Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Apple Can't Block Samsung Sales In The US  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3574 times:

Interesting article: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-denies-a...martphones-040642268--finance.html

The meat of the article is:

Quote:

In her order late on Monday, Koh cited that appellate ruling as binding legal precedent, ruling that Apple had not presented enough evidence that its patented features drove consumer demand for the entire iPhone.

"The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple's patents," Koh wrote.

"Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple," she continued, "it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."


Seems Battlestar Apple is taking a few hits these days. Weaker than expected demand for iPhone 5 in China, a stock price that goes in a direction other than monotonically up, strong uptake of Google Maps undermining its play with Apple Maps, etc.

Now we see that Jobs's dying wish of driving Andriod off the shelves won't be happening.

It goes to show with regard to patent issues that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Apple is still the dominant player but its huge stock price shows that the market demands that dominance get extended and expanded, which seems to be less and less likely these days.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It goes to show with regard to patent issues that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

With most things in life it works that way.

The reality is that when a patent is used then the company using it should pay a royalty to the patent holder. That alone should give competitors an incentive to not use existing patents due to increased costs that they can't really pass through to the consumer.

Also patents should not be indefinite, even in pharmaceutical industry (where patents make a whole lot more sense than tech) IIRC they only last 5 years or so and after the patent is up competitors can develop generic alternatives.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Apple is still the dominant player but its huge stock price shows that the market demands that dominance get extended and expanded, which seems to be less and less likely these days.

Apple is dominant in terms of raw profitability but IIRC the Iphone doesn't have a majority market share in the smartphone or tablet market.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
The reality is that when a patent is used then the company using it should pay a royalty to the patent holder. That alone should give competitors an incentive to not use existing patents due to increased costs that they can't really pass through to the consumer.

Indeed, but it's very hard in many cases to determine if a company is using a patent or not.

Apple has 'gone to the mat' to try to show Samsung has violated its patents, and has been successful to a degree, but not enough to matter, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

This Apple/Samsung war is absolutely nuts.

I am an Apple fanboy but if people wanna buy a Samsung who gives a damn. Apple has a horrible reputation with being total corporate crybabies when it comes to their products and services.

Here's what that creates- the horrible customer service that actually comes out of Apple. When I need something done it takes forever for those so-called "geniuses" to actually do something.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Apple has 'gone to the mat' to try to show Samsung has violated its patents, and has been successful to a degree, but not enough to matter, IMHO.

  

It is a very He Said/She Said scenario.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Indeed, but it's very hard in many cases to determine if a company is using a patent or not.

Also what constitutes propriety technology in Apple's case.

Squares with rounded corners? That patent should have been denied because it doesn't really make much of a difference to any functionality.

The one where they have a case are the finger motions to zoom in and out but it is being very monopolistic to assume that all competitors products should not be sold ever if they use a technology that had Apple not been first to market then someone would.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
I am an Apple fanboy but if people wanna buy a Samsung who gives a damn. Apple has a horrible reputation with being total corporate crybabies when it comes to their products and services.

Here's what that creates- the horrible customer service that actually comes out of Apple. When I need something done it takes forever for those so-called "geniuses" to actually do something.

When you feel you are untouchable then your service declines. Look at some government services like the DMV, they have no competition so there is no effort for efficiency, the same applies to monopolies.

That is why Apple's customer service appears less than stellar to you and you probably aren't alone.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
Also patents should not be indefinite, even in pharmaceutical industry (where patents make a whole lot more sense than tech) IIRC they only last 5 years or so and after the patent is up competitors can develop generic alternatives.

With a few limited exceptions*, patents these days are all good for 20 years from the date of application (at least in the US). They are often effectively shorter in pharmaceuticals because the patent gets applied for well before the drug is approved by the FDA.

The old rule was that patents were good for 17 years from issuance (instead of filing). That was changed for patents filed after 1995. There are still a fair number of patents in effect under the 17 year rule, as they were not issued until well after 1995. It is possible that there may still be a (very) small number of submarine patents pending that have been in review since before 1995, although I think that's pretty unlikely at this point.


*If the PTO has excessive delays processing your application, you might get an extension, if you file an international patent under the PCT, the effective date is that of the original local filing, not the international one so it might be shorter), there are a few (small) extensions possible in certain industries (including, IIRC, an extra year or two for pharmaceuticals, in some cases).


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Here's what that article misses, and if you've been following the case, you know it's a big deal:

this does not change the $1 Billion verdict -- it just means that those patents cannot also be used to block Samsung from selling the infringing devices.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
Also patents should not be indefinite

Patents have never been indefinite. They have always had a term, currently 20 years from the date of filing.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
When I need something done it takes forever for those so-called "geniuses" to actually do something.

