Jump to content

Samsung is found guilty in case of copying iPhone, iPad.


Recommended Posts

Apple has to do everything in order to save their market position, because I highly doubt they will be as innovative in the future as they have been in the past years.

 

If their upcoming TV set fails to impress (and I strongly hope so), their absolutely overrated stock will plunge (which I strongly hope as well).

 

So they have to resort to "trivial" patents, such as the design patents for the iphone, which is absolutely ridiculous in the first place.

So now there probably won't be any other phones with a rectangular design with rounded edges and one hardware button in the middle or what?

Some icon positions on the screen have also been declared to infringe on Apple's patents.

 

To make the verdict even more ridiculous, the patent infringement for the design of the ipads, which basically claimed the same problem, that

of a rectangular design with rounded edges, was dismissed by the jury. Imo that shows how pathetic the whole process is.

Take another jury and you'll have another verdict, I'm pretty sure of that. Probably most of them were Apple users, as it's still très chic ;) (just kidding)

 

But seriously, 773 questions for the jury to think and discuss over, some of them so complex that even the lead judge had problems following some of the

topics and now they needed only 3 days to settle over all those issues?

 

But the fight will go on, no doubt, in the States and elsewhere. And I'm pretty confident that there will be different verdicts spoken in different countries...so there will probably be different truths

all over the world :)

 

In the countries where Apple will win that lawsuit, I can tell you that the prices for Apple products will even rise, as they will have the design monopol for a certain category

of electronic gadgets and as most of the sheep put design over everything else, even at a higher price tag the things will fly from the shelves.

 

The sad thing is, that initially I "rooted" for Samsung, in the meantime I learned about dubious practices at Samsung factories all around the world, where people are

being exploited and work in dangerous conditions, similar or even worse than at Apple's supplier Foxconn.

 

These days it doesn't really matter which big electronics company's product you own/buy, it's only a choice between the lesser of two evils :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are just boiling beyond reason:

1. The very creator of Android OS, Google Inc, warned Samsung more than once that they were creating devices that were copies of iPads and iPhones. But Samsung deliberately ignored the warn - its lawyers told the company that a rule against in court would be cheaper than the overall profit from the copycats.

2. You guys should read the legal papers before omitting your opinion: it's not at all about a square with rounded corners (this is a distraction to the lay misinformed public). Samsung copied more than 6 technologies that cost hundreds of millions to Apple to acquire, such as the pinching over images to make it larger - without asking for permission. If this is not "robbery", then we need a new word for that action.

3. Just this week a Seoul court found both Apple and Samsung guilty in the same legal battle. A Samsung fanboy would expect that a Korean court would rule against Apple solely, but the infrigement is so clear that even the Korean judge couldn't pretend it was not there.

4. Overall, Samsung has been found guilty in most courts around the world, or have been the receiver of harsh legal comments "it looks like and iPad, but not as cool" - a proof that it has indeed xeroxed Apple to minimum details.

5. Customers should be happy in the end: now Samsung will be forced to create it's own innovative, intelligent design instead of copying other companies. Customers will benefit from that, will be happier knowing that they are using a technology that is not seen as a sub-product copied from Apple.

 

Last, I wanted to bring this article to see the reaction of some here who call MP3 ripping off a crime of piracy, but - strangely - defend Samsung ripping off Apple. One rule, two measures...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are just boiling beyond reason:

1. The very creator of Android OS, Google Inc, warned Samsung more than once that they were creating devices that were copies of iPads and iPhones. But Samsung deliberately ignored the warn - its lawyers told the company that a rule against in court would be cheaper than the overall profit from the copycats.

2. You guys should read the legal papers before omitting your opinion: it's not at all about a square with rounded corners (this is a distraction to the lay misinformed public). Samsung copied more than 6 technologies that cost hundreds of millions to Apple to acquire, such as the pinching over images to make it larger - without asking for permission. If this is not "robbery", then we need a new word for that action.

3. Just this week a Seoul court found both Apple and Samsung guilty in the same legal battle. A Samsung fanboy would expect that a Korean court would rule against Apple solely, but the infrigement is so clear that even the Korean judge couldn't pretend it was not there.

4. Overall, Samsung has been found guilty in most courts around the world, or have been the receiver of harsh legal comments "it looks like and iPad, but not as cool" - a proof that it has indeed xeroxed Apple to minimum details.

5. Customers should be happy in the end: now Samsung will be forced to create it's own innovative, intelligent design instead of copying other companies. Customers will benefit from that, will be happier knowing that they are using a technology that is not seen as a sub-product copied from Apple.

 

Last, I wanted to bring this article to see the reaction of some here who call MP3 ripping off a crime of piracy, but - strangely - defend Samsung ripping off Apple. One rule, two measures...?

