Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Samsung In Germany Again
New submitter tguyton writes "Apple is going after Samsung again in Germany, this time over 10 phones including the Galaxy S II. It should come before the courts in August, a month before their tablet case in September."
What a bunch of niggers. They're worse than microsoft.
... get rid of the legal structure in place that makes this type of lawsuit have a good enough chance of prohibiting or delaying a competitors product that it makes good financial sense to proceed?
I wish that money spent on lawyers was spend on engineering, or alternatively, entertaining commercials.
To prosecute someone more than once for the same reason?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Don't forget Facebook. TechGuys wuvs Facebook.
You for got the Samsung Blackjack
http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-blackjack-sgh-i607/4505-6452_7-32143267.html
Watch those corners
Samsung is one of those companies whose business is centered on making commodity knock-offs of popular products
Canon does that too. The products are generally superior, the business model is the same.
GreatBunzinni has been posting anonymous accusations listing a whole bunch of people as being part of some marketing campaign for Microsoft. He has accidentally outed himself as this anonymous poster, and half the accounts he lists don't even post pro-Microsoft rhetoric. In fact, the theme of the accounts seems to be that they have been critical of Google at some point in the past.
That's not the problem. The problem is that moderators gave him +5 Informative and are regularly modding down these people, even for legitimate posts. Metamoderation is supposed to address this problem and filter out the bad moderators, but clearly it's not working.
This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop It's restricting certain viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.
It isn't just Apple that Samsung has a tendency to "draw inspiration" from. (...) So before the usual anti-Apple rhetoric starts a-flyin', keep in mind that Samsung is one of those companies whose business is centered on making commodity knock-offs of popular products. I don't blame Apple for suing to protect Jonathan Ive's design work, because if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
So if say, Apple (ahem) "draws inspiration" from an inferior product and makes it higher quality, then would the "inspirer" not have grounds to sue since it can only enhance its brand?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Honestly, if someone could find a way to patent the wheel, they'd do it.
Our patent system is such at this point that there is no advancement possible without asking permission and paying royalties to someone else. Every fundamental idea and concept is owned. As anything that has any sort of visual representation and interface.
Of course, all this is incredibly ironic, given that back in the day, Microsoft and Apple both flagrantly ripped off what are considered to be absolute fundamentals of a GUI from Xerox.
Check your premises.
It's all Apple has left: patents and lawsuits. Without Steve Jobs at the helm, what else did you expect them to do? Innovate new products? Please, even with Steve leading, all Apple has ever done is scoop up companies doing actual innovation and copy them. (It's become cliche to point out that Apple stole the Mac GUI from Xerox. Even more cliche is pointing out that they "licensed" it without realizing that the point is that they claimed it as their own without giving any credit to the people who actually designed it.)
Have you seen iOS 5? All the new features were either stolen directly from Android (notifications, Siri, iCloud if we're honest) or ... um... actually, I think I listed all the new features.
Have you tried Mac OS X Lion? It's this weird bastard child of Windows and iOS. And, yes, I mean Windows. They flat-out stole quite a few things from Windows and added them to Mac OS X. Even the style changes from Snow Leopard to Lion makes it look more like Windows Aero. Why they went that why?
Well - this is Apple, post Steve Jobs. All they've got left is copying other people and then suing them.
Instead of going to court every other day, wouldn't it be easier to just threaten all retail outlets with not supplying them with products if the sell someone else's.
It's been done
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
thats a clone ? like a black bmw is a clone of black dodge because of the color and 4 wheels and those bastards even installed a black round steering wheel this time and a radio in the middle console ?
As long as this BS continues, I won't buy no Apple product no more. Triple minus.
It's not that I'm that principled, but this territorial behavior simply annoys me. So each time I might be seduced by an Apple product, that annoyance raises its ugly head and lowers my libido, if you catch my drift.
I'm not a coward by any name.
Sorry you got modded down by the Google fans. I dunno how somewhere between the 90s and today Samsung, a crap vendor, has become so loved by the nerds for making essentially cheap knock offs of good designs. They were famous for their crap.
Sounds reminiscent of the anti-Linux on the netbook tactic Microsoft used.
sig: sauer
As Apple has engaged in an all out abusive patent war on anyone who dares compete with their Dynabook ripoff technology, I say "Fuck Apple."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I guess someone at Apple has finally watched Galaxy S2 commercial?
In online gaming, this kind of thing is usually remarked upon as "u mad?".
MS behaved once like a complete asshole and it slowly found itself in a world where nobody liked it anymore and it was starting to hurt the company. Nothing like outright revenge but in its proposed standards being ignored and its rivals providing each other with support just because. Or do you think IBM has no alterior motive in supporting Linux then because it doesn't care what it sells support for? IBM doesn't just sell patents to google for the hell of it either to fight Apple, or do you think IBM liked it when Apple ditched their CPU? Oh, not that it made much difference, Apple was a very small buyer but why help Google for just a tiny bit of cash with patents that IBM might one day need themselves?
