Apple Seeks To Block 8 Samsung Products After Court Win

angry tapir writes "Apple has asked a U.S. court to block sales of eight Samsung Electronics products, following the iPhone maker's victory in a patent lawsuit against Samsung. In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against seven smartphones carrying its Galaxy brand, plus the Droid Charge. It based the requests on a jury's ruling on Friday that Samsung had infringed several Apple patents. Apple said it wants the preliminary injunction pending a final injunction."

Comments

Capitalism is to blame

[For a Free Internet]

When the workers take power and expropriate the bourgeoisie, we will have a planned economy and non of these shenanigans from an outlived, parasitical class of exploiters. Smash capitalism! Workers of the world, unite!

Re:Capitalism is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

For a Free Internet, proving once a gain that Americans don't know what the fuck communism even is.

Re:Capitalism is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

When the workers take power and expropriate the bourgeoisie, we will have a planned economy and non of these shenanigans from an outlived, parasitical class of exploiters. Smash capitalism! Workers of the world, unite!

I agree completely with this.

I am not a sockpuppet of For a Free Internet.

butt-goat

Glad I'm not in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said!

This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because now people will have to come up with original ideas. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.

If Apple had been held to your standards they would never have gotten into the mobile industry at all since its impossible to build a mobile phone without infringing on thousands of patents on hardware alone from thousands of different companies and private inventors. If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost? Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[ciderbrew]

Apple got the idea for the design from Sony. A box shape with rounded edged isn't original either.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple had a design brief that said to the designer 'what would a Sony device look like'

The resulting design was inspired by Sony. It did not copy Sony as there was no Sony product for it to copy. You haven't named one because there isn't one.

You really need to go back to the source of your misunderstanding and try reading it again. Either that or you're just trolling or had too much cider.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost?

Well Apple pays Nokia I think 8 Euros per phone for their patents. Motorola is arguing they are owed 2.5% (which on a $700 phone is a lot of money). So the answer is quite a bit.

Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened. The combination of:
a) web based interface
b) animation based UI interactions
c) capacitive touchscreen alone

was a collection of components that had never been used together before. That's how Apple ended up inventing so many of the technologies that went into Android. That's what's causing the trouble.

Your bounce effect is important because of the focus on the web. A bounce is an animation. You need the animation because you are using a touchscreen and not a slider to advance down the webpage so the operator likes feedback.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Missing.Matter]

Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

This is what always kills me about those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post. They completely miss the fact that Samsung had phone before iPhone and Samsung had tablets before iPad. Apple gets defensive about broad patents on trade dress, but completely neglect the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on the top, which is not so loud as to conform to the sensitivities of the human ear; a mic on the bottom, which is sensitive enough to pic up the human voice; is shaped to fit the human hand and the human head; contains radio technology which enables voice conversations between people across the planet, at the speed of light; relies on networking technology developed by other companies to enable as such.... all the myriad technologies that enable the iPhone to even exist, were in place before the iPhone, and were invented by many of the same companies Apple is so keen to sue for frivolities like scroll bounce.

These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device, just as the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on top and a mic on the bottom is a direct consequence of mouth/ear placement on the human head.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

Ever heard of SonyEricsson? Didnt think so. They make mobile phones. There were ample amounts of SonyEricsson products to copy, and many aspects of them is similar in the iPhone. They should have sued the pants off of Apple but in those days people in the mobile business weren't dickheads like Apple.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[noh8rz8]

umm, no... you're right, to build a phone you need patents for 3g, etc. these are standards essential. you can buy them on frand terms. but design patents are just one way of doing things.

if the rubber band bounceback is patented, then figure out a different visual cue. i've seen some nice ones elsewhere. if slide to unlock is patented, then figure out a different way. circle to unlock? spin a wheel? there are infinite varieties.

the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

was a collection of components that had never been used together before.

And the GP specifically said, and you even quoted him as saying

never unheard of components.

which, while bad english, is not the point you seem to have been thinking he was making

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Android normally doesn't use a bounce effect during scrolling, it uses a glow effect. Pretty much all of the claims only apply to Samsung's modifications to the base Android system (what they call "TouchWiz"), which is why you don't see, e.g., the Galaxy Nexus named in this injunction.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[tgibbs]

Yes, there are many pre-existing phone features that were essential to the iPhone. Many were patented once upon a time, but are now out of patent--the term of a patent is not actually all that long in the grand scheme of things. Others were licensed by component makers; the jury found that Apple had already indirectly paid for licensing of Samsung's standards-essential patents that were incorporated into components that Apple purchased for the iPhone.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[kryliss]

Sardine cans have had this design for decades with a pull to unlock feature included.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Which addresses the issue with Samsung. Apple warned them they were infringing and they ignored it at the direction of their management, hence the willfull finding.

Samsung blatantly copies Apple as directed by upper management, was found guilty in a court of law, and somehow they are the victim?

Many on here can't seem to separate open source from IP. You aren't entitled to someone else's work. Android avoided this but Samsung didn't.

Spend your tears on someone who did the work and deserves it.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[DJRumpy]

Not indirectly. They licensed it from the chip maker. They presented the receipts in court which is why Samsung's patents were considered exhausted.

Samsung was trying to double dip.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[DJRumpy]

Why is your post down modded? Android itself does this with the glow effect. Patents have a short term and force variety. We don't need another iOS clone. What would be the point?

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

First off, if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today. You talk about two patent owners when there are thousands of them, many with far more impressive patents than Apple has ever dreamt off. If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex? You are totally missing the point.

My old SE 990i looked very similar to the iPhone a full year before it was even released. It had animations, capacitive touchscreen alone but thankfully not a web based interface. Side by side the two are very similar, but where the iPhone severely lacked many features it is slowly gaining and still has a lot to catch up with. There are countless of other phones to compare with outside the US that is strikingly similar.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

"the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace."

The problem is that almost whatever you do, someone has a patent that you will infringe upon because they are so vague and broad. You skirt one patent and step right on top of another one. Slide to unlock was among others implemented on the Neonode but still granted a patent. Multiply that with a couple of thousand overlapping patents and step right out on the minefield. Good luck!

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Joce640k]

Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened.

Yeah, Apple invented something completely out of the blue. None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc. Nor were they smartphone shaped. They certainly wouldn't have had an 'i' anywhere in their names.

Oh, wait....

Re:This will stifle innovation

[alexgieg]

These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device

I'm all for Samsung in this because I don't believe in IP, but I must say that I clearly remember, when the iPhone came out, that it was criticized all around for not having a keyboard and/or not having a stylus. This means that nowadays we only consider keyboard-less/stylus-less touch screens a primary input device because Apple came and showed how to do it in a way not only comfortable enough for people to not cringe at bare-hands touch screen usage, but to actually like doing it this way, up to and including not even considering the previous approaches anymore. So, arguing that touch screens as we use them today would come to light anyway and result in such specific ways of doing things is a possibility, but by no means a clear certainty.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jrumney]

Not indirectly. They licensed it from the chip maker. They presented the receipts in court which is why Samsung's patents were considered exhausted.

Wait, so Samsung could have provided third party receipts in defence of Apple's allegations of patent infringement too? Why didn't their lawyers think of that one?

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Missing.Matter]

It's not just about things that were patented, but things that are so obvious they are designed out of necessity, not ingenuity. Things like the basic shape and function of the cell phone are obvious and not patented. In today's climate however, if Apple could get away with it they'd patent "A method and placement of a speaker microphone array to optimize audio quality." Unfortunately for them, they can't do this, but they are getting away with equally egregious acts on the patents they managed to squeak through the rubber stamp patent authority known as the USPTO.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[PortHaven]

Flash had bounce affects. If you ever viewed a mobile Flash site with a bounce effect, does that make Apple irrelevant?

Web based interface? Where? What you talkin' about Willis. iOS uses a proprietary Objective-C interface.

Collection of components were used in the Prada phone.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[PortHaven]

MOD +6

Re:This will stifle innovation

[noh8rz8]

then either design your way around it or license. apple tried to negotiate a licensing deal several times.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[DJRumpy]

I assume you're trolling, but the point of the post is that it showed that Apple properly purchased the chips from Intel, which in turn had a contract with Samsung that provided the right to sell said chipsets along with a license to use them, from Intel. This is why Samsung's claims were found to be invalid and their patent claims exhausted. Intel had the right to sell the chips from Samsung, and that included protections for any purchasers granting them the necessary rights to use those chipsets.

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

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung didn't think up ideas that, by total coincidence, happened to patented by Apple. They were found guilty of willfull infringement. Some people like to stick their fingers in their ears (And thumb up their ass) and scream "rounded rectangle!" but it doesn't change the facts.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[toriver]

Apple are paying the patent owners for the patents they use (license, not "infringe"). Nokia, Qualcomm, etc. lal get money for every iPhone sold. And which features was it "severely lacking" that it needs to catch up to? The widget battery-draining gimmick?

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jrumney]

Apple produced receipts from Intel as a defense for their use of Samsung technology inside Qualcomm chips? Even curiouser.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[noh8rz8]

let's get specific. here's some brainstorming. I think there are infinite ways to solve these problems; the ideas below are just a sample. I'm going to be generous with the scope of apple's patents, to bolster my argument.

slide to unlock. how about circle to unlock? spin a wheel? face recognition (like samsung)?
rubber band. how about slowing the scrolling to zero as you approach the edge? you could call it friction scrolling. or the glow effect that android has.

look and feel of hardware ("rounded rectangles"). I think this description is unfair to apple and the description is more comprehensive than the actual patent. still, face value. look at the nook - it has that neat cutaway in a corner that you could attach a carabener to. kindle has an offset screen, with either a full keyboard or other physical controls.

look and feel of software. look at win phone 7, webos.

so, you see what I mean? there's an assumption that there's no way around these patents, because they're like convergent design, but I think that's lazy. the world is full of infinite ideas, which is why it's so great to be human!

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Small fish trapped whole. Like Apple customers.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[revscat]

The 990i did not have a capacitive touchscreen. The screen was also relatively tiny, it had a physical keyboard, and was this weird hybrid flip phone. It was also dog slow, you could not install third-party software, and IIRC did not even have a music player. About the only similarity between it and the iPhone were that they both made calls and had icons on its screen. The 990i was a beast, but it was comparable to the iPhone only in the loosest possible sense of the word.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[grantingram]

I think you may well be right but your post illustrates the problems with the present system. The ideas you describe are very obvious. The purpose of a patent system is to encourage investment in innovation: none of those ideas require any investment so the rationale for having them protected is extremely weak.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

Good point. If that's the case, i.e. using components in a unique and original combination doesn't count then the bar was far too high

Re:This will stifle innovation

[pseudofrog]

Again, a bounce effect. It's a bounce effect. It's a meaningless bit of visual flair that should not be patentable. The fact that you can be sued and lose based on something so trivial is the problem.

Oh wait, it's a bounce effect on a touchscreen device. I guess this should change things?

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

Good point I should have said TouchWiz on that example.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today

Apple isn't infringing and they more or less do pay patent owners for most of their patents. There are only a few outstanding at all. And even if they settle against Apple you are talking under $30 / phone.

If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex?

Those are the ones they do license and we already know, about 8 euros each.

My old SE 990i looked very similar to the iPhone a full year before it was even released.

In what way? Physical button dialing, classic JavaVM interface. I dont' see anything similar about it beyond stuff that was common to more or less most phones with color screens.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc

Yes, as far as I know they didn't have an animation based interface and they had resistive not capacitive touch screens.

As for your example that's a thin-film transistor screen which is pressure sensitive not a capacitive LCD. It doesn't use animation and it wasn't web based. So it met 0 of the criteria.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

iOS original design was based on Javascript rendering and Javascript apps. The iOS interface came later i.e. native applications. The question was the iPhone 1's innovations.

Prada didn't have the web but other than that, yes a very similar idea. LG was clearly moving in the same direction as Apple and if Apple hadn't have gotten there its entirely possible by 2008 / 2009 LG would have.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[GonzoPhysicist]

The originals where roll to unlock an even needed a key....off to patent office brb.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[MachineShedFred]

And if you really want to go back far enough, there was the Newton MessagePad, which was made by whom again?

Oh, that's right. Apple.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

they also did not have copy and paste either - I am sure some one has a patent on that

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

The jailbreak community built Objective-C-based apps for iPhone back in the 1.0.x days. There was no JavaScript involved.

Perhaps you're confused because Apple initially told developers that the only third-party apps would be JavaScript based (and run inside Safari).

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Shagg]

No, it means that nowadays it's the obvious design because the technology (which had nothing to do with Apple) matured enough to support it. Apple was just the first to take advantage of the obvious evolution in design. They didn't "innovate" it.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

Yes that's what I meant. I won't count the Jailbreak community since it wasn't part of Apple's intent. Just as the really cool apps on Cydia today which allow you to take interface ideas from MeeGo, or use SSH don't count as iPhone features.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Joce640k]

The claim was that Apple "waddled into a vacuum"...

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Joce640k]

The Newton was based on the Amstrad Penpad

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

No it wasn't. The claim was that Apple invented something new. No one denies there was a cell phone market prior to Apple's entrance.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only was there a cell phone market, there was a cell phone market with large touchscreens, big icons and shapes very familiar to any iPhone user. LG's Prada phone is a great example of the design that Apple RIPPED OFF to create the iPhone.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

Samsung tried that defense it collapsed in discovery. The facts don't bear out your theory.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

Unlike Apple, everyone having patents on things Apple do infringe upon has not yet started to sue them. There are thousands of patent owners who has not sued Apple that has patents that Apple do infringe upon. This is not disputable, its a fact.

Apple only license Nokias patents, there are countless others that pertain to a mobile phone that Apple do not pay for. Nokia has patents on much of the radio parts of a specific implementation of a mobile phone, others have a lot of the other bits and pieces. That they have not sued Apple is in no way a sign that Apple does not infringe.

The SE 990i had a cover with physical buttons that was detachable. Without the cover my phone worked and looked very similar to iPhone did later, as did a bunch of other phones before iPhone. The wizard is dead, its time you let go of the reality distortion field.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[miffo.swe]

You are right that it did not have a capacitive touchscreen, it had a pressure based touchscreen. I would not call it tiny compared to other phones at the time. as it covered the whole phone. There was a cover that you could take off that had physical buttons for those who prefered them. When it was closed the screen was tiny, but taken off it was not small at all.

As for speed, it was as fast as any other phone at the time. You could very well install software from all over the net, no problem, as could most other similar phones of that era. I bought and installed tons of software, i still have some receipts left.

When i first saw the iPhone the first thing i thought was that it was so similar to the phone i already had, but without things i took for granted like multitasking and stuff.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[jbolden]

Well the only group that's made a credible claim is Motorola and Apple does have them limited to 2.25%. So you can believe what you want, but lots of companies would love to sue Apple and they haven't.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

All apps that came on the original iPhone were written in Objective-C, including all the bounce effects in them.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

A bounce effect that took a designer a few minutes to think up and a programmer a few minutes to implement, is now a patent worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's obscene what the patent system has sunk to.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[bkk_diesel]

...IIRC did not even have a music player...

FWIW, it did have a music player.
Diesel.

Re:This will stifle innovation

[shilly]

Sounds like you have a problem with the very idea of a design patent...

Re:This will stifle innovation

[shilly]

And whaddya know... There are several patents dating back 100 years for sardine cans....

Re:This will stifle innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Alexander Graham Bell got to the patent office faster than the other guy. So who invented the telephone? Bell did because he secured his interests first. He who holds the patents is king.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope Samsung prohibits resale of its products to the US.

Apple is dead to me

[div_2n]

I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Krneki]

Apple is doing shit like that from a very long time. Why do you think we hate them so much?

