Court: Apple Must Pay Samsung Damages Over Patent

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know Apple can't be happy about this ruling at all. According to Reuters, damages will be calculated based on Dutch sales figures since August of 2010. :eek:

A court in The Hague ruled Apple had violated a Samsung patent used in some of Apple's phones and tablet computers to connect to the Internet, and said damages should be based on certain iPhone and iPad sales in the Netherlands. The violation applies to iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4 and iPad 1 and 2, the court said.
Click to expand...
 
This accurately sums up my response.

simpsons_nelson_haha3.jpg
 
Wow, took all of one post and 6 minutes from first post for the Nelson Ha Ha pic LOL. +1 for the swift post! Waiting for all the Apple lovers to chime in how Samsung is teh ev1l...
 
It will be interesting to see how this is handled, since Apple is one of, if not the, biggest customer of Samsung.
 
TechLarry said:
It will be interesting to see how this is handled, since Apple is one of, if not the, biggest customer of Samsung.
Click to expand...

Well, Apple sort of needs Samsung to supply parts so I don't think it'll change much of anything. If they make the least expensive stuff that meets Apple's specifications, then Apple would be kinda stupid to stop buying because they got caught stealing intellectual property from Samsung. They'd have to cross their fingers and hope suppliers they haven't burned through theft would be able to scale up production.
 
I like Apple products personally, but if Apple infringed then they need to pay up, just like the other way around. This is how the high tech (and other) business works.
 
Well isn't this funny that the almighty Apple, the company who's always accusing everyone else of stealing their shit is caught with their own hands in the cookie jar! You know Jobs has an iphone in his casket. There are probably big claw marks on the inside right now.
 
it was unavoidable because there's only one way to connect to 3g and samsung wouldn't give them a license
 
mope54 said:
it was unavoidable because there's only one way to connect to 3g and samsung wouldn't give them a license
Click to expand...

Yes and a rectangular shape is an ok patent though right?
 
xIronCrossx said:
Yes and a rectangular shape is an ok patent though right?
Click to expand...
whether it is or isn't the fact of the matter is that companies aren't required to create rectangular objects whereas apple *is* required to use the 3g patent to connect to cell towers.
 
mope54 said:
whether it is or isn't the fact of the matter is that companies aren't required to create rectangular objects whereas apple *is* required to use the 3g patent to connect to cell towers.
Click to expand...

Yeah let's go make tablets and phones in the shape of a circle :rolleyes:

Rectangles have been the shape of phones for years, and tablets since they came out.
 
your example is bullshit to begin with, I just don't feel like arguing with a troll this morning.

in any case, everyone else will recognize the difference clearly enough that there's nothing more for me to add
 
mope54 said:
your example is bullshit to begin with, I just don't feel like arguing with a troll this morning.

in any case, everyone else will recognize the difference clearly enough that there's nothing more for me to add
Click to expand...

All of Apples patents are perfectly fine, but if someone else has a patent it is instantly bullshit. Yep, nice point of view there.
 
mope54 said:
whether it is or isn't the fact of the matter is that companies aren't required to create rectangular objects whereas apple *is* required to use the 3g patent to connect to cell towers.
Click to expand...
But they are NOT required to build-in that connectivity into their devices. If they don't get the license, they can't offer that feature. Simple enough.
They didn't get the license, and implemented the feature anyway. So, they have to pay up now.
 
Eulogy said:
But they are NOT required to build-in that connectivity into their devices. If they don't get the license, they can't offer that feature. Simple enough.
They didn't get the license, and implemented the feature anyway. So, they have to pay up now.
Click to expand...
they *are* required to use the patent in cell phones. I'm not sure how you think that's not true. But it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that samsung is required to provide licenses to companies that need/want to use the patent. That's the condition for the patent office granting the patent in the first place.
 
mope54 said:
they *are* required to use the patent in cell phones. I'm not sure how you think that's not true. But it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that samsung is required to provide licenses to companies that need/want to use the patent. That's the condition for the patent office granting the patent in the first place.
Click to expand...

