Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#41

Post by gareim »

justinschuh wrote: post #25
gareim wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a source for that? If this is true, that changes quite a lot. Also, how do you feel about Samsung asking for 2.4% of the chip price for a single patent when there are so, so many patents that go into making a device like the iPhone? Is that fair? Edit: Forget about the source, I found some very easily (Google "samsung frand qualcomm"). But still, I think it's quite discriminatory to demand from Apple…

Let's try that question the other way. Is it fair that Apple is trying to extort $27 per device out of Samsung (many times more than Samsung is asking for on its FRAND patents)? While we're at it, is it fair that non-iPhone users in the US subsidize Apple's huge profit margins? Because, Apple demands such a high subsidy (and competitive pricing on-contract) that the carriers make the difference up on other customers.…

It is absolutely fair. Apple's patents aren't FRAND and so they can ask for whatever they want to ask for and Samsung has the option to either use it or not. It's not that simple when it comes to FRAND patents because the whole point of FRAND patents is to ensure that everyone uses it so that fragmentation doesn't occur in necessary standards. 2.4% for a single patent when there are potentially hundreds of patents is ridiculous. There's no way you can argue against that. How many patents go into making a phone? Samsung wants 2.4% for each one.

And yes, it's absolutely fair (about the subsidizing). That's how the market voted and that's how the carriers decided to do business. Majority rules here. If you don't like it, then vote with your wallet. Go to T-Mobile.

As a sidenote, I'm currently using a Samsung Galaxy S III on T-Mobile. But I still think what Samsung is doing with FRAND patents is wrong.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#42

Post by Peaker »

josephlord wrote: post #30
Peaker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is a patent may be worth so much because it is so trivial that doing anything else is silly. Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.

I'm not sure that really is the case. Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone. Either that should have generated clear prior art or there are other options that aren't silly. If Apple came up with something new that really makes all the old ways seem silly maybe it really is a valuable technology that they can charge high prices for. If the Apple patent is shown to be i…

> Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone

They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option.

When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#43

Post by josephlord »

Peaker wrote: post #42
josephlord wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that really is the case. Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone. Either that should have generated clear prior art or there are other options that aren't silly. If Apple came up with something new that really makes all the old ways seem silly maybe it really is a valuable technology that they can charge high prices for. If the Apple patent is shown to be i…

> Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option. When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.

If that is the case anyone can work around the patent for the cost of a hardware button.

Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#44

Post by Peaker »

josephlord wrote: post #43
Peaker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option. When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.

If that is the case anyone can work around the patent for the cost of a hardware button. Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.

Then what you consider the invention here is really the touch screen and not the unlocking. Adding a physical button just for unlocking is less obvious than just using a gesture already available.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#45

Post by josephlord »

Peaker wrote: post #44
josephlord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case anyone can work around the patent for the cost of a hardware button. Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.

Then what you consider the invention here is really the touch screen and not the unlocking. Adding a physical button just for unlocking is less obvious than just using a gesture already available.

A touchscreen is an invention but people managed to use touchscreens without slide to unlock for years. That is a separate and dependent invention.

Either the designers didn't think about this approach or thought it wasn't the best solution. If anyone produced such a solution or documented it the patent should be invalidated for prior art.

My initial reaction to the patent was probably that is a bit trivial but better than many that get granted and that there should be plenty of workarounds. The slide to unlock definitely seems obvious once you have seen it but I'm not sure it is so obvious before you have seen it (it's quite hard to unwind your mind to a state of unknowing). You certainly need to asking the right questions: how can we remove all the buttons, how do you prevent it waking too easily.

There is no need for touchscreen phones to go completely buttonless. That is a design choice not an essential feature to exist in the market.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#46

Post by josephlord »

justinschuh wrote: post #38
josephlord wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Samsung is asking everyone for the same absolute (not percentage) rate and isn't demanding cross licenses then Apple should have to pay that rate (assuming the patents are valid). I'm not sure that contradicts anything that I said. I think Samsung can raise invalidity issues in the case before the judge/jury. If Apples patents are deemed invalid then they will get nothing. The Apple patents that I'm aware of are f…

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you're even making here. You seem to be redefining the parameters to what's strictly legal in a system you agree is seriously flawed. But that's not where the thread of this conversation started. I never claimed what Apple was doing was illegal. Someone accused Samsung of behaving "unfairly," so I pointed to Apple's unfairness. As far as the law is concerned both parties are stil…

I know this is an old thread but I think I do want to respond.

Legally the court will decide but that doesn't mean that we can't have views or that either company is necessarily behaving legally (if you steal something you aren't behaving legally until convicted). For my perspective I am assuming all patents valid (if they are invalidated the license fees are no problem as they will be zero).

Samsung is in my view breaching promises made to the world including me and threatening the whole standardisation process. At the very least everyone needs to understand just how weak FRAND commitments are and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If allowed to stand Samsung's view of FRAND could do massive global harm as it will mean even more desperate fights to keep patented technologies out of standards where the patents are owned by companies not trusted to 'do the right thing' which could lead towards standardisation deadlock. It could also lead to all sorts of other companies all trying to extract all the value of standards making them unaffordable in many use cases.

Compared to this I really can't see anything unfair at all in what Apple is doing. Saying if you want to use this unnecessary feature you have to pay us a lot of money sounds fair to me, you can freely choose not to use it (damages/back licenses before the patents are confirmed by a court should probably be lower). The damages claims are just claims I don't expect to be fully granted but that is just the system isn't it, claim the moon on a stick expecting to get half a stick at the end.

Post reply on HN