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

Probably they are second only to Sony.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[anarkhos]

Apple isn't a computer company anymore, and since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

Also, I fail to see any major players with clean hands. They're all parent whores and extortionists.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

And that's working so well that Apple is now the world's more valuable company!

I'm sure they are quaking in their boots.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Note, the above link lost its period. It should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did HTC ever sue without provocation?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[openfrog]

Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.

I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline. Apple, as the David against Goliath, use to have a lot of sympathy as a result. But its reputation was also earned on the basis of a preoccupation for the product and for the user experience that was lacking at Microsoft. We believed that Apple was on our side.

If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case, and more sustained (despite all attacks on this account by its enemies) than it ever was in the case of Apple, despite the great show they made of it, 1984 and all.

It may take time, but Apple will pay dearly for what they are doing. They are trashing their name, and their reputation. What a shame.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Dinghy]

...since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

When people want to buy something (short of an impulse buy), they research it. During their research they will ask the opinions of people they respect and feel are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sorry if your friends and family don't consider you an expert (or consider you too much of a jerk to approach) but there's a rather significant number of people on Slashdot who routinely get asked for computer/electronics purchase advise.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[lengau]

Apple isn't a computer company anymore, and since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

As with most people on /., div_2n is probably one of the most technical people in his/her family/friends group. As such, he/she is probably asked for advice about this all the time (as I am). div_2n will probably affect the purchasing habits of 5-10 people. If a million nerds get pissed of with Apple enough to start a boycott, and each of those people directly influences the purchasing decisions of 7 others, that's starting to be a noticeable boycott.

Also, I fail to see any major players with clean hands. They're all parent whores and extortionists.

The key is to figure out how to do it so as to annoy the fewest people.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Brings a tear to my eye to see a new gen of people get burned by them.

Apple makes pretty sweet hw and software. They do *NOT* however like to share. They have run many of their partners out of business. Usually on some sort of whim. They do it every time. Take for example adobe flash. Sure its a crummy programming environment. However, instead of treating one of their *long* term partners with a bit of respect they turned on them like piranha fed a lamb chop. Adobe *will* remember that.

In 30 years I have owned 2 pieces of Apple hardware. One Apple ][ and an iPod. Both were gifts. I remember my friends taking a cash bath with them. I remember loosing 2 jobs because of them and their practices.

They get beat every time on the same thing, price and goodwill. Whatever they come up with it only takes 2-3 years to catch up to them (if they are ahead). Then apple has a good enough guy to beat on price (which they rarely do). They then burn many people on the business end. Then say 'poor me' why dont people buy my stuff. Well DUH we remember the 80s and 90s and now the 2010's...

Remember in the 2000s Samsung was a HUGE partner of Apple. So big in fact if Apples sales were down Samsung's were down. A good portion of their ipod line was really made by them and the Chinese stitched the parts together. The original iPhone was also a good portion of Samsung parts. Again Apple turned on them. Guys like Samsung do not forget.

Mark my words. This 'huge' lead they have, they will squander it. They do every time. At this point all they will do is come up with different flavors of the ipad/phone. In many ways if they take out android they will create a worse competitor, Microsoft. MS is at its best when it has to compete (they live for it).

Re:Apple is dead to me

[slashmydots]

I've been telling them that since Premiere CS4 was released, lol. But seriously, they've had this attitude since like 2000. Their marketing was all about elitism and being better than your friends. Once they paired with Starbucks on some deals, it was almost comically obvious. They turned paying too much into a fashion statement.

Then they did everything they could to act like they had a monopoly even though they had like 5% of the market. They'd bully competitors, over control hardware pricing and availability, lock in prices and threaten vendors who sell lower, etc. They had special RAM made that only fit their systems, sued Psystar, etc. They had the reputation of being the platform for graphics and video editing but like I said, CS4 ended that damn quick. CUDA on a wimpy GT440 = 8x faster rendering than dual 8-core Xeons. Unfortunately, almost no Nvidia cards come in a mac. That doesn't stop them from pretending they're still for video editing though. Now in Photoshop Elements 10 and CS6, they have severe compatibility and font problems so it's pretty much over for them on that front. It'll take years to undo their propaganda that they're the best though. I do usually convince people with actual charts, or just reference their awful human rights violations and unfair business practices.

They've had so many macbook hardware problems lately and back in 07 they had severe overheating problems with their initial core2 duo systems because Steve Jobs is too important to have fans blowing out of his devices.

Then there's the way that they run the App store like nazis and iTunes quite similarly. You think you bought that song? Oh hell no! And you can't redownload it either. So everyone, do everything you can to tell everyone you can that Apple sucks and it will turn into another Vista. All the positive marketing in the world couldn't stop tech experts from giving people the real story and ruining their business.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be because Microsoft screwed Apple over on the GUI front back in the 80s and 90s and because of that combined with mismanagement after Jobs was fired, Apple almost ended up dying. And Steve Jobs learned the lesson "if you let someone else steal your own technology they might just beat you to death with it" so well that he vowed he'd never let it happen again.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, strangely, this sort of thing isn't making me want to purchase Apple products. It's really weird, too; I thought Apple was supposed to be better at marketing than that.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[bhagwad]

Pride goeth...

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Sez Zero]

Why do you think we hate them so much?

Apple (and Samsung) are multi-billion multi-national corporations composed of tens of thousands of people. Neither one is your friend; nor is either working in your favor. They want your money.

Don't fall into the Corporate Personhood trap by bringing emotion into it.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Most valuable publicly traded company.

Anyone who thinks Apple is more "valuable" than Saudi Aramco, by any metric of "valuable", is delusional.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[squiggleslash]

Only one of these two companies is trying to prevent you from owning the other's products.

View of Samsung? Neutral to positive. They employ people, build good stuff, and don't appear to have significant negatives.

View of Apple? Negative. While they also employ people and build "good" stuff (I don't like iPhones myself, but others do and should have the right to be able to buy them), they do use lawsuits to attack my choices at the end of the day, and prevent others from being employed, and others from building good stuff I actually want.

Fuck Apple.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

You are exaggerating the geek influence these days. I think that's what frightens geeks so much about black boxes like the iPad. Consumers are much more willing to pick one up as they are easy to use, and not overly complex in operation. For every geek angry at Apple, there are thousands that have a good experience with their hardware who could care less about this decision, Android, iOS, or any other number of topics you seem to think they care about.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[rjames13]

That didn't work with Microsoft in the 90's what makes you think it will work with Apple now?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.

Actually, this is the usual. This is just Slashdot complaining. The range of people who actually hear anything about these lawsuits is tiny, and most of that small sample will shrug, say, "every big company does it that way," and skip to a Beiber song on their iPod.

You are a minority in a minority. There is no consequential overlap between even the larger of those minorities and the iMarketting targets.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Like Apple would give a shit about a half dozen freetards on slashnot.

Think Different.
Think BETTER.
Think Apple!

Re:Apple is dead to me

[falcon5768]

Right so you wont recommend a good machine that works, simply because they defended their company in court on valid patents in a case that exposed that Samsung willingly violated licenses they were first warned (by both Apple AND GOOGLE) about and then willfully ignored a licensing agreement that would have prevented a lawsuit at the cost of 20-30 a phone depending on how much it violated Apples patents. Im all for going after them on patents that shouldn't be patents, but Samsung DIDNT DO THAT or at least their lawyers didnt think to do that till it was much to late to submit evidence for them, and they got slammed hard on things that were patents that WERE UNIQUE AND VALID.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

How you say it makes it sound like Apple invented the stuff Microsoft "stole" in the 80s and 90s. If that were the case, Apple would have been right to sue and it would have been horrible had they lost. But as is, they got the ideas from Xerox, who gave them freely (then tried to sue and lost), so I can't feel bad for a company who was copied, when the stuff that was copied, they'd originally copied from somebody else.

It's like somebody complaining the kid behind them cheated off them, when they themselves cheated off the kid in front of them.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[PortHaven]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, both knew the truth, you steal other's technology. And sue anyone else who tries to infringe on your theft. That wars are won in courtrooms.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[jedidiah]

Apple is a bit more evil than Samsung.

It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.

Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.

It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.

Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple didn't invent it. But what most slashdotters here forget (or never knew) was that Xerox had actually invested money in Apple at that point. How do you think Steve Jobs got access to Xerox PARC in the first place? They didn't let just anyone walk in there.

So Apple didn't really steal the tech like most slashdotters seem to think. They let Apple have access to proprietary tech, Jobs had the good sense to see what it was worth when the inventor, Xerox, didn't; and Xerox made serious money off Apple's stock in return for what Apple did with the tech. Yes, Jobs took liberties with the stuff he saw that Xerox didn't expect and they didn't like it. But they didn't have to let Apple see the tech in the first place if they didn't want to and they made money off it in the long run. So don't get all weepy about Jobs somehow stealing from Xerox. It was never as black and white as everyone here seems to think it was.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one of these two companies is trying to prevent you from owning the other's products.

Only one of two companies stole from the other. Don't try to create some sense of moral equivalency here. Microsoft and Nokia are busy putting the lie to the idea that all smartphones have to look and act like the iPhone. Samsung had other options, they chose the easier route of aping Apple's stuff, and got caught.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[jedidiah]

Listen to the cry of the wounded idiot screeching against all of the "mean smart people".

As a geek, I am the one most likely to bring an iPad into the house first or an iPhone or an Android phone or an Android tablet. I am likely to be way out in front of most of the "conspicous consumers".

I might even but a Mac just for the hell of it (or even for some other geeky reason).

This cuts both ways.

It can benefit Apple for a time or work to their detriment as people see that there is nothing special about Apple.

The truth of the matter is that most people simply aren't platform partisans and have no great attachment to Apple and they will move on as soon as the next fad comes around.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[AmiMoJo]

Have a look at the comments on the BBC News stories about the verdict, appeal and the move to ban Samsung products. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, on a front page new story on a mainstream site like BBC News.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[jedidiah]

> Right so you wont recommend a good machine that works,

I won't recommend an overpriced machine that is limited by a fascist approach to design. It doesn't matter if you're talking about PCs, tablets, or phones. Apple's approach is problematic if you are the least bit creative. Meanwhile, it's reputed advantages are grossly overstated.

The patents in question were only valid in a sort of "we can sell your sister because slavery is legal" kind of approach to the law.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Karlt1]

"I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline."

You really think that MS's reputation led to it's "decline"?

1. Microsoft is more profitable than it was during the trial

2. Windows is still on 90% + of the world's computers

3. Office still has the largest share of the productivity market by a wide margin,

Microsoft didn't "decline" it just didn't rise as fast as Apple.

MS just hasn't succeeded in anything lately -- search, phones, tablets, etc. because of shoddy execution -- not because of it's "reputation".

"If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case"

Google hasn't "succeeded" at anything besides being an advertising company. As far as profitability, Android (especially with the money-losing $10B + MMI acquisition) has been a net loss for Google. Even now, according to Google 66% of all mobile revenue comes from iOS.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[aristotle-dude]

I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.

I'm sorry but you don't sound insightful but rather like an overemotional dick. You are not doing those people any favours by recommending products based on your "feelings" for the company. You should be recommending the right product for their needs.

What does the type of computer people need have to do with your butt hurt over Apple taking Samsung to task for slavishly copying? What were they supposed to do? Lay down and die while Android OEMs picked them clean? Apple execs had a fiduciary responsibility to go after Samsung and what finally did Samsung in were internal Samsung documents outlining how to copy Apple.

The internal documents obtained from Samsung show that they were wholesale copying almost all of the iPhone UI from the dial screen to the contacts to the notes and contacts screen.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Karlt1]

"They'd bully competitors, over control hardware pricing and availability, lock in prices and threaten vendors who sell lower, etc. "

It's called "supply chain management". How do you think the Dell's, Walmart's, etc. of the world got to be so efficient. Every successful company does it.

"They had special RAM made that only fit their systems"

Apple hasn't used "special RAM" for their desktops since the early 80's.

"sued Psystar, etc"

Psytar bundle *modified* versions of someone else's software.

"You think you bought that song? "

iTunes music has been DRM free for years....

"And you can't redownload it either."

You've been able to redownload music for over a year.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[lister king of smeg]

Or apple simply has the most perceived value, the value is not real but it is still attributed to it by all involved. Apple shutsdown tomorrow fanboys and stock holders scream, any major oil company closes down on the other hand... Or what if Google kills all of its services a good sized piece of the Internet shuts off, and much of the rest is broken. Microsoft shuts down again a sizable (but smaller) piece of the Internet shuts off more stuff breaks, and viruses take over as the more and more malware is written for unpatched software. AT&T shutdown, millions of Internet cellphone and landlines users are left cutoff from the world.

Apple may have tons of perceived value, in real value they have very little.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't give a shit about it's users either...they want to make the most money possible just like all the other guys.

It's ludicrous to see it any other way.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[aristotle-dude]

Apple is a bit more evil than Samsung.

It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.

Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.

It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.

Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.

Stop it with the emotionalism. How is Apple being evil? They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit after Samsung slavishly copied (as per internal Samsung documents) and no agreement could be reached for licensing of the patents. Apple actually licensed a number of things to Microsoft in exchange for a "no-cloning" clause. That basically meant that they could use the patented technology but they had to keep their product differentiated from Apple products in a significant way.

Neither Samsung or Apple are your friend and I don't care if you are an Apple fanboy or anti-fanboy so you need to get over yourself. Samsung was found to have willfully copying Apple's patents. End of story.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

APPLE DID NOT CHEAT ANYONE.

Apple bought some things from Xerox through a stock swap, but didn't steal from anyone. The concepts used were by no means the whole OS.

MS copied interface design from Apple that wasn't licensed, handling of multiple overlapping Windows for example. That Apple Windowing behavior wasn't a Xerox concept either. And while Bill Gates didn't steal the code himself, through third parties Video for Windows used actual stolen QuickTime / QuickDraw Apple source code (from QuickTime for Windows). Apple had previously refused to license that to MS, so MS certainly knew who it belonged to. There was an injunction and an out of court settlement. Among other terms, MS had to invest $150 million in Apple. They later got that back with a large profit.

MS copied without license, and used code that had been taken. Apple did neither of those things.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[aristotle-dude]

> Right so you wont recommend a good machine that works,

I won't recommend an overpriced machine that is limited by a fascist approach to design. It doesn't matter if you're talking about PCs, tablets, or phones. Apple's approach is problematic if you are the least bit creative. Meanwhile, it's reputed advantages are grossly overstated.

The patents in question were only valid in a sort of "we can sell your sister because slavery is legal" kind of approach to the law.

One word. FANBOY. You are one.

Show me one laptop on the market that matches the performance, battery life "AND" resolution of the top of the line Retina Macbook Pro for any price. I'm waiting.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[toriver]

Does Apple dictate the American government to the extent Samsung controls South Korea? I thought not.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[toriver]

What do you mean by "creative" here? How is a Mac limited? Mac OS ships with creative tools like Garageband and iMovie, for instance. It ships with a complete IDE instead of letting the (Windows) user either download a crippled one or pay for the privilege of building with a "proper" version. How does Apple limit creativity more than the alternatives? Not everyone wants to write their books using LaTeX or play around in Excel.

The patents were valid because they were granted by the USPTO. That is actually all that is required. Just because freetard know-it-alls comes around and say they are obvious in hindsight does not mean Apple weren't first to actually do it. Learn the difference between "could have done" and "did".

Re:Apple is dead to me

[bossk538]

They're negative, but in a different way from /.. The overwhelming majority of comments see the results as yet another example of a non-US company being fleeced for doing business in the US at the behest of a large US corporation.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here, hypocrite:

"South Korea banned the iPhone for two years to give Samsung a chance to catch up"

http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-iphone-ban.htm

Re:Apple is dead to me

[amRadioHed]

Where did Apple get that nice pull-down notification center idea?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fucking clueless. Samsung's one of the most evil companies in Korea. They have a monopoly in Korea on virtually everything dealing with electronics.

