koh, “Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm” in its argument against Samsung and the Galaxy Nexus, because of “long-term loss of market share” along with “losses of downstream sales.” This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are celebrating tonight. EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge may issue an injunction fo…

Your exact claim has been taken into account, just the opposite direction: "Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#134

Post by throwaway64 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 5:36 AM UTC

jsz0 wrote: post #71

notatoad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, th…

You're trying to apply common-sense to law. That doesn't work. The court has to assume the patent is valid until it's proven otherwise. The patent was legitimately granted though it can and will be challenged. This is important because it explains why these patents are continuously being tested in the court. Apple is being offensively sued by various parties themselves. They need to have strong patents that have been…

do you really think blatent patent trolling of competitors is all just a defensive move?

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#135

Post by throwaway64 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 5:44 AM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #129

dguaraglia wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting. But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (…

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

what an absurdly wrongheaded statement, do you really think that Google depended on patent protection to stop others from using PageRank, and even if they did, how could it ever be conclusively proven that PageRank was used by somebody else?

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#136

Post by masry » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:46 AM UTC

throwaway64 wrote: post #135

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

what an absurdly wrongheaded statement, do you really think that Google depended on patent protection to stop others from using PageRank, and even if they did, how could it ever be conclusively proven that PageRank was used by somebody else?

What the hell? How is the PageRank patent not protection to Google? If Yahoo, LiveSearch and whatever other famous search engine just went ahead and ripped off Google then Google wouldn't be the Google we know now... Proving it shouldn't be any more difficult than asserting any patent. The defendant would have to show how they're ranking pages I would imagine, and if there's an infringement, they're found guilty.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#137

Post by entropy_ » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:49 AM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #110

ericdykstra wrote: post #40

Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple the company because of this? It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology (in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of copycat-like activity). Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing…

What if you are the innovative company and somebody is coming along and stealing every innovation you put in front of the market? Since they are one step behind, they don't have to spend money on the innovations that fail, thereby having much lower costs than you do? This is much more complicated than "Dude, Apple are such duches. They can't think of anything new so they just sue everybody." IP protection in the US (…

Well, yes, but the trouble here is the particular patent for which this injunction was granted. If they had used patents that were actually innovative things which their competitors were copying then I'd be sympathetic. But a really vague patent that covers search stuff? Really? Is that what makes the iPhone so great that Google skimped on R&D costs by simply copying?(I know Samsung is the defender here, but it's a software patent and the software was written by Google)

This just doesn't make sense. While I understand your point of view from a patents-in-general perspective, I simply cannot sympathize with Apple in this particular case. I concede that they are operating within legal bounds but I cannot give them the moral high ground of being poor oppressed inventors who are being copied.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#138

Post by kenster07 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:54 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #88

kenster07 wrote: post #36

Apple is implicitly admitting Samsung is a huge threat to them. Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a…

You don't have to be a huge threat to be worth squeezing money out of. Huge threat? I don't think so. Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important. But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a year off from releasing a ne…

m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales-profit?cat=technology&type=article

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#139

Post by rogerchucker » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:55 AM UTC

When will Anonymous take down Apple?

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#140

Post by entropy_ » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 6:58 AM UTC

gcb wrote: post #51

Hope you felt good upvoting all those articles stating how ridiculous patent law is FROM YOUR DAMN APPLE DEVICES Time to vote with your wallet is way overdue. And while you're at it may think about the Sony stuff you own.

Well, I'm reading this from my GNex :-)