The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung

Yes, and? by Microlith · 2011-04-23 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's the same reason Microsoft got "licensing agreements" with all the other handset vendors and is suing Motorola right now. They put a gun to their head and said "release WP7 handsets or we'll sue you for patent infringement." All the others complied, and Motorola is being sued for patent infringement. This is why Microsoft loves software patents and doesn't oppose them outright.

Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners. This is nothing new, nor will anyone step in to stop it.

Re:Yes, and? by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-04-23 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

These days litigation & licensing are priced into the final cost to produce any pice of technology (especially consumer electronics like cellphones, computers & tablets). It's just a cost of doing business and is passed on to the customer like everything else.

Does the Samsung UI look like the Apple UI? Yes it does, but not enough that a user is going to mistakenly buy a Samsung instead of an Apple product. Is the Apple claim the the Samsung tablet looks too much like the iPad valid? Well, both are flat, rectangular, have rounded corners and have edges around the screen. Isn't that basically a description of the tablet form factor?
Re:Yes, and? by MoonBuggy · 2011-04-23 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Wonderful to see the patent system doing its job to promote innovation, isn't it?
Re:Yes, and? by Kjella · 2011-04-23 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners.
Profit-maximizing companies are against choice and competition, it is nothing unique to those two corporations. Competition is great for customers and innovation, but it's never good for profits. The only reason companies don't completely snuff out their competition is antitrust laws, which makes it better to have a weak competitor with 5-10% of the market and breathing problems. If they ever say they want to increase competition it's to weaken or usurp another competitor. Like for example Google wants to weaken Microsoft's hold on the browser market through Firefox and Chrome. They certainly don't want Bing or Yahoo to succeed even if that meant increased competition in the search market. This should be business 101, you know what they call "perfect competition"? The profit there is zero. Is it any wonder they want imperfect competition? Preferably as flawed as possible.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Yes, and? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

No the profit in perfect competition is not zero. The profit in perfect competition is what is called normal, the rate that rewards capital cost and opportunity cost, besides other variables. What is called zero profit in microeconomics is abnormal profits. A perfect competition market is said to have no such abnormal profits because competitors will enter and end with those surpluses.
It's all beautiful theory since there is no such thing as perfect competition. It's a microeconomic model based on quite a few assumptions that aren't that much reality-driven. It's useful to analyse markets but there will never be such thing as perfect competition.
Now get back to talk about you understand and leave economics for those who understand it.
Re:Yes, and? by Karlt1 · 2011-04-23 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners. This is nothing new, nor will anyone step in to stop it.
http://gigaom.com/video/google-forces-roku-to-take-down-its-youtube-channel/
http://www.webpronews.com/skyhook-wireless-sues-google-2010-09
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_clamps_down_on_android_partners/
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-tried-to-get-google-to-hide-his-political-donation-in-search-results-2011-4?op=1
Re:Yes, and? by Karlt1 · 2011-04-23 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wonderful to see the patent system doing its job to promote innovation, isn't it?
What's "innovative" about copying someone else's UI? Whatever you may think of HTC Sense, MotoBlur, WinMo 7's "Metro UI", Palm's WebOS, etc. at least they tried to do something different than just copy the iPhone UI.
Re:Yes, and? by postbigbang · 2011-04-23 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

The subtle distinctions in UI are another red herring. It's like Apple's claim of the iPad form factor. Because it has round edges, it must be patentable, right?
Apple is desperate to keep their stock price high, and that means entrenching themselves in their beachheaded markets. Fight fight fight. Use the fanboi pawns to astroturf. Litigate every meaningless shred of newness as IP. They learned this from a long line of computer companies going back nearly 50yrs now.
These 'crises', too, will pass.
MeeGo is inventive as is WebOS. But I'm guessing that HP has non-aggression pacts with several of the other companies dating back from the old days, and their acquisition of Palm. Intel desperately wants to play, too.
The problem is: you can build your own proprietary OS from BSD roots and invest a lot of money, or you can get a GPL license derivative (Android) and go with that at a much cheaper cost. Apple's now paying the price for making their deriviations of the Darwin tree more proprietary.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Yes, and? by Karlt1 · 2011-04-23 06:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is: you can build your own proprietary OS from BSD roots and invest a lot of money, or you can get a GPL license derivative (Android) and go with that at a much cheaper cost. Apple's now paying the price for making their deriviations of the Darwin tree more proprietary.

If by "paying the price", you mean being the worlds largest mobile manufacturer by both revenue:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20056289-248.html
And having 50% of the total worldwide profit of cell phones.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/31/apple-is-still-sucking-most-of-the-profit-out-of-the-mobile-phone-business/
Re:Yes, and? by Bacon+Bits · 2011-04-23 07:28 · Score: 2

Yes, these courtroom proceedings have some awfully innovative arguments in them.
What's that? It was supposed to be market innovation? Ooooops....

--
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Yes, and? by node+3 · 2011-04-23 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share (iOS maintains a significant lead over Android, and always has, although on Slashdot ignorance is bliss, so I fully expect some replies from people ignorantly claiming this isn't true), and Apple's market share is increasing, and their revenues are increasing, and their profits are increasing. They are the most financially successful cell phone maker on the planet. They do not fear Google's business model. Why would they when their own is working so well? Not just working well, but working significantly better than that of anyone else?
This article is just the same old uninformed nonsense you expect from people who don't understand that the reason people make money is to buy things. Just because something is free (or "less than free") does not mean people will want it, nor does it mean that people won't pay more for something else. Store shelves wouldn't contain name brands if people always chose the cheapest option.
iOS far outsells Android, yet clearly Apple's business model is doomed? Brilliant!
Re:Yes, and? by Microlith · 2011-04-23 10:10 · Score: 2

you can build your own proprietary OS from BSD roots and invest a lot of money, or you can get a GPL license derivative (Android) and go with that at a much cheaper cost. Apple's now paying the price for making their deriviations of the Darwin tree more proprietary.
- Android is not a GPL derivative. Aside from the kernel it is Apache licensed. Incidentally, that there is no GPL upstream nor an effort to remain in sync with upstream for those that exist (the kernel, namely) is part of why "fragmentation" exists in Android.
You are right about MeeGo, though. But using MeeGo, Android or webOS won't save vendors from fucking up where Apple succeeds. The core OS is only part of the equation.
- Apple is developing OS X and iOS effectively in tandem, and will likely merge them at some point (for better or worse.) Apple is not conceivably paying any greater price than they were already, and it is not hampering their operations in the slightest.
Re:Yes, and? by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 11:42 · Score: 2

The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet. Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?

But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.

Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.

Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.

This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.

