Seeking Alpha

Apple's (AAPL) efforts to stop the June 21 launch of Samsung's (SSNLF.PK) flagship Galaxy S III...

Apple's (AAPL) efforts to stop the June 21 launch of Samsung's (SSNLF.PK) flagship Galaxy S III have been denied by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who appears to be getting fed up with the enormous volume of lawsuits being thrown around. A trial is now set for July 30 - expect the Galaxy S III, which has seen huge pre-orders and will be sold by all 4 nationwide carries, to do brisk business between now and then.
From other sites
Comments (31)
  • jswieter
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    She must be a democratic elected Judge.
    13 Jun 2012, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1467) | Send Message
     
    They traditional way to refer to Federal judges is they were appointed not elected. They also have to be confirmed by the US Senate. This particular judge was nominated by Obama and the US Senate confirmed the appointment on a 90-0 vote ...

     

    90-0; it was close. I'm sure they were all holding their breath until the last vote was counted.

     

    I have to agree with Losing paper. The "inventions" that are receiving patent approvals have reached absurd level. IMO, the direction of the swipe as a patentable invention is insane. Amazon's "One Click" is patented ... equally absurd.
    13 Jun 2012, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Yokyok
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    there should be penalties for claiming you invented something you didn't.
    13 Jun 2012, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • ezy2likeme
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Anyone consider Samsung is Korean and Judge is Korean. Possible bias!!!!!
    14 Jun 2012, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Good, this crap needs to stop. Patents will ruin software development.
    13 Jun 2012, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    Good for her it's about time.
    13 Jun 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9080) | Send Message
     
    Apple is just...a really, really annoying patent troll.
    13 Jun 2012, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Now that's not fair. Apple is a lot of things.

     

    Certainly, a really, really annoying patent troll is most definitely one of those things, but they are lots of other things too. :)
    13 Jun 2012, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • Random K
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Apple haters these day -_-

     

    Just cause you can't afford apple products doesn't mean you need to criticise them.
    14 Jun 2012, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    I like most Apple products, even if a lot of them don't necessarily have a very good cost/value proposition.

     

    But their legal tactics are harmful to the tech industry and innovation as a whole. They're making themselves part of the problem because they want to make sure they're the only solution -- bad form.

     

    And in truth, the fact that they are putting so much effort into legal action is likely a sign that their own innovation is weakening. They'll still rake in the dough for years to come, but perhaps their running out of good ideas for "the next big thing"? Only time will tell.
    14 Jun 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    It seems to be the norm in tech, remember Oracle and Google?
    14 Jun 2012, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Workinprogress
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    My question is, will Apple's argument be strengthened or weakened by the fact that the company will have time to profit before the July 30 trial?
    13 Jun 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • earlalbin
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    Patients will ruin software development? No you'll just have to do it the old fashion way, code, don't steal. Or optionally pay a license fee.

     

    Any software developer who lets patent stop his/her creativity isn't worth hiring. Figure out a different way, a better way, consider it a challenge!

     

    Patents ruin software development, give me a break.
    14 Jun 2012, 02:42 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Two people can very easily come up with the same idea independently. Sometimes there's one good design for a solution to a problem. There need not be "stealing"(incorrect word use on your part) involved. This is not an issue of creativity as you so rudely claim.

     

    Developers should not have to code around a monopoly on ideas. That's a legislative problem, not a development challenge.
    14 Jun 2012, 05:04 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4035) | Send Message
     
    The reason the software/computer industry has exhibited such stellar and exponential progress has been precisely because cross-licensing deals have, until Apple, been common practice.

     

    Other fields, medicine and pharma comes to mind, are increasingly hampered by onerous burdens because cross-licensing is uncommon and costly, so building on competitor work is rarely effected.

     

    The single worst development recently has been the fact that the tech companies - primarily the phone tech companies - are now stashing their patents in entities that cannot be counter sued or engage in cross-patenting agreements.

     

    This bodes badly for the future of technological progress and is bad for consumers everywhere.

     

    The fact is the US patent system needs to be overhauled.
    14 Jun 2012, 06:01 AM Reply Like
  • melturet
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I don't know the legal and technical merits of the Apple suit but my first guess would be that they are attempting to use the courts as a way of suppressing competition. I'd think every good Republican would be offended by such a practice.
    14 Jun 2012, 02:49 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    If you ignore the rhetoric and observe the actual actions of most capitalists -- they are often thoroughly anti-capitalism. :)
    14 Jun 2012, 06:42 AM Reply Like
  • sawchain
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    Patents are enshrined in the Constitution. I suppose you believe the Constitution is anti-capitalist, too. If you consider why the frames included it, you'll see where you went wrong.

     

    T H I N K
    14 Jun 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    The constitution also contained text legislating that people may not escape indentured servitude.