Actually, customer service is something that Apple does comparatively quite well.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 5):
It is possible that there may still be a (very) small number of submarine patents pending that have been in review since before 1995, although I think that's pretty unlikely at this point.

I still run into them from time to time, but neither Apple nor Samsung would likely own any.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Seems Battlestar Apple is taking a few hits these days. Weaker than expected demand for iPhone 5 in China, a stock price that goes in a direction other than monotonically up, strong uptake of Google Maps undermining its play with Apple Maps, etc.

Not to mention the recent price cuts on the iPhone 5 at some major retialers like Walmart.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):

Apple is dominant in terms of raw profitability but IIRC the Iphone doesn't have a majority market share in the smartphone or tablet market.

They're definitely dominant in terms of visibility of their products. Apple doesn't license their OS out to other manufacturers and that can be good and bad. Look at the wide variety of Android devices out there, some are cheap pieces of junk that may give a novice Android user a negative impress of all Android devices. Apple does dilute their brand by slapping iOS onto multiple devices from multiple companies. By having such a wide variety of Android tablets and smartphones, they can offer something for every budget as some folks may not have the budget for an iPad or an iPhone (even a previous generation one).

With the more recent Android devices, Samsung really seems to be the current flavor of the month for devices. A couple of months from now, HTC or Motorola may be that flavor.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
This Apple/Samsung war is absolutely nuts.

The entire business practice of patent trolling within the smartphone/tablet industry is absolutely nuts. The major manufacturers have sued each other over various patents and they've also been sued by companies like Kodak as well as smaller companies (some of which mere bought up patents solely to make money off lawsuits). Nokia recently sued RIM over WiFi patents and contracts regarding RIM's use of Nokia's WiFi patents. The main reason why Google bought Motorola Mobility was for its' extensive patent portfolio that if push came to shove regarding Android and some of the patents related to it, Google has backup patents to roll out in Android devices.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Patents have never been indefinite. They have always had a term, currently 20 years from the date of filing.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Quoting srbmod (Reply 7):
They're definitely dominant in terms of visibility of their products. Apple doesn't license their OS out to other manufacturers and that can be good and bad.

It's what people love about Apple as they control the hardware that it's software runs on and their is no flexibility on it. This is why it "Just Works" and also why Apple in the long term will be a niche item.

What people love about Apple is what draws me away, because their software becomes restricted to the constraints of the manufacturer. Android and Windows (for PC's and now just getting into mobile) are far more able to be customized to the user's specifications.

[Edited 2012-12-18 13:08:07]


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 7):
The entire business practice of patent trolling

point of correction: these are not patent troll cases. A patent troll is a company that owns a patent (often a junk patent) but does not itself produce any products. Their sole method of making money is suing the companies that do actually make things. Since they don't make anything themselves, the patent troll doesn't have to worry about being sued back.

Doing what I can to help this thread stay on topic, and not just become an Apple-bash/Android-bash fest.

[Edited 2012-12-18 13:07:08]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 8):
It's what people love about Apple as they control the hardware that it's software runs on and their is no flexibility on it. This is why it "Just Works" and also why Apple in the long term will be a niche item.

What people love about Apple is what draws me away, because their software becomes restricted to the constraints of the manufacturer. Android and Windows (for PC's and now just getting into mobile) are far more able to be customized to the user's specifications.

iOS can be best described as being a "closed" OS and the same can be said about BlackBerry. While RIM has talked about potentially licensing their upcoming BlackBerry 10 OS to other manufacturers (Samsung's name has been mentioned a number of times, most recently in the wake of the judgement against them in the lawsuit Apple won.).

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):

point of correction: these are not patent troll cases.

Yes and no. All the major manufacturers of smartphones and tablets have been hit at one time or another by these no-name companies that bought up some other lesser-known company for their patents trying to get some $$$ out these companies by settling with them as they know they don't have the resources to wage a drawn out court case. Some of the patent lawsuits amongst the major manufacturers and as well from companies like Kodak almost seem as though they're suing either to get more money from the ones they've licensed to or to uphold a contract. RIM and Samsung were hit by a patent troll earlier this year in regards to emoticons and they both were hit (along with Apple, Sony and HTC) over a patent regarding phone displays. One of the worst patent trolls is a company called WiLan, they've sued pretty much all of the major electronics manufacturers over everything from the V-chip in TVs to a key on a device's keyboard.

http://www.wi-lan.com/news/news-releases/2012/default.aspx


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4):
When you feel you are untouchable then your service declines. Look at some government services like the DMV, they have no competition so there is no effort for efficiency, the same applies to monopolies.

   exactly.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Actually, customer service is something that Apple does comparatively quite well.

