Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Apple vs Samsung trial


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   klang

klang

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,268 posts
  • LocationNear Houston, TX
Joined: Oct 14, 2003

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:23 AM

This may actually be good for consumers in the long run as Samsung and others will have to invent new designs that don't infringe on Apples patents.

I don't necessarily agree that some of this stuff deserves a patent but the system needs to be changed to stop it.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:27 PM

Veneration has nothing to do with the verdict.

Do you have some reason to loathe Apple? Have any products of theirs?


have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased

#23 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,563 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:36 PM

have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased


Literally shredded?? That's quite a monetary hit!

But why do you detest the company, if I may ask.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#24 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:40 PM

Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had some great ideas, which they want to charge a premium for. Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.


ever wonder how many hundreds of million dollars go into the development of the drug and the additional hunreds of millions of dollars that go in for the acceptace testing by the fda for new drugs?

A single pivotal human subject study by a cro for their company can run 1 - 2 million dollars for the single study, that is the first human testing that is done, prior to that there are numerous other test that are trun. As far as generic the lipitor patent ended in 2011, generics where testing back in 2009 - the cost to develop the generic and human testing of the drug is a lot cheaper then the development of the new drug. Sorry comparing Apple's development to a drug released for human consumption is invalid, although a lot of peple believe the apple is as addictive as some of the drugs onthe market. Apple just has to deal with the patent office, drug companies have to deal with fda regulations, which make everything else look like a piker in cost

#25 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:42 PM

Literally shredded?? That's quite a monetary hit!

But why do you detest the company, if I may ask.


yes, shredding, the devices is use in biohazardous conditions, they cannot be resused or resold, they have to be disposed of

The reason I detest the company and their attitudes are personal and date back to when they where second in releasing a home computer for normal use

#26 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,563 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:45 PM

Ah, thanks, I didn't imagine that scenario.
And sorry for your long ago experience that still bugs you. I have a few, but fortunately the companies are all in descendency now.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#27 OFFLINE   Fluthy

Fluthy

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 202 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2008

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:54 PM

One positive of the ruling is that we probably won't see Touchwiz for awhile. All the phones with vanilla android were considered to not infringe.

#28 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 347 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 25 August 2012 - 02:40 PM

ever wonder how many hundreds of million dollars go into the development of the drug and the additional hunreds of millions of dollars that go in for the acceptace testing by the fda for new drugs?

A single pivotal human subject study by a cro for their company can run 1 - 2 million dollars for the single study, that is the first human testing that is done, prior to that there are numerous other test that are trun. As far as generic the lipitor patent ended in 2011, generics where testing back in 2009 - the cost to develop the generic and human testing of the drug is a lot cheaper then the development of the new drug. Sorry comparing Apple's development to a drug released for human consumption is invalid, although a lot of peple believe the apple is as addictive as some of the drugs onthe market. Apple just has to deal with the patent office, drug companies have to deal with fda regulations, which make everything else look like a piker in cost



Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it. If anything, I think people are giving Samsung too much credit. They (and Google) were obviously trying to steal from a popular game-changing product, and they got busted for it.

#29 OFFLINE   RasputinAXP

RasputinAXP

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,135 posts
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:00 PM

Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it.



Not anymore it shouldn't.

"Belligerent and numerous."

Sometimes I update the Dish Network FAQ

AT200, Hopper & 360 via HDMI to Onkyo 505 to basement 42" Westy, Hopper via Comp-over-Cat5 to living room 42" Vizio with a Roku 3, Joey to Toshiba 32" LCD with a Logitech Revue. You want fries with that? Pull up to the 2nd window.


#30 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,412 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

Not anymore it shouldn't.


A character like Mickey Mouse should not be used by anyone without Disney's permission. If anyone could use him, the average consumer would think that Disney was involved. They should have the right to protect an iconic character like that. Someone should not have free reign to have Mickey do whatever they want for their purposes.

#31 OFFLINE   BubblePuppy

BubblePuppy

    Good night dear Smoke... love you & "got your butt...&a

  • Registered
  • 5,239 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2006

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:20 PM

Walt Disney didn't sue Izzy Klein because Mickey and Mighty were both meeses.
However Apple was sued and lost over a mouse. ;-)
Thanks to Google search, people can appear to be smarter than they really are.

#32 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,714 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:51 PM

The patent system, particularly when it comes to software patents, is very broken.


+1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

#33 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,412 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:56 PM

Interview with a juror. I haven't looked at all the reports during trial, but if there literally were emails within Samsung about what Apple features to copy, there is little room for the jury to think they didn't violate the patents.

http://news.cnet.com...ror-speaks-out/

#34 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:57 PM

Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it. If anything, I think people are giving Samsung too much credit. They (and Google) were obviously trying to steal from a popular game-changing product, and they got busted for it.


follow the response in context, the patent protects the drug company and allows them to recoup their losses, after a specifc amount of time - set forth by the fda other companies can capitalize on the original development by the company and bring a generic to market and a lot less development cost then the original developer. for the comparision to be accurate then the patent law for "apple" needs to be the same.

I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.


this is the only accurate statement made

The patent system, particularly when it comes to software patents, is very broken.


given the simple fact of the short time between relase and reposnes, I really doubt that any of the jurors spent more time figuring what they wanted for dinner then going over the evidence. hopefully the appelas are in the works already

Edited by wingrider01, 25 August 2012 - 04:07 PM.


#35 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:59 PM

Seems to me the jury already had their mind made up. What a shame...


so very true

#36 OFFLINE   RasputinAXP

RasputinAXP

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,135 posts
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:10 PM

A character like Mickey Mouse should not be used by anyone without Disney's permission. If anyone could use him, the average consumer would think that Disney was involved. They should have the right to protect an iconic character like that. Someone should not have free reign to have Mickey do whatever they want for their purposes.


Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.

That really grinds my gears.

"Belligerent and numerous."

Sometimes I update the Dish Network FAQ

AT200, Hopper & 360 via HDMI to Onkyo 505 to basement 42" Westy, Hopper via Comp-over-Cat5 to living room 42" Vizio with a Roku 3, Joey to Toshiba 32" LCD with a Logitech Revue. You want fries with that? Pull up to the 2nd window.


#37 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,412 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:35 PM

Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.

That really grinds my gears.


I'm fine with a book going out of copyright, but not sure any company should be able to use an iconic character to sell whatever product they want (knowing that federal law prevents Mickey from hawking cigarettes), or being used in some weird type of porn.

#38 OFFLINE   BubblePuppy

BubblePuppy

    Good night dear Smoke... love you & "got your butt...&a

  • Registered
  • 5,239 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2006

Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:38 PM

Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.

That really grinds my gears.


From the Copyright website

For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.
For more information, check out the PDF file of Circular 15a on the length of copyright protection.


Mickey was created in 1928. Do the math. Mickey's copyright has a few good years ahead of him.
Thanks to Google search, people can appear to be smarter than they really are.

#39 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,412 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:56 PM

Though I think Disney had a large part in the extentions, particularly the Sonny Bono 1998 act.

But thinking about it more, when he does expire, it would probably be the Steamboat Willie version, not the more recognizable modern look.

#40 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,412 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 25 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

Interview with a different juror.


http://www.reuters.c...E87O09U20120825




spam firewall