     

    The constitution had many good things, but also some bad things.

     

    The constitution, as a document created to describe and limit state powers, is by definition far from capitalist.
    14 Jun 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    The constitution was not meant to weaken states, although that is the natural result of strengthening a union. The intention meant to strengthen the federation of states, while continuing to preserve state sovereignty, balancing the two. Union was shown to be necessary by war brought to our shores.

     

    The colonies were like tiny boats tossed around in a rough sea of conflicts between the major European powers, England, France, and the declining Spain. Under the articles of confederation, the Federal government was too weak to serve this purpose well, not even possessing the authority to tax, funding their army and the defense of the states. This very nearly caused the quick end of the American Revolution. The constitution also ensured the establishment of the rule of law and the separation of powers, for at the time, rule of kings were the norm, not constitutional government by the governed...this was a great experiment, putting into practice some of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

     

    Union also brings greater economic influence than separate individual states would possess. Our combination of capitalism and consitutional government was extrordinarily successful in the next couple of hundred years, leading to the two being copied all over the globe. The Constitution was not anti-capitalist, remember, many such movements grew out of reactions against problems that pure, unchecked capitalism brought, and actual experiments in governments based on these ideas were 20th century events.
    14 Jun 2012, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I didn't mean state as in individual states as the US has, I meant state as a political entity.

     

    In either case, any device used to strengthen the federation is, by definition, not a pro-market device when you consider the intervention and market distortion that inevitably happens as state (entities, not regions) increase in power.
    14 Jun 2012, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    "any device used to strengthen the federation is, by definition, not a pro-market device when you consider the intervention"

     

    They are not mutually exclusive, but rather, markets depend on government to function well. Markets left to their own leads to financial catastrophes and corruption, eroding confidence and destroying market participation. Imagine if we had no financial laws and constraints, what would happen? Sorry to disagree, it is not my intention...
    14 Jun 2012, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I'm fine with disagreement, it's civil at least :)

     

    I don't agree with your statement that markets depend on governments. That's not strictly true. People want stability. There are forces other than governments that can, and do, create that. Self-regulation would be one of those.

     

    Financial catastrophes are often the result of government entities. The central banks (not directly government entities but they have power granted by the government, backed by the potential for taxation) set interest rates which meant people who should not have gotten loans ended up getting loans.

     

    On top of that there's no reason for the private entities to do proper risk assessment because, as Dimon said yesterday, (paraphrase: "they ask questions that make us ask questions of our business model") the governments now seem to do the assessment *and* the bailing out.

     

    What have they got to lose by taking risks? If they had to deal with the consequences themselves you can be sure they'd take a *lot* more care, and the taxpayers would be a lot better off. Sorry if this was a bit short. I've things to do right now.
    14 Jun 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    Without governments supplying ground rules and enforcement, the markets would not be safe for hardly anyone. I doubt if any of us on this thread would invest without this structure of laws supporting and scaffolding the market. Trading and market making have to have rules. How could self-regulation ever suffice? If speed limits were enforced by the honor system, and there were no tickets given out, what would be the effect? How safe would it be to drive, or let your child cross the street? Rules are rules because of consequences...rules without consequences are suggestions, to be usually ignored by most. This is a part of human nature.

     

    Even the simplist of things in finance, like our bank accounts would be far less safe without FDIC supporting our banks. There would be frequent bank runs as soon as there comes serious negative news, and many of us would be storing gold bars away in our floorboards.

     

    I understand that it is common to feel that business is stifled by regulation...but, it is often forgotten that business is also supported by regulation. There is no structure to operate without it. I assure you that if there wasn't this "flip side of the coin", then all parties would clamor for its abolition, not just some of us, and changes would happen. It serves a important purpose, admittedly, there are also downsides as well.
    15 Jun 2012, 02:14 AM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    It's sort of like if you told me that women are a problem for you, and you'd like to abolish females... I would ask you to stop and try to see the obvious problem with your proposal... ;)
    15 Jun 2012, 02:55 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Without them supplying ground rules we'd have to vet those companies ourselves.

     

    Nowadays almost everyone has an investment account via pensions or some other means. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe they'd be better off saving. Ah, but inflation you say. Inflation is a problem caused by increased money supply. Who controls the money supply? It's not the market, especially when all countries have an increasing money supply. (Even with demand for the dollar as high as it is now, things can easily change)

     

    I'm not going to talk about rules of the road, though things like that could be set by the "terms & conditions" of the people who built those roads. That conversation will get way too long, way too fast :) If you really want to read up on those things I can link you to a place where these things have been covered at length. For now I'll stick to something a bit more relevant.

