• Login:

Welcome to the Toshiba Thrive Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: [Editorial] Now That Samsung Was Found Liable, What are the Potential Ramifications?

  1. #21
    Thrive Tech
    Member #
    13388
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,173
    Liked
    283 times

    TOSHIBA Thrive • Pio's Team Baked BlackBean ROM (4.1.2)

    Samsung Galaxy S8+• Oreo Beta ROM (8.0)
    LG V20
    •Stock ROM (7.0 Nougat)
    ZTE Trek2 HD•Stock ROM (6.0 Marshmallow)

  2. Ads


  3. #22
    Thrive Tech
    Member #
    704
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,600
    Liked
    254 times
    Honestly, its really only the beginning, this was awarded not just in the usa, but on apples home turf, literally in their neighborhood, with a jury that had a few people predisposed towards apple anyway. Can anyone say mistrial/appeal?

    I like the process, as long as the process is fair to both parties.

    Sent from My Droid RAZR MAXX with Tapatalk.
    "I would rather THRiVE than be EXCITEd."
    ADW Launcher Ex FAQ/Guide | Thrive Root/Unroot Video Tutorial/Walkthrough
    Phone(s) : Motorola Droid RAZR MAXX - Stock ICS (Android 4.0.4) | Motorola Droid (OG) - UltimateDroid 3.2.5 ROM w/ ChevyNo1 ULV 1.25 Ghz kernel
    Tablet(s) : Archos 70IT 250 GB - Stock, Rooted w/ Developer firmware | B+N Nook Color - Miui.us latest Miui v 1.11.4 w/ Dal's OC kernel set @ 1300 Mhz. | Toshiba Thrive 32 GB -
    DaleNet Thrive IMM76D.01.000072314 Rooted ROM(Android 4.0.4)

  4. #23
    Thrive Pursuant
    Member #
    6735
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    969
    Liked
    214 times
    Groklaw - Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj Updated 4Xsery interesting comments on this at that link. The jury admitted they didn't even consider prior art because it would slow them down. This won't stand.
    darkron9 likes this.

  5. #24
    Thrive Lurker
    Member #
    17846
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by rtfw View Post
    Groklaw - Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj Updated 4Xsery interesting comments on this at that link. The jury admitted they didn't even consider prior art because it would slow them down. This won't stand.

    I hate to say it, but this decision will be 100% reversed and here are a few reasons why: First, Apple cannot say that Samsung copied anything because android was made by google AND we all know that google was awarded a victory in that case. Second, Apple CANNOT say that samsung copied anything because the 2 archetectures(sp?) are 100% totally different.

    Apple is crying wolf just like Microsoft did against Apple back in the 80's-90's

    If apple thinks that everything looks like the iphone, they need a new pair of glasses big time.

    just my 2 cents.

  6. #25
    Thrive Lurker
    Member #
    16224
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
    I'm not disagreeing, but I think you minimize the impact. Android now outsells the iPhone and Samsung is a big part of that. If Apple prevails, it supports the idea that they do have a better product and were robbed of all those sales. I agree with your argument because that is pretty much what TiVo does these days.
    So Apple is maintaining that I bought my Android by mistake? That I thought I was buying an iPhone? That is the only way the "robbed" comment makes any sense.

  7. #26
    Thrive Lurker
    Member #
    4490
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    22
    Liked
    1 times
    Quote Originally Posted by rtfw View Post
    Groklaw - Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj Updated 4Xsery interesting comments on this at that link. The jury admitted they didn't even consider prior art because it would slow them down. This won't stand.
    Did you hear about the jury's foreman? The guy owns a tech patent, many people looked at the patent he owns and described it as "he patented the TiVo 2 years after the TiVo came out". I don't know if that's an accurate description or not, but the crucial part is that the guy had a vested interest in delivering a precedent for prior art to be ignored and upholding tech patents no matter what. Not only that, but in an interview, he outright admitted to have decided to rule in Apple's favor because of his own patent, and not because of the merits of the case at hand.

    “When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”
    As he owned a patent and was the foreman, the others looked up to him to guide them on the matter of patents. So if he told the rest that prior art didn't matter and patents have to be respected, then his conflict of interest tainted the whole ruling. He may have had a part in just "skipping" the discussion on prior art, which jurors admitted to doing. Prior art was Samsung's main defense against accusations of violating the pinch-to-zoom and double-tap-to-zoom patents. If they didn't bother coming to an agreement on it, that's completely unacceptable. It's like if, in a murder trial where the defendant is basing his defense on proving he wasn't and couldn't have been at the place the murder was committed, the jury decided to ignore the issue of whether or not the defendant was present at the scene of the crime.

    If this ruling isn't thrown out, there is no justice.

  8. #27
    Thrive Pursuant
    Member #
    341
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Okeechobee, FL
    Posts
    522
    Liked
    90 times
    Sorry, but do you really think there is? Justice (meaning 'right') within our legal system. It's about who plays the game best. (Yes, a bit of cynicism-but not PREjudice. Justice is not a static concept; it's relative to the times.) Apple has been playing the game well for quite some time. To them, the findings are both just and 'right,' not to mention deserved (earned).

    sent from my google gnex via tapatalk
    darkron9 likes this.
    the ORIGINAL thrive running dalepl ICS
    Google Galaxy Nexus rooted stock--oops, cracked screen but running 4.2.2
    Google Nexus 7 rooted, stock 4.2.2
    Google Nexus 4 rooted, stock 4.2.2

  9. #28
    Thrive Informant
    Member #
    6249
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    89
    Liked
    11 times
    That's the problem with our system its an argument, who's right and who's wrong, overseen by government officials who have power to make the loser pay.

    That's the beauty of an argument you don't have to be right you just have to prove the other guy wrong! This is all apple has done.

    Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

  10. #29
    Thrive Lurker
    Member #
    17920
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3
    Liked
    0 times
    I have to say this, to me, is another blow against true justice. True justice would realize that when you imitate a form factor and feature set of a competitive product, you are not "stealing" those ideas. Ideas are simply information, and information is shared on a constant basis, at all times, for free, and it has been proven that information which is shared freely will always produce more "fruit" (innovation, invention, etc.) overall than information that is hoarded. For a court to try and determine if a new product incorporates enough new ideas to stand on its own as a new product is ludicrous. I knew exactly what I was buying when I bought my S3, and I expect most others did as well. I knew it shared many similarities with iPhones, but I didn't buy it because it was "almost an iPhone," I bought it because it was a Samsung Galaxy S3. I don't feel it's at all reasonable for a patent to monopolize interface or form factor similarities, especially when I feel that most of what would be considered copying is actually improving on what already exists. Such broad application of patent law serves to stifle innovation, which in turn creates monopolies. Apple did not deserve to win, and I sincerely hope in the future that this ruling is overturned. I do not know if they truly stole any real technology that was in the iPhone, or if they simply used it as a blueprint to guide them in their own R&D, but if it's the latter, as I suspect it was, this can only be seen as protecting the "idea of the iPhone," rather than the actual electronic components that go into making one.
    Running ICS 4.0.4 (DaleNet Stock US) on my AT100!

  11. #30
    Thrive Operative
    Member #
    4981
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    las vegas,nv
    Posts
    107
    Liked
    7 times
    Apple stinks they can't beet android in the market so they have tho do it in court for me this is a sign of weakness not strength.

    Sent from my LG-MS910 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by DoubleDAZ; 08-29-2012 at 09:16 AM. Reason: Language


 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Remove Ads

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

egulley612

,

pair a toshiba thrive with a samsung

Click on a term to search our site for related topics.