 

Come on...the pinching over images for zooming took them hundreds of millions to acquire? Maybe they just watched Minority Report or Star Trek or read some other Sci-Fi stuff thought up by some nerd, who had that idea long before some "genius" at Apple "invented" it...or maybe they just had the better patent lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ioni1zed: Apple will be valued at 1 trillion dollars next year. Samsung and Apple are disputing a market that is worth billions of dollars. So, a patent, as simple as it looks like is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Read the papers, it will give you a clear idea of how expensive the smartphone technology is. Samsung has patented more than 500 techs in 2012, Apple more than 300. Do you still think patents are kids games?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before commenting on the patent issues I dislike, I just want to comment on the value of Apple - without making this the primary issue here.

Apple is imo, as are most of its products, highly overrated, or overvalued/overpriced. But that is not an issue of Apple, it's an issue, a problem

that is rooted deeply within our economic system, our society. Let Apple be valued at amount x, fine, but it is only valued at that amount by (people in) an economic system,

that used to built lots of those castles in the air in the past - without a "real" value to match the "virtual" one.

 

Now I'm pretty sure I'm not telling you anything new here, as there's a high probability that you're a smart guy, but bubbles existed as long as people started to "value" things

apart from their "real" value. It's when people start to be the "greater fool". This happened. It happens right now. And it will happen again, no doubt, out of a mixture of greed and stupidity.

There was a time, when the ground on which the Japanese Emperor's castle stands on in Tokyo was valued higher than all real estate assets in California.

 

Facebook now is valued at what amount? Don't know, but what I know is that it's over the top, exaggerated, crazy. What did Microsoft buy Skype for? Over 8 billions?

Facebook Instagram? Wasn't it over 6 billions? Or Microsoft, which bought aquantive some years ago...for 6 or 7 billions as well. Why? Because they were valued at

that at that given point in time. But they didn't live up to their expectations at the time, it was just a craze everyone seemed to be in to.

 

Apple was like that once and I strongly believe they are like that now...overvalued, overpriced. Not long ago Nokia was the sole ruler of the mobile phone market.

Where are they now? And the same can happen to Apple as well. Let's say their upcoming Apple TV set is not the magical revolution everybody (most of all the shareholders

or investors) is hoping for...what then? The worst thing that can happen to Apple right now is to become "uncool" and not being "state of the art".

 

Which, after a lenghty intro, leads me to this:

 

I perfectly understand that it's a huge market (the mobile one). As far as consumer electronics are concerned, it will probably be the fastest growing and eventually largest market at all in the future.

Media convergency trends will becoming stronger every year, no doubt about it.

 

But that's the problem. Because there's so much money involved, and because especially the US patent system allows a lot of trivial patents, companies abuse that patent system

in order to get their piece of the cash pie. It's not about innovation, it's not about VALUE innovation for the customer, it's only about money for a company and its shareholders.

 

Companies resort to patent trolling in order to secure their market share and profits. Samsung is a world leader in R&D as far as consumer electronics are concerned.

They spent over 9 billion dollars in 2011 for R&D, whilst Apple spent somewhat over 2 billion dollars in the same year. And that was already a significant increase for Apple.

Why? Because they know that they have to wow especially investors with upcoming products - otherwise the hype train will come to a sudden stop.

 

I admit that patents should protect really ingenious inventions from blatant copies, but the copies have to be on a larger scale, really obvious, e.g. Chinas automobile companies

copying a whole car, which has a lot more design attributes than being a rectangle with rounded edges. Btw, I have a display in front of me. It's rectangle with rounded edges.

When I look behind me, on the other side of the living room, there's an even bigger rectangle with rounded edges, a display as well. If I'd enlargen my monitor, it'd look pretty similar

to my TV set. Strangely, Apple can file a patent suit for it's iphone design. A rectangle with rounded edges and a button in the middle at the bottom. Case accepted, verdict in favor of Apple.

But not for the tablet? Humm...strange.

 

Has any of your friends ever mistaken a Samsung Galaxy S2 for an iphone? Or vice versa? No? Guess why.

 

About the gestures for the iphone again. Those are so trivial and general, really it's a shame those get accepted. That's a problem of the patent system.

And Apple didn't even invent all those things, that's what I was trying to say. They bought this company back then, Fingerworks or so...I know that

happens all the time, but big and rich companies, who can afford to pay unreal prices (being overvalued themselves) often only in order to stay in front

on the patent side of things or in order to shut down uprising competition in advance.

 

About the gestures againg. Look at Minority Report, or Star Trek, Science-Fiction in general. What about Blade Runner?

Deckard told the fucking Esper to zoom in on the photo. I bet there's some troll who patented voice interaction with a machine.

