Slashdot Mirror
iPhone 4, iPad 2 Get US Import Ban
Bent Spoke writes "The U.S. trade agency has banned the import of older Apple iPhone and iPad models due to the violation of a patent held by Samsung (PDF). 'The president can overturn the import ban on public-policy grounds, though that rarely happens. Apple can keep selling the devices during the 60-day review period. ... Apple pledged to appeal the ITC decision. The underlying findings will be reviewed by a U.S. appeals court specializing in patent cases. ... The decision could mean fewer choices for AT&T and T-Mobile customers who want to get an iPhone without paying the higher cost of the iPhone 5. Samsung told the commission that Cupertino, California-based Apple could drop the price of the iPhone 5 if it was worried about losing potential customers. All of the iPhones are made in Asia.' It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles in the smartphone coliseum."
It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...
Only on
If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.
I know there will be apologists but Apple really brought this upon themselves with their frivolous lawsuits based on patenting rounded corners and their seeking of bans of other devices. Whilst the rest of the phone manufacturers have all joined in the same rotten game, and many were playing at it before Apple, it was the Cupertino based company that (in my view) turned to the courts as their primary competitive strategy.
Let the flamewar begin!!
Which is why Apple spends so much time litigating amirite?
What strikes me as how both the interviewee's in the news clip shown in the TFA constantly confuse the terms "around the country" and "around the world". Americans' are bred thinking that the country and the world are one of the same. These Freudian slips are just proof of their cultural ignorance.
If Obama did overturn the ITC I'd ask the question, why even allow Samsung the freedom to file cases against Apple in the first place? I'd say if Obama did overturn the decision (no matter the ethics behind the decision) it's just proof that the USA is doomed. Ideally the Govt should be held accountable to it's respective laws, that fact a committee even exists for this sort of thing just highlights how Totalitarian the US has become.
And someone explain WTF "public-policy" is?
I wish karma were a real thing.
If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.
If Apple and others conclude that Patent Reform is unavoidable, or in their interest, they will refocus part of their lobby and legal teams to ensure that it is as much in their interests(...) as possible, and as little-as-possible in ours (the public).
Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?
.. those who can't compete, litigate.
Seems like something morons say, if that was the case then it suggests nobody is capable of competing, all these companies are suing and counter-suing eachother.
1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe).
What a revelation.
2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides.
Yeah.
3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints.
'said blue prints'? So a machine that makes the exact blueprints that were sent to them such that the american company did nothing other than turn on the machine that makes the blue prints and sent the output to the asian company? Or did the american company create them somewhere and just print them out on the blue print making machine?
4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones.
That's generally how it works.
5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.
Y number of what phones? The ones the American company contracted them to make? Or different ones? Or are they built from the output of the asian blue print making machine?
6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones
So they sell -X phones? According to point 5 Y = 2X so given the above Z = -X.
which in turn pisses off the American company.
Damn straight, they're selling negative phones instead of building phones they were contracted to build!
So who sues who?
The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.
It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles
You serious? Whos winning?
My take from past few years is more along the lines of... this
All asians might look same to you, but Samsung (who provided some of chips for iPhones) is a different company from Foxconn (who can be said to "make" iPhones - as in assembles them).
I doubt Samsung ever saw the blueprints for iPhone (if dem slanties could even make anything out in those blueprints with their slit eyes</poes-law>)
...that a US company can't sell their product in the US because of an import ban on that product?
I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally you could say that I am making that judgement :)
It's not as if way back when Steve Jobs had his first keynote showcasing his new iPhone creation it had a "Powered by Samsung" logo underneath the iPhone logo. Why not? I've seen plenty of PC's with "Intel Inside" stickers plastered on it.
Samsung created the IP that ensured that Apple's IP would work. I guess you could then argue that Samsung should be sued by the creator of the screwdriver that was used in the creation of creating their IP but sufficed to say here in lays the problem.
If Apple gets the rights to sue, Samsung should get equal rights to do so as well. Don't allow favouritism via product preference or country of origin allow you to be swayed.
“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD.
http://allthingsd.com/20130604/samsung-wins-import-ban-against-older-iphones-ipads/
I can't imagine them saying it without at least some irony in their voice. Seriously though, Apple has all but confirmed that they're violating patents for various reasons (e.g. FRAND terms were not offered) and has always been rather blasé about much of this stuff, while Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple (before Apple, a number of their designs ripped off Blackberry and others), sometimes doing so rather shamelessly yet denying it entirely.