"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and Oracle, are all trying to harass anybody who uses Android. These proprietary do not a more open, and less expensive, alternative on the market.
Re:Yes, and? by Jeremi · 2011-04-23 12:09 · Score: 2

Use the fanboi pawns to astroturf.
Point of order: if they are real fanbois, it's not astroturfing.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Yes, and? by node+3 · 2011-04-23 12:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
The demand for proof is nonsensical, but I can provide evidence. Just look at the phones Samsung introduced before and after the iPhone. As for Prada's influence on the iPhone, there couldn't have been any, there was no time for Apple to have redesigned the iPhone. Also, there was no reason to copy Prada (it wasn't a successful product), but plenty of reason to copy the iPhone. Lastly, Apple has their own design team which is both extremely capable (considered the best in the world) and would take too much pride in their work to copy others.

To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet.
And this really is the problem. You can't recognize something you don't understand. You keep acting as though this is all about either making something in the same category (it's not) or that it's about vagueries like being a rounded rectangle (it's not that, either). Samsung's phones look like the iPhone's fat, awkward cousin. The Prada phone is a slab, but in its own style.

Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?
The F700 was a lie that you fandroids conveniently accepted without giving it a second thought because it makes you feel better.

But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.
No it's not. Don't you realize that you immediately contradicted your first sentence with the second one? It's about more than just the shape.

Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.
So? Who said it wasn't? Do you think Apple is claiming there can't be other phones or something? Their suit makes the point that Samsung should come up with their own style, and not copy Apple.

Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.
No, It's not about simply being a rounded rectangle. Read the summaries about the lawsuit. They make this abundantly clear. This has nothing to do with Android in general. It has nothing to do with stopping Samsung from making their own phones. In fact, it's Apple specifically demanding that Samsung do indeed make their own phones, and not so closely copy Apple's phones.

This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.
Of course they don't, but this lawsuit has nothing to do with stopping Android from being available on the market. Nowhere in it does it ask, demand, or imply Android not be available. It only demands that Samsung come up with something not so closely resembling Apple's products.

"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to ge
Re:Yes, and? by 517714 · 2011-04-23 12:38 · Score: 2

I expect that people with your limited comprehension seldom come up with anything original. Next time you provide a link you may want to do more than just look at the pictures The article clearly states that Samsung copied Apple, and the subject is design patent and trade dress not copyright. From the article you reference:

the graphic is in error, as Samsung only mentioned plans for the new phone in 2006. It wasn't actually shown until February 2007 at the 3GSM World Congress, held a month after the iPhone's debut. It did not go on sale at that time.
With its Galaxy line of mobile products, Samsung has copied not just the overall look of the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, but went even further to add a "Touchwiz" layer to Android that makes its devices far more closely resemble Apple's products than other Android licensee have.
After the release of iPad 2, Samsung even publicly admitted needing to redesign its Galaxy Tab to more closely resemble Apple's product.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Yes, and? by Karlt1 · 2011-04-23 14:02 · Score: 2

but you have to admit that apple does *not* treat it's customers well at all.
So please explain how Apple treats its customers badly but yet and still Apple has become the world's largest cell phone manufacturer (by revenue and profit) in less than four years?
Customers seem to be pretty happy with iTunes making it the largest seller of music word wide.
If customers are so upset with Apple and wanted "freedom" then why is the Apple app store outselling the Android market 17 to 1?
http://press.ihs.com/press-release/product-design-supply-chain/apple-maintains-dominance-mobile-application-store-market-
Re:Yes, and? by SvnLyrBrto · 2011-04-23 18:12 · Score: 2

"Customer service objections"? You're actually trying to imply that Apple has bad customer service?
Have you ever set foot in an Apple store? Have you ever dealt with Applecare?
There really is no analog to the Apple Store for comparison; unless you count shopping for and buying a computer at a place like Best Buy as an equivalent. And shopping at Best Buy is a quite unpleasant and obnoxious experience across the board, their computer section even moreso. I can't think of a place I've shopped in years that's had better customer service than the Apple store.
And while having to call support is never exactly pleasant, Applecare is *much* nicer to deal with them Dell, HP, Compaq, or Microsoft. The only support I've dealt with myself that was better was Oracle's (And that was at a previous job where we had a high-end (ie. very expensive) support contract.).

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:Yes, and? by Omestes · 2011-04-24 06:27 · Score: 2

You people...
Who? How do you know it is the exact same group of people? Why are these people hoping Apple dies? Who benefits?
Hey, I hope Apple sticks around. I like some of their products, and have had fond experiences with others. I own an iPod, and think its the best MP3 player on the market. I like it! I have a Mac Mini sitting around the house, I enjoy that as well! I've have 2-3 Apple laptops, and my girlfriend grew up using them, and is/was somewhat a "fan girl".
I'm not going to buy an iPhone. I do own an Android device, though. I don't like the iPhone, and I, personally, don't like how they do business with it. I will never purchase an iPad either, since I, personally, can't actually see a use for it. I think Apple will eventually be in the same place in the phone market that they are in the PC market, a decent second place serving a niche market. There is no harm in that, they've done fine for a long time, and will continue to do so. Android is cheaper, more robust, and more open, it should win based on that. That isn't an attack on iOS devices, just a fact. Apple will still make tons of money, they won't go bankrupt (at least while Jobs is still around). I will still buy a new iPod every once in awhile. I might even replace my aging Mini now that I'm out of painful-hacky self-upgrades. I still won't buy an iPhone, and will still try to talk people out of getting them.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:Yes, and? by Omestes · 2011-04-25 04:11 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, Apple isn't special. Apple is no better than anyone else
Both of those statements are demonstrably false.
Then please demonstrate how Apple is different than any other large producer of hardware and software? I've used my fair share of Apple products over the years and really can't say I see that large of a difference between them and anyone else. Since the Intel switch, they use pretty much the same hardware as every other manufacture. Their software is pretty good, but not really much better than any other polished software from a large dev. I have about as many complaints (and compliments) about their products as I do anyone else's. At the moment a bit of their software is on the top of my "most complained about" list; iTunes.
Actually, on a technological basis, Apple isn't demonstrably better than most other large manufactures. You might prefer them, and that is fine, but it is ultimately just a meaningless personal preference. They might work better for your partiuclar purposes than the competition, but this doesn't make it a universal statement, just a matter of individual preference.
For awhile in college I loved Apple, I liked the simplicity and lack of power I had (no temptation to ditch class to rip apart my computer, yet again, or throw in another relatively frivolous upgrade). Later I realized that commodity, throw-away, computers didn't appeal to me anymore, so I stopped using them. I still use an iPod, because I liked the fact that it was a simple music player that did one thing well without much work from me. They are moving past this idea now so they no longer really work for me (outside of the Classic, but I'm sure its days are numbered).
This is preference.
Yes, Apple has a distinct style (with a few bad decisions). Thats fine. But much of it is fashion. Apple has a somewhat unified look now. That l
ook is fashion, since people desire the look for the look. People want to own something because it looks like an Apple. Design is having a single button on the iPhone or iPad, fashion is everything else. The iPhone doesn't survive only on technological, or functional, merits, since it can be argued that it isn't better than some of its competition. When the iPod came out, it drove the market for white headphone cables, not because white headphone cables are designed better (actually the original iPod headphones sucked), but because it was desirable to be seen with white headphone cables. The same thing goes for the current mobile styling (zomg! a black slab with rounded corners!). Making something with a black face, silver back, and rounded corners isn't a design thing anymore, its a thing letting people know you have an Apple mobile product.
I don't even find it particularly aesthetic, personally. I liked the old iBooks and MacBooks. But the iPhone style doesn't tickle me, I actually like \how my DroidX looks more, since it looks like a phone, and not an overgrown iPod.