Well Out of the 4 apple stores I've been to:
Scottsdale,
Chandler Mall,
Ginza, Tokyo
Montgomery, Ohio-

Only Ginza had good service....but that's Japan, for you  
Quoting srbmod (Reply 7):
The entire business practice of patent trolling within the smartphone/tablet industry is absolutely nuts.

Precisely. It screws up market competition and also stagnates the production of better products.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 8):
Apple in the long term will be a niche item.
Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
Quoting D L X (Reply 9):

point of correction: these are not patent troll cases.

Yes and no.

There is no "no" about it. Neither Apple nor Samsung are patent trolls.

Now if you're trying to say that the larger industry has been hit by trolls, I agree. (I've been involved in some.) But in the context of the Apple-Samsung fight, it's not a matter of trolls. So maybe a point of clarification?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Actually, customer service is something that Apple does comparatively quite well.

Well Out of the 4 apple stores I've been to:
Scottsdale,
Chandler Mall,
Ginza, Tokyo
Montgomery, Ohio-

Only Ginza had good service....but that's Japan, for you

And how does that compare to Samsung's customer service, in your experience? Personally, I've never been able to take my Samsung product somewhere and have someone at Samsung put their eyeballs on my problem. But your experience may be different than mine.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):

The article about weaker than expected demand in China was by some bogus reporter. If you take the time to search:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ld-for-apple-iphone-5-8423077.html

From another article

"China is the world’s last superpower with a huge consumer market that’s only now coming into its time…and the country accounts for 15 percent of Apple’s revenue. … This success seems widely reported as failure because of the lack of huge queues…on launch. That’s a response to riots that took place when iPhone 4 launched in China. … The company now offers an online lottery system for Chinese iPhone sales."

"These numbers clearly put to rest speculation by analyst Steven Milunovich who said “some of our Chinese sources do not expect the iPhone 5 to do as well as the iPhone 4S.”

Milunovich needs new sources."


Also have you heard about Samsung dropping some lawsuits againsts Apple?

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/...-requests-against-apple-in-europe/

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsu...ts-against-apple-in-europe-2012-12


And all analysts still are confident that's Apples stock price will rise again.


And in the same hearing, they denied Samsung's request for a re-trial due to jury misconduct -

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/...tion-tosses-jury-misconduct-claims

[Edited 2012-12-18 14:28:11]


The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):

Yes, because Apple are known for bad customer service  



The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
And how does that compare to Samsung's customer service, in your experience? Personally, I've never been able to take my Samsung product somewhere and have someone at Samsung put their eyeballs on my problem. But your experience may be different than mine.

I gotta be honest, never owned a Samsung



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
iOS can be best described as being a "closed" OS and the same can be said about BlackBerry. While RIM has talked about potentially licensing their upcoming BlackBerry 10 OS to other manufacturers (Samsung's name has been mentioned a number of times, most recently in the wake of the judgement against them in the lawsuit Apple won.).

Taking iOS out of the picture. I would say that if Apple put OSX out for a broad range of computer systems I would be inclined to try it and may actually be using it instead of Win 7, the issue I have is I want as much control as possible into what hardware I have which is very limited with Apple.

Regarding RIM which I really should know more about (being Canadian and all) I do think its their software that was more of their downfall than the actual Blackberry itself. My dad has a Bold and me and my brother have Androids and I find BB's software far more annoying than the actual phone itself. I think the BB is actually something people like but the software sucks and if they could get Android or Windows to make their OS's run with a BB, Rim might survive.

Quoting virginblue4 (Reply 14):
Yes, because Apple are known for bad customer service  

From my experiences going into an Apple Store I really have found nothing exceptional about Apple's service compared to any other electronic retailer.

It may not be bad but it isn't anything to brag about.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 16):

Maybe not in your opinion, but the countless posts and news articles and how Apple comes out the top brand in customer service year after year says otherwise.

They have been voted number 1 in customer satisfaction for 8 years straight.



The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Here's what that article misses, and if you've been following the case, you know it's a big deal:

this does not change the $1 Billion verdict -- it just means that those patents cannot also be used to block Samsung from selling the infringing devices.

The $1B fine is still out there, but I feel taking Samsung off the market would hurt more than the $1B fine.

Samsung will take the "tactical" $1B hit to keep the "strategic" chunk of the market they've secured.