And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway, since sixty days will get us darn close to the post-back-to-school time when Apple typically announces new versions of their devices anyway, including the heavily rumored low-cost iPhone that will be replacing the iPhone 4 (quick note: this injunction only applies to the iPhone 4 model used by AT&T, apparently, since the iPhone 4 had different chipsets for GSM and CDMA in all but one of the models (the late-released white iPhone 4)), and a new version of the iPad and iPad mini, which will be obviating the need to keep the iPad 2 in the lineup.
So, kudos to Samsung for winning a victory where one was deserved, but in the end, it's all just more of the same.
It's actually worse than that.
Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around. Everyone else's patents are on the technology needed to connect to mobile networks and other standards essential stuff which, as demonstrated here, is clearly enforceable and impossible to avoid.
Samsung did offer to license the patent to Apple, as they are required to do under FRAND rules. Most companies don't pay cash for this, they just cross license their own technology patents and call it even. Apple doesn't have any tech patents to bargain with and its design patents are worthless, so they have to pay $$$ instead. Apple didn't like the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates so refused to pay, and now the court is punishing them for it.
Patent reform won't help them. Patent reform is only going to destroy their own design patents, not the technology patents they don't want to pay for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's interesting that all this mention of Obama is being mentioned. It's as if they are literally calling on him to intervene... or announcing it.
He would do well to steer clear of this one. After all, his push for patent reform is in no small part addressing the issue of software patents among other things like patent trolls. Samsung is a practicing and participating entity. Ideologically, they are precisely what Obama's patent reform push would serve to protect. For Obama to act against the ITC now would be hyp... oh, okay... I see it now. Nevermind.... business as usual.
I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally...
Religious fundamentalists tend to do that ;-)
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
No need for a scorecard. As always, the patent lawyers are winning, and the consumers are losing.
This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple. Showing more and more why we desperately need patent reform. I'm not even that concerned about the impact on Apple and Samsung - it's the smaller players who can be crushed by litigation like this that I've got more sympathy for.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Apple has more than 400 FRAND patents mostly acquired from Nortel, but they decided to never sue based on FRAND patents.
Samsung ask 2.5% of the price of the whole iPhone as a "reasonable and fair" price. This is exactly what Motorola ask to Apple and Microsoft as well for FRAND patentd. Recently, a court has considered that in a Motorola vs Microsoft case, a fair price would be 1/2000 to what Motorola asked.
Nobody can seriously think that 2.5% rate is a fair price as there are thousands of FRAND patents involved in any smartphone concerning 3G, 4G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.
Why?
Who cares if they can't sell their old, dull junk?
Nobody any more - only out of touch wanna-be desperates and old people still use iPhones
I'll try to ignore the juvenile condescension dripping off that post and try to stay factual. Millions of people who do not fit your description still buy the iPhone, the iPhone 4 is Apple's entry level phone and entry level devices are kind of important for enticing new customers. The problem (for Samsung) is that firstly, this will be appealed and secondly, the iPhone 4 is about to be succeeded as the entry level model by the unaffected 4S and possibly the rumoured low cost iPhone model. So for Samsung this is mostly a propaganda victory whose magnitude depends on how much the Samsung PR department and Samsung/Google's army of fanboys can inflate it's importance
I found the article linked to in the summary to be a bit confused, there is a somewhat better analysis available here
U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 concerns an “apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system” (an allegedly UMTS-essential patent). Newer iPhones and iPads coming with Qualcomm QCOM +0.84% baseband chips (starting with the iPhone 4S) are definitely not affected, limiting the potential impact of this decision on Apple’s revenues — basically, Apple would have to make the iPhone 4S its entry-level iPhone model and discontinue U.S. sales of older iPhones (and the “new iPad 4G”, the third-generation iPad, its entry-level model for iPads with cellular connectivity; WiFi iPads are not affected at all). Formally the decision also relates only to the AT&T versions of those older products, but Samsung reserved the right to allege infringement by Apple products running on other networks (unless they come with Qualcomm baseband chips).”
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Is it just me, or is an import ban on a 3 year old iPhone 4 and a 3 year old iPad 2 really going to make much difference to Apple? Those products are winding down anyway? So banning them now is a bit too little too late. When you compare this to the billion dollar lawsuit from a year ago, this is not much of a punishment at all. They should also impose a penalty for every single unit of these makes that has been sold within the U.S. and make apple pay that to Samsung. That's only fair. Also I agree with an earlier poster who said that if Obama can overturn this ruling, what is the point of the whole system in the first place.
Samsung buys Qualcomm and breaks all contracts to supply with Apple.
Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?
What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.
What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.
Nice spin. You can say that the rate was "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" but that doesn't make it so. Apple certainly didn't believe so, hence the lawsuit. If they felt it was fair they would have paid up right away, like they did for the many, many hundreds of other FRAND patents that are essential to the iPhone's function.
It was a dumb typo, I know that, most level headed people would see that. I'm concerned that you don't.
Well,.........? How does it feel?
You started it.
I'm sure it feels amusing. Losing a patent lawsuit on a FRAND patent opens up a whole new can of worms. Do you know how many Apple holds? They're free to go out in force, guns blazing, with that sort of precedent behind them. You thought they were litigious before now?!
Are you actually trying to make the argument that Samsung's success as an Android device manufacturer, which largely came with the devices released after the "copied Apple" ones in question (which, it's been shown, Apple used Photoshopped evidence in making its case for), is entirely based upon the fact that, under your assumption, their first generation devices looked more like an Apple's than the devices released by other manufacturers? Really?
www.gaiageek.com
Seeing as Apple stoke the iPhone format from Sony, even creating blue prints, and has been shown to be the case in court, I find it bizarre that Apple fans still bleat on about copying.
Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.
Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.
I never got this. Samsungs look no more familiar to iphones than other smart phones. A rectangle with rounder corners. Ive recently upgraded to a sony xperia z and thats the most different looking to an iphone I've had but only because it doesnt have a physical button at the bottom middle. Before this I had a nokia e7 which had most of the physical features and an iphone. Take any of the flagship models really, describe them to a blind person and they'll probably think they all look the same.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
A "dumb typo" is when you hit the "T" key instead of the "R" key. What you did was just the first word.
You do know that it was Apple that sued Samsung first, right? That this particular suit was a response to Apple suing Samsung for violating their "look and feel"?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I feel like a rebel, reading this story on my iPad 2 while in the USA. Quite exhilarating actually.
Better known as 318230.
So Samsung filed this motion nearly 2 years ago for an import ban of then relevant product. it been delayed and delayed and now is an irrelevant product, So Apple cannot import any more iPad2's or iPhone4's but isnt stopped from importing iPhone4S's, iPhone5's, iPad3's, iPad4's and iPad Mini's, with no consequence.
I'm happy that Samsung won but what did they really win Apple cant sell products it doesn't care about any more ?
What strikes me as how both the interviewee's in the news clip shown in the TFA constantly confuse the terms "around the country" and "around the world". Americans' are bred thinking that the country and the world are one of the same.
But I do see how. Among people living in industrialized anglophone countries, two-thirds live in the United States, and three-fourths live in either the United States or Canada.
Not per patent. For an entire portfolio, it seems an entirely reasonable place to start bargaining from. And that's what happened in the Microsoft/Motorola case -- Motorola put in an opening bid, and Microsoft immediately (with no counteroffer) when running to friendly local court asking that court to decide that the negotiations (to which they'd declined to respond at all) were innately unfair.
The lawyers are the only winners here, they get paid whether their client wins or loses.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Does it have to be identical? Designing and building the parts give you knowledge on how your competitor's phone work.
Additionally, did you not see the 250 pages of competitive design notes that Samsung created, *FROM THE TEAM THAT MADE PARTS FOR THE IPHONE*?
You did not see the S1 and S2 packagings and shape and look of the phones as well as icons and so on?
You might just want to do a simple google search. Plenty of things like the following exist:
http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/
Because if I, as an employee, decided to pay payroll taxes rather than income tax, this would be considered tax evasion, since I pay nobody salary therefore have no payroll to pay tax on.
Apple don't have to pay VAT on everything they buy, I don't have to pay payroll tax.
I can't claim that I paid my taxes in VAT, though.
Why do Apple fanbois^W^WCORPORATE fanbois/Randian Idiots think that corporations have the right to funge what tax they pay?
(I noticed that this likely wasn't actually an Apple fanboi but that this may more likely be a libertard screed to demand government "get off the backs of the wealth creator" bullshit.
It's absurd that patent fees have to be determined by the cost of the whole device instead of the ICs using the patent. The cost should be a fixed part of the cost of the ICs themselves so everyone would pay exactly the same.
Let's say you buy an IC that uses 5 patents. It cost 75 cents. Each patent cost 10 cents (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders get 10 cents.
Total cost of the patents: 50 cents
Let's say you buy a smartphone that uses the same IC and so the same 5 patents. It cost 500 dollars. Each patent asks for 0.5% of the device cost (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders each get 2.50 dollars per unit.