Apple is not a fashion company. This is so obvious, it shouldn't even have to be stated.
Never stated that they were. They are just another hardware and software company pushing out hardware and software that does pretty much exactly what their competitors do, based on much the same technology. You have to admit, though, that fashion plays a roll too. Having an iPhone is "sexier" than having a Droid, it is more socially desirable. That is fashion. I'm not saying thats all Apple products have going for them, but it plays a roll. I'm not saying Apple products suck, or that your a moron for preferring them, either. Its all just mere personal preference at this time.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey

it is why by peragrin · 2011-04-23 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.

In the case of music apple basically scared the music studios into stripping off DRM. Now apple is being aggressively stupid themselves. It will bite them on the arse. It will be interesting to watch. but apple can't affect android the way oracle can with java and davik.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:it is why by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-04-23 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.
Is it? You can accumulate a patent arsenal without being the first one to sue. It seems to me that all filing the lawsuit does is serve as an admission to your prospective customers that you can't win on the merits. Winners win, losers litigate.
Re:it is why by icebike · 2011-04-23 04:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.
They are hoping to make the other party let go.
But instead of doing that, Samsung is counter-suing Apple all over the world. This is a good strategy, forcing Apple to fight off of their own turf. Dragging Apple executives half way around the world where they don't have the advantage of pre-filled pockets and rabid fanbois in the jury pool.
In fact Apple could lose big time to this technique. Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly. Apple can not win a land war in Asia.
But more to the point, Apples current round of suits are predominantly alleging that the Galaxy phones look too much like iPhones. This is a really hard claim to win. Nikon and Canon and Minolta as well as Ford and Chevy would get nowhere with that claim. This screams desperation. Especially when Galaxy phones don't look at all like iPhones.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:it is why by scotts13 · 2011-04-23 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, they don't. That was settled a long time ago when Apple was ruled against in their suit against MS over look and feel. If you look at the previous summary it's very clear that Apple is trying to do an end run around the normal prohibition on suits over look and feel.
Actually, that wasn't why they lost the case. You can certainly protect your look and feel, companies do it every day. Apple lost that particular case, against that particular company, because Microsoft had a license allowing them to use some elements of the GUI. Granted, Apple had foolishly given away much more in that contract than they intended to; if they hadn't, computing would be very different today. And BTW, don't bring up Xerox - they were paid handsomely for their contribution, all nice and legal.
Re:it is why by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.
Could Tanya Harding use this excuse? How about Microsoft? Does being "aggressive" mean it's okay to be unethical? If Apple fans accept this so-called "aggressive" behaviour from Apple, then why do the same fans boo and hiss when Microsoft does this sort of thing?

2. Apple can't "affect" Android because there's nothing to affect. It's an OS and it does its thing. However, when another company makes a reasonable facsimile of their device, on purpose due to popularity and design preference, they have every right to go after them. Right or wrong it's what they have to do in this market.
"Their" design? Who's design? A device that is rectangular with rounded edges is certainly not Apple's design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Re:it is why by tgibbs · 2011-04-23 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, that wasn't why they lost the case. You can certainly protect your look and feel, companies do it every day. Apple lost that particular case, against that particular company, because Microsoft had a license allowing them to use some elements of the GUI. Granted, Apple had foolishly given away much more in that contract than they intended to; if they hadn't, computing would be very different today. And BTW, don't bring up Xerox - they were paid handsomely for their contribution, all nice and legal.
Correct. Microsoft basically outmaneuvered Apple. They requested a license, based on the pretext that they could potentially be sued for using Apple's user interface elements in their own Mac software (Excel and Word). Apple did not see them as a user-interface competitor, because Microsoft's version of a windowed interface was quite different, using "tiled" rather than overlapping windows. But the elements that Microsoft requested a license for were precisely those that were most unique to Apple. As soon as Microsoft had the license, they released a version of Windows that copied the overall style of the Mac OS, as well as Apple's special flourishes. Apple did not have a legal leg to stand on. But Apple's loss was not based upon a court rejection of "look and feel" lawsuits. In fact, many such lawsuits over the years have been successful.
Re:it is why by toriver · 2011-04-23 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Strawman. That is NOT what Apple are suing over. I mean have you seen the images showing the Apple icons and Samsung's copycat ones side by side? Plus the box design. They want to mimic the Apple designs so much that it is moving into trade dress infringement territory. (You know, where cheap knockoffs of LV handbags are peddled from street stalls and the like.)
Maybe you dislike that Apple are using the law against blatant copy-cats, but perhaps it is the law you really want to change?
Re:it is why by mkiwi · 2011-04-23 09:56 · Score: 2

Big [citation needed] there.

Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly.
Samsung's shareholders would call for the removal of the CEO and board of directors if the company lost an $8 billion contract/year with Apple because of a corporate pissing contest. If Samsung pushes too hard, Apple can build its own fabrication plant with its hordes of cash. Hell, they may even be planning to do that right now. That would be a big loss in business for Samsung.
As far as Samsung telling other companies not to let Apple buy parts from them, that's even more creepy and Microsoftian than what Apple is doing.
Re:it is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh come now, you really believed Steve Jobs when he said Apple always wanted DRM free music? you think it was really the music industry against it?
Bullshit. Amazon and eMusic had fuck all bargaining power on DRM because Apple held the market and included DRM, so why if the music industries were so for DRM would Amazon and eMusic have been able to bargain for DRM free music stores when Apple, with all it had provided to the music industry couldn't?
I believe Steve Jobs lies at least once in every single press conference, whether it's lies about iOS device sales vs. PSP/DS sales last year, whether it's lies about the root of the iPhone 4 problem (flawed design), or whether it was the DRM thing, he lies and lies and lies. DRM was yet another lie.
You only have to look at how strongly Apple applies DRM to many other facets of it's business to see that Apple was the clear driver of DRM in music, and the reality is that Apple only dropped DRM when the competition- Amazon and eMusic started taking an ever increasing share of their profits- Apple was left with no choice because now it had competition.
DRM is fundamental to Apple's business model, it relied on it with the Apple to tie people into the platform, and it relies on it to a lesser extent now with it's newer devices. It's relies fundamentally on the fact that if people buy things through iTunes then they're going to find it much more difficult to use their content with other devices. This is why Apple started shitting bricks and threw a hissy fit when Palm decided to pretend to be an iPhone to properly sync with iTunes- Apple knew if that door opened, it would then have to compete entirely on merit, and would lose it's long held advantage of artificial forced user lock in.
Apple has never played fair, and it's not about to now.
Re:it is why by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-04-23 12:30 · Score: 2

I don't think I said that most people care about any of that stuff. Discerning customers should care about that stuff, obviously, because it's a pretty good proxy for which products to choose -- the company itself is tacitly admitting that their competitors are offering more value for money, because if the converse were true then the litigant would be happy to just defeat their competitors in the marketplace instead of wasting their own time and money bringing things to court. The fact that some nontrivial fraction of prospective customers don't care about that sort of thing says nothing about whether you, as an individual, are well-advised to consider such things when making a purchase.
Also, would you rather I said "investors" rather than "customers"? Because investors definitely care about that stuff.
Re:it is why by Trillan · 2011-04-23 12:53 · Score: 2

I'm not saying it's right to deal with this in the courts, but it's clearly not right for Google and Samsung to just rip off designs like this. It takes years of research and development to do a design right (over five in this case), and only months to do a shallow copy.
The ethical flaw here is in the copying. I'm not blaming the companies; there's no law against copying. The closest we have is what Apple's currently suing for.
There ought to be standards. There ought to be ethics. There ought to be principles. But there aren't, and there won't ever be. So there's only the courts.
Re:it is why by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-04-23 15:58 · Score: 2

Obviously it's a heuristic and not a determinant, and sometimes it will be wrong. But consider the edge cases: If a company is expecting to totally dominate their competitors on the merits, they have basically no motive to litigate, because it's expensive and bad PR and they can get everything they want without it. Conversely, if a company knows their competitor's product is superior and they're about to enter a death spiral, they have every incentive to litigate because they have nothing left to lose.
So now consider your hypothetical where the product is only slightly better and competition on the merits would yield a slight majority whereas litigation might significantly damage the competitor and yield a large majority of the market. Obviously it could play out the way you suppose, but consider the incentives again: The company with the inferior product has the greater incentive to strike first because they have a prospective 60% of the market to gain rather than only 40%. Moreover, they suffer the greater risk in keeping the status quo, because they risk the competitor with the superior product deciding to launch an ad campaign informing people about the inferior competitor's product's flaws or taking various other measures to use their superior product to expand their market share at the cost of the inferior competitor.
Again, it isn't that every time a company sues another company it's because the litigating company's product is crap. It's just that it happens that way (significantly) more often than not, because of how the incentives line up.
Re:it is why by Trillan · 2011-04-23 17:16 · Score: 2

The grid is the least part of it. If you look at the Samsung from the months before the iPhone, then the one "previewed" a few months later, you can see it the product design wasn't a natural evolution for Samsung. It was a very direct, very shameless copy.
Yes, there can never be a law against what Samsung did. It would be stupid to restrict them that much. But Samsung ought to have (if nothing else) enough pride to come up with something that wasn't as direct a copy. I mean, look at Windows Phone 7. It ain't for me, but it's something different. There are dozens of approaches you can take with a touch screen. You have to be pretty uncreative to come up with the same design as your competition months after them.
Re:it is why by Macman408 · 2011-04-23 18:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pennies? Apple is Samsung's second largest customer (Sony is #1), with Apple amounting to something in the neighborhood of 4-5% of their revenue, IIRC. You don't generally give the finger to a customer that big, even if they gave you the finger first.
I've been quietly wondering if this is just the public side to a private disagreement in the boardroom - perhaps Samsung is trying to raise flash or other component prices for Apple, or Apple wants to negotiate for lower prices than they already have. And, of course, if they get what they want, maybe this whole lawsuit nonsense will disappear too. And if their lower component price is disguised as a patent license from Apple, all the better to use as ammo against other companies who use Android.

the legal system as a weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

> A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off.

This should be no surprise; it's exactly what the RIAA does to individuals. You don't have to be RIGHT, you only have to tie up enough time, money, energy, and effort that it isn't worth the cost to the recipient.

So if you sue anyone making rectangular tablet computers with ions, you might get a revenue stream, but if not, you have still cost them a lot of trouble to round up related document, emails, put a case together, and so on. And you have cast FUD on anyone else who dares to not use your closed ecosystem - smaller players may not be able to defend themselves adequately.

A smart tactic, since the system allows it, but a highly sleazy one nonetheless.

Re:the legal system as a weapon by Moryath · 2011-04-23 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Welcome to how the legal system works - justice is not a part of it any more.
The sad part is that this kind of shit pervades even the "criminal justice" side.
Traffic tickets? Compare the cost of "just paying" (or in many states, "taking defensive driving") with the cost of defending yourself - lost hours of work on the days you have to go to court, lost time on paperwork or else lawyer fees to subpoena all the records you'll need, and oh yeah, the possibility that the case judge will be one of those corrupt motherfuckers who insist "the police are always right" because guess what, the judge's salary is paid out of ticket fines too.
I had one once where the police officer was obviously just using "pull someone over" as an excuse to hit on the new female recruit. Sat there and watched as he got everything about my car's info wrong on the ticket except for license plate - make, model, even the number of fucking DOORS - because he was too busy trying to "explain how we do this" while sneaking his hand onto her ass.
Didn't matter, of course. The Prosecutors are corrupt, the Judges are corrupt, the whole system is fucking corrupt and the fines and fees are set "just low enough" that most people will "just pay it" because it works out cheaper to do so.
Oh, and no, it's not just on the low side either. The American "justice" system has gotten the "plea bargain" down to a science - you can "plead guilty" to something you know you didn't do, get "lenience" from the court, OR they can tack on dozens of fucking extraneous charges and run you into the ground so that even if you do manage to convince the jury you're innocent on most of it, chances are they'll get one of the charges through, and you'll be fucking bankrupted by the cost of defending yourself anyways.