 

Patents as they are used right now slow down the innovation process, especially in consumer electronics and software. Customers don't benefit from them.

 

The patent system has to be reformed, and it will be, I'm sure of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ion1zed: for once, I agree with you. With the first part of your post. Apple valuing one trillion dollars is a magic of Wall Street, not a booking account fact from Cupertino. Even Jobs was angry at estimates from WS, for he was aware of the bubble problem that affects everything that is considered "hype".

 

As for the value of iDevices, this is something that it is up to the costumer to decide: Apple, just like any other company is free to decide if its product can be priced at 10 dollars or 1000 dollars. No one is forced to buy it, there are cheaper versions of similar products in the market. I personally think they are expensive, but I feel comfortable paying what they ask for an iPhone of a MacBook. I don't even look at cheaper alternatives. Reason why? Because I like them, they work great for me. So, it's not a problem created by Apple, it is not even a problem actually.

 

Again, the square with round corners was a strategy created by Samsung lawyers to detour from the most important aspect of the litigation: Samsung copied what is called "the feel" of iDevices, which included among other things the outer appearance of iPhone. If Apple was suing Samsung for this aspect solely (the square with round corners), it would lose the battle in seconds, it was ridiculous. But the battle was about the softwares, where the real money was invested, AND as a side reinforcement to their argument the outer apparance, which gave, overall, a similarity to iPhones so great it could be callled a copy.

 

This photo is this article speaks for itself:

http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/tech1044.html

 

As for patents, you are fantasizing a little bit: what you see in movies can not be patented until the technology is created, and proven to work: take beaming away, a la Star Trek: you may see it in the big screen, but no company can patent that. The day it is created, then someone may patent it, and any other company that make use of the technology without permission or paying royalties will surely be sued by the company that owns the rights to it. Holograms is a tech that every company is investing millions to develop it right now, but no one could create it to work satisfactorily. thus it does not belong to anyone so far. But the day it is patented, and an Y company is sued for using the technology without legal rights, it may not argue "oh, but the technology was seen in Star Wars years before the X company patented it". The thieve company is then mixing fantasy with reality. Fantasy costs nothing (despite movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to be shot), reality does cost.

 

If your argument was valid, then you would get rich by patenting time-travelling, light sabers, the Death Star design, the blood of Alien, the Predator bending light technology...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm?

 

Of course I was never suggesting that a movie or science-fiction product in general could be patented, you misunderstood me there.

I was talking about basic principles, like a way in which you interact with a machine/program, because those are the patents in question that I referred to.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20073461-264/apples-new-multitouch-patent-faq/

 

It's not about a technology that has been developed, it's about a basic user interaction mode.

Like if some one would have patented the use of a steering wheel.

 

I was referring to prior art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I misunderstood you. But arguments similar to yours have been used in other sites.

The steering wheel example: when it was created it was not patented, there was no such thing at the time. Nowadays, no one can patent a steering wheel, but can patent an original mechanism that makes it steer a car via a wireless connection, say, from the back seat. It would be a steering wheel, but with some specifications that would make it unique. In other words: the outer appearance would be exactly the same, but the sofwares involved would be original - exactly what Samsung did when copying Apple.

Last, almost everything we use in our daily lives are patented, we just don't know that: even the fonts used in certain computers are. You know, me and my bf are registering the format of our lounge bar, even that will be patented. The lawyer made clear to us that if someone copies some unique elements of the bar, it's enough for us to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I misunderstood you. But arguments similar to yours have been used in other sites.

The steering wheel example: when it was created it was not patented, there was no such thing at the time. Nowadays, no one can patent a steering wheel, but can patent an original mechanism that makes it steer a car via a wireless connection, say, from the back seat. It would be a steering wheel, but with some specifications that would make it unique. In other words: the outer appearance would be exactly the same, but the sofwares involved would be original - exactly what Samsung did when copying Apple.

Last, almost everything we use in our daily lives are patented, we just don't know that: even the fonts used in certain computers are. You know, me and my bf are registering the format of our lounge bar, even that will be patented. The lawyer made clear to us that if someone copies some unique elements of the bar, it's enough for us to sue.

 

May I see some pictures of your bar? I might implement some features in the bar of my brother!

 

Nah, I was just joking of course. Gastronomy is a harsh business, involving a lot of work and dedication in order to succeed, along with some originality.

My brother lives in a comparably small town with only few bars/bistros, and it's really a hard job to stay afloat, mainly because costs are always increasing, but especially

in a small town it's difficult to increase prices for the customers accordingly.

 

Where do you live, if I might ask? Because of my work, I'm travelling the world a lot, so I might be able to stop by at your place, just to have a nice cold beer or something like that.