     

    Bank runs are a result of reserve banking. The FDIC has not made reserve banking go away. I'm sure you've seen reports on how exposed the FDIC are at various times as things got worse. I've seen them and I'm not even in the US. Now we have a situation where everyone trusts that the government has things covered. At what cost? A lack of critical thinking through generations (I sound so old, I'm not :) ) which means that people don't believe economies can change, but they can. One thing mentioned about the Weimar republic was "we couldn't believe how quickly things got bad". The same fiat economic system is in place. Gold was valued for a reason. Finite supply. An outflow of gold from the country makes it obvious when a country is in trouble. Now we just trust these fuzzy lies the governments tell us. Do you really believe the CPI is reasonably calculated, or employment numbers are accurate?

     

    Now you've gotten me all ranty :)

     

    As for your last comment, take a look at the conversation again and tell me which of us it was who suggested the women were the problem, and which of us it was who said people need to look a bit more deeper at the real cause of the problem :)
    15 Jun 2012, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    Know that all that I have said does not mean that I lack skepticism about government, quite the opposite. I don't find CPI or job numbers to accurately reflect what is the situation at the ground level at all, and they actually seem to be intended to mask the truth more than reveal. Clearly, not all policies are well conceived and even fewer are implemented efficiently, I don't claim otherwise.

     

    Yet, it seems to me, to present the bad side and not acknowledge the positive functions, and to not really have a viable alternative eventually leads you down the road to advocating anarchy. To have regulation be delegated to self-regulation really means to not regulate at all. Although some individuals will be able to self-regulate, groups cannot be counted on to do so on any lasting basis. Very few things can operate well that way, not even pure capitalism at its most raw would run in such an environment.

     

    What I am advocating is to take a middle ground, that some regulation policies may be more harmful than helpful, but also to understand that government plays a crucial role in regulating. The rules of the road is not really far off topic as you seem to think. The overall point is that human nature requires consequences in order to discourage others from overstepping and harming others. In order to have police functions as well as prisons, you must have collective action, which will always become a form of government function as any group grows in size.

     

    Bank runs are the result of a crisis of confidence, not usually a result of monetary policy. Every rule has some exception. Bank runs results from a psychological group dynamic that becomes self-reinforcing, the same herd phenomenon that leads to many market crashes...panic.

     

    I can tell that we have dramatically differing worldviews and therefore we are unlikely to come to any resolution of what we are discussing.

     

    Nevertheless, it has been civil like you said, and I enjoyed the debate. My previous comment was in jest because I thought it was funny. Thanks for the discussion Losing Paper. Btw, what does your name refer to?
    15 Jun 2012, 05:41 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I don't expect my view to happen in my life time, then again, many people said that there'd always be a queen in the colonies. :)

     

    It's more a case of thinking there can be good market based alternatives, and I'm not even a person with the incentive to come up with the best alternatives. Where I live there's a single (state granted monopoly) road insurance corporation, which is run by a government corporation. I know some people who refuse to even accept the possibility that anyone else should be allowed to enter the market.

     

    Eventually things will change, the US can't mathematically afford its obligations, nevermind whatever new ones are promised. Hopefully people are more open to accepting that businesses in competition can do many many things better than politicians.

     

    For now I'd be happy with a middle ground on the regulation, where banks just have to accept the losses and shut down, but the financial industry is one of the most regulated industries in existence and all it has done is give central banks the power to manipulate the economy, pick winners and losers, and work with the government to put entire countries into debt in a BIG way.

     

    Bank runs are not a result of a crisis of confidence, they're a symptom of the system being built *only* on confidence. It's fundamentally flawed in my opinion. We probably won't see to many now as they can literally print money to cover any shortfall. There are no real reserve requirements.

     

    My name refers to the difference between money as it has historically been accepted versus what people accept, mostly without question, for money right now.

     

    Also, how did you get negative comments? :)
    15 Jun 2012, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • podmeister
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    I guess theft and patent infringement with respect to consumer technology are okay as long as there are too many of them for the court to adjudicate?

     

    Now if only the same were true in the pharmaceutical industry...
    It's obvious that Samsung is apeing Apple, but no matter what the outcome of these disputes, remember that one thing the Apple does well is risk analysis and assessment. This risk system is part of every major decision they make. Everything from currency valuation to geopolitical issues to IP, manufacturing and legal matters are taken into account. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out, but I get the feeling this is only the beginning.
    14 Jun 2012, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • TwistTie
    , contributor
    Comments (2476) | Send Message
     
    I am also getting fed up.

     

    I'm going to patent being obnoxious so that companies that I love can get back to work.
    14 Jun 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Artimedes
    , contributor
    Comments (-46) | Send Message
     
    Remember me asking about why so anti-Apple? You seem so thrilled at anything that you interpret as a problem for Apple...
    15 Jun 2012, 01:51 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector