Technology catch-all thread

[lostfan]

Not to mention a smaller scale operation to see if everything works OK.

KC is actually a pretty decently-sized city.

[southsider2k5]

KC is actually a pretty decently-sized city.

 

As compared to a NYC or LA, it is nothing. It makes sense to try it out on a smaller city to work the kinks out.

[bmags]

KC is actually a pretty decently-sized city.

 

It's very wide open though. It has a small, dense downtown, but beside that there's quite a bit of area to add infrastructure. Try doing that in NYC or San fran and it would be ridiculous.

[Balta1701]

Verdict has been reached in the enormous Apple/Samsung patent trial.

[Balta1701]

Samsung found to have infringed on Apples patents. Will have to pay Apple more than $1 billion, largest patent liability ever.

[Soxbadger]

Samsung found to have infringed on Apples patents. Will have to pay Apple more than $1 billion, largest patent liability ever.

 

I havent followed at all, I know Samsung split with Apple in Korea.

 

Id have to imagine Samsung will appeal.

[Y2HH]

I havent followed at all, I know Samsung split with Apple in Korea.

 

Id have to imagine Samsung will appeal.

 

They will, just to prolong it. More often than not, appealing these decisions results in even higher damages...I think this was a terrible decision by Samsung from the get go. They should have just settled with Apple and/or did a cross licensing agreement and paid a small royalty if it came to that. I know this was discussed between Apple and Samsung for years before any of the lawsuits occurred.

 

Apple buys over 3 billion dollars worth of Samsung components every quarter (yes, BILLION)...that's around 12 billion a year in revenue from ONE customer. Since this mess started, Apple...their BIGGEST customer has been looking elsewhere for components. A win or a loss results in a loss for Samsung in this case...which is why I say it was an ill advised choice from the start. They'd have been better off paying Apple a minor royalty instead of not only potentially losing the case (which ended up happening), but losing Apples business. Samsung will be lucky if Apple is still a customer of theirs at all in a year or two, considering how much business they've been giving to LG, Sharp, and other Samsung competitors in place of buying from Samsung in the past year.

 

Even if Samsung somehow wins the appeal, which they probably won't, they're looking at losing upwards of 14 billion dollars worth of revenue a year. This was simply stupid.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

They will, just to prolong it. More often than not, appealing these decisions results in even higher damages...I think this was a terrible decision by Samsung from the get go. They should have just settled with Apple and/or did a cross licensing agreement and paid a small royalty if it came to that. I know this was discussed between Apple and Samsung for years before any of the lawsuits occurred.

 

Apple buys over 3 billion dollars worth of Samsung components every quarter (yes, BILLION)...that's around 12 billion a year in revenue from ONE customer. Since this mess started, Apple...their BIGGEST customer has been looking elsewhere for components. A win or a loss results in a loss for Samsung in this case...which is why I say it was an ill advised choice from the start. They'd have been better off paying Apple a minor royalty instead of not only potentially losing the case (which ended up happening), but losing Apples business. Samsung will be lucky if Apple is still a customer of theirs at all in a year or two, considering how much business they've been giving to LG, Sharp, and other Samsung competitors in place of buying from Samsung in the past year.

 

Even if Samsung somehow wins the appeal, which they probably won't, they're looking at losing upwards of 14 billion dollars worth of revenue a year. This was simply stupid.

This ruling also means that Apple owns several basic elements of smartphone design, like the "pinch to zoom" feature and so forth. This could also be really bad for consumers...imagine one company having the patent design on the mouse, or the keyboard.

[StrangeSox]

Instead of fostering innovation and marketplace choice, patents are just strangling it now.

[iamshack]

Instead of fostering innovation and marketplace choice, patents are just strangling it now.

You don't seem to see the other side of the coin...

[kev211]

Things I love about apple.

 

If you have a warranty and your iPhone malfunctions they pretty much replace it no questions asked in minutes.

[StrangeSox]

You don't seem to see the other side of the coin...

 

I'm not opposed to patents in general, but they're getting ridiculous. Patenting basic interface functionality or form factor severely limits the marketplace. Like Balta said, it'd be like someone holding a twenty year patent on the mouse.

[Balta1701]

You don't seem to see the other side of the coin...

Has Samsungs infringement on Apples patents prevented Apple from getting a suitable reward for their innovations?

[Y2HH]

Has Samsungs infringement on Apples patents prevented Apple from getting a suitable reward for their innovations?

 

Quite possibly, yes. Every person that buys a Samsung phone did not buy an Apple phone. Wow...that was pretty easy to demonstrate. Especially considering Samsung walked away from negotiations that would have allowed them to license these design ideas.

 

Patents are a good idea, but the way the American patent system has shifted into patenting broad/general ideas is troubling. That said, and do note, a lot of phones have pinch to zoom, etc...and only Samsung is being sued. Most companies entered a cross licensing agreement with Apple on these patents, and other patents. Apple/Microsoft/Nokia have a complete cross licensing agreement in place now.

 

Also, note that while Apple is the one firing nukes now, they aren't the ones that started the patent wars. People seem to forget the 600 Million Apple lost to Nokia not long ago (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/nokia-likely-netted-600-million-plus-in-apple-patent-settlement/50590).

 

While the media coverage of the very popular Apple brand/lawsuits dominates, let's keep in mind that they're ALL suing each other.

[Balta1701]

Quite possibly, yes. Every person that buys a Samsung phone did not buy an Apple phone. Wow...that was pretty easy to demonstrate. Especially considering Samsung walked away from negotiations that would have allowed them to license these design ideas.

