HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Hmmm, if Apple asks for something, it is fair. If Samsung asks for the very same thing...it's harassment. Heh, lawsuits are entertaining. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple: Samsung Request Is Harassment
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Kalabalana
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,313
Apple isn't about ethics, it's about opportunity. The legal team will do everything it can to destroy the competition, and make money.
Morality is such a human thing.
Morality is such a human thing.
RogueKitsune
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Messages
- 110
Apple needs to get off their high horse and stfu. They should be taught a lesson on that you can't patent every god damn thing in the world. ie hand gestures or the words "app store" etc. To be allowed to do so is just ridiculous. While i think apple products are niffty (and super overpriced), i hate apple as a company for this kind of BS
wasteomind
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 522
I agree. In fact, the entire patent/copyright/trademark system needs a serious overhaul. The amount of lawsuits solely designed to make money rather than defend ones rights/property in the US is beyond stupid at this point.
The request from Apple actually makes sense. They claim Samsung is infringing on their intellectual property, so they need examples of Samsung's upcoming (and publicly announced already) stuff to 'prove' it and stop the sale.
Samsung's claim doesn't. "Uh, Apple is claiming our stuff uses their tech, so even though we're claiming we don't infringe, we need their future (unannounced) stuff to, uh...."
Samsung's claim doesn't. "Uh, Apple is claiming our stuff uses their tech, so even though we're claiming we don't infringe, we need their future (unannounced) stuff to, uh...."
I'm with Apple with this. Apple requested to see phones that Samsung had all but announced. Google code people had them, the FCC had them, they were shown at trade shows, etc. If you keep up with phones barely you probably knew they were coming. Yet, all Samsung can request is a phone based off rumors. No doubt Apple knows this and is going to wait till the very last moment to announce because of this.
Then why ask for a phone they are about to release? So they can squash millions of dollars of r&d or to prove they copied Apple's designs? And if Samsung wants the Apple designs ahead of time so they don't waste millions again on r&d, doesn't that sound reasonable? I am playing devil's advocate but truly, if Samsung is found to have no fault in copying Apple in all of this, does Apple just wait for a new phone to come out to sue Samsung or get an injunction against the release so they are delayed over and over again?
Actually Samsung has sued Apple as well claiming Apple is infringing on Samsung intellectual property. The same kind of lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung and under which Apple demanded access to future Samsung products.
The same treatment is the only fair way to handle this. If both parties are accusing each other of the same crime, and you grant one side something that says it'll help their case it's only fair to grant the request from the other side when they ask for the exact same thing.
We can start by changing the drug patents. I understand the high costs of R&D, but some of the "$15/pill" prescriptions being handed out is insane and drives up the insurance costs. Something like 3-5years from when the drug hits the market. They can apply for a 2 year extension if they prove that they have not made an acceptable profit over the R&D cost.
The whole idea was because Apple wanted to see if the new phones should be added to the lawsuit. The exact devices Apple wanted to see were the S2, Tab 8.9, tab 10.1, Infuse and Charge, or other wise known as phones everyone has known about or in some cases have unofficially had, but at least known about since Mobile World Congress.
If Apple said, We want to see those, and the S3, your next generation Tab, and your next LTE phone after the Charge then yes, Samsung's request is justified, but not when all you have is "Internet reports" and "past practice" The lawsuit is on current or just about to ship products, not one's that haven't been announced, even if everyone expects it
If Apple said, We want to see those, and the S3, your next generation Tab, and your next LTE phone after the Charge then yes, Samsung's request is justified, but not when all you have is "Internet reports" and "past practice" The lawsuit is on current or just about to ship products, not one's that haven't been announced, even if everyone expects it
My take: If apple is doing anything it's crooked.
PS: I have a Samsung TV, Samsung video recorder and an iPOD that tells me I have linked it to too many PC's (because I rebuilt my PC more than 4 times over the last 6 years). I may be biased...
PS: I have a Samsung TV, Samsung video recorder and an iPOD that tells me I have linked it to too many PC's (because I rebuilt my PC more than 4 times over the last 6 years). I may be biased...