AND THEY HAVE BLOCKED iPHONE in KOREA FOR OVER TWO YEARS!

"South Korea banned the iPhone for two years to give Samsung a chance to catch up"

http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-iphone-ban.htm

Fuck Samsung!

Re:Apple is dead to me

[amRadioHed]

Google has plenty of IP, how come they've never exercised their "fiduciary responsibility" to start a patent war? You're just making excuses for Apple.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[amRadioHed]

Not alone, they have a lot of competition from other corporations competing to control US policy. Did you have a point?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary. You are the fanboy, the one naming one specific Apple product to shut your competition up. It's a new product. Good hardware? Indeed, it probably is.
So, why does anyone *need* a Retina? Graphic designers? Perhaps. Gamers? Hah, unlikely.
But hey it's expensive and shiny so there is no way it's not the best thing ever, right?
You must own one, what do you do with it? Or, what do you with it that you can't do somewhere else?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[MachineShedFred]

So I guess you have no problem with Samsung directly screwing the end customer through price fixing in the LCD, mobile phone, and DRAM markets? Because they've either settled, or been convicted of all three.

Samsung is *not* a well behaved company.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[MachineShedFred]

And here I was thinking that the quality of Microsoft's products in comparison to the competition might have had something to do with why they aren't succeeding in new product lines.

Nah, it's their reputation. You've got to be right about that.

Seriously?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Shadow99_1]

This is hardly the end of the story, the appeals will go on for the next couple years at the very least. And so far only one court has found samsung guilty... Personally I'd avoid calling a 'winner' until it's done going through the courts or in two years someone will make sure to point out how you thought this all ended right here.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth of the matter is that most people simply aren't platform partisans and have no great attachment to Apple and they will move on as soon as the next fad comes around.

CITED SOURCE REQUIRED.
Please show some evidence to support your claim.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not exactly true. Samsung has tried to ban Apple products in the past (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/30/samsung-seeks-import-ban-on-the-iphone-ipad-and-ipod-touch/), but was unsuccessful. In general it's because they are attempting to assert patents which have been licensed under FRAND terms to Apple's suppliers and therefore the licensing is extended to Apple.

Additionally, in this most recent lawsuit, Samsung countersued asserting their own patents and lost on most (if not all) of those fronts for the same reasons. It was determined that Apple had not violated those patents or that Apple had a license to use the tech.

One could argue that it was a solely a defensive move, but if I was copying someone else I wouldn't want to draw attention to it by trying to ban the product I was copying. However, once Apple called them out, their choices were either fight back, or give up.

Wether you agree with patents, the patent system, what can be patented, etc is another story entirely. And I don't doubt that big companies lobby to keep patent reform down and keep the system "broken" for their own gain. But the fact remains that it is what it is. If you show up for a baseball game, you should do it with a bat and mit. If you show up with ice skates you're going to be at a serious disadvantage. You have to know the rules of the game you're playing and come prepared to play it.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Shadow99_1]

I bought a Asus Transformer Prime to use for work and I've had at least a few dozen people by now comment on it. Usually they don't even realize it's a tablet until I show them. This whole process tends to involve me giving a pros/cons pitch on it. At least five that I know of have now gone and purchased either a first or second gen transformer tablet now...

So I'd say if anything your understating the potential effect.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Shagg]

They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit

Nonsense.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

Samsung's shady as fuck. They have been linked to so much high-level corruption in Korea and in their slave-labor shops overseas that it's ridiculous.

OK, sure, Apple is the bad guy for trying to stop blatant copying. I guess they should just roll over and wait for every Korean and Chinese company out there to copy every nuance and scrap of their UI - WHICH IS THEIR MAIN SELLING POINT!

Strangely enough, though, outside of Slashdot, you'll find that people actually think Apple did the right thing by suing a company that has a history of blatant copying. I know we have a bunch of Google fluffers trying to keep Android up in here, but fuuuuck. Wake up you idiots!

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

They patented it years before Android copied it. You see, Google sent a spy into the Apple boardroom, who copied everything willy-nilly without regards to usability. Only later did Apple choose to go with the Notification Center which they had patented earlier.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

Apple is only creating ill-will among Google employees and the proprietors of mobile phone stores. Really, all told, there aren't that many put together.

If you leave the geek hive, go outside, and talk to people on the street, you'll see that most everybody actually supports Apple's attempt to stop Samsung's blatant copying. They will applaud this move as something that will help a US company over some extremely corrupt Korean conglomerate. And, they will continue to buy Apple products simply because anybody can see that they are better than the flimsy shit Samsung pumps out.

Samsung's pretty good at applying lipstick to pigs, but only Apple can make them fly.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Here has been the extent of my input on tech purchases lately:

"Hi. I'm thinking of getting an iPhone/MacBook/iPad. I don't have any specific reasons for this choice, I just know they're popular. What's your opinion?"

"Well, my opinion is that despite being decent hardware, they're overpriced for what they do. I feel that their inability to run anything that hasn't been expressly allowed by Apple is a drawback. With device (x), you can get similar or better functionality at a lower price-point which will still do everything you need. Also, I feel that Apple is currently the most litigious, abusive company in the tech industry and can't on good conscience recommend them for any reason."

"Oh, you're just making a big deal about nothing."

2 days later:

"Hey, I just bought an iPhone/MacBook/iPad! Want to play Words With Friends?"

Now when people bring up Apple I just say "I wouldn't buy one" and refuse to offer any other advice.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they should just roll over and wait for every Korean and Chinese company out there to copy every nuance and scrap of their UI - WHICH IS THEIR MAIN SELLING POINT!

See, a lot of people would take the view that if Apple's product range is so poor that they can't survive another company making a phone with rounded corners ... well maybe the best thing would be that they went bust and opened the way for some fresh competition.

But that... that would be capitalism!. We can't let a little thing like that get in the way of corporate manifest destiny, can we?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

If you think it's just about rounded corners, than you're a bigger idiot than you seem to be.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.

Yeah you should tell them to buy a PC with a Microsoft OS, that great paragon of morality. Maybe a Samsung Windows 8 laptop with their "innovative" new Samsung S Launcher. Or maybe it'll finally be the year of the Linux desktop.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Both XCode and Visual Studio can suck my hairy Eclipse balls.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[neoform]

Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline.

No it didn't... Microsoft's OS decline is because it had several high profile failures. Vista took an eterninty to release and was in no way revolutionary...

Microsoft is still a very profitable company, and still a heavy-weight player. They aren't growing, mostly because they aren't entering new markets, or releasing new products that get people excited... this of course has nothing to do with their PR (short of the perception that MS products are buggy).

We believed that Apple was on our side.

You're a fool then. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle... all publicly traded companies interested in one thing: How can we make the most money possible.

They all take different approaches, but in the end, they want money. Google is playing the "good guy" routine right now, but that will fade.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet they still make and offer higher quality products than pretty much everyone, in all categories, at a more affordable price than apple or a comparative price to sony, panasonic, lg, nokia, and many other companies.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it matters who the perpetrator is. It is Samsung who was found guilty in this case. But I bet you are twisted to the point of being incapable of being rational. Wake up ... ah never mind. Just stick your head back into the sand and keep on spewing hate.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Mutually assured destruction ? I don't see Apple taking damage here. What I see is that an asshole that has been swiping everyone's stuff for years has finally been given a black eye by one of very few companies large enough to actually take Samsung on.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung was found guilty by the court. Furthermore they tried to "double dip". They are creating ill will. It may be in-comprehensible to you but anyone that is not a google zombie sees Samsung as the coward and thief in this case.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Xenx]

If you think it's just about rounded corners, than you're a bigger idiot than you seem to be.

While you're correct that it isn't just about the rounded corners, the fact still remains that all(or at least vast majority) of it is about UI design crap that shouldn't be covered in the first place. There is prior art for a lot of this crap. Then, there is the fact that courts have decided in the past that UI design isn't protected.. it should of been the same now.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it's just about rounded corners, than you're a bigger idiot than you seem to be.

Of course it's not just about rounded corners. It's about square icons lined up in rows. I mean, how innovative is that?

Of course, if it wasn't about those things, then Apple could have just left them out of the lawsuit and concentrated on elements that weren't widely used elsewhere. If they'd sued solely on the basis of their use of pinch on a touchscreen a lot of the people howling for blood right now would probably be on their side. I mean assuming we actually care about the right and wrong of the situation and not just how best to abuse the law to stifle competition.

But they didn't leave them out. Which kind of casts doubt on the integrity of their other claims. They clearly don't care whether their claims have merit, so maybe we should view other claims in that light.

Personally, I don't think it's about rounded rectangles and icons in rows. I don't think those elements should have been considered at all. But on the basis of this lawsuit, apparently Apple do.

And so it seems do you. Which makes you exactly as big an idiot as you appear to be. If we're having a "least big idiot" contest, I think I win.

... Unless of course it goes to a jury trial. In which case the foreman of the jury would probably disregard the judges instructions and fine me 10 gazillion dollars to send a message that it's wrong to disagree with Apple.

But hey, no one's going to object to that unless they're a shill for Google and Android, right?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because Google hasn't been challenged in its core business yet, who knows what they would do if they were ? What we do know is that Google identified a potential rival and then put resources behind a project (Android) they gave away for free to direct competitors to hurt that rival. If not evil than that certainly shows their Machiavellian nature.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Apple's the winner because for however long this drags trough the courts rivals have to be on their guard. Look at what this verdict did to Samsung's stock. Now Samsung, being the only company to have significant success with Android, can afford it but which of the other struggling mobile companies can ? Nearly nobody can afford to copy Apple now, they'll have to license, alter their products to avoid infringement or take what might be a knock-out punch to them.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean the patents that Google holds, that cover cellular phone/wireless technology? The ones that every other phone manufacturer pays except Apple? Thats a teensy bit more fundamental (and more important) than 'rounded corners'. Expect in 2 weeks: An injunction stopping Apple from selling any device that acts like a cellular phone, worldwide, and about 40 billion US dollars in damages. Since this is very fundamental technology, and there is *no prior art* unlike the stupid 'rounded corners' patent dispute, Apple has no choice but to stop sales of all its wireless products (iPhone, iPad, etc.). And destroy any hopes of brining these now dead products back to life. The worlds most valuable company will see its stock revert to its 'we sell non-microsoft compatible computers at crazy high prices' levels, and will die the death it should have seen in 1992. "The board is set, the pieces are moving. We come to it at last, the great battle of our time." --Gandalf the White.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[danomac]

They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft.

You are thinking of trademarks. You have to defend them or you can lose them. IP? Not so much...

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

Personally, I think the decision's great because it will cause a bunch of huge companies to unleash patent war upon each other. Perhaps when the dust settles, and there are clear winners and huge losers, these companies will lobby Congress into reforming our fucked up patent system.

For now, it's delicious to see a company like Samsung, which can't create a single innovative consumer product, get their comeuppance. If Samsung has proved anything to the world, it's that the stereotype that Asians copy more than they innovate is true.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they price fix LCD screens a bit more for Apple.

Also still not actively using lawsuits to try and reduce my choices at the end of the day.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean those patents that Samsung were successful with in South Korea, where it wasn't a full cheersquad "Go Home Team" decision?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Xenx]

Frankly, I think Samsung is currently working hard to set them apart from the crowd. You might of had a leg to stand on, in the past. Granted, I don't care for any of the manufacturer's UI skins.. but they do appear to be working hard at providing their own user experience.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

Samsung's still playing the copy iOS game to the fullest extent possible. I guess maybe your definition of "past" is my definition of "future."

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

But in a neutral court in the UK, away from Apple's home playing field they ruled that Samsung didn't slavishly copy Apple. That judge was even an unabashed Apple fanboy.

In fact, Apple was ordered to prominently display on its website a statement that Samsung didn't copy them.

But hey, don't let the true reality of the situation get in the way of your argument.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Xenx]

No, I just don't have my head so far up my ass that I can't tell how different the devices really are.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple is doing shit like that from a very long time. Why do you think we hate them so much?

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

Probably they are second only to Sony.

And Nokia, and Motorola, and IBM, and Microsoft, and a couple more. Including Samsung of course, who also sued companies because their products supposedly looked too much like theirs.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Plumpaquatsch]

Or apple simply has the most perceived value, the value is not real but it is still attributed to it by all involved. Apple shutsdown tomorrow fanboys and stock holders scream, any major oil company closes down on the other hand...

Then nobody would give a flying fuck, because others would simply step up production slightly. If Apple shut down, several industries couldn't copy them anymore, and thousands of hateboys would turn to terrorize others but Apple users.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[highphilosopher]

How does this get modded insightful?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/251435/samsung_files_patent_lawsuit_against_apple_in_south_korea.html [Bloomberg] Samsung sues Apple.

Companies sue companies. In this broken corporate system we have. BOTH COMPANIES are narcissistic entities who only are interested in YOUR MONEY. Don't defend EITHER of them.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Branciforte]

Can you tell us that patent number?

Re:Apple is dead to me

[RocketRabbit]

So what you're saying is that you're *not* a Samsung engineer or lawyer? Those guys have their heads so far up their asses that even in court, they can't tell the difference between their own devices and Apple's products.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[metaforest]

They are a corporation and they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their IP from theft. In other words, Apple had no choice but to launch this lawsuit

Nonsense.

I'm pretty sure that a publicly traded company can get in a lot of trouble for failing to protect it's assets against loss. At the very least shareholders tend to cash out or sue depending on their perceived loss of value.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as profitability, Android (especially with the money-losing $10B + MMI acquisition) has been a net loss

Wonder how much money they have made from the data mined from all those Android OS phones. Like you said Google isn't in the software or OS business they make money from advertising and selling data. Android is a resource not a product.

Re:Apple is dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100% Apple has a responsibility to their company and shareholders to protect their Intellectual Property, whether anyone likes it or not. Samsung needs to go back to the drawing board and create something more unique to offer their consumer base.

previous gen

[nten]

All these phones are previous generation. Is Samsung still making these? Once they are inside the U.S. and no longer owned by Samsung, can the new owner sell them? Is the answer different if they are new or have been used? Is it different for ATT to sell them, vs. the guy who wants to sell his S2 to get Note 2? If so, why?

Re:previous gen

[alen]

i've seen S2's on sale at $99

i doubt samsung cares that much since these were on their way out anyway and they have newer products coming out to replace these

Re:previous gen

[jbolden]

Where? I'd love to pick one up for my kid at $99.

Re:previous gen

[Xest]

The S2 ban may be a bit of a problem as it's still sold as Samsung's budget smartphone, just as Apple sells it's previous model as a budget version of the iPhone.

However, it may not cause them much financial harm as the Galaxy Nexus wasn't covered by this ban and is similarly specced, so Samsung should be able to fill any void selling this handset instead as it was released around the same time, and is similarly specced, and hell, it's already running Jelly Bean to boot which afaik the S2 isn't yet.

Re:previous gen

[jrumney]

it's already running Jelly Bean to boot which afaik the S2 isn't yet.

CM10 runs quite nicely on the S2, but the outcome of this case probably scuttles any future official JB release, as the budget for continued support for this phone won't be justifiable if the sales have to suddenly halt like this.

I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices? You know what? I'll still buy Samsung over Apple even if they were the same price, and you want to know why?

It's because no company that resorts to litigating its competition out of existence because it can't offer something as good, if not better, for the same money, *deserves* my money. End of.