Thus my point above about how the whole system is not workable: it's better to ask for forgivenss than permission.

Clearly Apple would not have granted permission at a feasible price point, so Samsung goes to market knowing the courts will take years to sort it all out.

Problem solved: Strong market position established at a penalty whose upper bound is $1B.

Samsung will easily make that in profit this Xmas season alone.

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Doing what I can to help this thread stay on topic, and not just become an Apple-bash/Android-bash fest.

I for one appreciate it.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 16):

Taking iOS out of the picture. I would say that if Apple put OSX out for a broad range of computer systems I would be inclined to try it and may actually be using it instead of Win 7, the issue I have is I want as much control as possible into what hardware I have which is very limited with Apple.

Ironically M$'s efforts at secure boot are making that something Apple could do, if it should choose to.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 16):
My dad has a Bold and me and my brother have Androids and I find BB's software far more annoying than the actual phone itself.

BB's strength is still in the corporate/enterprise space. I know a government worker and he says their ability to deal with mails of differing security classifications is a key feature that's hard to get from other people, at least at the scale BB does it.

Quoting virginblue4 (Reply 17):
They have been voted number 1 in customer satisfaction for 8 years straight.

Pretty enviable, but doesn't match my very limited experience.

I went to an Apple Store for the first time, and I tried to like it, but I just couldn't. That Ikea theme with the "geniuses" running around in blue polo shirts did nothing for me. I had some basic questions about how to use an iPhone in a car (do you have any car mounts? does iOS have a "car mode" like Android? what do you recommend for gps mapping software? etc), and the huddle of three geniuses could not come up with anything other than telling me to go visit apple.com. They didn't even know what products they had on their own accessories shelf.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 7):
The entire business practice of patent trolling within the smartphone/tablet industry is absolutely nuts. The major manufacturers have sued each other over various patents and they've also been sued by companies like Kodak as well as smaller companies (some of which mere bought up patents solely to make money off lawsuits)

If you were a quant pre-Lehman Brothers, it made sense to go to wall street. Now, these same quants (ie with B.S. degrees and have hard science backgrounds) should go to law school--for every job posting open to any generic JD, there's another strictly limited to those with hard science backgrounds, which means less competition for jobs.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
The $1B fine is still out there, but I feel taking Samsung off the market would hurt more than the $1B fine.

Only 3 devices that Samsung still makes would have been blocked. All the rest are devices that they have stopped making.

By the way, blocking the infringing product is the normal result of being found liable for patent infringement. You don't get to pay a fine and then keep infringing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
Clearly Apple would not have granted permission at a feasible price point, so Samsung goes to market knowing the courts will take years to sort it all out.

Well, that is the reason that the damages (not a fine) were $1 Billion - they were adjudged to have cost Apple or improperly profited $1 Billion by their infringement. Surely a license would have cost them less, but almost as surely, Apple would not grant one as they are not required to do. (Not so for the Samsung patents, by the way - they are compulsorily licensed.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
By the way, blocking the infringing product is the normal result of being found liable for patent infringement. You don't get to pay a fine and then keep infringing.

Right, but the whole process clearly identified for Samsung exactly which elements don't infringe which they will keep and those that do which they will discard. It's pretty clear Apple went far afield to find things to sue over, so while there can be more lawsuits about newer things, a whole lot of other stuff is now free and clear.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Well, that is the reason that the damages (not a fine) were $1 Billion - they were adjudged to have cost Apple or improperly profited $1 Billion by their infringement. Surely a license would have cost them less, but almost as surely, Apple would not grant one as they are not required to do.

In short, mission accomplished. Samsung's got its big slice of the cell phone market which keeps growing, presumably aided by some features wouldn't license at any cost, for $1B. If they had to do it all over again, they'd do it in a nanosecond. Sure, it'd be better to not have to cough up $1B (and of course that is still being appealed), but the bottom line is the system is there to be gamed. Most corporations realize this and cross-license portfolios at acceptable costs, but Apple got a big bad hard on about Samsung, and as is usual in such cases the blood flowed flowed out of their brain and into their loins.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
It's pretty clear Apple went far afield to find things to sue over

How do you figure that?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
If they had to do it all over again, they'd do it in a nanosecond. Sure, it'd be better to not have to cough up $1B (and of course that is still being appealed), but the bottom line is the system is there to be gamed.

Just so I am clear, which side do you think "gamed" the system?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Apple got a big bad hard on about Samsung, and as is usual in such cases the blood flowed flowed out of their brain and into their loins.