How does that make a difference at all? So if you officially announce something, your competitors get access to it in a lawsuit, but if you dont officially announce it they can't access it? Makes zero sense.
considering Samsung has to wait for Apple to actually manufacture a product before claiming the product infringes on their patents it makes perfect sense...it's difficult to take some people seriously when they fail logic this badly
Yeah the people at Apple really are a bunch of hypocritical dicks. They'll shuve someone then go crying home to mommy after they get shuved in return.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
What's happened to all of the Apple fans around here? Normally there are quite a few in these Apple bashing threads, I've not seen any lately.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,887
Keyword: Claim. On both sides.
Maybe they developed some logic and sense?
You highly over-estimate Apple fanboys. If they had ANY of those two things, they wouldent be Apple fanboys in the 1st place!
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
considering Samsung has to wait for Apple to actually manufacture a product before claiming the product infringes on their patents it makes perfect sense...it's difficult to take some people seriously when they fail logic this badly
So do you if you think Apple doesn't have a prototype iPad3 and iPhone5 already in hand.
The main difference between me and you seems to be that I extend my news intake beyond the top links of [H] Front Page News. That means I was aware of the case when it was filed. So yes, now Apple has those devices as they're close to launch, but that wasn't the case when they initially filed for patent infringement and when Samsung petitioned the court for this BS.
Aside from that, I'm going to let you in on what appears to be a little secret to a portion of the [H] readership...if you burglarize my home and I report you to the police, they obtain a search warrant based on evidence and then search your home for my stuff. You don't get to stand there and tell them you don't have it, they can't look inside, and then ask them to search my home too because I might have taken your stuff. That's asinine.
If I go to a judge with a complaint and proper evidence that you copied my shit, and your defense is you did not, then wonders of wonders you have to produce the damn item and show that it doesn't! No one is going to just take your word for it
ShadowStriker
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,669
Just wait! Soon you'll see Samsung features in Apple products, just like when Apple bans apps.
wasteomind
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 522
Naw, the cost of legal fees is made up for by the blatent theft of IP from everyone else in the world. They don't need to spend money on R&D or Advertising ideas since they steal it from everywhere else.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
The main difference between me and you seems to be that I extend my news intake beyond the top links of [H] Front Page News. That means I was aware of the case when it was filed. So yes, now Apple has those devices as they're close to launch, but that wasn't the case when they initially filed for patent infringement and when Samsung petitioned the court for this BS.
Aside from that, I'm going to let you in on what appears to be a little secret to a portion of the [H] readership...if you burglarize my home and I report you to the police, they obtain a search warrant based on evidence and then search your home for my stuff. You don't get to stand there and tell them you don't have it, they can't look inside, and then ask them to search my home too because I might have taken your stuff. That's asinine.
If I go to a judge with a complaint and proper evidence that you copied my shit, and your defense is you did not, then wonders of wonders you have to produce the damn item and show that it doesn't! No one is going to just take your word for it
First, if you followed the news intake when the suit was actually filed, then you would know when it was actually filed, Samsung did not have anything more than an announcement about those products Apple asked to see. Just because Apple is "super secret" does not mean they get to follow a different set of rules. Samsung is perfectly justified asking for the same treatment. And btw, Apple had announced these forthcoming devices. Quid pro quo.
Secondly, you analogy of the theft and ensuing warrant are completely false. That is not actually what happens. Before they can ask for a search warrant for someone's house, you have to have strong evidence 'that' person stole the goods. Then the police needs to hand strong evidence they believe the stolen goods are now in 'that' person's house to a judge. Then the judge has to agree that there is sufficient evidence for the search warrant. The person who is accused of theft does NOT have to let the police in and search. Depending on the search warrant it then MAY give the police the right to break in without your permission. There are many caveats to these types of cases. This is why many thieves end up getting busted when they try to "sell" the goods. This is also why the number of items returned after being stolen is very low and why it is a good idea to have some kind of insurance to cover them.
NoOther, everything you wrote about the warrant process is exactly as I wrote it.
You're just plain wrong with the idea you can refuse police entry when they have a valid warrant.
There are no caveats.
And no, patent infringement cases are not subject to quid pro quo. Quid pro quo doesn't mean what you think it means, btw, if you're going to use it like that.
Samsung isn't arguing that Apple is infringing on them. They are arguing to the judge that they want to see Apple's stuff so they can decide whether they might be subject to further legal action from Apple. Read the facts before trying to correct me.
You're just plain wrong with the idea you can refuse police entry when they have a valid warrant.