To anyone that says I'm jumping on the pro-Samsung bandwagon just because they're the little guy in all this: fuck off.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off all of you. If you owned Apple, the company, you'd do the same thing. If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software to run perfectly together, only to see some company come in and rip you off, you'd be pissed to. As a software developer myself I have had this happen to myself. I just don't have Apple's deep pockets. I say kudos to Apple for having the balls to fight for what they believe is right.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

Would you like to play again?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is a F'd Up IP system that makes all this possible, and quite possibly the most prudent way to do business. Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent. Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[anarkhos]

I'd rather support a company that innovated and makes good products. The sad thing is Samsung would have my respect if they actually tried that instead of purposely trying to muddle the differences between their products and Apple's.

I'm not supporting the patent war (I'm against patents on principle), but I don't like supporting copycats, either. Not because I believe that innovation deserves monopoly, but because they aren't even TRYING to move us further ahead. At least Apple made a new product and tries their best to differentiate themselves. /nobody left to support. Good thing I still use a dumb phone

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[MickyTheIdiot]

My family actually owns stock in Apple. And guess what? I still think it's bullshit.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a chocolate bar company suing another chocolate bar company because they copied their candy. How many shoe companies sue other shoe companies for making something similar. Car companies? They basically trade tail lights ever 5 years.

This whole thing is a joke and will only create ways to make copying easier like... Samsung selling all the innards of their devices and a 3rd party making the case so you can just swap the parts in and have the same phone you would have had prior to some stupid lawsuit. The end result? Some 3rd party companie gets sued, closes doors, reopens as another company, and way less money is lost.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL - it's not like Apple's earnings say otherwise...oh wait.....

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[oh_my_080980980]

Who's market is being eaten away? Did you see Apple's Q2 earnings report? Apple's market cap is bigger than Exxon Mobile.

Facts don't support your argument.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

what the fuck are you talking about? the phones infringing are the high end Galaxy phones which cost the same as an iPhone. the $100 knock offs
are not a problem because they just plain suck,

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

Apple don't just sell smartphones.

TEN BIGGEST SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURERS BY UNIT SALES IN Q2 2012

Rank, Maker, Units, Market Share, Was in Q1 of 2012
1 Samsung 50.4 M 32.9 % ( 30.6 %)
2 Apple 26.0 M 17.0 % ( 24.2 %)
3 Nokia 10.2 M 6.7 % ( 8.2 %)
4 HTC 8.8 M 5.8 % ( 5.4 %)
5 ZTE 8.0 M 5.2 % ( 3.4 %)
6 RIM 7.8 M 5.1 % ( 7.6 %)
7 Sony 7.5 M 4.9 % ( 5.0 %)
8 Huawei 7.0 M 4.6 % ( 4.8 %)
9 LG 6.5 M 4.2 % ( 3.8 %)
10 Motorola 6.0 M 3.9 % ( 3.5 %)
Others 10.8 M 7.3 % ( 3.3 %)
TOTAL 153.0 M

In fact, Samsung sell twice as many smartphones as Apple.

Care to play again?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Your limited knowledge means nothing.
Search for Lindt vs Hauswirth for an example of a chocolate company suing another.
You can easily find more examples.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

You wouldn't know it, looking at some of the home screens on some of those Samsung phones.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[bhagwad]

If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software

Right...I'm sure apple spent YEARS developing bouncing screens. All those billions in R&D!

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

OK so what's next? Apple to sue Google? :x

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Cook isn't a fan of lawsuits like Steve Jobs was. I suspect he'd prefer Google settle and pay a license. So more likely Cook goes to Google with a billion-dollar jury verdict in hand and says, "now, about all those technologies that Eric Schmidt fed you while he was sitting on our board..."

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples to oranges false comparison. You either compare subsidized to subsidized or unsubsidized to unsubsidized. Those phones you're talking about don't sell for $100 unsubsidized, and I can get an iPhone for $100 subsidized, so your comparison is bullshit.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[aaarrrgggh]

WTF?!

"go back to real innovation." Hmm... Isn't that Apple's complaint of Samsung's blatant copying?

While I think software patents are pure BS, I don't think cloning a competitor's products is fair game. Patents are specifically intended to inhibit competition, which is why the whole standards process is completely bastardized now. I am not sure if it makes more sense for standards to have patents licensed by consortium at published rates or what, but the current strategy is a mess.

Now, of you look to the future, I am not sure I would support a suit against the SIII, but it still takes obvious design cues from Apple products. It is widely speculated that Apple wants to get anti-cloning license agreements in place; signing that in exchange for a modest royalty isn't that far out of line, although it is much less cash out of pocket when a cross-licensing plan is in place.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

You wouldn't know it, looking at some of the home screens on some of those Samsung phones.

You would if you actually used the phone. It has no were near the full feel of an iPhone. And I have a Samsung Galaxy S2 and loving it. When I need to be on my friends iPhone, I have a hard time to figure it out because it isn't the same. Just how to get back a page is confusing on iPhone.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[tgibbs]

Of course, one company carried out the design work and the user testing to create a touch based hand-held computing device with broad consumer appeal--something that many companies (including Apple) had tried to do before and failed--and took the tremendous financial risk of introducing such a product into the marketplace in defiance of conventional wisdom . Another company was able to undersell them by making little investment in design or user-testing, and simply piggybacking on Apple's already market-tested designs.

Of course, there were other genuinely creative companies. Blackberry has continued to develop its own vision of smartphone design, which remains the favorite of a substantial minority of consumers, but the company is now on the ropes. Palm developed an innovative operating system and smartphone design, but the company ran out of money and was acquired by HP (another historically creative company) which is now also on the ropes. The woes of Palm and Blackberrry are not due to Apple--they were doing OK until the invasion of the iClones, which could undersell the products of these creative companies because they did not make the large investment needed to create and introduce a truly novel product.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Next target, from leaked official Apple court documents.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Nidi62]

It's not like Apple sells things besides smartphones....oh wait....

In the smartphone market, they are getting killed. Look what a previous poster posted: Samsung sells almost twice as many smartphones as Apple does. It's only when you add in iOS, Macs, etc where you get Apple's massive profits and market share. That is why Apple is freaking out and going after Samsung like this.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing a little devil's advocate here:

"Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation"

I'd argue that the litigation tools is what makes businesses go back and come up with real innovation, rather than just copy what the big guy did to ride their wave of success ala what Samsung apparently did.

"Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?"

I'd argue that while patents do protect the little guy, Samsung is not a little guy and should have known better. Further, patents are also meant to protect the little guy investors of big companies. Would you risk investing your hard-earned money in a company to produce a product knowing that a Chinese knock-off would copy the whole thing and sell it for half as much? Probably not.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[squiggleslash]

This is a Droid Charge:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/02/droid-charge-review/

Now, perhaps you should rewrite your comment changing who, exactly, is "purposely trying to muddle the differences between (the products of Apple and Samsung)"! You might also want to look at the court evidence that Apple submitted, such as the infamous "pre" and "post" iPhone images - that looked absurd when Samsung produced its own version with a much wider, less edited, range of phones on show.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't want to sound like I'm supporting this senseless patent war (neither Apple, which I don't like at all), but your point seems to be defending the Chinese market for knockoffs from Gucci, LV, etc. They can produce stuff, probably the same quality, but since they have no market they re-branded it, so the only difference is the added trademark infringement, but people clearly knows when they are buying knockoffs.

I'm not going to defend the ridiculous prices of designer stuff either, but... well. There has to be some agreement on this whole issue.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Jerom]

no they spent years creating a well working user interface.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[future assassin]

LG Prada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg
Knight Ridder Tablet http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/the-tablet-newspaper-what-people-in-1994-thought-the-ipad-would-look-like

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[ReWoP]

I agree 100%...... All you whiny gush fallopian tubed fucktards that think Apple should just let other people STEAL their ideas without paying for them are as stupid as Samsung was for doing so.... put that in your pipe and smoke it bitches!!!!

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[bhagwad]

Uh huh. So you agree the bounce patent was stupid right? Because that's what they sued over. Not the "well working user interface".

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[ibwolf]

Of course, one company carried out the design work and the user testing to create a touch based hand-held computing device with broad consumer appeal--something that many companies (including Apple) had tried to do before and failed--and took the tremendous financial risk of introducing such a product into the marketplace in defiance of conventional wisdom .

And in return they got two to three years where they had the 'no-keyboard' smartphone market pretty much to themselves. Even after three years (back in 2010) the iPhone 4 was generally regarded as the best smartphone. It is only now five years in that the competitors have, by and large, caught up (even with the supposed "willful infringement").

I'd say Apple's investment paid off, and handsomely. They do not need any "protection".

The fact is, that this field moves so fast that having the first mover advantage is what is important. Of course competitors should not be able to just clone your product (no-one has accused Samsung of doing that). But preventing competitors from learning anything from your example is ridiculous. That is how we advance.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[falcon5768]

"So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices? " No they didnt JUST copy that. Go read the fucking trial transcripts and stop posting on Slashdot until you get a clue you dumb ass teenager.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is "It's ok that they're being copied because they were first"?

Do you realize just how stupid that sounds?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[PortHaven]

I'd tell you that you're full of shit. Sorry.

So Samsung and Apple are bickering. Do you really think either of those companies invented most of the techniques in debate? Seriously, bounce back, what not, a lot of these sort of easing animations were done in Flash appls years before.

Hell, I've got ideas, that if I implement, I'll be sued. Even though the idea is nearly 10 years old. And how can I defend against an Apple or Google?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[hjf]

I hate Apple. And I think this lawsuit is bullshit, but I try to look at the bright side of things, and I want to believe this lawsuit will mean, finally, innovation in the smartphone market again. A couple of years ago, Motorola had some interesting phones (Backflip, Flipout and the Droid/Milestone series). Nowadays most, if not all, of the smartphones out there are "full touch", thin, rounded edges.

The Galaxy S/S2 were really extreme. Samsung even copied the charger design! I It sounds racist, but the guys at Samsung were acting like typicial asians: cloning the fuck out of everything that makes money.

I hope this lawsuit will mean we'll finally start seeing innovation on the smartphone market again. My theory is that "everything looks like Apple" because manufacturers think it's about *LOOKING* like apple. Yet, Apple is still the king. The key isn't looking like apple, but *being* apple. It's giving you the experience of apple. It's getting a computer, laptop, smartphone, and tablet, and have them all work together. It's not worrying about drivers or compatibility. It's about the "just works".

I got myself an HTC Sensation the other day. I'm very happy with it so far. But I went to connect it to my PC: it required drivers that didn't even came with the phone. I found them on XDA. If I was to download some "suite" for it, it would sure be a 400MB or more download, requiring me to constantly update it. That's the reason why people choose apple. Given the same price and features, the ability for it to "just work" is the dealbreaker.

Sync has been solved by Android, but there isn't yet a *SIMPLE* backup option for my phone like there is with, say, Nokia, which just lets me plug my phone and hit Backup and have a backup file on my desktop. Sure, I modded and rooted my phone and I can do that and more with Nandroid. But to 99% of people that means nothing.

Manufacturers: get it straight, we want things that look like apple, or don't; and have keyboards or don't; and are white, or black, or silver, or red, blue, pink, purple, yellow even. We want colors, we want laser engraving, and replaceable covers. But we also want a plain black plastic phone. Or made with silly kevlar and alluminum alloy. Oh and a 4.3" screen. And also 2.5". And candybar style phones. And clamshell phones. And also slider phones. And blackberry-style phones. We also want to be able to plug to our computer and work nicely with Windows, or mac, or linux. We want full USB mass storage, or MTD. We also want the option to jailbreak/root/mod/S-OFF/unlock (locked bootloader was the reason I didn't get Moto this time). We don't want to be bothered with drivers (come on, it's easy enough for you to standarize on something and have Microsoft ship drivers with windows). Oh and we certainly don't want stuff that slow down our phones and can't be removed/replaced (MotoBlur, HTC Sense...). And we want updates. Get it together against the carriers and GIVE US THE FUCKING UPDATES. Motorola: why did the Backflip only get android 2.1 in the US, and we in the rest of the world got only android 1.6? Why doesn't the HTC Sensation in my carrier get ICS but the "no contract" one does? But any iphone gets all the goodies.

You know what we don't want? That all the phones out there are just clones of the iphone.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[jedidiah]

No. If I actually owned Apple, I would be worried about karma.

I would be worried about the whole "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing.

Pushing the envelope in exploiting a corrupt system can wortk both ways.

Although corporations tend to encourage sychophants and one might be prone to believe one's own propaganda after awhile and lose perspective. You end up with the kind of mindless echo chamber that guys like you seem so intent on generating.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Tastecicles]

I obviously have much more of a clue than some petard who instantly resorts to personal attacks on a public forum. Would you like to come back with a cogent argument? Or would you prefer to continue with your childish prattle?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[jedidiah]

To me, the home screen of an iPhone looks like the bastard child of Program Manager and OpenStep.

It's hardly anything worth granting a 20 year monopoly over.

It uses 20 year old GUI ideas as it is.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course competitors should not be able to just clone your product (no-one has accused Samsung of doing that). But preventing competitors from learning anything from your example is ridiculous. That is how we advance.

Well... no one except Apple.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[tgibbs]

The fact is, that this field moves so fast that having the first mover advantage is what is important. Of course competitors should not be able to just clone your product (no-one has accused Samsung of doing that). But preventing competitors from learning anything from your example is ridiculous. That is how we advance.

Is it? From my perspective as a consumer, what is important is that the rewards are large enough that the company is able to continue to innovate. After all, this has been a company that has been a consistent trailblazer in personal electronics design: computers, personal music players, phones, tablets. This is an extremely expensive and risky undertaking. Apple's had a strong record of success, but they have not been infallible: remember the Mac cube, the Newton, that set-top box whose name I can't even recall. They need to be able to afford to fail if they are to remain creative.

And I'm not just worried about Apple, I'm concerned about other innovative companies. I think that there is little doubt that the iClones killed Palm, who was working on a distinctively different approach than Apple. And they have certainly played a big part in the decline of Blackberry. So all we have left as a design alternative to Apple is Microsoft--and to put it kindly, design has never been their strong suit.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Tim Cook could've stopped THIS lawsuit a long time ago. Stop pretending the new boss is at all different from the old boss (besides the lack of RDF).

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[AmiMoJo]

If you look at the Samsung design documents presented in the case you can see that they did innovate and come up with plenty of their own ideas. Then they looked at what the competition were doing and picked up a few pointers to make theirs better.

The idea that they ripped off the entire design is nuts. They clearly had phones that looked that way before the iPhone came along, and Apple clearly copied good ideas from Android and Samsung over the years.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Karlt1]

Last time I checked, corporations were in business to make a profit.....

http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/03/the-phone-market-in-2012-a-tale-of-two-disruptions/

So do you really think that Apple would want to trade places with Samsung?

And before you say "only an iFan would be glad to spend more and put money in Apple's pockets", thanks to subsidies, I pay no more for a $650 iPhone than the typical Android buyer pays.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[aristotle-dude]

So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices?

Trade dress were only part of the claims. The majority of the claims involved UI utility and design patents but thanks for the obvious troll.

You know what? I'll still buy Samsung over Apple even if they were the same price, and you want to know why?

Because you have more money than sense? Because you work for Google and/or Samsung?

It's because no company that resorts to litigating its competition out of existence because it can't offer something as good, if not better, for the same money, *deserves* my money. End of.

To anyone that says I'm jumping on the pro-Samsung bandwagon just because they're the little guy in all this: fuck off.

Right, so you hate Google too then? Google is using Motorola as a proxy to try to ban all apple products including their laptops. So who is the patent troll? Google's "do no evil" is as hollow as countries named "People's Democratic Republic of".

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[zyzko]

I hate Apple. And I think this lawsuit is bullshit, but I try to look at the bright side of things, and I want to believe this lawsuit will mean, finally, innovation in the smartphone market again. A couple of years ago, Motorola had some interesting phones (Backflip, Flipout and the Droid/Milestone series). Nowadays most, if not all, of the smartphones out there are "full touch", thin, rounded edges.

