Nokia files "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Apple

35. pwnarena posted on 06 Mar 2013, 18:13 4 3

on the contrary, court battles actually made samsung innovate. look at their new software and hardware now. they have become way better because apple sued them. else, they'd have been stuck on the old gs2 and similar galaxies "inspired" by the iphone.

getting sued made samsung think of new offerings for the public. patent litigation isn't really that bad.

40. joey_sfb posted on 06 Mar 2013, 18:18 2 0

That's samsung. A multibillon company. What about the smaller company or startup company that has great ideas!? But they are sue for making a round rectangle device with touch screen.

Some company don't even license these sort of patent, they just want to monopolies. e.g untouchable patents a term apple quoted several times.

47. corporateJP posted on 06 Mar 2013, 18:55 4 0

You both have very valid points.

But, alas, while patent litigation did force Samsung out of copycat-mode (which I very much agree with when looking at a first generation Galaxy), they were already well on their way to their own thing. All this will do is jack prices down the road due to rediculous legal fees.

My question is, how many things can somebody truly patent before it becomes FRAND materiel?

58. joey_sfb posted on 06 Mar 2013, 20:43 0 0

There are reasons why there are anti trust law around. It's to protect smaller businesses so that new company with better idea or more efficient could be rewarded in an open market.

Patent system in its present form abuse public service to do their bidding of stopping competition from coming into the market. How that good for any country economy?

• This comment is posted in response to #47 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #47 Hide

59. joey_sfb posted on 06 Mar 2013, 21:04 0 0

Every business learn from each other to make a product better. That's why each model of car is better than the last one. Each newer model of hi-def TV better than the last one. Patent don contribute to that area at all.

In fact it give the company false sense of security and entitlements, apple is struck in their old design because the current patent system make is more profitable to pursues the legal route rather than to out maneuver the competition thru continual better design.

• This comment is posted in response to #47 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #47 Hide

76. darac posted on 07 Mar 2013, 03:20 0 4

Of course they are afraid of Samsung.

It's stealing the show everywhere.
Galaxy s3 alone sells 3. 5 times more than all Lumias combined.
And rightfully so

87. darac posted on 07 Mar 2013, 12:14 0 0

Correction.. S3 sold 50-60 million units since launch.
Nokia sold about 10 million Lumias in the same period.

LMAO..

57. -box- posted on 06 Mar 2013, 19:52 1 2

It isn't an approval, just a "friend of the court". Samsung could have asked first, after all.

62. No_Nonsense posted on 06 Mar 2013, 21:42 2 2

It's just that people here will bash you if you don't lick Samsung's/android's boots, even though you may be perfectly reasonable.

84. Taters posted on 07 Mar 2013, 11:38 0 0

Nokia isn't being reasonable, let alone perfectly reasonable. If they were being reasonable then I would support them, simple as that.

• This comment is posted in response to #62 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #62 Hide

82. -box- posted on 07 Mar 2013, 10:48 0 1

Oh goodness no.

Just defending Nokia. Samsung could have asked Nokia to be the friend on the court on their behalf first, after all. Besides, Nokia is a third-party in the dispute, so they'll have to be relatively non-biased, essentially the true expert to help the court understand what is going on. With Nokia having the most patents in the industry, it's a good move on apple's part to get their expertise. Samsung missed a great chance.

83. VZWuser76 posted on 07 Mar 2013, 11:29 0 0

I wouldn't exactly call Nokia unbiased.
First, they are run by a man who came from a company that is basically in an alliance with Apple. There's a reason Apple & Microsoft haven't gone after each other in court.
Second, whether you think Elop has more loyalty to MS or Nokia, Nokia produces phones that run MS's OS and compete with Samsung for customers. It'd be a similar situation if Ford were suing Chevy and Dodge stepped in to be a friend of the court. It'd be in Dodge's best interest to take Chevy down a notch since they might be able to pick up some of Chevy's customers.

If the court needs help in understanding what's going on, I'm sure there are experts who are not aligned with any of the parties involved and have no stake in the outcome. That would be an unbiased third party, not someone they compete for sales with. And if the court actually needs someone to help them understand what's going on, maybe this should've happened before they decided what's been called a landmark case, the first Apple/Samsung trial. Now I'm not saying Samsung was entirely innocent, but some of what Apple claims they invented was BS as well. The problem there though is with our legal system. Allowing evidence to be excluded because you didn't file on time? That's like saying you don't care about the truth but about who plays the legal game better. And that applies not only to this case, but to any where that stuff happens. IMHO, it should be the truth above all else.

86. VZWuser76 posted on 07 Mar 2013, 11:43 1 0

I agree with the last sentence, if it's possible to ban a competitor's product it puts the patent holder in a great position. But the problem here is with a company like Apple who has enough money that they don't need a license fee and could use this to drive competition out of business & therefore shape the industry. That was never what was intended when patents were introduced. They were brought about to ensure that the inventor would be compensated for their work. What Apple seems they are trying to do is use these bans to shape the market rather than competing in the salesroom. Now should a company be compensated if someone using their IP? Of course, but that's the keyword in this matter, compensation. Compensation doesn't mean running another company out of the industry using the court system. It means paying the inventing company/person for the work they did, monetarily. Again the problem is Apple doesnt need the money, but they would like to get rid of their biggest competitor. Remember before Samsung got big Apple was suing HTC left and right because they were the top android OEM. I'd bet if Samsung lost the top spot whoever took their place in the android hierarchy would find themselves the new target of Apple's litigation budget.

89. faisal8708 posted on 08 Mar 2013, 03:41 0 0

Unfortunately you r right abt apple