Apparently that's not how those zany Dutch courts see it.
 
mope54 said:
they *are* required to use the patent in cell phones. I'm not sure how you think that's not true. But it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that samsung is required to provide licenses to companies that need/want to use the patent. That's the condition for the patent office granting the patent in the first place.
Click to expand...

Except that Apple is known to just do whatever they want and not "ask" for it. See iPhone 4 name.
 
SkribbelKat said:
Apparently that's not how those zany Dutch courts see it.
Click to expand...
sure it is. you should try reading the case and the article cited in this thread. they ruled that apple has to pay samsung, which apple has always been willing to do. the next step is samsung has to come up with a reasonable price, which samsung has always been unwilling to do. the court already rejected the rest of their patent claims and a price tag that they told samsung was too much for a FRAND license.

holding the patent and not granting a license doesn't mean that companies can indiscriminately violate the patent--and I didn't say apple should not have to pay samsung--it just means samsung won't get much in damages.
 
mope54 said:
samsung has to come up with a reasonable price, which samsung has always been unwilling to do
Click to expand...

Reasonable is a relative term subject to the eye of the beholder and cannot be quantified identically between persons or, in this case, corporate entities which is why the "zany Dutch court" is involved in mediation of the matter.

The facts of the situation still don't remove the fact that it's funny to watch happening. :p
 
mope54 said:
they *are* required to use the patent in cell phones. I'm not sure how you think that's not true. But it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that samsung is required to provide licenses to companies that need/want to use the patent. That's the condition for the patent office granting the patent in the first place.
Click to expand...

Samsung isn't REQUIRED to do sweet fuck all. :rolleyes:
 
face2palm said:
Samsung isn't REQUIRED to do sweet fuck all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
fuck man, if you guys spent half the time informing yourselves as you do trolling you'd wouldn't continue to make yourselves look like complete jackasses

Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND), also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND), are a licensing obligation that is often required by standard-setting organizations for members that participate in the standard-setting process.[1] Standard-setting organizations are the industry groups that set common standards for a particular industry in order to ensure compatibility and interoperability of devices manufactured by different companies.
Click to expand...

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

read the rest of the entry before sticking your foot back in your mouth
 
mope54 said:
fuck man, if you guys spent half the time informing yourselves as you do trolling you'd wouldn't continue to make yourselves look like complete jackasses
Click to expand...

You take your self image and the image you project to others too seriously. :)
 
TechLarry said:
Ohhhh, yes.... Apple is the Bully amongst Angels.

LOL You guys crack me up :)
Click to expand...

Please put more words into my mouth. Never did I say any of the other companies are better or worse.

Apple is the one who bitches about patents every other hour and then when they want to do something they don't give a shit about another companies patent. There is not much heard about other companies, maybe they can cover it up better or it's cooler to report on Apple, I don't know. All I know is what I just said, Apple bitches about patents but doesn't care about infringing other companies patents.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Please put more words into my mouth. Never did I say any of the other companies are better or worse.

Apple is the one who bitches about patents every other hour and then when they want to do something they don't give a shit about another companies patent. There is not much heard about other companies, maybe they can cover it up better or it's cooler to report on Apple, I don't know. All I know is what I just said, Apple bitches about patents but doesn't care about infringing other companies patents.
Click to expand...

Well actually, I think it was just insane Steve Jobs who was always whining about how everything he'd ever done was stolen by other people. I always found that funny since it was like he was taking sole credit for the innovations of the entire company. I don't think Tim Cook has had one of those crazy tantrums yet.

Perhaps "The New Apple" (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!) will consist of less accusations of theft and more new stuff we can argue about in the forum.
 
Mike89 said:
Well isn't this funny that the almighty Apple, the company who's always accusing everyone else of stealing their shit is caught with their own hands in the cookie jar! You know Jobs has an iphone in his casket. There are probably big claw marks on the inside right now.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top