So why those phones did not sell? Some bits of success can be attributed to whats popular right now, and cell phone market can sometimes be like fashion - good product is not enough if it is not trendy. But I (maybe because I live in Europe) have never even heard of this phones before so maybe they were not *that* interesting (even the Nokia Maemo phones do get constant mentions on ./ and other tech forums and they are really fringe phones...).

I got myself an HTC Sensation the other day. I'm very happy with it so far. But I went to connect it to my PC: it required drivers that didn't even came with the phone. I found them on XDA. If I was to download some "suite" for it, it would sure be a 400MB or more download, requiring me to constantly update it. That's the reason why people choose apple.

This and the rest of your rant really described iTunes. My HTC works just fine without any "suites" or drivers - that is tethering and charging + usb storage. Can't do that with an iPhone.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, looking at the home screen, the differences are immediate and striking. It's only when you open the App Drawer on an Android phone that there's any sort of similarity.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[toriver]

Ah, the "underreported equals non-existent" fallacy of someone who does not follow any of those industries. There are plenty of lawsuits in other industries.

Here is Shelby's suit over a "clone maker" for instance.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is trying to get Samsung share of sales, with lawsuits.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad you do not like having updated drivers and software - that is Apple's way. Just do not go crying when the device gets hacked due to a 6 month old known exploit that Apple knew about but never bothered to fix.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[toriver]

Stupid sarcasm is no substitute for understanding. Are you saying research is free? They get to patent stuff they did first. Just because the freetard community scoffs at things they feel are "obvious" now that Apple have demonstrated how does not mean they should not be rewarded for their research.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[zyzko]

Is it? From my perspective as a consumer, what is important is that the rewards are large enough that the company is able to continue to innovate.

For me as a consumer I would say that good product is number one, and cheap price is number two, and I can admit that order of those are sometimes reversed when making a purchase decision. And Apple is certainly not after the cheap price because they make a crapton of money with their current offering - and they certainly would not like cheap competition.

There is a fine line between rewarding success and protecting profits and Apple has clearly nowadays in my book stepped to the "protecting profits" side of things. And that will destroy competition if the game changes to patent wars where the patent holder will not license or demands too high license fees (the $20-30 per device Apple demanded for rounded corners (yes, Samsung was found infringing on this *on phones* - only the table patent was found not infringed) and bouncing scroll lists is ridiculous) because their target is to wipe competition, not license. And that is not an advantage to consumer. Apple has made hundreds of millions by being delivering the right product at the right time - should they be protected forever?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[toriver]

No, he is saying "it's okay that they are being copied because they have earned enough money and don't need to earn more". Apple apparently needs to "spread the wealth around"...

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't know shit.

"Until now, Apple iPhone sales were illegal in South Korea, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of residents -- 93 percent of a 48.6 million -- subscribe to mobile phone services. Korean law also has placed severe restrictions on location-based applications, such as Google Maps, used by the Apple iPhone and Research In Motion's BlackBerry, further preventing those devices from being sold in the country."

http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-iphone-ban.htm

yes, asshole, Samsung blocked iPhone for TWO YEARS to make sure that they catch up before it overtakes Korean market.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I think software patents are pure BS, I don't think cloning a competitor's products is fair game."

Are you joking? The LAST thing Android phones would be are clones of IPhones. Have you looked at both?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[amRadioHed]

Yeah you would, the home screen on all Samsung's phones have widgets. The pictures of the Samsung phones that look a little like iOS are showing the app tray, not the home screen.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[MachineShedFred]

How many of those "twice as many" phones are razor-thin margin "free" phones that are mass-produced previous-years technology, which never actually get used as a smartphone because they suck at it in comparison to more expensive current-year designs including Samsung's own higher-end offerings?

I'll bet quite a few.

Apple is in the business of selling a premium product. Premium products never have the volume of mid-range to low-end products. BMW and Mercedes don't ship as many cars as GM, either; but you didn't see either of them with their hands out to the US Government a couple years back, did you?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[tgibbs]

No, Apple should not be protected forever. A design patent as a life of about 14 years, shorter than a utility patent, and even a utility patent only lasts for 20. That's pretty far short of forever.

I find it hard to believe that competition is "destroyed" if other developers choose to avoid infringing Apple's "rounded corners" (D'087) patent--particularly considering that the jury found that only 3 of the 8 Samsung devices considered infringed this patent. Would you say that Microsoft's new Windows 8 Phone is "not competitive" because of its failure to imitate Apple's "rounded corner" design?. Is a "bouncing scroll list" really so essential to phone function that no device without it is not competitive? And if bouncing scroll lists really are so marvelous that a phone cannot be usable without them, isn't Apple's invention of this feature so ground-breaking that Apple is entitled to a period of exclusivity to enjoy the fruits of its great invention?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Coryoth]

No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Uberbah]

It's not like Apple sells things besides smartphones....oh wait....In the smartphone market, they are getting killed.

In some alternate universe where companies would rather have marketshare than profit? HP still sell far more computers than Apple, but who makes more money doing it?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[RocketRabbit]

You know that Samsung copied a lot more than the general look and feel of the the exterior of the device. Go ahead and delude yourself about that. It's just like 9/11 - they attacked us "because of our freedom" eh?

I doubt you're jumping onto the pro-Samsung bandwagon because they're the little guy. Nobody would allege that - they're a huge, corrupt, shady company that has its hands in everything from money laundering to buying politicians to literally sending managers out to whip the slave children at their factories overseas. In fact, it's difficult to even imagine a more corrupt company than Samsung.

No, you must be on the pro-Samsung bandwagon for different reasons. Maybe you really like the look and feel (and icons!) of the iOS products but you can't, for professional allegiances, purchase one?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[RocketRabbit]

"So why those phones did not sell?"

Because they are stupid. They aren't very easy to use, they are thick in the pocket, and they have very little to offer except as a phone.

Here's the problem that other phones have: they stink. Even when they go flat-out and copy every little nuance of the iPhone, they still can't get it right.

Apple spent years and years studying phones that already existed, determining why they suck, figuring out that you can't simply keep slapping more and more features on them without also increasing the suckage (their Sony-Ericsson iTunes phone was perhaps the height of this) and finally going to the drawing board with a clean slate and designing a new UI from the ground up. They spent the better part of a decade on this project, and lord knows how much money and man-power before releasing this product.

Then a torpedo board member from Google (the world experts at copying a product and releasing a half-finished clone) comes in, steals the design, brings it to his little shop in Mountain View, California, and has a bunch of guys who designed the horrific piece of garbage that the pre-iPhone clone Android was reverse engineer the UI to the best of their ability - which was clearly none too spectacular.

Apple releases the iPhone, and suddenly everybody else's hapless products look like aborted fetuses left out in the sun by comparison. And this was in comparison to the original iPhone, which was extremely light on features and had only a fraction of the functionality of the modern successors. Then Apple continues to improve the product markedly with each release, until it reached a level of refinement such that any major additions would actually start to be a bad thing.

Where's Samsung in all of this? Well, they are carrying the Google banner, dressed in full armor that's painted with every iOS icon! They're Google's Major General, leading the charge to get the massive suck-pile of fail called Android into every hand too cheap or dumb to actually purchase the superior product. They're whispering into the ear of the mobile phone carriers and stores, weaving tales of how much more money they can make because they can mark up the Samsung phones 300% and still come in cheaper than the iPhone. Then we get people like you who think that just because Apple spent a shitload of time, effort, and money to come up with what was a TOTALLY UNIQUE product at the time of its introduction - even their most rabid competitors admitted that fact - that everybody should be allowed to copy them because clearly they did it the right way!

Fuck that. I hope Apple blocks every Samsung product that even remotely resembles a smartphone or tablet. Samsung is a blight on the phone market, and they clearly don't have a single person with an imagination in that whole corporation.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[RocketRabbit]

Actually, they are beating everybody else. Apple's making way more money in smartphones than all their competitors, put together. They aren't making as many units, sure, but those units that they do sell represent a very substantial profit on the hardware, and a continuing revenue source as people buy apps. Hell, most people with Android phones wouldn't have paid for them - they get them free with their contract. Or maybe I just missed all the 3+ block long lines around the world of customers waiting to be the first on the block with the newest Samsung phone? Heck, Samsung would have to sell 100x the phones that Apple does in order to make a similar profit. I think Samsung makes about $9 a phone on their most recent models. Of course, mobile phone salesmen love Samsung because they can apply a 300%+ markup and the little piece of shit still comes in cheaper than an entry-level iPhone.

Even Google admits that 2/3rds of their smartphone revenue comes from Apple.

Why isn't Apple going after Nokia or RIM? Maybe because their phones aren't blatant knockoffs of the Apple product?

You can delude yourself all day with your talk about Apple's reasons for going after Samsung. The truth is that they are simply going after the most blatant of Apple knockoff makers.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[neoform]

Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent.

Are you implying that Apple has not been innovating?

Of all the cellphone makers out there, you're seriously implying that Apple is the one *not* innovating?

That's funny.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The LG Prada connection came up in the trial and the jury didn't buy it, as most people haven't except Androis evangelists.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Dan541]

Years developing for what?

A phone that can't Copy/Paste, Send MMS, use Blutooth or video call. Something the rest of the world has been able to do for more than a decade.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[shutdown -p now]

The main reason why I replaced my iPhone 4 with Galaxy S2 back in the day was that it was not "just clone" of an iPhone. It carried over the few things that made sense (like flat front), but on most counts it was both different and better than an iPhone.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[PaKL]

I read yesterday that Google were moving to ban Apple product in USA

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

The Shelby suit was actually about Trademarks not about design patents.

Apple doesn't have trademark on the look of their phones, they've got vague design patents.

Also Shelby weren't suing a "clone maker" over things that vaguely represent their cars. They were suing over exact replicas.

Find me a Samsung product that is completely indistinguishable from an Apple product and then that might be a relevant case.

Should also be noted that Trademark's are a defend it or lose it situation, unlike Apple's design patents.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Plumpaquatsch]

Yeah you would, the home screen on all Samsung's phones have widgets. The pictures of the Samsung phones that look a little like iOS are showing the app tray, not the home screen.

You mean the picture s of the Samsung phones that Samsung uses in advertising.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple don't just sell smartphones.

TEN BIGGEST SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURERS BY UNIT SALES IN Q2 2012

Rank, Maker, Units, Market Share, Was in Q1 of 2012 1 Samsung 50.4 M 32.9 % ( 30.6 %) 2 Apple 26.0 M 17.0 % ( 24.2 %)

So the top two Smartphone makers share the same designer.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Plumpaquatsch]

And in return they got two to three years where they had the 'no-keyboard' smartphone market pretty much to themselves. Even after three years (back in 2010) the iPhone 4 was generally regarded as the best smartphone. It is only now five years in that the competitors have, by and large, caught up (even with the supposed "willful infringement").

I'd say Apple's investment paid off, and handsomely. They do not need any "protection".

No, but the smartphone makers not copying Apple seem to need it. Samsung has been growing on the back of those, not Apple.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Plumpaquatsch]

so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.

No, we need those 20 years so the other companies have an incentive to innovate instead of just taking what the innovators created and stagnate at an equal level.

It's interesting how the "definition" for innovation has changed here in the last couple of years - once it was "Apple doesn't innovate because they never invent, just copy", now it's "Apple stifles innovation because they have a document saying they invented something, and use it so others can't copy it". And of course both definitions are often used in the same discussion.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anymore LOL

What's really funny...

[Tastecicles]

...is that Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!

So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!

Re:What's really funny...

[ciderbrew]

I guess they'll have contracts signed for to ensure parts are supplied for years. Depending on the structure the Samsung make parts division isn't the same as the make phones division. Better they buy from you than X. Doing Business with people you don't like is business.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts ... it's covered

Re:What's really funny...

[tokencode]

Apple has enough buying power to get a good deal with any manufacturer, and Samsung isn't stupid enough to cut off a huge source of revenue. They make more off of apple than the lawsuit will cost them

Re:What's really funny...

[webmosher]

Breaking the manufacturing contract would probably cost Samsung a lot more than the $1 billion they lost here. Apparently Apple has already started moving away from Samsung's components in newer/upcoming devices. So, the writing was already on the wall for both parties.

Re:What's really funny...

[anarkhos]

Don't be silly; Apple has plenty of options. They even design their own processors. Plus Samsung isn't going to spite anyone when it costs them money. These are corporations, not people.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut off your nose to spite your face much?

Apple is an enormous customer for Samsung. They aren't cutting off Apple any time soon because that would kill their revenue.

Samsung may be stupid (by copying their competitors - not just Apple - they've copied Motorola's RAZR and RIM's Blackberry, two of the most popular phones of their time) but Samsung isn't stupid. They want money and they aren't going to piss away one of, if not the largest customer they have.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there's a contract involved?

Re:What's really funny...

[Tastecicles]

didn't the SII come out before the RAZR Maxx?

Re:What's really funny...

[Ratchet]

I'm rooting for Samsung here too by the way, I'd like to see Apple get a good poke in the nose as much as anybody, but don't you think it's safe to assume that Apple would just go find someone else to do all that for them? It's pretty safe to assume they already have a list of companies, who are lined-up, just chomping at the bit to get a taste of the billions Apple gives Samsung to do that work. Hell, do you even think Samsung is so stupid that they would throw away those Apple billions just to settle a grudge?

Re:What's really funny...

[Dupple]

You've answered your own question. With so much Samsung inside an iPhone, Samsung simply can't afford to turn their back on apple - they'd loose too much money. The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

Additionally there are contracts in place that must continue to be honoured. So if Samsung pulls the plug they effectively shoot themselves in the foot

Re:What's really funny...

[Splab]

Yeah, because there are hundreds of factories sitting idle around, ready to pump up production to meet Apples demands.

If you belive that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Re:What's really funny...

[jbolden]

What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.

Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.

Re:What's really funny...

[allanw]

Samsung is a huge conglomerate and the mobile division is certainly completely separated from their foundry and LCD businesses.

Re:What's really funny...

[alen]

earlier in the year the apple tv had a silent update to a 32nm A5 CPU. one core is disabled which means these are reject chips and apple is helping samsung with their 32nm transition. the ipad 3 is a 45nm A5 CPU.

so no, apple is not leaving samsung any time soon. the A5 CPU is mostly samsung with some apple changes. apple can't just leave either. no matter what clueless ifanboys who think apple designs everything scream on the internet

Re:What's really funny...

[alen]

not only that but samsung just spent a lot of money to upgrade to 32nm and has interest payments on the factories to make. they aren't going to screw apple and risk having no customers and just interest payments on fabs

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!

So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!

Yeah, I'm sure that Apple--with $100 billion in the bank--would be pretty helpless in the face of that threat.

Not. Samsung doesn't fabricate the phones. Foxconn makes them, Samsung just provides parts. And do you have any idea how many other component manufacturers would be falling all over each other to snag a piece of that pie?

I think you're fogetting (or never realized) that Apple's CEO Tim Cook was brought on board by Steve Jobs in the late '90's precisely because he's a supply chain wizard; and he's gotten Apple's supply chain and manufacturing networks running so well that it's astonishing. He's exactly the guy that Samsung won't want to try bluffing with a threat to cut off parts for the iPhone and iPad.

Re:What's really funny...

[slashmydots]

That can't possibly be true. They never would have shot themselves in the foot that blatantly.

Re:What's really funny...

[Xest]

Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.

What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.

Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.

Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.

There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.

Re:What's really funny...

[Rockoon]

The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

They could start using the worst parts instead of the best parts while still living up to their contractual obligations with Apple, as well as increasing the profit margins of their interactions with Apple, as well as stick it to Apple long term without hurting themselves.

Re:What's really funny...

[tgibbs]

What happens to Apple? They go to another supplier, who will delighted to have such a major customer.
What happens to Samsung? The damages they will have to pay for copying Apple will be dwarfed from their losses from losing such a major customer. This is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Re:What's really funny...