Nice conspiracy theory, but... by Penguinisto · 2011-04-23 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:

* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's like saying the MAC is the top selling model of Personal Computers... Just because there are so many other models in the PC camp. It comes down to trying to slice the numbers to benefit what point you are trying to make.
No matter how try to phrase it won't change the fact that there are more phones with Android being sold with them than iOS, and that is likely to not change in the future. Sorry if that hurts your Apple Fanboism.
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by ThatsMyNick · 2011-04-23 04:33 · Score: 2

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:
* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
You seriously believe a company like Apple cannot ramp up production if there is demand?

* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
Yeah, it is, but other phones are catching up, how much more can apple keep innovating. This is more like a plan for 5 years down the lane. And smaller players are easier to sue, than larger ones, RTFA

* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
There some patents that cannot be worked around, like having rounded edges

* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?
Oracle is mainly targeting Androids Dev Env, and mainly Google, it hardly cares about what happens to the cell phone manufactures. Besides, it looks like the result of Oracle suit will probably be a small fine from Google, nothing more, Hardly what Apple wants.
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by brokeninside · 2011-04-23 05:46 · Score: 2

1. Ramping up production is not an easy thing if you want to keep an eye on quality control and only ramp up as much as you know you need to ramp up. Apple has the cash to ramp up to insane volumes. But they won't do that. Doing that would be idiocy. Far better to sell every device they make and slowly ramp up until they get to a point where they're only selling almost every device they make. That would appear to be what they're doing.
2. Other phones are catching up? Really? Name one model of smartphone that is selling anywhere close to the iPhone4 in terms of raw numbers.
3. Can't work around having rounded edges? Seriously? How about by having sharp edges?
4. I mostly agree with you on the issue of Oracle "already" doing what TFA says that Apple wants to do. It's really apples and oranges. For the most part, Apple doesn't care how much other phone manfacturers pay to license an OS. Why don't they care? Simple, Apple's profit margin is already higher per unit even when other companies get their OS for free. And, believe it or not, Apple doesn't really care about market share. What they care about is profits.
(PS. if Oracle wins against Google and other Android devs, the handset manufcturers that use Android will be next on the list.)
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by painandgreed · 2011-04-23 06:07 · Score: 2

That's like saying the MAC is the top selling model of Personal Computers...

NO, NO, NO, NO. "MAC" is a brand of makeup. A "Mac" is short for Macintosh and a personal computer.
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by Karlt1 · 2011-04-23 06:11 · Score: 4, Informative

I believe those comScore numbers are installed base, not current sales.
You believe wrong. Every quarter that Google announces the squishy "Android Activations per day". Apple announces the number of iPhones and iPads sold. For the last two quarters, while they haven't given out exact iPod Touch numbers, they have given out iPod numbers and said "more than half" are Touches. Simple math shows that Apple is still selling more iOS devices than Android.
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... by Stupendoussteve · 2011-04-23 14:28 · Score: 2

So then why is Apple suing over a look and feel on a device which isn't much of a player in the Android world?
Why aren't they going after HTC or Motorola? Oh yeah, because this is about look and feel and copying of the UI and hardware. A redesign of both and the Samsung phone would and will be left alone. This is not about Apple feeling threatened.
You have commented on every single reply here saying the exact same thing. We got it, you're a fanboi.

Doesn't make sense by wvmarle · 2011-04-23 04:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

This doesn't make sense. Why? Because the Apple v. Samsung suit is supposedly about trademark/design infringement. Because the Galaxy looks way too much like Apple's products. Not about anything technical about it.

Or am I missing something here? And is there something fundamental to Android that this suit is about?

And if it is fundamental to Android, logically the suit should be targeting Google - the author of the Android system. But it seems Google is not involved in this one (yet).

Oh and Android surging over iOS is no surprise but just natural... iOS is limited to one current and a few old models phone, and one current and one old model tablet. Android is not limited and currently available on dozens of current, and possibly hundreds of old models of phones and tablets. Not exactly an even fight.

Sorry it's bedtime (midnight here) so not going to read TFA. Apple shouldn't have much to fear from Android - about as much as it has to fear from Windows in the personal computing world. It competes just fine there.

Microsoft that's the potential big loser here, as they have to sell their OS and are really competing head-to-head with Android. In a market where pennies count, they want to add dollars to the cost. Apple has no such issues, there is no price on an iOS license, afaik it's not even for sale other than in combination with a piece of hardware.

Re:Doesn't make sense by arkhan_jg · 2011-04-23 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, they're arguing that
a) samsung galaxy hardware look too much like the iphone/ipad. Cos, it's rectangular with rounded corners. And black, both high original apple features that only they did first.
b) samsung's 'touchwiz' user interface (as opposed to the standard android one) looks too much like iOS. Cos the 'app drawer' shows all installed apps in a rectangular grid. Which no-one would ever have thought of until apple did it.
Given samsung supplies apple with their screens and cpu's, it seems they want to stop their supplier well, using their own stuff and stay just as a parts supplier, not a competitor. That they have to use laughably generic look-n-feel patents to do it shows how baseless the accusation is.
This is the default galaxy S i9000 homescreen vs the apple home screen. Absolutely identical, aren't they. If you picked one up, you'd never be able to tell them apart, they're *that* similar.
I hear they're going to sue nokia next because they sell 'phones', which is a trademark infringement of apple's unique name, iPhone.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Re:Doesn't make sense by garote · 2011-04-23 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not a question of whether anyone "would have" thought of it. It's a question of timing. The courts have been asked to judge whether Samsung has deliberately released a product that strongly reminds people of an iPhone, in order to encourage confusion between the two, and ride on the coattails of the enthusiasm the iPhone has garnered in the marketplace. Thank goodness the courts will be deciding this, and not J Random Slashdotter who didn't even care to read TFA before spouting off about "generic look-n-feel patents".
You see this sort of behavior with cheap knock-off manufacturers all the time, and the behavior is damaging to consumers, disruptive to the target company, and not innovative in any way. The only reason it happens as often as it does is because of the legal costs involved with fighting these parasites. It is beneath Samsung, or should be at least, and perhaps this lawsuit will slap some sense into them.
Re:Doesn't make sense by arkhan_jg · 2011-04-23 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Did you even look at the photos? The galaxy S is only superficially similar to the iphone. The icons are very different (square rather than rounded, totally different symbols). The 'bar' at the bottom has different icons, different functions, different positions and looks different. The bar at the top with the 3G symbol etc is different, in a different place. The galaxy S has a 4" screen, at 480 x 800 pixels; it's direct competitor when it came out was the iphone 3gs, with a 3.5" 320 x 480 pixel display.
The samsung galaxy S has a great big 'samsung' on the front, and three buttons, not one. It's a direct follow-on in look and feel from the galaxy i900 two years earlier.
A grid layout for touchscreen icons on phones predates the iphone 1 by a looong way (see, for example, the palm devices). It's a direct follow-on from the desktop metaphor of icons for apps in a grid layout, so it's hardly innovative to do the same on a phone.
If you're arguing the case design (black with silver trim) is similar, well, there's the LG prada which was announced a full year before the iphone 1, or samsung's own f700 which was announced virtually at the same time. Black with silver-trim in a candy bar phone with a touch screen was nothing new.
It is beneath Samsung, or should be at least, and perhaps this lawsuit will slap some sense into them.
Well, that assumes that the galaxy line of phones and tablets are a rip-off of apple's designs, as opposed to the natural evolution of many, many phones, including samsung's own, that were available in european and asian markets with similar look-n-feel long before the iphone. The iphone was a huge success in the US when it came out because at the time you weren't getting the great phones released elsewhere in the world, where it took a lot longer to get traction against similarly (or better) spec'd competition.
Seriously, pick up a galaxy S and an iphone 3GS or even iphone 4 (I own the former, I help many users of the latter). They look, feel and operate quite differently.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.