There are no caveats.
And no, patent infringement cases are not subject to quid pro quo. Quid pro quo doesn't mean what you think it means, btw, if you're going to use it like that.
Samsung isn't arguing that Apple is infringing on them. They are arguing to the judge that they want to see Apple's stuff so they can decide whether they might be subject to further legal action from Apple. Read the facts before trying to correct me.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Excuse me, but I am not just plain wrong about what I said. Depending on the warrant and what it says you absolutely can refuse entry. This is a free country, you are free until proven guilty. You can always refuse.
I did not say patent lawsuits are "subject" to quid pro quo. I said it is quid pro quo that Samsung is asking for the same treatment Apple is getting. Quid pro quo is a reciprocal exchange. I used it absolutely in the correct context. If the court is going to allow Apple to see future products of Samsung, then they should also allow Samsung to see future products of Apple. They have the same patent law suits going back and forth. And in courtrooms precedence was established by Apple themselves asking to see future products, which is exactly why Samsung requested the same treatment.
The last part is completely laughable. I thought you had read about this from the start? Saumsung is absolutely stating that Apple infringed on them. They counter sued over several of their patents they believe Apple is infringing on. If you have been following this from the start, how do you not know that simple fact?
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Just an update, the request to see Apple's products was part of the original lawsuit Apple had against Samsung, in which Apple claims that future products of Samsung's infringe on their products. So Samsung countersues asking to see Apple's future products so they do not infringe. However, they can also sue under the same auspice's Apple used in Samsung's other suits. So if they do not receive permission to see them in this case, they may get precedent to see them in their counter lawsuits. But the point is still the same, Apple is being completely ridiculous with the whole suit.
Listen, I'm not going to go into my personal life or my credentials, and it's not necessary anyway because you a) won't believe me and b) can simply read the 4th amendment to learn that you have no right from searches when a lawful warrant has been issued.
I don't understand why people do this on forums. you could simply learn something rather than arguing a thread into the ground. you don't have training in this area or you wouldn't be saying the things you're saying,
If if bothers you that much, just drop the analogy. I don't care.
But if nothing else, read this link so you can understand what is going on:
There's a whole page that will walk you through the legal reasoning right here:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/28/samsung-apple-iphone-5-ipad-3/
If you come back and say I'm wrong then it's clear that you haven't read the article so I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you on this.
There's no legal precedent for what Samsung is doing,. You don't have to believe me, just go look in the motion and find Samsung's authorities. What are those? Those are where Samsung cites the cases that give it grounds to make their request. There are none because they don't exist. That's a fact, it's not up for opinion. It's something you can go and either confirm or deny so go read and come back with some case law and an actual legal argument so we can settle this with facts instead of bluster.
I don't understand why people do this on forums. you could simply learn something rather than arguing a thread into the ground. you don't have training in this area or you wouldn't be saying the things you're saying,
If if bothers you that much, just drop the analogy. I don't care.
But if nothing else, read this link so you can understand what is going on:
There is Samsung asking to see Apple's gear so they can prepare for future litigation from Apple, not because they want to see if Apple is infringing on their patents. That's what I wrote and that's what the motion supports.
There's a whole page that will walk you through the legal reasoning right here:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/28/samsung-apple-iphone-5-ipad-3/
If you come back and say I'm wrong then it's clear that you haven't read the article so I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you on this.
There's no legal precedent for what Samsung is doing,. You don't have to believe me, just go look in the motion and find Samsung's authorities. What are those? Those are where Samsung cites the cases that give it grounds to make their request. There are none because they don't exist. That's a fact, it's not up for opinion. It's something you can go and either confirm or deny so go read and come back with some case law and an actual legal argument so we can settle this with facts instead of bluster.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
Samsung make most of the components for Apple's iPad, and iPhone products...or at least they did (if the rumours are true, they found another parts manufacturer), I think it's perfectly fair for Samsung to request what Apple asked for, after all what have they got to hide that they are getting so pissy about?
FYI, Samsung is suing Apple of patent infringement also
Then, for the (separate) case of Samsung suing Apple, I agree. If Samsung has a sincere case, they should get access. Or, more accurately, an independent third-party expert under full NDA should get access. (Both directions, of course. Which is, if I read the Apple filing correctly, what Apple had asked for.)