Reputation matters. How much? Well so much that MS has bought advertising space from GOOGLE to advertise its own browser despite that everyone who can USE Internet Explorer has it installed by default (it comes with Windows). Paying your competition to advertise a product given away for free... that was not the Internet Bill Gates envisioned in the 90's.
Apple had a good reputation, god knows what for, pre-OSX the only time I saw Apples, they were crashing but still, it was a good rep, intresting devices and it never hurts to be considered the plucky underdog against the mega-corp. But right now, a LOT of mainstream media, at least in Holland, is presenting these cases as the relatively small Apple bullying the "small" mega-corp and super diversified semi-government Samsung... it would be like comparying say Harley Davidson against Yamaha. Sure both build motor cycles but HD isn't even in the same class when it comes to business clout.
And yet in this case, many are starting to see Apple as the big evil giant stamping on its smaller cuddlier competitors. When Samsung becomes cute, you know you are doing something wrong with your image.
Yet, the tablets do like a lot alike. Gosh, what do you know, so do many e-readers and for that matter phones. How many phones do you know that are rectangle with a rectangular screen and 12-15 buttons below it? Some form factors just belong to a type of product. Go ahead, redesign the refrigerator with a unique design that has not been seen before since the days of cupboards making started god knows how many centuries ago. Good thing Apple wasn't around when Gutenberg copied the printing press from the Chinese. We would have a thousand different book designs for each and every publisher.
It would be better if plenty of people hadn't already found evidence of how many if not all of Apples own designs had been done by others before.
Everybody copies from everybody else, in science they are even proud of it "if I seen furthest, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Artists are inspired by their predecessors but suddenly in our society the slightest hint of similarity is evil. And for what? To protect your profits so you don't have to innovate (compare the iPad 2 to say a device like the Asus Transformer or the Samsung Note)? That works, for about as long until someone passes you (IE6 anyone?)
It doesn't surprise me that the "new" iPhone is just a small update and that none of them have really upped the stakes let alone tried anything NEW. Smaller, bigger, new design... just updates.
If you want a color e-ink display, you got to go to Korea. Not silicon valley, korea. Go to China and you can buy mobile phones that run rings around western models, laptops with features and specs you just can't get here. The west has become so obsessed with lawsuits, real innovation has stopped. Sure, maybe Apple can stop Samsung now on one of its many different markets but what if next some Chinese company comes up with a NEW idea that Apple wants to copy? Oops, it just introduced around the world that implementing the same broad design as someone else is illegal. Apple and MS have both been in court before for this where they claimed the other copied something only to find they themselves copied it too.
Apple is fighting a legal battle it i
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There. Fixed that.
Apple has officially become the bully of the courtyard.
I'm not buying their next tablet, I will choose the Samsung high-def one next spring.
Let's be clear about one thing- IP lawyers are succeeding in creating a parasitic lifestyle on our industry and on our lives and futures. They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry. They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line. This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%. In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas. There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value. Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value. But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game? That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/ although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side." which is more than you're likely to make from your patent: The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. ÃoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, ÃoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,Ã Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003) But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent? Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government? No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent. Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation. The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon. So what do we have, really? We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company. And who created that barrier? Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs. And what does that barrier do? Discourages people of normal to modest means (99%) from starting companies at all. For those with the temerity to do so, it enables anyone in the 1% or with the backing of the 1% to deal them (the 99%) a fatal blow at will
Samsung manufactures the A4 and A5 processor for iPads and iPhones, and Apple sues them over their own mobile consumer products.
Let's be clear about one thing- IP lawyers are succeeding in creating a parasitic lifestyle on our industry and on our lives and futures. They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry.
They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line.
This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%.
In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas.
There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value.
Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value.
But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game?
That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/
although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side."
which is more than you're likely to make from your patent:
The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. ÃoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, ÃoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,Ã Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003)
But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent?
Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government?
No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent.
Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation.
The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon.
So what do we have, really? We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company.
And who created that barrier?
Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs.
Whatever I wont even waste my time reading this tripe anymore. Fuck you Apple
I got into computers in the Apple II days, the first mouse I touched was on a Apple Lisa the forefather of the Mac. I worked for Mac software companies and Apple partners. So I have been around Apple and watched them a long time. I was never a Apple cult person because dealing with and watching their business practices they could be jerks. Apple was a company that tried to compete via innovation, but over the past few years their switch to litigation before innovation makes me sick.
Apple get back to R&D and Marketing and push the Legal department into the background where it belongs.
As someone who struggles with Apple's walled garden, I'm glad Samsung and others are giving me choice and freedom to do what I want. As an example, look at the 3rd party plugins I can get for Android based kit.
Apple has never been about choice - that's why Microsoft won the windows battle. Will history repeat itself with Android?