Not to sound arrogant, but I think you need better information sources.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8535 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
I am an Apple fanboy but if people wanna buy a Samsung who gives a damn. Apple has a horrible reputation with being total corporate crybabies when it comes to their products and services.

I think Apple is entirely justified. They invented the iPhone. Samsung did not design or invent the iPhone.

A lot of the Samsung product is outright copied. Now, there is a difference between "influenced by" and outright forgery. Samsung chose to blur that line. I think the products that are direct clones of Apple designs should be yanked. Or, their revenues should just be mailed to Apple, the designer of the product.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It goes to show with regard to patent issues that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

And times it is better to let a jury clarify the problem - like the Billion Dollar Plus slap in the face Samsung received.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
Also patents should not be indefinite

they are not.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
Apple is dominant in terms of raw profitability but IIRC the Iphone doesn't have a majority market share in the smartphone or tablet market.

Apple doesn't need the majority of a market to be successful. Their shareholders look at profitability first and innovation second.

Let's make it simple: Apple makes a very good profit and Apple has no debt. Apple also retains the talent from the Steve Jobs days. Talent like Jonathan Ive.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
This Apple/Samsung war is absolutely nuts.

Would be there is Samsung wasn't so obsessive in copying Apple's designs.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):
the horrible customer service that actually comes out of Apple.

Horrible customer service? I moved from Dell to Apple when Dell moved Customer Service to a 3rd party in India. That was service so bad that it got me to move my little company - with all the attending effort. That was after a week of misery with Dell's "support" and I've never regretted the move.

Apple is still top rated on surveys like Consumers Report. And the Genius Bar has never hesitated to switch out equipment under AppleCare when a phone or tablet had an accident.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4):
Squares with rounded corners?

That was the only defense that Samsung's lawyers had in the trial and the jury didn't bite. Slapped Samsung with a Billion Dollar Plus award.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4):
The one where they have a case are the finger motions to zoom in and out but it is being very monopolistic to assume that all competitors products should not be sold ever if they use a technology that had Apple not been first to market then someone would.

You have to remember that when Apple showed off the first iPhone all of the other smart phones had a lot of buttons and needed a stylus. Apple changed that in one single presentation and buttons are so "'90's" and the stylus is so kiddy game design.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Only Ginza had good service....but that's Japan, for you

I've had outstanding service in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Pretty consistent in how they care for customers and it shows in their consumer evaluation surveys.

Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
Personally, I've never been able to take my Samsung product somewhere and have someone at Samsung put their eyeballs on my problem.

You mean you have no local Samsung Store with a Smarty Bar to help when you need it?  Wow!


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4):
The one where they have a case are the finger motions to zoom in and out but it is being very monopolistic to assume that all competitors products should not be sold ever if they use a technology that had Apple not been first to market then someone would.

Well that one is dead:

Quote:
A key patent successfully used by Apple against Samsung in its multibillion dollar courtroom brawl earlier this year has been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

All 20 claims of U.S. patent number 7,844,915 -- also known as the "pinch-to-zoom" patent -- were invalidated by the USPTO today, following a reexamination.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...apple-patent-used-against-samsung/

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Here's what that article misses, and if you've been following the case, you know it's a big deal:

this does not change the $1 Billion verdict -- it just means that those patents cannot also be used to block Samsung from selling the infringing devices.

Just wait until "rounded corners" (yes I know it is more that that) and the stupid "bezel" issues are also invalidated.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8535 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 25):
Just wait until "rounded corners" (yes I know it is more that that) and the stupid "bezel" issues are also invalidated.

It's not that rounded corners are some sort of innovation. I don't think that is Apple's point. Their point is that they designed the Samsung Galaxy phones and the way their OS performs and looks. As the creator of the product, Apple would like to be paid all the money Samsung makes from it. And actually to stop it going forward.

This sort of issue is not new. In China, they have clone cars that would never be legal here:

http://s1.aecdn.com/images/news/chinese-clones-the-story-of-soulless-and-affordable-cars-45701_1.jpg

http://www.autoplanet.cz/uploads/image/byd_s8_sl_trochu_jinak_1.jpg

Apple's argument is that Samsung is intentionally confusing the customer in this way. I think it's mostly a statement of disgust, but it also reflects an honest difference of opinion between Samsung and Apple (and Korea vs. USA) about what's fair competition.


User currently offlineTLG From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
In short, mission accomplished. Samsung's got its big slice of the cell phone market which keeps growing, presumably aided by some features wouldn't license at any cost, for $1B. If they had to do it all over again, they'd do it in a nanosecond.