[CRC'99]

Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!

So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!

And just to make things better, Samsung owns the patents for the 'retina display' - so if Samsung don't sell the screens to Apple, who can Apple get to make them? That's right, nobody.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully for Apple, companies are not run by spiteful children. Even if they take a big loss on this lawsuit, they would lose far more by cutting ties with Apple. They aren't going to destroy their own business just to spite Apple.

Re:What's really funny...

[tnk1]

I imagine there are quality control agreements in the contracts. They might be able to send them parts that aren't their absolute best, but they will still have to send parts that are sufficient to maintain the quality Apple expects. Don't think for a second that a company that is so attached to design and control of their product line will not have strict controls on quality from vendors. Apple has a long history of obtaining good parts from manufacturers, and then charging through the nose for the privilege of having them in their stuff. That's part of the reason they always have a higher price point, they don't use cut-rate stuff.

Re:What's really funny...

[quacking duck]

The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

They could start using the worst parts instead of the best parts while still living up to their contractual obligations with Apple, as well as increasing the profit margins of their interactions with Apple, as well as stick it to Apple long term without hurting themselves.

I'm sure there's a pretty stringent QA process and contract for all component parts.

Apple's not able to test every single one of course, but if a certain percentage of a random sample in a batch fails, the contract would only impact Apple in availability of parts. Samsung however would take a monetary hit--even if there's no direct monetary penalty in the contract, Apple could still reject the entire batch, and Samsung either has to scrap it or sell to a less picky customer for less (assuming a component isn't unique to Apple). Samsung could theoretically keep doing this enough to actually slow availability of Apple products, but then their own reputation for quality takes a hit, they're still wasting money, and there's probably escape clauses that would allow Apple to terminate the contract early without penalty.

Re:What's really funny...

[PortHaven]

Oooh...you're vicious, but I like it...

Samsung, why break contract. Just make iPhones less reliable.

Re:What's really funny...

[jareth-0205]

Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones.

Are you sure about this? Because back-of-the-envelope maths doesn't really bear that out. The markup for Samsung when they're making the parts *and* the finished product has to be much higher than just making components for Apple. And the quantities of finished products has to be similar given high-end Samsung phones roughly equal sales of iPhones.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah see? He said Not. Back in 1991, that meant that you should take what he said, and then immediately realize he was saying the opposite of what you thought he was seeing.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are corporations, not people.

Corporations are people my friend

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

They even design their own processors.

No they don't. Apple licenses a bunch of cores that make up the SOC they use. Apple doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the processor design. Their involvement in the SOC design is saying "yeah, we want that.. and that..." But, Apple doesn't design any of the cores in their SOC.

In fact, Samsung designs and builds all the cool stuff in the iphone like the displays.

Apple doesn't design any hardware component other than the case.

Don't let fanboism get in the way of facts.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't design their own processors. They license IP from ARM and whatever GPU vendor they like that week. The work they do on those CPU amounts to gluing various parts together.

Re:What's really funny...

[jbolden]

And the quantities of finished products has to be similar given high-end Samsung phones roughly equal sales of iPhones.

This includes their low end phones the quantities far exceed the iPhone.

The markup for Samsung when they're making the parts *and* the finished product has to be much higher than just making components for Apple.

The exact opposite. Apple while selling only 6% of the world phones takes home 75% of the world's profits from phones. Apple is amazing good at targeting the consumers that are mostly price insensitive. And because Apple is so profitable they are willing to pay the parts division a premium for the best parts while Samsung's own handset division needs to be cost sensitive.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Raymond-James-Apple-vs-non-Apple-cell-phone-EBIT.jpg

Anyway Samsung's estimate for 2012 iPhone sales is $13b is sales and $2.2b in profits which is almost 1/2 their profits for the entire company for the year across all their product lines. Apple turned their display business from losses to profits.

Just to pick an example from outside of cell phones, my Retina Macbook pro has Samsung's terrific 450 mb / sec SSD controller. You won't find that controller on Samsung laptops.

Samsung would rather exit the phone business than lose Apple as a customer.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Samsung could simply charge more to Apple for its components in order to partially offset Samsung's loss from the lawsuit. If the cost of goods for Apple products goes up, so does the retail price for Apple products. Ultimately, the victims would be the Apple fanboyz who would then be paying even more money for Apple products. At least some justice comes out of that.

Re:What's really funny...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Let's see how much parts Samsung sell Apple :

"Apple is said to increase its spend with its partner and archrival Samsung from the estimated current value of $9.7 billion to a staggering $11 billion in 2012 alone."

An then there's the investment made to produce these parts :

"Samsung announced on Tuesday that it plans to spend about $4 billion to renovate its existing chip plant in Austin, Tex., where the company builds Apple's custom processors for the iPhone and iPad
[...]
The South Korean electronics maker already announced in June that it plans to build a new logic chip plant in its home country to better serve customers like Apple. That project is projected to cost 2.25 trillion won, or $1.98 billion."

But you think they're going to give all that up because they're in a huff over a court case ? Nerds and their revenge fantasies.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the quantities of finished products has to be similar given high-end Samsung phones roughly equal sales of iPhones.

This includes their low end phones the quantities far exceed the iPhone.

A little reading comprehension may be in order. The GP stated that only Samsung's sales is roughly equal to Apple when you're looking at just the high end ones. Including Samsung's low end phones, they sell nearly twice as many units as Apple.

The markup for Samsung when they're making the parts *and* the finished product has to be much higher than just making components for Apple.

The exact opposite. Apple while selling only 6% of the world phones takes home 75% of the world's profits from phones.

Actually Apple's sales figures indicates that selling whole handsets has a greater profit margin than just selling components. Otherwise Apple's profits would be cut into by the high-margin components. The exact opposite of what you're trying to imply.

In fact all you've done is state the GP is wrong, then proceeded to make arguments in their favour.

Re:What's really funny...

[jbolden]

I also provided the Samsung figures which compared their sales to Apple and the high per unit profits.

Re:What's really funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the iPad screens, but I thought the screens for the next iPhone were being made by LG.

Re:What's really funny...

[Xest]

Quite possibly, but the point is LG is likely still buying parts for those screens from Samsung, or at least licensing patents for those screens from Samsung anyway, that's the issue for Apple - somewhere down the supply chain they'll bump into Samsung one way or another.

Can the ban occur before the appeal?

[synapse7]

Just wondering.

If phones can be banned for using pinch to zoom, why not ban them all?

Re:Can the ban occur before the appeal?

[slashmydots]

I think they should ban whoever gave them that patent (and the rounded corners patent).

Re:Can the ban occur before the appeal?

[jrumney]

If phones can be banned for using pinch to zoom, why not ban them all?

Apple would have to start a new court case for that. They named the phones up front for this case, extending the scope now after the trial is over is not legally possible. As for the ban, it has been in place since the start of the case, Apple is just requesting it to become permanent for these phones, so unless Samsung manages somehow to get the appeal court to quickly overturn the ban until the case is heard, I'd expect the ban to be enforced immediately. I wonder how much of their bond Apple will need to fork over for the Nexus S, and Galaxy Tab though, since they were not found to be infringing.

Re:Can the ban occur before the appeal?

[Tastecicles]

Yes, it's called an interim injunction.

The Charge? Really?

[Howitzer86]

Wow, I just looked up what the Droid Charge looked like. It's really quite different from the iPhone. I think my lil' LG looks more like an iPhone than that one does.

Oh well, I guess they won't be done with this until everyone either has an iPhone or something that looks like an old Black Berry. Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this did they?

Maybe if they cared more about their intellectual property they'd be in better shape today. No need to worry about the competition if you can wipe them out in the courts

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Splab]

Check out the 4G Epic, that cost Samsung 350m+ in the ruling; sure as hell looks nothing like an iPhone.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's strong evidence of Jury Misconduct (While Juries can "nullify" laws on their verdicts, they still have to basically go through the motions- this Jury did NOT do this...) going on with this case- and this is another instance thereof.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this did they?

Yes they did. They sued Samsung over the Blackjack and eventually got Samsung to change the name of the phone to avoid brand confusion (google it to find the story of your choice for the details).

Samsung has a history. People need to remember it.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, the Galaxy Ace which is an almost exact replica of the iPhone, was ruled not to infringe. See here for a comparison.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Splab]

Yeah, that one is definitely a pure rip-off.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Contrary to popular belief much of the court case focused on the UI and not how the phone looks. LOL RECTANGLES, right ?

Re:The Charge? Really?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this did they?

Maybe if they cared more about their intellectual property they'd be in better shape today. No need to worry about the competition if you can wipe them out in the courts

Blackberry sued SAMSUNG over their ridiculous "Blackjack" Blackberry rip-off.

Re:The Charge? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was about Trademarks not Patents.

Wow...

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

.. a thousand Barbara Streisands just walked into a room with a truckload of suppression orders.

So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[stiggle]

They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

Part of the ruling in the UK was to put a notice on the website stating that Samsung did not copy Apple.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[itsdapead]

They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

Which may have something to do with the major differences in IP law between UK/EU and US. Like - no software patents in the EU (at least in theory).

It would be really, really good if the US patent system didn't grant the sort of silly patents that both sides used in this case (remember folks, don't use an app while playing music without talking to Samsung first). However, it was not the job of this jury to fix the patent system. All of their questions on infringement and validity were of the form "has Samsung/Apple presented sufficient evidence to prove that..." not "is this a bloody obvious patent that the USPTO should never have wasted ink on".

Samsung or Apple - both with big valuable patent portfolios - might have tried to point out specific flaws in specific patents - but would hardly have argued convincingly that obvious patents should be tossed out (see 'turkeys' and 'xmas').

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[slashmydots]

There must have been some Apple fanboys on the jury. If you've never met one, they make radical muslims seem tame and unpassionate by comparison because they prop up their entire ego and self esteem on Apple's marketing manta that Apple products make you better than everyone else. If they're told Apple isn't good, they act very similarly to every monkey or gorilla attack you've ever seen on CNN.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, the laws in different countries are, you know, different. Funny how that is.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[bhagwad]

The jury squandered a valuable chance to invalidate the silly patents. Of course, with a patent holder as the foreman...

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[falcon5768]

Yeah except they didnt loose because Samsung didnt copy Apple, the judge actually said they DID copy Apple but their phones that did were so awful that no one could mistake them for the iPhone... A victory for Samsung, but not one they want to brag about.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[kakaburra]

Part of the ruling in the UK was to put a notice on the website stating that Samsung did not copy Apple.

The notice was supposed to be put for tablets. The US court also ruled that Samsung didn't copy Apple in case of Tablets.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[PortHaven]

No, there was a foreman who was an engineer and has multiple patents. And led the juries, to protect the patents because he'd want "his" patents protected.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS both sides had patents in play. Both Samsung and Apple were plaintiffs in this case, both argued the other had infringed their patents. How does having ownership of patents make the juror biased to one side or another? It doesn't. It's revisionist bullshit from fandroids who are upset that "their side" lost. Grow up.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the irony of the whole thing

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[itsdapead]

Of course, with a patent holder as the foreman...

...they still found that many of the patents, on both sides, had not been infringed.

An irrationally pro-patent jury would have decided all the patents, on both sides, had been infringed. They didn't.

An irrationally pro-Apple jury would have found Samsung infringed the iPad and iPhone 3 IP by having rounded corners. They didn't (I know that spoils a lot of jokes, but tough...)

A jury can't fix US patent law - especially in a case where neither of the litigants is going to argue against patents with any enthusiasm - the rules need changing. Some of the patents are being reexamined - that's the best hope but I'm afraid that if they have been properly drafted to match the current (silly) rules then you shouldn't get your hopes up.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[mick129]

> > They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

> There must have been some Apple fanboys on the jury.

Or... there must have been some Samsung fanboys in the other juries.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[PortHaven]

Well, look, the news yesterday confirmed my point.

Jury Foreman !@#$% the whole case. And will probably cause the entire jury decision to be put aside.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

US Patent is all that counts any others are a crap shoot like we are now seeing. It's like .Com vs .Net who really feels great owning a .Net name because the .Com version was taken.

Look and Feel

[MickyTheIdiot]

If the "look and feel" lawsuit had happened in the present-day US, Apple would have won it.

And where would be we be now?

Re:Look and Feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Metro UI in 1999.

Re:Look and Feel

[jbolden]

Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.

In other words we would have been much better off.

Re:Look and Feel

[PortHaven]

Please express how an Object Oriented GUI would have looked or worked differently?

There are only so many ways to display things. Mac was based on a desktop and filing cabinet concept. Folders, had been used for ages. So has grid layout. We may be talking about innovation, but not invention. There is a big difference. And IMHO, only invention should be protected.

Re:Look and Feel

[jbolden]

Please express how an Object Oriented GUI would have looked or worked differently?

Three examples

Take shortcuts / aliases. Because "traverse" was an object property you could have an icon to any directory not just a fixed drive like C:\. Windows has this today but it didn't at the time. More importantly this is independent of the way the drive is mounted so remote drives (like NFS) can be attached anywhere. This still is awkward on Windows though has been part of Unixes for 40 years.

Things like cut and paste would have generalized beyond text to video, sound, pictures.... Which is more or less what you have on OSX but Windows still doesn't have.

Another thing is abstract printers so print to fax, print to file (i.e. like pdf), print to text.... Which Windows is still a bit iffy about.

We may be talking about innovation, but not invention. There is a big difference. And IMHO, only invention should be protected.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. But generally when /.ers use this invention / innovation dichotomy they pretty much want to exclude almost all inventions of almost all companies / individuals in all of human history. Almost every invention or great idea is just a somewhat unique combination with a few tweaks of earlier ideas. Set the bar as high as people who use that phrase often do, and you end up with a situation where nothing can be patented.

Which is fine but the problem with weak patents is that companies don't share information they become highly secretive and hold back inventions forcing their competitors to reinvent the same technologies over and over and over again.

Re:Look and Feel

[Kartu]

Xerox was the company that both Bill Gates and Jobs stole ideas from. It had both GUI and mouse ages ago.
Why would only Microsoft have to "innovate" around someones exclusive rights?

Re:Look and Feel

[jbolden]

That was what the court found. That Apple had licensed technology from Xerox so it was unclear they had standing to sue. That's why Apple lost.

In this hypothetical though we are mainly addressing what happens if they won.

Re:Look and Feel

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that if Microsoft lost, they'd have made Windows 8 right there and then?

Thank God they didn't lose!

Re:Look and Feel

[PortHaven]

Oh, I'm not arguing the benefits of an OO GUI interface. Mostly just the whole, "it wouldn't have made a difference in this case". Because this case didn't look at implementation. It concluded a grid of icons was Apple's ownership.

- Ignore Palm
- Ignore Windows 3.1 folders, each filled with a grid of icons.

rounded corners

[stud9920]

how are rounded corners an inovation ? It's basic design.

The most useful shape would be rectangular because that's the shape of the screen - if only for software reasons
The most practical shape to put it in your pocket would be round/oval, because a rectangle will hurt your tighs and tear pockets.

A compromise between the two is simply obvious.

Re:rounded corners

[miffo.swe]

I hope someone will make a phone like OpenMoko. I loved the design on it and i really miss the way it was very nice to hold in your hand. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko

In the end this might actually hurt Apple as someone is bound to come up with a better design and it will give even more choice in the echosystem while Apple is the communist version, you get once size fits all or nothing.

So you want to push them to the Galaxy SIII?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's remove the older, slower phones from the market so you'll have to compete only against the SIII, which people say beats the iPhone hands down.

Smart move Apple.

Re:So you want to push them to the Galaxy SIII?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Galaxy Nexus - a phone so much better than the iPhone that Apple had previously had it banned in the USA.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The court will issue an injunction.