+1 Funny
I think I'm going to file a new patent for the process where a company derives revenue from suing competitors over frivolous claims instead of producing a product.
I'm fed up. Enough of this nonsense. I think I'll just have to skip reading any post that contains the words "the 1%", "the 99%" or "the rich". Starting with the OP. So it has nothing to do with your content, but if you can't make your point without easy populist sound bites, it deserves to not be read.
Whenever i read stuff like this instead of getting upset, i ignore because I have never nor will i ever purchase an apple product. the people getting upset have ipods, macs and ipads and feel shame for supporting this evil company.
How many TVs looks like a big rectangle with a screen? How many remotes are just a bunch of buttons? How many computer screens are a rectangle with a screen and maybe some buttons on a corner? How many mice are little rounded things with a few buttons at the top? Most things LOOK pretty darn similar, particularly after some initial iterations of refinement where eventually everything looks about it optimal as possible. Sorry but eventually you gotta just let go and try to make a better product.
and I'm sick of this shit. All the way around I'm sick of this shit.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Next Apple will sue LG for retroactively cloning the iPhone 4 in 2007. No way they could have designed the Prada on their own, it's just too similar to the iPhone 4.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
> because if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
I... don't think so. I suspect that's an argument that could be abused. Like "any phone with a touch screen could be mistaken for an iphone, and if they suck it could hurt Apple, so we have justification to sue all of 'em out of existence." And who knows, maybe someone has made that argument, but it doesn't mean it's reasonable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Judging on how much time and money Apple are spending trying to block the sale of the Samsung Galaxy S2 it must be one hell of a good phone. One could almost deduce that Apple think its actually better than their iPhone 4S with the amount of attention they're giving it. Might be worth looking at the Galaxy S2......
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
we read it. and now explain us what the fuck 'well packed' mp3 player means. endless number of brands had endless mp3 players which looked similar to the pods apple layed down as eggs.
Read radical news here
I'm fed up. Enough of this nonsense. I think I'll just have to skip reading any post that contains the words "the 1%", "the 99%" or "the rich"
reality weighed too much ?
or did you think we had all these problems, sopa, pipa, schmibba et al, just because they 'just' happened ?
stuff do not happen without there being dynamics and causes for them.
Read radical news here
Indeed, that is the universal way that the electronics industry works, company A makes the product, company b. makes it smaller/better/faster Company C makes it smaller better faster and cheaper, company B sues company C. Claiming smaller better faster are unobvious progressions of the technology. I think that is the big thing here, IOS is not particularly novel in any approach or any side, the ipod was not the first MP3 player to use similar styles of storage, HDD based storage was already in progress and similar devices with similar storage capacity were out before it. The only aspect of Samsung that I can see apple having any grounds for is chosing the same colors. Everything else is something that anyone with a palm 3 and one of the tablets from the early 2000's could have anticipated the market going eventually.
Indeed, that is the universal way that the electronics industry works, company A makes the product, company b. makes it smaller/better/faster Company C makes it smaller better faster and cheaper, company B sues company C. Claiming smaller better faster are unobvious progressions of the technology.
LOL!
I think you've nailed it.
Apple buys their icrap from foxconn and steals functions from other oses and calls that innovation
Pretty much shows Samsung is going to win and Apple are on the ropes. The S2 is faster, thinner, lighter, has better reception, bigger and brighter screen, and an OS supported by now nearly all manufacturers. Oh and a hell of a lot cheaper (got mine for under $50 with short contract).
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
People here don't love Samsung. The reason Apple gets flak is because of their patent lawsuits. People here generally don't like abusive litigants. Apple is a patent bully. End of story.
(at least with respect to this story; there are plenty of other reasons to not like Apple as well, but none that are really relevant to this discussion)
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
... if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
i) How can Samsung releasing a Samsung product hurt Apple's brand? Does Samsung hardware arrive with Apple's logo affixed?
ii) No need to worry about Apple's brand hurting anyway. They're already shit in my eyes.
iii) Apple's using the legal system the same way politicians use protectionism. Can't compete against less expensive, more nimble competition? Tie 'em up in court, get injunctions to prevent them from making any sales, yada, yada.
I used to recommend Apple to friends and family, but no more, and no I won't fix your broken Mac. Enjoy your brick, sucker. I go out of my way to steer people away from Apple now. Overpriced, mediocre, artsy-stylish hipster crap.
Apple's abusing the patent and copyright systems worse than just about everyone else with damned near every move they make these days, so to hell with them. No sympathy, whatsoever.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I don't blame Apple for suing to protect Jonathan Ive's design work, because if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
But it's ok for Apple to steal from other designers like they've done with the AppleTV? Who cares about this sort of stuff, they have logos and trademarks to differentiate their products.
Samsung, please destroy Apple. Crush them, exhaust them, use them up, and then wipe your ass with them. Kill them.