Not only that, but Samsung also possibly received $1B worth of advertising. Some Apple users probably weren't even aware that there are viable alternatives. The lawsuit proved to the public that Apple regards Samsung's devices, at least the ones named in the lawsuit, as something close enough to their own devices to be considered competition. Now people are saying, "Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that the Galaxy S III could replace my iPhone? I'll have to check it out." Put that together with the ads demonstrating a larger screen & NFC, and consumers start to look past the fruit.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Quoting TLG (Reply 27):
"Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that the Galaxy S III could replace my iPhone? I'll have to check it out."

And if you have invested money in apps in either Apple or Android you might find it hard to change. Sort of like the days when people had too large an investment in Windows based software.

Personally I like the idea of being able to go into any Apple Store in the country and get help with my iPhone or any other Apple product I own.

How much of a price do you place on customer service when you really need it? And where can you go to get help with some Android phone? The Google Store? The Samsung Store?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
It's pretty clear Apple went far afield to find things to sue over

How do you figure that?

Bezels, ornamental designs, pinch to zoom, etc.

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
If they had to do it all over again, they'd do it in a nanosecond. Sure, it'd be better to not have to cough up $1B (and of course that is still being appealed), but the bottom line is the system is there to be gamed.

Just so I am clear, which side do you think "gamed" the system?

Samsung. They blew past the asking for permission stage and got their bridgehead on the beach, and now are kicking butt and taking name. They are blowing past analysts expectations, raking in record profits. The trade talks now of the Apple-Samsung duopoly, when it could just have easily been the Nokia or Moto or HTC or BB or lord knows who else and Apple duopoly. The $1B is nothing more than a component of the price of getting that market share.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that conceivably they could have just not infringed, or could have come to an agreement with Apple at the cost of less than the $1B and maybe be ahead, but I think you are ignoring the fact that the market is a dynamic place and if they had spent the time to do things "the right way" then someone else almost certainly would be that other half of the duopoly, and having that position is worth far more than the $1B (or what it shall be) to Samsung. Going hand in hand with that is Samsung and everyone in their position also know that they can delay the onset of lawsuits by negotiations, and once the suits fly there's all kinds of time built in to do all the legal wrangling, more than enough to get your position in the market established.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
Apple's argument is that Samsung is intentionally confusing the customer in this way.

Right, that's why Jobs said "good artists borrow, great artists steal!". Wrap yourself in that faux RR or faux Apple sheen, and grab your slice of the market while there's still an opening, and once you have it, you'll find judges saying things like:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
"it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."


Not that I personally would do things that way, nor am I glad about them. I'm just commenting on what I feel the reality of the situation is, that it's easy for a company to game the system.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
That was the only defense that Samsung's lawyers had in the trial and the jury didn't bite. Slapped Samsung with a Billion Dollar Plus award.

Sorry, but I have to point our that the jury in this case is not exactly what you would call impartial. What the foreman said after the trial was widely reported and if I were among Samsung's lawyers I would kiss my lucky star every day of the week and twice on Sundays for this guy to open both his mouth and a revenue for appeal.
It is ironic that the Samsung product that the jury awarded the most damage to looks nothing like an iPhone.
I am an Android user (not Samsung user though) and I have no problem acknowledging that the iPhone is a nice piece of gadget appealing to a lot of people. I will also acknowledge that certain models of Samsung product look similar to Apple products. What I can't stand is Apple's strategy of stifling competition by litigation. Apple would be much better served by continued innovation of its now dated UI, address shortcomings in its hardware and offer some flexibility from its fenced garden approach. iPhone‘s share of market will not increase by Apple's endeavour in the courts.

[Edited 2012-12-19 17:48:17]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
I've had outstanding service in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Pretty consistent in how they care for customers and it shows in their consumer evaluation surveys.

I guess it depends on the store then.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 31):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
I've had outstanding service in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Pretty consistent in how they care for customers and it shows in their consumer evaluation surveys.

I guess it depends on the store then.

Or what you are trying to get done.

I went to the local VZW store yesterday which had been totally remodeled recently. The staff all had these wireless tablets that they had strapped to their left hands so they didn't have to go find a computer to work with me. They had obviously been well trained in their use. I asked a bunch of standard type questions about my plan and he had no problem using that tablet to look up my account info and answer the question. When I asked a few questions about exactly which Andriod releases were available on certain phones then everything slowed down. The good news was that unlike the Apple store the guy had a way of trying to get my answer immediately. It seems also they had a way to IM with more knowledgeable people.

So, within my limited experience, I didn't find the Apple Store to be any better than the support I got from VZW for Android. Surely VZW has similar support for Apple, but the point is you don't have to go to Apple to get decent support.