Samsung will appeal and the court will suspend the injunction until the appeal is heard.

By then those devices will be discontinued and a whole family of new lawsuit drawing devices will be on offer.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Samsung

[arcite]

Samsung will do nothing, they are beholden to Apple. Apple is worth more than Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined.

Re:Samsung

[Missing.Matter]

Apple is worth more than Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined.

Assets:
Samsung: $384.3B
Google: $72.6B
Microsoft: $121.2B
RIM: $7.7B
Noika: $45.4B

Total assets of Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined: $631.2B

Total assets of Apple: $116.4B

Oh, or were you talking about the imaginary measure of "worth" derived from feelings and pixie dust known as market cap? Even not then:

Market Cap:
Samsung: $167.1B
Google: $218.9B
Microsoft: $257.3B
RIM: $3.7B
Noika: $12.06B

Total market cap of Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined: $659.0B

Total market cap of Apple: $633.4B

Anyway, not sure what a company's worth in relation to others prove about what one company will do with respect to breaking contracts and dropping customers. Remember, Samsung has something much more powerful than fat stacks of cash, something Apple cannot compare: the full backing and support of the South Korean government. Not saying I think it's great a corporation is so close to a government, but that while Apple is making only shiny iToys, Samsung is a massive conglomerate making:

Textiles
Securities
Credit cards
Insurance
Chemicals
Machine tools
Engineering services
Electronics
Semiconductors
Hotels
Ships
Surveillance
Automations
Aeronautics
Oh yeah, and weapons tech... seriously, that's not a company I'd want to fuck with.

Re:Samsung

[TheDarkMaster]

Very well said, sir.

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... who gives a crap what the value of the assets of a company are? What kind of REVENUE can the company GENERATE from the USE of those assets? Using that metric (which is, strangely, what investors use) I'd say Apple's market cap being 96% of the other 5 major tech companies speaks for itself... too bad it shreds your argument tho

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... who gives a crap what the value of the assets of a company are? What kind of REVENUE can the company GENERATE from the USE of those assets? Using that metric (which is, strangely, what investors use) I'd say Apple's market cap being 96% of the other 5 major tech companies speaks for itself... too bad it shreds your argument tho

If the wiki numbers are to be trusted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses

Samsung's revenue is the 9th highest in the world!
More than double as much as Apple's (247.5 vs 108.3 USD billion)

They have 4 times as many employees as Apple

Apple does have higher profits tho' (bit more than 4 billion )

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

If the south korean government weighs in on samsung, I will bet you the united state will weigh in on the behalf of apple.

Re:Samsung

[FatAlb3rt]

I'd argue that a significant portion of Apple's market cap is driven by a more volatile, emotion-driven perception of their products. They make good products, but many people get them for the status (seriously, how many other phone cases have a hole in the back so you can see the logo?!). If this #BoycottApple stuff really starts taking off, you'll see a big impact to their sales.

They better have something special in line for the iPhone 5.

Re:Samsung

[BenJury]

You're saying it like the US Govt isn't already? There appears to be a lot of protectionism going on in the US right now, so I'm not sure it would be that surprising to anyone...

Re:Samsung

[Uberbah]

Except it's not. Things are as worth as much as people are willing to pay for them. If tomorrow the world wakes up and sees The Beatles as a shitty band and Ford Pinto's as the car to get, you would see the values of Pinto's and Beatles records from the 70's adjust accordingly.

So, yeah if you want to talk about how much money a company is worth, you need to look at how much people are willing to pay for that company. i.e. market cap.

Re:Samsung

[TheDarkMaster]

Except it's not. Things are as worth as much as people are willing to pay for them. If tomorrow the world wakes up and sees The Beatles as a shitty band and Ford Pinto's as the car to get, you would see the values of Pinto's and Beatles records from the 70's adjust accordingly.

So, yeah if you want to talk about how much money a company is worth, you need to look at how much people are willing to pay for that company. i.e. market cap.

"imaginary measure of "worth" derived from feelings and pixie dust known as market cap"

You need to read more carefully the comments of others. Others (imaginary value versus real value) may be happy to be wrong, but not why they like being deceived that I have to be forced to accept too.

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

"something Apple cannot compare: the full backing and support of the South Korean government"
yet apple has the full backing of the US judicial system ;)

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook much?
19.29
+0.14 (0.73%)

Real-time: 2:21PM EDT

Re:Samsung

[OdinOdin_]

That isn't what "people" are willing to pay. That is the price of the most recent few 1000 shares that were sold extrapolated across the number of shares issued. The tail wagging the dog.

If you want to know what people are willing to pay you need to sell a lot more shares to extrapolate. Then people will start to look at Profit / Earnings ratios and the voting power the public shares have.

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is totaly overpriced, and I'm not talking just about their products. Would you rather own Samsung + Google + Microsoft or Apple? No brainer to me. Seems like a good time to short Applet.

Re:Samsung

[Rich0]

So? Market cap is worthless unless you plan to sell stock, or trade it for something else. Oh, and if you want to do either what matters is what the person you're giving the stock to values it at, not what the current stockholders value it at. Usually they're related, but if you're talking about a lot of stock that breaks down fast.

So, Apple is worth more in market cap than 5 of its competitors. What's it going to do, issue a ton more stock and buy out its competitors? Gee, getting a 20% premium on their stock price will sure make its competitors upset... And issuing that much stock is likely to affect the market cap anyway.

The only thing that the market cap really directly relates to is the ability to do stock deals to buy much smaller companies, not ones that are worth tens of billions of dollars or more. And Apple would probably just pay cash for a small company anyway. That's why many really question the value of the market cap number is - it doesn't really translate into some real reserve of money the company can use.

Re:Samsung

[Rich0]

Sorry - I will amend my last statement a little. There is another area where market cap does tend to matter - if somebody else wanted to buy Apple they'd have to find some way to give out more than $600B to its current stockholders if they want them to be likely to approve the deal.

Even that tends to be a bit murky though. If somebody were to buy Apple they could use Apple's own assets and stock value as part of the deal or as collateral for financing. This is like buying a house - you don't need $200k in cash to buy a $200k house - a house purchase could in an extreme case be nothing more than a deal where one person sells the house, but all the money goes to the bank, and the buyer gets the money to buy it from the same bank, so in the end it is nothing more than changing the name on the mortgage and paying a ton of fees.

So, market caps are even of limited value in looking at acquisitions. Usually what you need to do a hostile takeover is to convince the shareholders that one way or another they'll get more money with you in charge than with the current manager. That might involve up-front payment for their shares (if you can give somebody $120 today for stock that they just bought for $100 they'll be happy), or a compelling promise for more later. Neither is likely to happen to Apple right now.

Immitation, not litigation, stiffles innovation.

[stating_the_obvious]

To those who say that Apple stiffles innovation, please cite examples of innovation within the products for which Apple is seeking an injunction. Why would one invest in innovation if the market is free to copy immediately?

Do you work at Best Buy or something?

[arcite]

Most Apple buyers don't need advice, they already know they want an Apple.

Re:Do you work at Best Buy or something?

[QuantumRiff]

How do you know if someone has a mac? Don't worry, they'll tell you...

Re:Do you work at Best Buy or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know if someone has a mac? Don't worry, they'll tell you...

I want to know how to shut them up.

Re:Do you work at Best Buy or something?

[Plumpaquatsch]

How do you know if someone has a mac?

They won't ask you to fix their damn PC.

Galaxy Tab

[Xest]

Samsung also asked for the ban on the Galaxy Tab to be removed as this was apparently found not infringing in the very same case. Something which seems to have gone largely unreported.

So a question, does this mean Apple will have to pay damages for loss of sales from the Tab ban due to it apparently being frivolous?

Re:Galaxy Tab

[PortHaven]

It should have too...but crApple is beloved.

Re:Galaxy Tab

[toriver]

Any reparations from that overturned ban would come from the bond Apple had to post to get the ban in place.

Not sure how it would affect the other ban in Europe, but there Samsung relented and made the non-infringing Tab 10.1 N.

Next Slashdot headline

[Grand Facade]

"Samsung files to appeal judges decision" and blocks Apples request for injunction...ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

OpenMoko revival

[ChristW]

Did you know you can upgrade the Openmoko's motherboard? See http://www.gta04.org/

Re:OpenMoko revival

[miffo.swe]

I know! But it is extremely expensive and that's a bit sad.

Masturbation

[Anonymous Coward]

allot of Masturbation also does the same, because of an increase of dopamine...
people are morons especially when it's backed by science...

this is typical bullshit bored scientist earning loads of money!

Why isn't Apple being sued by others?

[tippe]

How can it be that none of the companies targeted by Apple have found a reason to sue Apple for infringing their own products? If I'm not mistaken, Samsung, Motorola, etc, have all been making phones and cell phones far longer than Apple has, and have had far longer to lay down a patent minefield to protect themselves from this shit. Why haven't they found a reason to sue? Is it really possible for Apple's designs to be so squeaky clean that there is nothing for others to go after? Really? Or is it that they're too afraid and are either sitting there quietly, hoping to fly under Apple's radar, or too busy trying to defend themselves from current attacks to launch their own? I'm incredulous that other than a couple of Chinese companies suing Apple for one reason or another, I haven't heard of anybody really being on the offensive against apple. Or, maybe that side of things just doesn't make the headlines...

Re:Why isn't Apple being sued by others?

[toriver]

The patents the others hold are either licensed by Apple, or by third-parties they use. Plus, they are "standard-essential" and thus fall under different rules than non-essential patents like the bounce-back scrolling.

time for an IBM injuction

[slashmydots]

How much do you think Samsung would have to pay IBM to get them to file an injunction against their iPad infringing on their original patent for a tablet? My guess would be not much. I think Apple just painted the biggest, most legitimately attackable target on themselves in human history. They're about to get IBM/Dell/LG/HP/GE/Lenovo-stomped. At least they've got all that 23 billion in cash laying around for legal fees. They're pretty lucky they didn't use it to pay their Foxconn slave labor workers sufficiently.

Re:time for an IBM injuction

[toriver]

Which original IBM patent? One of the ancient ones that have expired? How would any of the single-touch, resistive-screen pen computing tablets apply to a device with multi-touch capacitive screen? And how exactly are the FoxConn workers, who earn a wage around 40% over the regional average for the type of work, "slave labor"? Are you that disconnected from the manufacturing industry as you sit in your comfy chair pretending to be doing a desk job?

Re:time for an IBM injuction

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me how Apple only has 23 billion dollars laying around? Even Blizzard has made 22.5 billion off of WoW alone. Not counting Diablo and SC2 sales and merchandise. What exactly is apple funding in research? They don't make anything new. Must be all salaries.

Re:time for an IBM injuction

[shilly]

A comfy chair that almost certainly - sadly - has parts made by labourers working in worse conditions for less money than the Foxconn people

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that this sort of thing keeps happening. We wank about US patent law every day and how it needs to be reformed. It is only when the true rulers of our society (corporations) start to get hurt that things will change.

The problem...

[Urthas]

...with all of this is that the patent life is too long for computer technology. Computing power doubles roughly every two years. An academic paper in computer science is old hat in 6 months or less. Why, and oh why has patent law not recognized this and adjusted the window accordingly? Doing so would still reward innovators by letting them be a special snowflake and hook followers off the start with their innovation, but would not stifle competitors to an obscene degree (and thereby keep the original innovators, well, innovating, too).

It is somewhat ironic...

[Eric Abbott]

... that a lot of IT people who root for Samsung seem to overlook the following problem:

Companies like Samsung and various Chinese manufacturers that blatantly copy from US and European companies are partially responsible for moving a large number of tech jobs to Asia.

So as an IT person, if you root for Samsung you are essentially saying: well you can have my job, but please continue to sell me a cheap smartphone.

I don't like the patents that were used by apple in this case, but they used the existing patent system (*) and a win for Apple sends the right message: don't copy, do your own stuff. Apple is at least doing most of the design in the U.S and manufactures chips in Texas.

(*) and yes the patent system should be somewhat reformed but as a realist I don't see that happening any time sone.

Re:It is somewhat ironic...

[PortHaven]

Really, because Apple somehow hasn't moved their tech jobs to Asia?

I call bovine fecal matter on this. Main reasons these jobs have moved are:

1) cheaper labor

2) lower tax rates

3) less environmental restrictions

Any other reason is probably self-delusion.

Re:It is somewhat ironic...

[swilver]

.... OR... perhaps it is because there are no copyright/patent/trademark minefields in those countries that makes it so cheap and easy to produce high tech products there?

Perhaps it is time to realize that legal battles are not for free and that if you have enough of them their costs will be reflected in the cost of doing business. They're a drag on your economy that produces nothing by itself.

Ever since Jobs died...

[macbeth66]

I've had the feeling that Apple had nothing left in the product pipeline and they will become the next SCO.

Sad. I like some of their stuff. I even liked how they forced many industries to change.

Now, to time the sale of my Apple stock with its peak value, which I suspect will be sometime this quarter.

Re:Ever since Jobs died...

[toriver]

What? Apple are still releasing new hardware and software on a yearly basis. How is that comparable to SCO?

More Canadian Sales

[arthurpaliden]

If sales are blocked in the US is can see Canadian sales of those products increasing. I may even open a Samsung shop right next to the border.

Re:More Canadian Sales

[mathfeel]

Nothing like a forbidden/unavailable product that fires people up. In fact, a few of my friends are already discussing going to Oregan (no sale tax) to grab the new generation of iphone when it comes out and fly back to HK/China/TW with them to make enough profit to cover the said flight because Apple generally releases its phones later in Asia.

New Galaxy 11.8 tablet for scientific computing

[michaelmalak]

I'm just hoping that the Galaxy 11.8 comes out in the next month or two as planned, since it will be the first with 128-bit ARM NEON vector double-precision floating point, useful for the scientific applications that I develop. The Galaxy 11.8 ushers in the era of tablet number crunching. iPad won't get it until iPad 5.

Re:New Galaxy 11.8 tablet for scientific computing

[toriver]

All I read was "more Android fragmentation". :)

Which is it, are the patents essential or trivial?

[Brannon]

Are you saying it is impossible to build a phone without pinch-to-zoom or scroll bounce-back? Or one that doesn't look just like an iPhone (like the hundreds of other smartphone models that Apple isn't sueing over).

Look at the new Microsoft phones, they look nothing like iPhones.

No true friend recommends Apple nor its products.

[Anynomous Coward]

If someone recommends Apple's products to you, take it that that person doesn't hold you in high regard.
That person assumes that you

• - cannot think different on your own
• - mistake style for substance
• - are bad with money
• - can't deal with complexity
• - crave the false status a product reflects on its wearer
• - are uncomfortable with freedom outside a sandbox.

That person is not your true friend.

Samsung

[PortHaven]

Should approach their S. Korean neighbor LG. And help fund a lawsuit against the iPhone for stealing the look, feel, touch interface, and GUI elements of the Prada phone.

And they should do it in Korea. And not just get the sale of the iPhone banned. But have Apple banned from doing business in Korea. Not only does this result in Samsung's contract for parts being nullified. But it takes several of the largest manufacturers away from Apple.

It'd get real nasty.... I like it!

Re:No true friend recommends Apple nor its product

[ballpoint]

If someone recommends Apple's products to you, take it that that person doesn't hold you in high regard.
That person assumes that you

• - cannot think different on your own
• - mistake style for substance
• - are bad with money
• - can't deal with complexity
• - crave the false status a product reflects on its wearer
• - are uncomfortable with freedom outside a sandbox.

That person is not your true friend.

Hear, hear.

How much must they lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much damage will these companies take before deciding to oppose the patent system in general?

Re:Samsung has acted somewhat scummy

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations Apple

Samsung could have avoided this.