Re:Step 2 by Tsiangkun · 2011-04-23 04:17 · Score: 2

Step 2) Sell products

Apple is moving HUGE amounts of iPhones and iPads.

Can Apple really expect to win this? by damn_registrars · 2011-04-23 04:18 · Score: 2

They are suing the primary supplier of their LCDs. Sure there are others out there, but few that make panels as nice as Samsung, and Apple is known for having some of the best OEM displays on the market. If the lawsuit looks like it is swinging in Apple's favor, Samsung can exert pressure on Apple by either jacking up the LCD prices or threatening to no longer supply them at all. They certainly have plenty of other customers (and their own product lines) such that they could carry on without Apple.

But if next month Apple MacBooks all had crappy LCDs in them, that would hurt Apple significantly (even more so if their big external $3000 - $4000 displays went that way).

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Can Apple really expect to win this? by halivar · 2011-04-23 04:37 · Score: 2

If Samsung punitively alters their deal with Apple, they will be injuring themselves also. No, this will not happen. Corporation continue to do business with each other despite litigation all the time. If the deal is good, it continues despite litigation.

Troll article, troll summary by jo_ham · 2011-04-23 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Not only is the article random speculation, but the summary title seems to suggest it is something definitive.

News just in, the real reason Apple is suing Samsung is because they both had lawyers with free time on their hands. It's true because someone on the internet said so!

The article makes some hilariously silly assumptions, borne out by the fact that Apple is selling iPhones (and other iOS devices) as fast as it can make them - so there's really no "threat" to their profits from Android. If anything, a healthy smartphone/tablet market is a positive thing for everyone involved.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends by yeshuawatso · 2011-04-23 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

First rule of business: there's no such things as friends in business. Really, friends is a strong term. In a supply chain, one person is always trying to be the dominate player, be it the retailers, suppliers, or the warehouses and logistics players.

The real real reason by gnasher719 · 2011-04-23 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple is suing one manufacturer of Android phones who happens to make phones that look pretty much exactly the same as iPhones. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Apple doesn't like competitors making phones that look like iPhones. If we were to believe the conspiracy theories of "Business Insider", then we would have to believe that Apple doesn't mind their designs being copied. And that I find quite unbelievable. The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for this lawsuit is that Apple doesn't like their designs being copied.

Re:The real real reason by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-23 06:29 · Score: 2

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Apple doesn't like competitors making phones that look like iPhones.
So, why are they suing them on utility patents instead of design patents or trade-dress? Or do you mean Apple is just bitter so they're abusing the patent system?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Money off hardware? by kwerle · 2011-04-23 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.

Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.

I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)

Re:Maybe by Joce640k · 2011-04-23 04:35 · Score: 2

Only if you can look at an iPhone and think "Wow! That's totally unlike every other gadget ever made! I wish I'd invented that amazingly awesome new shape!!"

If not...

--
No sig today...

Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 04:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Rubbish. http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg

This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate, and today we can use computers not made by apple that have windows, icons, mouse and pointer etc. (remember apple didn't actually come up with any of those things, they're just a litigation and marketing engine since Woz left in disgust). Unfortunately with the US legal system as corrupted as it is today, they might win this time.

factual errors by phantomfive · 2011-04-23 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

First, there are so many lawsuits among mobile companies that a single extra one isn't going to have a chilling effect. All of these companies have enough cash that the cost of fighting a lawsuit alone will not hurt them (a big judgement might be a different story).

Secondly, MIcrosoft licensing costs aren't very much for Windows Phone 7. Estimates of licensing costs are between $5 and $15 on a phone that, with a data plan, ultimately costs thousands of dollars. Or, in the case of Nokia, Microsoft is paying Nokia to use it. $5 is still a cost, but it's not the reason people don't like WP7.

Then the article gets plain idiotic. It says Apple makes money on hardware, not on their OS. But this is true of every single Android phone as well.

The next factual error is a surprising one, but still serious. Look at the numbers of iOS vs Android devices. There are a lot more people using iOS than Android (note the figures include tablets). Surprising, but if you're going to write a tech journal you should be on top of this kind of thing.

Finally there is no reason to question why Apple is suing. It's about money. Just like every single other lawsuit in the mobile space. They all think they can get some extra money by suing, so they do.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

that makes little sense by kervin · 2011-04-23 04:48 · Score: 4, Informative

You have any evidence of this at all? I mean the slightest?

Very few of Microsoft's former mobile partners have agreed to work with WP7. Even Sony, which was exclusively WM6 is now a fierce exclusively Android competitor. Microsoft hasn't sued any of them.

Motorola was on a patent war path. The timing of the Motorola suite suggests that Microsoft sued Motorola on behalf of some of its other hardware partners, which unlike Apple, it desperately needs.

Re:aplle is the shit by ThunderBird89 · 2011-04-23 04:49 · Score: 2

I can afford to have this point undone.

I am not corporate shill, Google and Apple can mutually destroy each other for all I care. But if your post is a single sentence of five words with no grammar or punctuation, and you don't even bother to make a defined, supported, coherent point, then yes, I AM going to mod you down, and with the "Troll" marker, as there is no "Moron" marker in the moderation system.
This refers to the Anonymous Coward of the opening post, but could also be applied to you, jangle. If you are going to make a point, support it with something, and have a goddamn point to make in the first place. Your post is informative, yes: it informs me that you're only capable of blindly trashing some product that you don't agree with, using an old, outdated meme, without being able to support your points with logical arguments.

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!

