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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
LG, the other Koreans, did AMOLED first in smartphones IIRC. Samsung's styluses came later, I don't think there's a product in this case that used them. Reviews have been less than favorable. I guess it counts as an innovation (just barely since it's just taking a known technology and making it work with tablets) but I specifically asked about innovations in the phones convicted in this lawsuit that supposedly stifles innovation.
Because in the 90s the only operating system people ran was windows. Riiiiiight. Maybe for PC users it was the dark ages......
Let's see, there was the Mac which was declining taking Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. Amiga went under. Atari floundered and disappeared. I'm pretty sure Acorn and its RiscOS went under. Next had a miniscule portion of the market. BeOS struggled, then died. OS/2 desperately tried to lure folks with nun commercials and failed. I don't think GEOS even made it into the 90's ? All the while MS was shuffling out crap like Windows 3.11 and later the slightly more bearable Windows 95. Nope, looks like everything was just fine.
Copying something outright isn't "standardizing", it's producing a knock-off.
I don't know enough about the history of the automobile to play what-if games with you on the Selden thing. But according to wikipedia Ford did improve the motor and used one of a different design so I see no parallel with the case we're discussing here.
"Question 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent? The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
And see voiceofworldcontrol's answer below.
How was it that they were found not to be infringing? Under what argument? Just because they were not Android or something?
Because it's not about friggin' rectangles but about copying a very specific design presumably.
Yeah it's completely different. That's why its reviews opened with lines like :
"Considering the amount of times people have mistaken the Samsung Galaxy S we were holding for an iPhone 3GS, we figured we might as well put the two together side-by-side."
YOU read the verdict. The '677 patent was upheld. It is about Apple patenting the rectangle. Anybody arguing otherwise is an Apple shill or misinformed fanboy, and that's the truth.
It is true that there are other aspects that were ruled to be infringing, but the patented rectangle now stands strong and on it's own.
According to Forbes : "Question 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent? The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
Throw out the copyists and leave that room for people who can actually add something to the market. Ironically in the smartphone market that includes something like Windows Phone 8. In the personal computer market that could have been something like an Amiga. You know, people with actual ideas who forge their own path.
Yeah probably, but it's a manageable loss. That's what i meant: when put into proportion a billion, though it sounds like an awful lot isn't that much to mega conglomerates like Samsung.
The losers is everybody who depends on innovation. Which is to say everybody, including Apple, though they they will see some short term financial benefits.
That's facile. The opposite decision was reached in the Apple v Microsoft lawsuit back in the day and instead of a golden age of innovation we got a computing dark age. Microsoft didn't really understand the GUI (according to some they still don't) and it took them years after their copy job to come up with anything halfway decent. Likewise Samsung doesn't know the first thing about building a mobile computing platform, just enough to skin someone else's OS and copy some hardware once they see what works. Innovation is what was protected here today. If you want to argue the right to copy that's fine, but innovation it is not.
"during Apple’s closing arguments in the Samsung (005930)-Apple patent trial on Tuesday, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny held up a Nokia Lumia device to demonstrate that “not every smartphone needs to look like an iPhone.”"
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
Contrary to popular belief much of the court case focused on the UI and not how the phone looks. LOL RECTANGLES, right ?
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.
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.
Nailed it !
Samsung's product isn't a knock-off either.
The jury disagrees.
LG, the other Koreans, did AMOLED first in smartphones IIRC. Samsung's styluses came later, I don't think there's a product in this case that used them. Reviews have been less than favorable. I guess it counts as an innovation (just barely since it's just taking a known technology and making it work with tablets) but I specifically asked about innovations in the phones convicted in this lawsuit that supposedly stifles innovation.
Because in the 90s the only operating system people ran was windows. Riiiiiight. Maybe for PC users it was the dark ages......
Let's see, there was the Mac which was declining taking Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. Amiga went under. Atari floundered and disappeared. I'm pretty sure Acorn and its RiscOS went under. Next had a miniscule portion of the market. BeOS struggled, then died. OS/2 desperately tried to lure folks with nun commercials and failed. I don't think GEOS even made it into the 90's ? All the while MS was shuffling out crap like Windows 3.11 and later the slightly more bearable Windows 95. Nope, looks like everything was just fine.
Copying something outright isn't "standardizing", it's producing a knock-off.
I don't know enough about the history of the automobile to play what-if games with you on the Selden thing. But according to wikipedia Ford did improve the motor and used one of a different design so I see no parallel with the case we're discussing here.
Gotta cite for that?
"Question 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
And see voiceofworldcontrol's answer below.
How was it that they were found not to be infringing? Under what argument? Just because they were not Android or something?
Because it's not about friggin' rectangles but about copying a very specific design presumably.
Name 1 innovation Samsung brought to the market with the phones names in the lawsuit.
Yeah it's completely different. That's why its reviews opened with lines like :
"Considering the amount of times people have mistaken the Samsung Galaxy S we were holding for an iPhone 3GS, we figured we might as well put the two together side-by-side."
They could hire some Linux guys, they love reinventing the wheel (again and again and ...)
Yet according to Forbes they also found that the Galaxy Ace didn't infringe.
YOU read the verdict. The '677 patent was upheld. It is about Apple patenting the rectangle. Anybody arguing otherwise is an Apple shill or misinformed fanboy, and that's the truth.
It is true that there are other aspects that were ruled to be infringing, but the patented rectangle now stands strong and on it's own.
According to Forbes :
"Question 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
The Galaxy Ace, unequivocally a rectangle.
Throw out the copyists and leave that room for people who can actually add something to the market. Ironically in the smartphone market that includes something like Windows Phone 8. In the personal computer market that could have been something like an Amiga. You know, people with actual ideas who forge their own path.
Yeah probably, but it's a manageable loss. That's what i meant: when put into proportion a billion, though it sounds like an awful lot isn't that much to mega conglomerates like Samsung.
Right, the 90s were a computing dark age. You've convinced me, Mr. Internet Guy!
They were relative to what went before and what came after. The only reason it ended at all is because Microsoft got blindsided by the internet.
That's not what I said. What i said was that copyists don't innovate and when they run things it turns to shit.
The losers is everybody who depends on innovation. Which is to say everybody, including Apple, though they they will see some short term financial benefits.
That's facile. The opposite decision was reached in the Apple v Microsoft lawsuit back in the day and instead of a golden age of innovation we got a computing dark age. Microsoft didn't really understand the GUI (according to some they still don't) and it took them years after their copy job to come up with anything halfway decent. Likewise Samsung doesn't know the first thing about building a mobile computing platform, just enough to skin someone else's OS and copy some hardware once they see what works. Innovation is what was protected here today. If you want to argue the right to copy that's fine, but innovation it is not.
"during Apple’s closing arguments in the Samsung (005930)-Apple patent trial on Tuesday, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny held up a Nokia Lumia device to demonstrate that “not every smartphone needs to look like an iPhone.”"
He had a patent but it ran out so he can call all he wants.