Community poll forum: Apple vs. Samsung: Who are siding with in this patent battle?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your argument. While the intent of function of similar items are also similar, Apple's actually works consistently and reliably. While waiting for Verizon to finally move on the iPhone, I was a Droid owner. And while I didn't hate it, as I have every device before, it had consistent and obnoxious malfunctions that my iPhone never has. Since Apple is a hardware company that creates software for its devices, they just work. Other companies, like Microsoft and Google, are primarily software companies, whose products are (unfortunately for them - and the rest of us, as well) are guess-work-designed to work on all kinds of hardware, ranging from cheap junk to high-quality components. How could they work properly right out of the box, as each hardware manufacturer is looking to shave pennies off their costs? They are having to design software for hardware that doesn't even yet exist. This is why Windows runs better on a Macintosh than on many Windows machines - the hardware is consistently good.

For decades Windows Operating Systems dominated, however, many Inventers just ship, thus, New Operatings Sytems began to appear. Did Microsoft challenge these inventions, which, are merely an offspring of the origianal. Did Apple tweak it's MAC Operating?,because, the technology is the same. All must meet the same TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocal/Internet Protocal )for IPAD2, Tablets, Kindle, Smartphones, Netbbooks, Notebooks, Laptops, Servers, Routerss,Desk-Tops, etc.

Selling these Gadgets to a Target Audience is big business & their is much diversity in taste, because, one don't fit all. We could argue all day about which Computer or Smartphone is best, base on our experience or what one individaul has experienced, or what the ADs say.

I my opnion Apple need to concede, that the challenge is there and they lost!. Everybody makes IPAD2's in all models. You don't have a monopoly.

Why should apple give up what is rightfully theirs. Samsung and all the rest should try to bring some originality to their products and stop copying apple. ( Siri , retna display, ITunes ) and so on. Please wake up. Never wonder why their product never go on sale and always keep their consumers happy? Apple is original and the best. They should win and hopefully teach a lesson to the copiers.

A Samsung tablet that is "different" was used by Apple in the trial and others made by Samsung that are different making the point that they can be different.

It's your invention which needs to be patent , so always make your software patents.

Actually, I think you touched on the problem. Apple has been the 800 lb gorilla in the room for many years -- and they see Samsung at 700 lbs and growing too fast for comfort.

Apple needs to stop with all the stupid suits against the company who supply's most of the parts for the iPhone. They need to come up with something new or get left in the dust. Re-hashing the same phone design over and over is not innovation but stagnation.

There used to to be devices called PDA's around before the iPhone and Android Phones they were Square and and few if any buttons. If you look at the MS & Palm devices the roots of these interfaces were built in these portable computers, they ALL started to merge their OS's into phones - so sorry it has been done before. There may be some patents in the software, but rectangular shaped computing devices and PHONES have been here a long damned time. They were not as efficient and accessible as they are now with modern technology and prices and were not sold in the mass numbers that these devices are, so there is a lot to loose for everyone. This really should be about what software patents were violated.. NOT a sleek rectangle.

For a few years before the iphone, I used a Windows mobile phone that had similar shape and higher functionality than iphone did when it was first released. I had a voice interface program (like Siri today) and a voice GPS program (though I had to attach an external GPS reciever). It had a data plan through Sprint, wifi, & bluetooth connectivity. I could store limited songs and even more importantly access MS documents. It managed my calendars, contacts, and I "pushed" email from multiple accounts. These phones were small, rectangular, some had limited hard buttons, some had slide out keyboards, and all had touch interface for the screen. I couldn't understand the hoopla over the iphone when it arrived, seemed I already had all the functionality on my Windows phone. I thought at the time Apple had copied my device. Where is HTC in this legal brouhaha, Apple ripped them off with iphone.

Will be interesting to hear the outcome to this. It will not be the first time they have decided they are above the law, it has happened before.

Cost them a multi-million dollar settlement for stealing a copyright (I was there).

The real battle is about patent aggregating. The real battle here is between Apple and Google; Samsung is the offshore target to add a political plus to Apple's argument. In today's patent world, it appears the intent of an invention can be patented. Motorola did the first slimline phone, can they sue Apple for copying the aesthetic? Nokia were front-runners in ubiquitous peer antenna technology, but are their patents now aggregated by Apple?
Our patent office is as useless as our Congress, and of course they both are overflowing with lawyers. If we could only figure out how to teach lawyers to use common-sense in writing law, but then what would the lawyers do?

There seems to be something very wrong with our Patent Offices which seem to be quite willing to grant any patent application that crosses their desks. Their policy of allowing everything has brought the entire patent business into disrepute and only a few very expensive but salutary court decisions will sort it out.
Patenting an absolutely obvious shape - we are not talking Coke bottles here but simple rounded corner rectangles - and one that has almost certainly appeared in Sci Fi movies and futurology journalism over and over again, should never have been possible. The patent should not have been granted.
The same goes for code. If there is no manufacture involved, no physical rendition of an idea, then it shouldn't be patentable.
The repeated abuse of patent law only serves to encourage and justify the stance of those countries like the Russian Federation, China etc, that refuse to recognise international patents. Perhaps more countries should do this?
We are, sadly, where we are however and until the courts start banging some heads together, things will only get worse.

But... the ability to patent encourages research and development. That said, a rectangle with rounded corners or an icon showing a handset is NOT an invention. The resolution of a screen is not an invention, although perhaps the hardware to do it is. If speaking a command was an invention, it was not Apples because I've been 'Naturally Speaking' for many years.

I am not anti-Apple, and I certainly do not resent them for putting out a good product and doing superior marketing of it. ("It is so good you have to wait in line to get one.") Give them credit for being very good at generating excitement over an incremental improvement of something already available! That said, this lawsuit is a terrible idea. Perhaps consumers can and will make them pay even if a judge does not.

I agree that the patent process is being used in a way that holds back progress.

Re: Side topic of water for fuel. That is "vapor-ware" in every sense of the cliche. O & H doesn't separate without a catalyst, and that is additional fuel. The claim is that the water engine recharges the batteries but in the demo of the car running down the street who verified that the batteries were being recharged and they were not simply using the starting charge as the power source? Hey, there's an idea for Apple: patent the use of air as fuel. With the number of lawyers about equal to the number of researchers they should be able to pull off the smoke and mirrors we-were-first trick there as well as with the phones and tablets.