What I think is fundamentally wrong with the way the patent system is applied today is that in many instances it serves as nothing more than an artificial monopoly only benefitting the patent holder.<p>The idea of the patent system in itself is actually quite elegant. Government grants a temporary monopoly in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention. Everyone wins! The person issued the patent can more easily profit from their invention because they can work in the open. Society likewise benefits, no more secret guilds locking up knowledge, now everyone can see how it's done (and apply it once the monopoly expires).<p>As a social contract this really makes sense. The problem is that a lot of the patents being thrown around today only really satisfy half of that contract. A temporary monopoly is indeed granted, but the disclosure received in exchange is worthless information. I say it is worthless because no one actually needs to read that disclosure to figure out how to do it themselves with basically no effort.<p>Of the large companies, it seems to me that Apple is one of the worse offenders at exploiting the patent system in this way. Don't get me wrong, what they are doing is perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it OK. It does seem like Apple is following the legal rules and Samsung is thrashing around attempting to break them (perhaps feeling they have little alternative). But that doesn't mean that our legal system is perfect and cases like this will hopefully help us understand how it can be fixed to prevent this kind of exploitation in the future.
I have to say that I am happy to see a major company saying what everyone is thinking. It is truly absurd that Apple has the audacity to claim some 'we invented it' right to any type of Cellphone tech or Tablet hardware.<p>ALL Apples success is derived from the UI/UX side and the fact that iTunes laid the pavement for the 'app' concept.<p>Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only turn people off their products, and once the 'Steve Jobs effect' wears off, they are nothing but another company selling cellphones and tablets.<p>And then, it might be time to look elsewhere for your 401k investment.
I'm so bored of all this. It's like watching my parents going through their divorce - pretty much everything ended up with petty point scoring, and at the end of the day, the kids are the ones that got hurt.<p>edit: And their legal representatives made a rather nice chunk of change.
This case has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with Jobs/Apple throwing a tantrum. There are so many overly broad and trivial patents that companies have no choice but to ignore them. Standard procedure is to acquire your own stash of broad and trivial patents so that other companies won't bother getting involved in a legal battle with you.<p>This time though, Jobs thought Samsung and Google crossed the line in the scope and extent to which android devices copied the iPhone and iPad. So he started this patent war to spite them. I think everyone involved knows that nothing will come of this except legal fees.
Linked article is basically just an edited copy of linked WSJ article: <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/24/the-apple-samsung-trial-what-samsung-will-attempt-to-prove/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/24/the-apple-samsung-trial-...</a>
Steal != legally licensed (from Qualcomm, et al)<p>Look, from the 20,000 foot view, I think Apple's (ab)use of the patent system is pretty lame. But, this is just grandstanding on Samsung's part. If they have a legitimate legal complaint, I'm sure they'll bring it up in court. And then we'll see.
And then<p><a href="http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/" rel="nofollow">http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-a...</a><p>happened.<p>From Apple's brief:<p><i>In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”<p>In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.<p>As part of a formal, Samsung-sponsored evaluation, famous designers warned Samsung that the Galaxy S “looked like it copied the iPhone too much,” and that “innovation is needed.” The designers explained that the appearance of the Galaxy S “[c]losely resembles the iPhone shape so as to have no distinguishable elements,” and “[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it’s difficult to find anything different from the iPhone.”</i>
I wonder if Apple is stepping into some really muddy territory with their legal brouhaha.<p>While Apple's patents center around their HW and SW design, from what I understand, Samsung, Motorola, et. al's patents include some fundamental WiFi and communication patents that could be a huge counterpunch towards Apple.
While watching this battle, I always wonder what sort of covenants exist on Samsung's supply agreements with Apple. I was wondering after reading the article why Samsung doesn't just stop selling them parts, or raise the price of the parts 100% or something like that. Seems like they should be able to 'earn back' all the money they are spending defending themselves and cause Apple double pain. But they don't.<p>And the other thing I wonder is if any of Apple's behavior is hurting them in the supply chain. If you make components that Apple uses and also make products in another part of the company for resale, do you put language in that Apple can't sue you? Or that you don't have to honor purchase orders if they do? Something?
"Apple has admitted in internal documents that its strength is not in developing new technologies first, but in successfully commercializing them" - and that is why they WIN! Who cares whose technology came first. Samsung couldn't execute and Apple could. If we had it the Samsung way, Nokia 7200 flip phone would still be the standard of mobile technology. <i>shivers</i>
This is not news. The cell phone industry has a long history of petty non-novel patents, such as for vibrating _and_ ringing at the same time. A phone with a screen, a grid of icons and round corners sounds equally petty.