The goal of patents is not to allow a company infinite revenue every time it gets a good idea, it is to allow them a sufficient reward to make the invention effort worth it. Thus, you didn't actually demonstrate what you think you did. Apple has gotten a substantial reward in terms of sales for everything they've brought to the market. The question is...should it be able to use government intervention to make sure that no one else can step into that market?

[Y2HH]

The goal of patents is not to allow a company infinite revenue every time it gets a good idea, it is to allow them a sufficient reward to make the invention effort worth it. Thus, you didn't actually demonstrate what you think you did. Apple has gotten a substantial reward in terms of sales for everything they've brought to the market. The question is...should it be able to use government intervention to make sure that no one else can step into that market?

 

I demonstrated exactly what I think I did. If Samsung wanted to use those patented design ideas, they should have paid a royalty for them, which would have been the sufficient reward making the invention effort worth it. Samsung didn't bother coming up with much of their own, they just took it from everyone else. How does that reward Apple?

 

No different than Apple, who should have paid a royalty to Nokia, and refused to do so, and then lost 600Million dollars to Nokia. If Nokia had some patented ideas that Apple decided to use for free (which they did), that's not giving Nokia the sufficient reward they're entitled too.

 

Just because Apple made billions off of their patented inventions, doesn't mean other companies should be able to steal them for free, too. Which is pretty much exactly what you're saying here.

[Balta1701]

The job of patents is not to protect Apple to infinity. The job of patents is to protect people who produce ideas enough to reward them but not so much as to stifle competition.

 

Is the consumer better off if Samsung is putting out phones with the same basic setup as Apple, a few years later, and pushing Apple to make better products themselves? Or is the consumer better off if only Apple can ever use those ideas?

 

No one would benefit if Xerox still had control over the concept of a mouse.

[iamshack]

The goal of patents is not to allow a company infinite revenue every time it gets a good idea, it is to allow them a sufficient reward to make the invention effort worth it. Thus, you didn't actually demonstrate what you think you did. Apple has gotten a substantial reward in terms of sales for everything they've brought to the market. The question is...should it be able to use government intervention to make sure that no one else can step into that market?

It is not infinite. Not sure where you've gotten that from the patent law.

 

So is this what we are referring to "the law" as now? "Government intervention"?

 

Nice one.

[G&T]

The job of patents is not to protect Apple to infinity. The job of patents is to protect people who produce ideas enough to reward them but not so much as to stifle competition.

Is the consumer better off if Samsung is putting out phones with the same basic setup as Apple, a few years later, and pushing Apple to make better products themselves? Or is the consumer better off if only Apple can ever use those ideas?

 

No one would benefit if Xerox still had control over the concept of a mouse.

 

Actually not really. Patent law is seen as a sort of exception to antitrust. Furthermore, if Samsung could show that they created everything independently, there would be no infringement. Clearly that isn't what happened. Last, if you want competition, then tell Samsung to make something truly innovative.

 

And it isn't infinite.

 

Edit: and the mouse is a bad example. What Jobs did was took the idea and "improved it" by making it with one button. There's nothing wrong with that.

Edited August 27, 2012 by G&T

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Actually not really. Patent law is seen as a sort of exception to antitrust. Furthermore, if Samsung could show that they created everything independently, there would be no infringement. Clearly that isn't what happened. Last, if you want competition, then tell Samsung to make something truly innovative.

 

And it isn't infinite.

 

Edit: and the mouse is a bad example. What Jobs did was took the idea and "improved it" by making it with one button. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

I would hardly say 1-button is an improvement. I can never figure out how to use those apple mouses. He messed with a good thing.

[Quin]

I own a MacBook (for school) and have to use Macs at the J-School and still don't understand why the f*** Jobs got rid of the right click.

[southsider2k5]

It is not infinite. Not sure where you've gotten that from the patent law.

 

So is this what we are referring to "the law" as now? "Government intervention"?

 

Nice one.

 

I agree to these terms.

[Balta1701]

Well, Flash player updated this morning and the description included the phrase "MAJOR performance improvements" (caps theirs). Let's see if it actually means it, it's spent 3 months crashing my computer daily ever since the last update.

[chw42]

They will, just to prolong it. More often than not, appealing these decisions results in even higher damages...I think this was a terrible decision by Samsung from the get go. They should have just settled with Apple and/or did a cross licensing agreement and paid a small royalty if it came to that. I know this was discussed between Apple and Samsung for years before any of the lawsuits occurred.

 

Apple buys over 3 billion dollars worth of Samsung components every quarter (yes, BILLION)...that's around 12 billion a year in revenue from ONE customer. Since this mess started, Apple...their BIGGEST customer has been looking elsewhere for components. A win or a loss results in a loss for Samsung in this case...which is why I say it was an ill advised choice from the start. They'd have been better off paying Apple a minor royalty instead of not only potentially losing the case (which ended up happening), but losing Apples business. Samsung will be lucky if Apple is still a customer of theirs at all in a year or two, considering how much business they've been giving to LG, Sharp, and other Samsung competitors in place of buying from Samsung in the past year.

 

Even if Samsung somehow wins the appeal, which they probably won't, they're looking at losing upwards of 14 billion dollars worth of revenue a year. This was simply stupid.

 

Apple was asking for $30-$40 per device for those royalties back in 2010. Samsung might have paid more in this had they agreed to those royalties.

 

Samsung is also one of the leading manufacturers in components. Unless Apple wants to go to Intel (not possible at the moment), they won't find a better partner.

Edited August 27, 2012 by chw42

[RockRaines]

I own a MacBook (for school) and have to use Macs at the J-School and still don't understand why the f*** Jobs got rid of the right click.

He didnt, you can right click very easily by using your right finger.