Total cost for the same patents from the exact same IC: 12.50 dollars
Another manufacturer sells another smartphone that uses the same IC and so the same 5 patents. It cost 750 dollars. Each patent asks for 0.5% of the device cost (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders each get 3.75 dollars per unit.
Total cost for the same patents from the exact same IC: 18.75 dollars
Asking for a percentage of the total device cost is just insane and should never have been allowed. I don't care if it's Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Blackberry, Nokia or whoever. The IC is the thing that uses the patented technology, the patent costs should be part of the cost of the IC itself.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Now it will force users to buy iPhone 5 and iPad 3 or Mini instead of cheaping out on an older model. Its a win win here.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
what next, is some lawsuit going to stop manufacture of Carborundum radio detectors? axe heads? our society is in danger if we can't crank out obsolete crap!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Right, Because I am going to trust a site called "samgsung copies apple" to be unbiased... on tumblr no less
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What goes around comes around. Apple did the same thing to Samsung and got a ban on an older Galaxy S model. Even back then the S2 was out so it didn't have much of an affect. No difference here.
Remember, Apple started all this and now they're on the receiving end. No sympathy from me.
And you clearly never owned a smartphone pre-iPhone.
Hint: the rounded corner button-at-the-bottom design predates the iPhone by a lot. I have an iPaQ and an HTC Win CE phone both of which predate the iPhone by years which had that design.
I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off?
The problem is called the free rider problem and it shouldn't boggle your mind at all. Patents were created specifically to deal with that problem. Research and product design are expensive. It is MUCH cheaper to just copy some else's solution. Problem is that the company that actually did the heavy lifting in figuring out the problem in the first place now can no longer compete because they still need to recoup their costs. And yes, that pisses off the company that solved the problem in the first place. Most of the time it is a zero sum game. Would you appreciate someone copying your work and making money instead of you? If you say yes I'm going to call you a liar.
Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce.
Demonstrably not true with even a casual investigation.
You must be kidding. Apple is a law firm that happens to sell consumer electronics.
Right, because a courtroom is a great place to sell millions of smartphones and computers. I know I buy all my gear based on which company has the best lawyers. I trust you will point out the line on Apple's income statement where they highlight their earnings from lawsuits? [/sarcasm]
Seriously, none of Apple's competitors are a bit more ethical than Apple when it comes to patent litigation and all of them engage in the same behavior. A pox on ALL their houses.
I win because I'm still using an Env3 which does voice, text messages, and email just fine, thank you. Plus it can run over a week on standby before recharging.
And thanks to the huge cost & popularity of "smartphones," DumbPhones (TM) are really cheap.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?
It matters not. The PlayStation 3 console is made by Sony. Yet Sony was still able to threaten George Hotz for misusing Sony's copyrighted work on Sony hardware.
That was the stupidest video I have ever seen. The reporter literal called Samsung a patent troll. And all the footage is a 4s so its not even the banned phone. Plus I don't think this is about market share at all. Its about paying for patents, FRAND or otherwise, when you use them.
I think that can be said of most successful businesses (patent trolls are an exception to this of course). Apple and Samsung are acting no different than any other corporation in suing for what will make them money or protect their perceived property. Until patents reform takes place it's just how the game is played. I'd like to believe, like the OP, that corporations would realize that focusing on their products and not on litigation is what they'd rather do but I've been wrong before.
Clearly the court disagrees.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nice try Fandroid. The Sony phone you're referring to never existed. It was a mock up, created by Apple, based on how they thought Sony would design it. Samsung on the other hand had an internal memo where they essentially said "our interface sucks, make it more like the iPhone" and included reference photos of iOS beside their flavor of Android.
You are either claiming the site forged those pictures, if so, just show evidence, since Samsung's so popular, pictures of undoctored Galaxy Android phones must be easy to find.
Or for whatever reason, you simply cannot believe they are true, in which case, collect your fandroid pass on your way out.
Are you still going on about that? Samsung would really love for you and everyone else to believe the case is about rounded corners, but, do try to base your criticisms on reality. Read the actual lawsuits, and what the jury and judge actually wrote in their decisions rather than Samsung talking points, ok?
Microsoft running to the courts seems pretty much inline with that sort of opening offer. Bring a gun to a knife fight...
Culture is more than commerce
You mean multiple manufacturers build devices which perform a similar function, and they have similar traits in common (especially the obvious/trivial ones)? I'm shocked!
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.
Android v1 and v2 sucked rats ass, and it wasn't until ICSW where it was decent. And yet fandroids everywhere always conveniently forgets that.
