1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apple vs Samsung trial

Discussion in 'Tech Talk - Gadgets, Gizmos and Technology' started by dpeters11, Aug 24, 2012.

  1. klang

    klang Hall Of Fame

    1,268
    2
    Oct 14, 2003
    Near...
    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.
     
  2. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    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
     
  3. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Literally shredded?? That's quite a monetary hit!

    But why do you detest the company, if I may ask.
     
  4. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    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
     
  5. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    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
     
  6. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    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.
     
  7. Fluthy

    Fluthy Legend

    202
    0
    Feb 8, 2008
    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.
     
  8. Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008

    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.
     
  9. RasputinAXP

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    3,145
    12
    Jan 23, 2008

    Not anymore it shouldn't.
     
  10. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,344
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     
  11. BubblePuppy

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

    5,283
    5
    Nov 3, 2006
    Walt Disney didn't sue Izzy Klein because Mickey and Mighty were both meeses.
    However Apple was sued and lost over a mouse. ;-)
     
  12. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,371
    51
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    +1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  13. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,344
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
  14. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    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.

    this is the only accurate statement made

    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
     
  15. wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    so very true
     
  16. RasputinAXP

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    3,145
    12
    Jan 23, 2008
    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.
     
  17. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,344
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     
  18. BubblePuppy

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

    5,283
    5
    Nov 3, 2006
    From the Copyright website
    Mickey was created in 1928. Do the math. Mickey's copyright has a few good years ahead of him.
     
  19. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,344
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     

Share This Page