Dutch Court Rules Against Samsung; Blocks Galaxy S, S2 & Ace in EU; Samsung Undaunted

[SwiftLegend]

We aren't debating whether or not they should sue, we are saying that it is stupid to sue/and get a patent for something so petty. A swipe gesture! Really, you are going to patent someone moving their finger from the left side to the right side of a screen and then sue for someone else using it. You don't see whoever it was that came up with the idea of a web browser on a phone suing everyone for using that too. It's petty and trivial and shouldn't be done. Certain things should be sued for, certain things shouldn't, and this is one of them. Something aesthetic shouldn't be something you're sued for. But whatever, I'm sick of this. I'm sure Samsung will just think of something better and apply it to their phones. Then we'll see Apple claiming that they thought of it first and that they were going to apply it in a later version of iOS like they are trying to say with the drop down notification list. "We added more organization to it" they say...I say bull**** -.-

 

[SwiftLegend]

Don't ever become a CEO or COO of a big business.

Don't plan on it, I'm not a enough of a dirty player to ever become one.

 

[czerdrill]

We aren't debating whether or not they should sue, we are saying that it is stupid to sue/and get a patent for something so petty. A swipe gesture! Really, you are going to patent someone moving their finger from the left side to the right side of a screen and then sue for someone else using it. You don't see whoever it was that came up with the idea of a web browser on a phone suing everyone for using that too. It's petty and trivial and shouldn't be done. Certain things should be sued for, certain things shouldn't, and this is one of them. Something aesthetic shouldn't be something you're sued for. But whatever, I'm sick of this. I'm sure Samsung will just think of something better and apply it to their phones. Then we'll see Apple claiming that they thought of it first and that they were going to apply it in a later version of iOS like they are trying to say with the drop down notification list. "We added more organization to it" they say...I say bull**** -.-

But...how is that Apple's fault? Everyone here knows and agrees that the patent system is flawed to the point where a complete overhaul is the only solution. However, that's not Apple's problems, nor should it be any company's problem. If Google wanted to patent something "trivial" they'd be right to do so too. You can't blame the company for using the existing system.

You keep saying "shouldn't" or "it's not right", or "should be", but the fact of the matter is none of that that stuff matters. There's no "right and wrong" when it comes to big business. You do what you can to get your bottom line, which is profit. So while it may not be "right" to sue for every "trivial" thing, the fact is any company, including Google, would sue if they had a patent on something that someone was infringing. To think that Google would just sit back and say "hmmm, we could get millions in licensing fees for this, but it's not right" is a silly notion.

On another note, we can all say how "trivial" and "obvious" these things are now, but they're only that way because someone bought it to the mainstream. Sliding to unlock your touchscreen phone seems so ridiculously obvious that you would never think that it was any other way. But...it was. So yes, these things are "trivial" and "obvious" now but they weren't always.

 

[SwiftLegend]

But...how is that Apple's fault? Everyone here knows and agrees that the patent system is flawed to the point where a complete overhaul is the only solution. However, that's not Apple's problems, nor should it be any company's problem. If Google wanted to patent something "trivial" they'd be right to do so too. You can't blame the company for using the existing system.

You keep saying "shouldn't" or "it's not right", or "should be", but the fact of the matter is none of that that stuff matters. There's no "right and wrong" when it comes to big business. You do what you can to get your bottom line, which is profit. So while it may not be "right" to sue for every "trivial" thing, the fact is any company, including Google, would sue if they had a patent on something that someone was infringing. To think that Google would just sit back and say "hmmm, we could get millions in licensing fees for this, but it's not right" is a silly notion.

On another note, we can all say how "trivial" and "obvious" these things are now, but they're only that way because someone bought it to the mainstream. Sliding to unlock your touchscreen phone seems so ridiculously obvious that you would never think that it was any other way. But...it was. So yes, these things are "trivial" and "obvious" now but they weren't always.

Ok, you opened my eyes. But whatever, I still think it's wrong and that something like unlocking your phone, or swiping to new picture shouldn't be something patented and sued for, but hey, to each his own.

 

[czerdrill]

Ok, you opened my eyes. But whatever, I still think it's wrong and that something like unlocking your phone, or swiping to new picture shouldn't be something patented and sued for, but hey, to each his own.

i agree with you, the lawsuits are ridiculous but that's not apple's fault. they're protecting what was given to them. if they didn't sue, they'd have no case in the future when/if someone else blatantly violates a patent. it would make their patents worthless if they just sat back and let people use it without licensing.