IMO the only justification for the President to intervene on such a case would be for national security concerns. This case is clearly not national security related.
A lot less than the other companies which have been working in the cellphone business for decades now I would guess.
Plenty of things like the following exist:
http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/
That's about as much evidence as you need to see that free sharing of information and the FOSS movement is going virtually nowhere. You can't even make products that look similar to other products and the funny thing is it even angers people that aren't associated with the companies in question, why do such people get so emotional and angry about that? What sort of person buys a device and ends up so defined by their ownership of it that they get angry when another company makes something that looks similar?
Who really gives a fuck? Unless they start calling it an iphone and calling themselves apple it doesn't matter and it certainly doesn't matter to end users.
You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.
Too easy. Bet you're glad you posted AC as you look a right fucking numpty now. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's a bit more like saying: "Samsung are a Korean company." The previous poster clearly thought they were Chinese, making him a fool (at least in terms of expressing strong, sarcastic opinions on this).
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone.
Who cares? The iPhone was built from the products and innovation of others just as post-iPhone products have built upon the innovation of it, look at the similarities across the dumbphones of different manufacturers of years past, or how Motorola's invention of the flip phone spawned so many others of that form factor from different manufacturers, or the common "menu button -> grid of icons" workflow that ended up spreading to virtually every phone (not sure who had that first and it doesn't matter anyway), nobody cares so why do some people get so anal about Apple?
God you're a tool.
A tool who at least is brave enough to log in.
Although, I guess that insult cancels out because you didn't log in.
Victory again!
And you jumped in multiple times to tell us how much you don't care.
Aren't you protesting a little too much...?
And you jumped in multiple times to tell us how much you don't care.
Aren't you protesting a little too much...?
Protesting? No, I'm not protesting at all. I'm just interested to know why everybody is so nuts over Apple on stuff like this, is it that they are unaware of products and product categories before the iPhone came along or is it something specifically about Apple?
Yeah I did. And it was based on "gee this looks a bit like this".
Shall we discuss the angle of the corners? Shape of the screen? Curvature of the back shell? Which part of the geometric shape was patented and "too close" to Apple's?
Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?
What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.
What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.
See, they even copy Chines culture.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Seeing that I have the original Palm Pilot, the Newton, the HP Ipaq, I wouldn't call myself ignorant of the category.
On the other hand, I see people like you protesting all the time, and I'm curious if you do know the product category.
If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours.
It's not luck. Like any public company, Apple needs to keep shareholders happy and patent reform won't increase market share, lower costs or do anything else companies need to concentrate on to survive. Why would a company do something that is not to their advantage, particularly in such a fast-moving, cut-throat industry?
Yes... it has nothing to do with copyright concerns. If it did, we'd know what to expect.
Seeing that I have the original Palm Pilot, the Newton, the HP Ipaq, I wouldn't call myself ignorant of the category.
So given the fact that so many dumbphones, laptops, desktops and a myriad of other products in various product categories from different manufacturers look alike why is it that whenever a samsung and apple story comes up there are people that always jump in with the 'samsung copied apple'...why do you even care? I see so many people like you bringing that up all the time and i just can't understand why, if samsung were to come out and say 'yes we copied apple' would that appease you?
On the other hand, I see people like you protesting all the time, and I'm curious if you do know the product category.
It seems you don't know what 'protesting' is, i'm not protesting anything, I'm asking why you're so hung up on this 'samsung copied apple' issue.
Do you actually think it is right for one company to copy another company's product so much that their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference?
Or, is your alterego GenericMan?
Do you actually think it is right for one company to copy another company's product so much that their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference?
I can't say it bothers me, I bought an Apple iPhone and the existence of the Samsung Galaxy didn't confuse me into thinking they were the same product any more than telling the difference between different models and brands of TVs. But even then looking at their current iterations I can't imagine anybody would confuse them now so the the question I have is why does this issue of the past keep getting brought up whenever there is a topic about these two companies? It's as though some people for whatever reason really need closure on this issue to be able to move on with their lives. If Samsung came out and said 'yes we copied them' would that satiate you?
It really is fascinating, I've seen it with the anti-Microsoft stance too, whenever an Microsoft story comes up somebody will hark back 10 years to something they did and fork the discussion down that path as though this time they are going to get closure on the issue or something.
How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.
That's because touchscreen technology at the time wasn't mature enough. The iPhone was the first device to use the new touchscreen, but that wasn't an Apple innovation. They were just the first ones to use it in their product.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.