Samsung has capable people and has been able to produce good quality screens. Let them provide diversity to the market by coming up with THEIR OWN innovative solutions. While "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", it is just not acceptable to violate patents. Samsung had the option of licensing and should have paid up.
Those who feel a need for patent reform should work towards that, not bash innovative companies that everyone seems to want to copy.

I don't see Android handset owners here complaining much about seeing a portion of what they spend going to Microsoft. Be consistent. Either push for Android devices that don't use technology needing licensing, or stop whining when vendors have to comply with applicable laws when using technology that does.

Users here should be concerned over what seems to be paid submission, shilling and moderator abuse. Please try to be unbiased to the subject material and follow the set procedure when modding and meta-modding. It feels just like the corporate "free speech" corruption of elections.
Moderating isn't supposed to be a shilling or popularity contest.

Is this site now part-owned by MS? It seems strange that there is no Apple category in the list to the left, and I can't find account prefs to add that or the Political topics. I can't find the option to edit signatures either.

I'd like to see a version of Android with a truly open license. I want to be able to modify what's on my phone without having to build on some different generic version. With that degree of openness, I think we'd collectively come up with many great GUI innovations. As it is now, I can't easily contribute.
And let's come up with a fork that isn't so invasive of privacy, and has built-in ad-blocking to save bandwidth and screen space. If people want to criticize, I wish it would be in ways that drive constructive changes. Enough with the bashing. Do something useful.

Re:No true friend recommends Apple nor its product

[mark-t]

"Poisoning the well" is not a logical argument.

Steve Jobs Wouldn't be this Stupid

[Dr. Evil]

He started this fight, got really p***ed off at Samsung, but I somehow doubt he'd try to legislate the competition out of the market. He knew that the Apple brand was far too valuable to risk damaging it on peanuts like this.

This may be the turning point for Apple. Jobs' influence on the products in the pipeline is running low and now the brand is being trashed by the CEO.

Re:Steve Jobs Wouldn't be this Stupid

[zyzko]

Well, Jobs has been quoted saying "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."

I would think that could include using the courts, not just building a better product.

Re:Steve Jobs Wouldn't be this Stupid

[Dr. Evil]

Agreed, but he also brought the company back from the brink, admitted to a lot of mistakes in his career and has done a lot of 180 degree turns along the way. I'd expect he would have softened on this issue when he would have realized the damage to the brand.

Hopefully Tim Cook can keep Apple cool and innovative while he sues their predecessors for "copying" them.

Re:Immitation, not litigation, stiffles innovation

[cornjones]

fashion... The entire industry has no protection and new designs are copied immediately. Innovation (such as it is) is fast and successful companies are very successful...

Screw it. I've some karma to burn...

[trudyscousin]

...because I'm absolutely certain my opinion won't be popular here.

If all these innovations you think are so obvious are indeed that, then why didn't we see them implemented in popular phones released before 2007? I don't doubt that they existed before then, but it apparently took a company like Apple to implement them in a popular, readily available device.

If Samsung, who whines like the spanked brat of a company that they are, about how terrible it is that a company resorts to litigation rather than innovation in order to compete, well, why didn't they innovate? All of this obvious tech must have been available to do so, right? Samsung, as far as I'm concerned, got owned, and the best they could do was to imitate Apple. Ook ook.

As for those of you who sanctimoniously howl about how your household is going to be Apple-free from here on? See you in the funny papers, schmucks. I'm pretty sure Apple isn't in business to garner the adoration of the all-you-can-eat toe-jam buffet crowd. Not that I believe for a moment that any of you actually owned any Apple products in the first place.

I thought I'd never defend Microsoft, but I have to hand it to them: They created an OS that offers, as far as I can tell, a thoroughly original user experience for a smartphone. I mention this, because as much as I do enjoy my iPhone and the rest of the Apple products I own, I often wonder when something better will come along, and not necessarily from Apple.

But, those who really do innovate? Those who really would create something that is truly new under the sun? It isn't patents, or the arcane system that comes with them, that they need to fear. It's the people who buy fourth-rate knock-off crap they have to fear. It's their voice, their vision, that becomes lost in all the noise.

Re:Screw it. I've some karma to burn...

[imnotanumber]

If all these innovations you think are so obvious are indeed that, then why didn't we see them implemented in popular phones released before 2007? I don't doubt that they existed before then, but it apparently took a company like Apple to implement them in a popular, readily available device.

Because, some "innovations" like pinch to zoom can only be used on capacitive touch devices where you can distinguish more than one finger press. Earlier touch screens, usually using resistive technology could only read one touch. I had a very nice N900 (release date: November 11, 2009) that still had resistive touch screen. You can't use a technological limitation that existed in the past to conclude that the absence of pinch to zoom was because nobody "thought" to use it.

Fuck you Apple

[diego.viola]

I'm glad I never bought anything from you, and never will.

Triple damages - $3 Billion

[AbrasiveCat]

I see that most of us have been talking about $1 billion damages, but since the jury say the infringement was "willful" Apple is asking for $3 billion. http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3269534/apple-samsung-gear-triple-damages-injunctions-and-no-reasonable-jury-JNOV/in/3030480 That's enough to hurt! Well grab the popcorn, this isn't over yet.

Galaxy S Lightray 4G in request?

[TheSync]

Help! Does anyone know if the Samsung Galaxy S Lightray 4G from MetroPCS covered in the preliminary injunction request????

Hey, I was just wondering...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Could you, or anyone else, clearly explain to me what Apple is doing that's objectionable, without assuming that I'm against patents (including software patents) in general?

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I haven't been reading /. for quite a while now, and I'm just curious.

Re:Hey, I was just wondering...

[shutdown -p now]

It acts to reduce my choice as a user. For example, right now the single best smartphone device on the market, from my perspective, based on features alone, is Galaxy Nexus, which Apple seeks to ban for sale and importation. It is clear that they'd rather prefer me to buy an iPhone, but I've owned an iPhone and find it inconvenient and lacking features that I want. Now the only way for Samsung to get their phones unbanned is to remove features that Apple claims are infringing - which leads to the situation where I have to choose between two products both lacking features due to artificially imposed limitations (on Apple's own products, by design; and on competitors' products, by legal force). That's frustrating.

Re:Hey, I was just wondering...

[Plumpaquatsch]

It acts to reduce my choice as a user.

So you don't want to buy something from Apple because "it's shiny", but you want the right to buy something that is a lame copy.

Re:Hey, I was just wondering...

[shutdown -p now]

No, I want the right to buy something because it's far better than what it ostensibly "copied" from.

Re:Hey, I was just wondering...

[Plumpaquatsch]

No, I want the right to buy something because it's far better than what it ostensibly "copied" from.

So much better that you can ignore "the shiny"?

Re:Hey, I was just wondering...

[shutdown -p now]

"Shiny" is in the eye of the beholder. To me, a larger OLED screen is more "shiny", for example, while an Apple logo on the back is not.

Re:Which is it, are the patents essential or trivi

[Missing.Matter]

Are you saying it is impossible to build a phone without pinch-to-zoom or scroll bounce-back?

No, I'm saying pinch-zoom and scroll bounce back are both obvious and natural ways to interact with devices and should not be patentable. Akin to click-drag, pinch zoom is one of the most natural gestures for zoom, and in fact has plenty of prior art, the earliest pre-dating the iPhone by over 20 years. Aside from Samsung's own expert testimony on coll bounce prior art, it is also natural and obvious, as any spring loaded mechanism contains the exact same feedback the iPhone's emulates on the screen. Same goes for slide to unlock.

But the jury didn't even consider the patents validity in their decisions. They went so far as to say such matters bogged down the process, and proceeded diligently as if the patents were valid, as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.

With such copious examples of prior art and physical analogs, these patents are analogous to Apple patenting the placement of speakers and microphones in a phone. Sure you could make a phone without a speaker on the top and a microphone on the bottom, but it would be completely counterintuitive. If the patent system is designed to encourage innovation and not obviousness, yet we have patents on obviousness, the patent system is completely fucked.

Re:Which is it, are the patents essential or trivi

[Shagg]

as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.

Who holds a DVR patent that was granted after devices like the Tivo already existed.

Of course the patent trolls won the case, the foreman of the jury was also a patent troll.

Whatever, dude.

[Brannon]

I don't know if there is sufficient prior art to invalidate those patents; and I don't know if the jury was even allowed to consider invalidation of those patents (if they were then all this prior art should have been displayed for them). I am 100% sure that you don't know either, you just cherry-picked comments and constructed some plotline which reinforces your world-view.

I don't think either pinch-zoom or scroll bounce-back are all that obvious. It seems like if they were obvious then they would have shown up in a smartphone or tablet before the iPhone/iPad. I suspect the world would be a better place if software/concept patents had a 3 year expiration date instead of 20 years. Why not direct your anger and energy at your congressmen to make that change?

Re:Whatever, dude.

[Missing.Matter]

I don't know if there is sufficient prior art to invalidate those patents; and I don't know if the jury was even allowed to consider invalidation of those patents (if they were then all this prior art should have been displayed for them).

If you don't know these things why are you engaging in a conversation about them? Please do yourself a favor and read up on the trial. If you want a spoil they were asked to decide invalidity, they were given prior art, and they were instructed by their patent holding forman to basically skip over those decisions.

I am 100% sure that you don't know either, you just cherry-picked comments and constructed some plotline which reinforces your world-view.

How can you be 100% sure when you admit you yourself don't even know what's going on? Either way, proving prior art is precisely "cherrypicking" examples of past technologies that preempt the patent technology. I have provided you examples, Samsung has done the same with expert witnesses. The only people who haven't paid attention to this are you, Apple Inc., and the Jury who neglected to even consider it because it was too hard for them.

I don't think either pinch-zoom or scroll bounce-back are all that obvious. It seems like if they were obvious then they would have shown up in a smartphone or tablet before the iPhone/iPad.

Did you even look at the link? There are at least half a dozen examples of pinch-zoom being used in touch systems spanning the last two decades prior to iPhone. That Apple used them in a phone is not novel or innovative. It's obvious. That you don't think it's obvious is irrelevant; it is apparent from the link provided that those "skilled in the art" (which you are not) did see this gesture as obvious.

Re:Which is it, are the patents essential or trivi

[tgibbs]

But the jury didn't even consider the patents validity in their decisions. They went so far as to say such matters bogged down the process, and proceeded diligently as if the patents were valid, as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.

The jury did consider patent validity. They debated it initially at some length, did not come to a consensus at that time, but later returned to and answered the question of validity, as seen from their answers to item #11 on the jury form

EYE 4 1 Welcome our new Fruit Overlords :)

[LennyDotCom]

I prefer a world that "Just Works"

Oh really?

[phorm]

How about this article in Canada.

While I'm sure there's some crossover between Canadian CBC and slashdot readers, I'd say that this is visible to more than just the slash-type crowd.
I have lots of non-geek friends that have taken notice of this, especially when features disappear from their phones are a result of idiotic lawsuits on obvious tech.

By Buy Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never buy apple crap! Ever!

How to

[Anonymous Coward]

How to make an electronics and computing company:

Step 1) Hire more MBAs than MAS or doctoral CS holders.
Step 2) Hire more lawyers than that.
Step 3) Follow the least innovative design pattern that still makes sense and file a patent.
Step 4) Make the same products over and over for a decade with marginal improvements over non-sequitur gaps in functionality, possible
Step 5) Sue everyone that does the same when your patents finally get approved, because they stole your idea instead of making their devices a circle or a dodecahedron.

Re:Immitation, not litigation, stiffles innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Great point. The two fundamental differences between technology and fashion are: 1) development cost as a percentage of unit cost, and 2) flexibility of manufacturing.

A equally poor analogy at the opposite end of the spectrum from fashion is novel drug development where hundreds of millions of dollars (in extreme cases north of $1Bn) are spent in r&d and manufacturing is custom built for a single product. Is that OK to copy or reverse engineer on day one?

Tech is neither fashion nor medicine. Change the rules if you don't like them, but don't cheat and expect to get away with it.

Broad Patents

[Taco Cowboy]

The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.

 
That's very, very true !!
 
I've independently come up with a lot of new ideas, but my lawyers tell me they found existing patent coverages that are so broad, that even when the existing patents themselves are not similar with my new inventions, they effectively rendered my new inventions "invalid"
 
And I suspect that I am the only one who is frustrated and hamstrung by the broken patent system
 

Re:Broad Patents

[miffo.swe]

The system is broken but its on purpose. The idea is to hoard patents in the US and get agreements with the rest of the world honoring the patents. The downside is that this seems to hurt the US a lot more than the rest of the world.

Mitsubishi Trium Mondo

[meehawl]

The Mitsubishi Trium Mondo released in 2001 was a PDA-style cellular telephone clearly in the slate form factor now effectively claimed by Apple.

Apple's Phones Before HTC/LG and After HTC/LG

[meehawl]

those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post

Yes, they are a silly. This timeline clearly shows that after the miserable failure of Apple's first phone, Apple took a couple of years off to copy HTC and LG before releasing its second phone, the iPhone, directly copying their design.

Patent Troll Jurists

[meehawl]

there was a foreman who was an engineer and has multiple patents. And led the juries, to protect the patents because he'd want "his" patents protected.

More precisely, he is a patent troll who patented the DVR several years after ReplayTV and Tivo released their DVRs to market. He probably recognised a kindred spirit in Apple, which thus managed to get confirmed patents such as pinch-to-zoom (first implemented by Myron Krueger in 1983) and slide-to-unlock (a trivial, obvious gesture but actually patented three years before Apple by Swedish company Neonode).

Additionally, he's been going around grandstanding, giving interviews where he reveals that he instructed the other jury members not to actually read their deliberation instructions because he acted as an expert witness for them in interpreting the law (thus being an expert witness giving testimony to the jury yet unavailable for cross-examination by Samsung). Mistrial material right there.

iPhone 4 App Launch Performance Tested

[kuok]

The iPhone 4 is supposed to be faster than its predecessors and to prove this quickly, we loaded an iPhone 3G, an iPhone 3GS, an iPad and the iPhone 4 with Plants versus Zombies for the iPhone. Check out the differences! To get even more information,..........

Re:Which is it, are the patents essential or trivi

[Your.Master]

I don't see how pinch zoom is obvious at all. In fact I distinctly recall arguments on slashdot that pinch zoom on the original iPhone was backwards, and the closer your fingers got together the more you should be zoomed in (this is kind of like the eternal argument over what "scroll up" -- most people say you start at the top of the document and scroll down, but some insist that you start at the top and scroll up to the bottom).

Don't get me wrong -- I don't want pinch to zoom to be patented and the touchscreen market to be fragmented, and I see your prior art and it looks good to me. But I don't even see how it's obvious in retrospect, although I guess it must be for people to claim it's obvious now. It's not particularly skeumorphic. I get that it's kind of like stretching some material but stretching doesn't persist that way without distortion and then allow itself to be pushed back together.

Oh, the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

FTW !

When I went to the article link ...

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/434790/apple_seeks_block_8_samsung_products_after_win_jury_trial/#closeme

there was an add for the Samsung Galaxy S III
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8453/7889231992_f4ff6a4eee_b.jpg

( there was for me anyway )

Apple VS. Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Just reading some of the comments on here and had to laugh....What you are all failing to realise is this had nothing to do with patent infringments, because look at Motorola, HTC they also look like the iPhone and use some of the same technoligies that Apple was going after Samsung for but yet you don't see their makers being hauled into court. All this was about was Samsung has a far better product and is out selling Apple by far and they got pissed about it, not to mention that the courthouse was only 10 miles from Silicon Valley and all the jurers were picked from the residents of Silicon Valley.

Re:Immitation, not litigation, stiffles innovation

[shilly]

Oh god, this sort of horseshit is just infuriating...google fashion IP rules. Then piss off and read the links. Of course fashion is protectable and of course copying is a big problem