Did the author do any research? by UnknowingFool · 2011-04-23 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's the problem: it's not clear that anyone has ever won a "look and feel" lawsuit. (The legal term is "trade dress.")

Did the author did any research into this statement because Apple has won a "trade dress" lawsuit against eMachines back in 1999.

Nor should they. Fast-following and imitating is a big part of what makes free markets work. It helps competition and helps bring innovations to consumers faster.

There is a difference in copying functionality and copying design. I think if Honda or Toyota were to make bubbly sedans that look very much like the old VW Beetle, VW would have a problem with it even though their current Beetle is no longer as bubbly.

It's the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.

If that were the case, MS would have sued all Android makers but they didn't. They only went after former customers who abandoned them for Android. If I were to guess the purpose of MS, it would be to keep a place in the market. MS competes directly with Android as makers can pick Android over WP7 when making a phone. MS doesn't want to be left out of any maker's lineups. Apple does not compete directly with Android because Apple sells hardware and the software.

Additionally, Android phones often compete with each other and WP7 on pricing. Most likely, Apple doesn't really care about what Android costs as they are making tons of money anyways. What is the term around here: Android phones are a race to the bottom?

Also if that was the reasoning behind the lawsuit, Apple would have sued more than Samsung for this reason. Why didn't Apple sue other makers over their Android phones for trade dress? Also Apple would have sued Samsung for more than the Galaxy line of products as Samsung sells other Android products. The question then is why Galaxy.

If you look at the Galaxy line, it is the line that looks most like Apple products. Whereas other makers and other Samsung models have different bevels, tapers, corners, etc, the Samsung i9000 specifically looks a lot like the iPhone when both are powered off. Take a look the comparison between a Samsung Galaxy and a Samsung Wave and a HTC D2. Now compare a Galaxy vs iPhone. When powered on, the UI is very similar. Again other makers and models used different UI themes, icons, layouts, etc. The Galaxy is very similar to the iPhone.

Will Apple win and how long will this lawsuit go on? I don't know if Apple will win, but at the very least, Samsung's next Android phone will likely not look anything like the iPhone 4 which is probably what Apple wants.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:Did the author do any research? by Anubis+IV · 2011-04-23 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm glad you made those points regarding trade dress suits. I'm reminded of an excellent writeup I saw a few days ago which went into detail about the lawsuit and its merits. They really tried to put the importance of the different points in laymen's terms so that anyone could understand whether or not a particular part of the lawsuit was fluff or substance.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends by similar_name · 2011-04-23 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Frankly, the idea of companies being "friends" is a bit weird

It's very weird indeed

That has been among some reasons... by cthellis · 2011-04-23 05:01 · Score: 2

...but the biggest part of the lawsuit against Samsung specifically has been over TouchWiz, which isn't associated with adding an "Android cost" at all, since it's only Samsung's UI deal. Apple has also gone after HTC, and one wonders if they just expected an easier resolution in the wake of the Microsoft/HTC licensing agreement. Nokia sues Apple and gets counter-sued right back. Mainly, it's THE sector of computing showing exponential growth, so alla them big companies gonna be leveraging for position. And that means lawsuits be flyin', yo.

Re:Step 2 by tepples · 2011-04-23 05:03 · Score: 2

Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.

Even if this is true of iOS as a whole, what do makers of Android-powered devices have that most directly compares to Apple TV 2 or iPod touch? Most OHA Android-powered devices I've heard about are either tablets or contract phones. Archos 43 is kinda-sorta close to iPod touch, but it runs AOSP Android instead of OHA Android, and one has to use ArcTools to "pirate" the Android Market application to find any decent selection of applications because application developers tend to treat AppsLib users as second-class citizens.

Re:Step 2 by JesseDegenerate · 2011-04-23 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't think that's the case. http://www.knowyourcell.com/news/858093/ios_reach_is_59_percent_greater_than_android_in_the_us.html when you compare one phone manufacturer's phone, and not the other devices on the platform, yet you count tablets for androids, yes the picture is certainly painted that way. However, on an even playing field, it's not so. your article posts smartphone data, yet you call it iOS devices, this, imo is intentionally misleading. not to mention this is one manufacturer against quite a few high profile, long term OEMs. I have no problems with android in anyway, but I do have a problem with fanboys distorting facts to make themselves feel better about a purchase? /owns a xoom and a ipad2, because i dev for gasp, both platforms.

That's one way of looking at it... by mr_lizard13 · 2011-04-23 05:45 · Score: 2

...but there's no denying the Samsung devices mentioned in the lawsuit borrow heavily from the iPhone's design. Right down to the icons- the stock Android icons were replaced with icons that look exactly like the iPhone ones.

Whether or not that's illegal though, I'm not sure. Apple reckons it is, and I guess the courts will decide.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Re:That's one way of looking at it... by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 09:11 · Score: 2

...but there's no denying the Samsung devices mentioned in the lawsuit borrow heavily from the iPhone's design.
There is also no denying that a rectangle with rounded corners is not Apple's design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA

Re:Quality will win by flithm · 2011-04-23 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I recently ditched my iPhone for a Nexus S; which was purely because I was so fed up with my old carrier that I was willing to "downgrade" my phone to switch companies.

I was shocked to find that Android is just a better system. Sure there are things that iPhone wins on, but overall Android takes the cake.

Consumers don't give a **** if it's open, or about the business strategy. Android is winning because it's better.

Maybe you haven't tried 2.3... it's leaps and bounds ahead of 2.1.

Is Apple Evil? by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

In just over one year:

Apple iPhone illegally tracks users - April 2011
Apple suee Samsung over "rectangle with rounded corners" - April 2011
Apple sues Amazon over the phrase "App Store" - March 2011
Apple hides and denies iPhone-4 defects - June 2010
Apple sues HTC over Android - March 2010

Not that any of this is new for Apple. Remember Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft, about 20 years ago?

All evil proprietary companies sue over Android by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Tag Team effort against Android?

April 2011: Apple sues Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues Motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android

* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet

Re:aplle is the shit by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-04-23 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because I'm not a Unix kernel hacker who can write his own kernel. I'm just a student, whose interest in technology doesn't extend to rewriting Unix kernels, as that's too much learning and way out of may chosen career path.

I am a kernel hacker but not all my computers are running custom kernels, far from it. That is because for almost all my machines a standard kernel is perfectly adequate. However, this has not always been the case. From time to time I have had hardware issues that required kernel customization in some way, typically backport of a driver or a driver compiled from vendor source. And of course there are kernels that I compile and install for experimental and development purposes. The fact that I am able to do this is very important. For one thing it allows me to update devices that would otherwise become obsolete and useless. And the fact that other people are able to do it is even more important because I benefit from the work they are able to do.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Re:Step 2 by binary+paladin · 2011-04-23 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Desperate?

Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?

The fact that Android—which is available on more networks and being built in more price ranges by more manufacturers—is outpacing iOS isn't some kind of surprise. You don't need to own a majority of the market to do well. They were doing well before the iPhone came out without owning a majority of any market they were in.

Are they playing rough, yes. Desperate? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/nokia-apple-idUSLDE73K12P20110421

No, not really. The "real" reason Apple is suing is because they are HISTORICALLY litigious. There's no sales conspiracy needed. It's not some final desperate act. It's standard operating procedure for Apple and has been for years.

Re:Maybe by gnasher719 · 2011-04-23 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate,

The last time Apple won the case, and eMachines and Future Computers (or something similar) had to stop selling computers that looked like iMacs. Apple had design patents that protected the design of the iMac. They have design patents that protect the design of the iPhone. So I expect the same outcome. Interestingly, eMachines also had a design patent for an all-in-one computer that reminded me strongly of an alien with ears so they must have been aware of the protection that design patents give you; they probably just liked Apple's design of the iMac better than their own.

Re:Quality will win - against freedom? by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 06:30 · Score: 2

Seriously? With Android sales growing like wildfire, you cannot see how android would be a threat to Microsoft and Apple? Really?

Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out now. And you don't think Apple sees that as any threat? Come on now, don't be stupid. It's easier to kill an infant, than to wait until it grows up. This is a simple case of baby stabbing.

Re:Sorry, the theory is perfectly sound by UnknowingFool · 2011-04-23 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

What if Android gets about 70% of the market, and Apple starts losing iOS developers?

Well Apple can always stop making products. No one says Apple will make the same products forever. They stopped making printers when HP and others got big. They stopped making consumer monitors. They only make professional grade monitors now.

You would have to be a complete fool to think that Apple does not feel threatened by a more open, less expensive, technology.

Threatened might be a strong word. Here's how I see things. In computers, Apple still is small compared to PCs. Are they threatened by Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc? Or do they still make their computers regardless of their competitors. In other products that they make, they make money even if they don't have the biggest market share like wi-fi routers, keyboards, mice, etc. Now they have adjusted their product lines with changing times. They stopped making XServes, for instance. I think that Apple has to keep an eye on their competitors like everyone else.

The other thing is that Android does not compete directly with them. It competes directly with WP7 because Apple will never license iOS to the like of LG, Motorola, etc. Also while Apple may lose out some sales to Android, Android runs the entire range of smartphones while Apple only wants to compete in the high end of the market.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Isn't Apple also a "copycat" ? by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA

Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.

Apple did not invent:
- the PC
- the GUI
- the mp3 player
- the online music store
- the smart phone
- the tablet computer
- or much of anything else.

So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?

Re:Isn't Apple also a "copycat" ? by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 09:36 · Score: 2

The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Or, maybe "rectangle with rounded corners" is just so obvious an idea that nobody can be said to have invented it? Speaking of blackberries, what sort of shape did they have? And for that matter, didn't blackberries have a lot of features that appeared in iPhones?

In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
Yep, and good for Apple. Just goes to show: just because a basic idea was copied, does not mean there is no innovation. So if that concept is true for Apple, why not for Apple competitors?
You seem to strong double standard, and bias for Apple. If Apple copies somebody, it is completely okay. But, the other way around is strong grounds for Apple to sue. If Apple can sue Samsung, then shouldn't LG be able to sue Apple? Should blackberry be able to sue apple for the basic shape, and function, of a smart phone?

What color is the sky on your planet? by jamrock · 2011-04-23 07:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.

Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.

Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.

Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".

Re:What color is the sky on your planet? by icebike · 2011-04-23 09:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim.
This has been answered above. The study you quote (same study the other guy mentioned) is very deceptive, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES.

The research found that Apple’s iOS platform — on iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches – reached 37.9 million people, while Android reached 23.8 million, on phones and tablets.
"Reached"? What the heck does that mean?
Well when you follow the story to its source it is measuring all the iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads ever sold against the number of android devices ever sold. With a four or five year running start its no wonder there are more IOS devices floating around out there (used or no longer being used).
My statement had to do with current sales, or sales over the last quarter, or sales over the last year. Further, this thread is about Apple's lawsuits against Samsung over Smart phone sales. Not about tablets.
You simply can not come up with any statistic that shows IOS outselling Android in smartphones, and if you focus on current sales of all IOS devices and all Android devices Android still wins, and only a handful of Android tablets have actually hit the market.
Lets be honest here and not try to refute sales figures with fleet figures. Talk about blithe disregard for the facts!!!
Oh, and just for your info, I hold Apple stock, and have no plans to sell any time soon. So don't start with that childish "haters" stuff.
And stop insulting people who bring you news you don't like. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the facts.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:What color is the sky on your planet? by makomk · 2011-04-23 10:03 · Score: 2

Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million).
I'm guessing a lot of those are iPod touch sales - especially given that a lot of people I meet seem to have them - which isn't suprising since neither Google nor any of the major Android handset makers seems to be interested in even trying to compete with it and it's quite reasonably priced compared to the various iPhones. The real question is why not? (Interestingly, the cheapest pay-as-you-go Android smartphones here in the UK are now actually well into MP3 player pricing and are well into featurephone-price territory. Not sure this matters so much in the US since you don't have decent PAYG or any good options for purchasing phones outside of contracts.)

Re:Maybe by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 07:09 · Score: 2

I think the reason they're suing is because Samsung's skin does in fact slavishly copy the iPhone look and feel.

Could that be it??

You just like the iPhone design "slavishly" copies the LG Prada, which came out before the iPhone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA

Re:Simple solution for Samsung by tgibbs · 2011-04-23 09:02 · Score: 2

Except that then Samsung may find that they are not competitive with other chip manufacturers. Most likely, there will ultimately be some judgments or settlements in favor of Apple and some in favor of Samsung. Apple is gambling that when the legal dust settles they will end up getting more money from Samsung in the form of license fees. The fact that Samsung didn't sue first most likely means that Samsung suspects that Apple is right. Samsung is countersuing to mitigate the damage, and to demonstrate that they have something to trade when it comes to settlement time.

Re:Innovative competition. or ... by walterbyrd · 2011-04-23 10:19 · Score: 2

What did Microsoft do here?

Same thing as Apple, and Sony, and Oracle. Tried to kill Android while it's still in it's infancy. And tried to do so by using junk patents to file harassment lawsuits. And all those companies are doing this for the same reason, they feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative.

April 2011: Apple suee Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android

* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet

Slashdot Mirror

The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung

84 of 514 comments (clear)