 

[Trusstopher]

I think the best comparison for the argument are personal injury lawsuits... it is absolutely ridiculous that someone can spill coffee, or crash an RV or "what ever stupid urban legend or true story you can think of", then sue and get paid millions of dollars. I sit back and say that is a completely broken system: BUT if I found myself in the position to bring a lawsuit and get paid Millions of dollars or even 100K, it would be pretty hard for me to walk away from that. Pretty hypocrtiacal of myself, because I think it is a completely flawed system, but there's a good chance I would use that system to my advantage if I could...

 

[czerdrill]

I think the best comparison for the argument are personal injury lawsuits... it is absolutely ridiculous that someone can spill coffee, or crash an RV or "what ever stupid urban legend or true story you can think of", then sue and get paid millions of dollars. I sit back and say that is a completely broken system: BUT if I found myself in the position to bring a lawsuit and get paid Millions of dollars or even 100K, it would be pretty hard for me to walk away from that. Pretty hypocrtiacal of myself, because I think it is a completely flawed system, but there's a good chance I would use that system to my advantage if I could...

It's just business haha. No company in the world would turn down the chance to get millions in licensing fees if they had a chance.

 

[Trusstopher]

Right, but do you, or SwiftLegend, agree with the lawsuit system? Would either of you take part in a frivolously lawsuit if it meant gaining millions yourself?

I am against them but I would (consider) using them.

 

[czerdrill]

Right, but do you, or SwiftLegend, agree with the lawsuit system? Would either of you take part in a frivolously lawsuit if it meant gaining millions yourself?

I am against them but I would (consider) using them.

I would use them but not in a frivolous way. Meaning if I was legitimately injured by something or someone through no fault of my own, and there was a way to get money for it yes. I wouldn't sue a cigarette company because I smoked for 85 years and ended up with lung cancer. I know how to take responsibility for my own actions. But then I'm not against companies suing other companies for patent violations. I think any company who did it whether its Apple, Google or some mom and pop organization has every right to protect the patents they're given. Flawed system, notwithstanding, don't forget that it is the system, and it's not the fault of the company (or individual) for using that system to their benefit.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

I would use them but not in a frivolous way. Meaning if I was legitimately injured by something or someone through no fault of my own, and there was a way to get money for it yes. I wouldn't sue a cigarette company because I smoked for 85 years and ended up with lung cancer. I know how to take responsibility for my own actions. But then I'm not against companies suing other companies for patent violations. I think any company who did it whether its Apple, Google or some mom and pop organization has every right to protect the patents they're given. Flawed system, notwithstanding, don't forget that it is the system, and it's not the fault of the company (or individual) for using that system to their benefit.

Hence the "don't hate the playa, hate the game" comment

 

[czerdrill]

Hence the "don't hate the playa, hate the game" comment

Exactly. As sneaky and underhanded as it may seem to people on the outside, the point is at some point someone somewhere gave Apple this patent, and by the patent laws as they stand now, they have every right under the sun to defend them (whether or not theyre successful is another story)

 

[jseah]

Right, but do you, or SwiftLegend, agree with the lawsuit system? Would either of you take part in a frivolously lawsuit if it meant gaining millions yourself?

I am against them but I would (consider) using them.

If you have a good chance of winning, then the lawsuit is not frivolous. A lawsuit is frivolous only when you have no chance of winning and are banking on the company needing to spend so much money defending themselves that they would just rather settle because it would cost them less in the long run.

 

[Trusstopher]

If you have a good chance of winning, then the lawsuit is not frivolous. A lawsuit is frivolous only when you have no chance of winning and are banking on the company needing to spend so much money defending themselves that they would just rather settle because it would cost them less in the long run.

Good point... which pretty much destroys my argument because I wouldn't sue if there wasn't a solid case to begin with.

 

[SwiftLegend]

Right, but do you, or SwiftLegend, agree with the lawsuit system? Would either of you take part in a frivolously lawsuit if it meant gaining millions yourself?

I am against them but I would (consider) using them.

Well sure. Get some money for med bills and then some spending cash as well if I could. I guess we all have some hypocriticalness in us. Apple just irks me, if they wanted to be the ones in the cell phone industry, you'd think they'd just make an incredible device, not patent everything so that they can legally attack everyone that competes.

Guess we can also take this as a complement that Android is a big enough threat that Apple has to attack every little thing.

 

[jroc]

Bottom line is this: for ALL the stuff Apple was suing Samsung for....only ONE stuck. And an updates takes care of that. And that might have been something in Android, not necessarily in Touchwiz.

This was a waste of time.