In terms of customer experience, I liked my visit to the new VZW store better. At the Apple Store, it was buried inside a mall and it had this harsh florescent lighting with Ikea type furniture and an army of staffers wearing identical blue polo shirts. The vibe the place gave to me was "high school study hall". The idea that to get a question answered I'd have to talk to a "genius" rubbed me the wrong way. The whole thing seemed Orwellean, which is ironic given Apple's classic 1984 commercial.

The VZW customer experience was on the other hand just fine. They had the advantage of being in a place where they had lots of natural lighting, and the new remodel put in floor to ceiling windows to take advantage of that. The furniture also was light colored wood, but with lots of insets so it didn't look so sterile. The staff was wearing branded clothing, but several different styles and colors so they didn't seem to be clones of each other. They talked to me without needing to make me feel like they were geniuses and I was an idiot.

Bless the Apple fans and their satisfaction with Apple's impressive products, but I guess I'm not meant to be one of them...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 25):
Just wait until "rounded corners" (yes I know it is more that that) and the stupid "bezel" issues are also invalidated.

SO wait...

you admit that you're wrong, but use that wrong premise to support your argument?

Tugg, you know I respect you, but you're chasing a whale on this one.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
Bezels, ornamental designs, pinch to zoom, etc.

Sigh...


deep breath...


Apple's design patent does not patent bezels. It patents the combination of shapes that results in the iPad, which yes, covers the Samsung knock-offs.

As for ornamental designs, DUH!!!!!!!! Patents are allowed to cover ornamental designs when such design has a physical function. AND, it is right that patents are available for these things. Do you begrudge Apple for partaking in this system?

As for pinch to zoom, yes, it is in reexamination, but also yes, it is an invention. It did not exist before Apple implemented it. Do you deny?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
If they had to do it all over again, they'd do it in a nanosecond. Sure, it'd be better to not have to cough up $1B (and of course that is still being appealed), but the bottom line is the system is there to be gamed.

Just so I am clear, which side do you think "gamed" the system?

Samsung.

Okay. I would agree that it is Samsung that attempted to game the system, except that I don't think they were successful considering the damages. Damages take into account defendants that are gaming the system, and "disgorge" profits from them.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
You seem to be hung up on the fact that conceivably they could have just not infringed,

Not just conceivably, but actually. The S3 does not infringe.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
but I think you are ignoring the fact that the market is a dynamic place and if they had spent the time to do things "the right way" then someone else almost certainly would be that other half of the duopoly,

Baloney. Other manufacturers competing with Apple did not infringe. Samsung actively chose to copy. Your defense of them is strange, honestly.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
and once the suits fly there's all kinds of time built in to do all the legal wrangling, more than enough to get your position in the market established.

I'll say it again. The damages phase at the end of a lawsuit takes this into account. If you continue to sell the product while you're in litigation, you will have to pay for the damages caused during the litigation as well as the damages caused before the litigation began. Delaying does not help you -- it just determines WHEN you pay.


I really wish you would look at the actual opinions and judge, instead of looking at the filtered snippets. It's like trying to become an expert on the fiscal cliff by watching Headline News.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
like the Billion Dollar Plus slap in the face Samsung received.

Slap in the face, which is not even a flesh wound and definitely not life threatening.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
As for ornamental designs, DUH!!!!!!!! Patents are allowed to cover ornamental designs when such design has a physical function. AND, it is right that patents are available for these things. Do you begrudge Apple for partaking in this system?

As stated earlier, I am no fan of ornamental design patents, and as above, I would have expected Apple and Samsung to have entered a cross-licensing agreement at some nominal fee, yet Jobs decided he'd rather spend his last breath and Apple's last dollar and go to thermonuclear war.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Okay. I would agree that it is Samsung that attempted to game the system, except that I don't think they were successful considering the damages

Pennies on the dollar, IMHO.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Other manufacturers competing with Apple did not infringe. Samsung actively chose to copy. Your defense of them is strange, honestly.

My point is that the system is there to be gamed, not that Samsung and others should be gaming the system.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
The damages phase at the end of a lawsuit takes this into account. If you continue to sell the product while you're in litigation, you will have to pay for the damages caused during the litigation as well as the damages caused before the litigation began. Delaying does not help you -- it just determines WHEN you pay.

Delaying matters in a very non-linear way if the delay one would need to come up with the non-infringing product would make them miss the market window. The internal Samsung memos that Apple produced in court portray a pretty clear understanding of this. I'm not sure why you are not.