 

Anyways, all the best to you an your lounge concept!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the square with round corners was a strategy created by Samsung lawyers to detour from the most important aspect of the litigation: Samsung copied what is called "the feel" of iDevices, which included among other things the outer appearance of iPhone. If Apple was suing Samsung for this aspect solely (the square with round corners), it would lose the battle in seconds, it was ridiculous. But the battle was about the softwares, where the real money was invested, AND as a side reinforcement to their argument the outer apparance, which gave, overall, a similarity to iPhones so great it could be callled a copy.

 

"The feel" of the iPhone?! Have you tried to hold a Galaxy II and an iPhone 4 in each of you hands?! The only similarity is the the shiny front and the shape, to actually say it is a actual copy of the iPhone appearance is to stretch it very very very far. It should be a true copy to be named one. I mean especially now when most modern smartphones are highly inspired by each other. I mean we would want each company to have to invent their own unique shape, that would be very uncomfortable.. just kidding :P And suing for stealing of technology is something totally different than claiming certain design-properties.

 

You know, me and my bf are registering the format of our lounge bar, even that will be patented. The lawyer made clear to us that if someone copies some unique elements of the bar, it's enough for us to sue.

 

Is that even possible?! Now I haven't seen your bar, so is because you have some special solutions that required special engineering work or is it purely design oriented?! And what if someone made up the same elements as you guys without copying you? But I guess you are thinking more of local competitors who would most likely be aware of you solutions!?

 

Your bar looks nice btw :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drosophila, the "feel" in this case is very similar, if not the jury wouldn't have found it. Plus, there's that funny episode when Samsung lawyers could not tell an iPad from their Note, in court.

 

Our lounge bar is a good example of how patents work: if another bar opens with the same deco, that's not illegal. But with the same deco and 1/3 of the original menu, then it makes a legal case. Mind you, half of our dishes were created by us. So, if this 1/3 includes ONE of our exclusive dishes, then I will ask the other bar to pay us 1 billion dollars :D . Actually we need to do this to franchise our business, which we are doing (hopefully) from 2014 on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drosophila, the "feel" in this case is very similar, if not the jury wouldn't have found it. Plus, there's that funny episode when Samsung lawyers could not tell an iPad from their Note, in court.

 

Errmm no it isn't, a Californian jury does not have access to some divine reality. It's a simple matter of interest in this case, and I am not referring to their tablet products I haven't had much experience with them, but the comparison between the S4 and Galaxy II is very biased. I have to ask you again, have you had both these phones in your hands?!

 

Our lounge bar is a good example of how patents work: if another bar opens with the same deco, that's not illegal. But with the same deco and 1/3 of the original menu, then it makes a legal case. Mind you, half of our dishes were created by us. So, if this 1/3 includes ONE of our exclusive dishes, then I will ask the other bar to pay us 1 billion dollars :D . Actually we need to do this to franchise our business, which we are doing (hopefully) from 2014 on.

 

Ahh I see, cool! :) Then it makes much more sense to me! And good luck with that venture, and hide those recipes in your vault, that's the best protection you can get :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

well real innovation in apple seemed to have stopped years back, now they are only improving on older models, but the new macbook pro is rather nice, except they have kept that ugly black plastic keyboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will CC+CV one comment from another forum about iPhone 5 that explains a lot:

  • This iPhone is perfect for people who want a smooth, drama-free experience with a phone. Meaning, you can use this phone for years without having it freezing, crashing or dying. This is what makes Apple users return to iPhones. My whole family is a good example of how Apple excelence in design and technology is more important than "surprises" every year: we all have left Windows and Androids and got used to OSX and iOS. I keep reading things like "my XYZ phone had this feature since 2010", or "my FGH screen is larger", and it's true. But they're not iPhones. To me, a technology debuts properly when Apple adopts it, if Apple does not use it then I know I don't need it, that it's not mature enough and I won't miss it. And most important: if it's not used by Apple, then Apple will provide a solution that works better than the outcast technology. Last, every phone is good for its owner. I can't understand these Android users who get desperate because people feel good using other brands.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This iPhone is perfect for people who want a smooth, drama-free experience with a phone. Meaning, you can use this phone for years without having it freezing, crashing or dying.

 

I've had three iPods. They all freezed, crashed and died like shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, here's the main reason iPhone 5 will sell spectularly: customer loyalty.

 

http://news.cnet.com...faction-survey/

 

Ohh and you mean blind costumer loyalty?! But I think you are right, that is going to be the main reason it will sell. Btw that kind of poll is also pretty biased when you look at the price ranges that it covers, you would naturally expect a lower score for a company that covers lower entry models, which Apple doesn't... kind of pointless to be honest.

 

I've had three iPods. They all freezed, crashed and died like shit.

 

:lol: same here... bad products really.. and shit batteries which was unchangeable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...