Indeed the WHEN you pay has shifted to the point where Samsung has a very well established market position and the ability to pay out of their profit stream. As you say, the amount being paid is being determined by a jury after they have thrown out several things Apple would have demanded payment for, and as you said earlier, after Samsung has had use of things that Apple would probably never have licensed. Indeed the penalty is the amount of profit the jury feels those features would have made for Samsung back then, but those things were stepping stones Samsung clearly felt they needed to get to where they are today.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Quoting tugger (Reply 25):
Just wait until "rounded corners" (yes I know it is more that that) and the stupid "bezel" issues are also invalidated.

SO wait...

you admit that you're wrong, but use that wrong premise to support your argument?

Well I wasn't meaning to contradict myself, just referring to the fact that like "pinch and zoom", there is more to it than just what we call it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Tugg, you know I respect you, but you're chasing a whale on this one.

Well now, you give me such a great opportunity here  Soo many to choose from:

"Oh he's not a whale, he's the devil himself!"
"He tasks me! That whale, he tasks me!"
"I'll follow him around the Horn, and around the Norway maelstrom, and around perdition's flames before I give him up."
"From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned whale."
"And may God hunt us all if we do not hunt Moby Dick to the death!"

I think the best is the first one....  
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Apple's design patent does not patent bezels. It patents the combination of shapes that results in the iPad, which yes, covers the Samsung knock-offs.

But I don't think they will survive review, other more intrinsic patents are already failing and falling upon review.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
As for ornamental designs, DUH!!!!!!!! Patents are allowed to cover ornamental designs when such design has a physical function. AND, it is right that patents are available for these things. Do you begrudge Apple for partaking in this system?

As for pinch to zoom, yes, it is in reexamination, but also yes, it is an invention. It did not exist before Apple implemented it. Do you deny?

We don't have to deny, the USPTO has. And I think that quite a few more of the patents will be denied and I already think the jury verdict or award is at risk due to the changes.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Baloney. Other manufacturers competing with Apple did not infringe. Samsung actively chose to copy. Your defense of them is strange, honestly.

That is still not fully decided yet, the appeals are on going and no decision is really complete until they are. "Copying" is always occurring in every industry, the question always comes down to whether the "originator" actually was the origin or actually had exclusive rights to the elements involved. I still do not think that Apple had that (yes, even though the just decided differently). And we are still waiting to see if that verdict will stand unaltered. The USPTO is already altering several important decisions it made.


Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 35):
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):

As for pinch to zoom, yes, it is in reexamination, but also yes, it is an invention. It did not exist before Apple implemented it. Do you deny?

We don't have to deny, the USPTO has.

I don't think you understand what "rejection" means, which is fair, if you're not a patent attorney.

The claims have been rejected in a non-final action. This means they are still pending, and still enforceable, and the PTO is listening to arguments for why the claims should be allowed, which they may well be.

Nearly all claims in patent applications get rejected before they are eventually allowed.

In short, the patent has NOT been invalidated.

Quoting tugger (Reply 35):
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Baloney. Other manufacturers competing with Apple did not infringe. Samsung actively chose to copy. Your defense of them is strange, honestly.

That is still not fully decided yet

That's exactly what was decided.

Quoting tugger (Reply 35):
the appeals are on going and no decision is really complete until they are.

This is untrue. A judgment is enforceable immediately, unless the court stays the judgment pending appeal, which they do not have to do. The $1 B verdict has not been appealed in any event.

Quoting tugger (Reply 35):
"Copying" is always occurring in every industry, the question always comes down to whether the "originator" actually was the origin or actually had exclusive rights to the elements involved. I still do not think that Apple had that (yes, even though the just decided differently)

Tugg, honestly, it sounds like you simply do not like the patents, and therefore have decided they must be invalid. Of course, that is not the test for validity.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
As stated earlier, I am no fan of ornamental design patents, and as above,

Well, you should be. Design patents have held a very important role in our history. You get a design patent when the design, the shape of the object itself, serves a function. Catheters. Boat hulls. Airplane wings. Remote controls. When someone discovers or invents a way to perform a function, and it is the shape that performs that function, a design patent is issued, as in the Apple case.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
Pennies on the dollar, IMHO.

This is not the kind of thing that is subject to opinion. Besides, pennies on the dollar means that you think Samsung made $100 Billion in profit on these things in the United States. That's an awfully big number. That's everyone in the US buying one for $500 each. Unlikely.

A more reasonable number is $1.08 Billion. Samsung itself had a total overall profit of $7 Billion in the last year (which I will admit, they attribute highly to the S3). But it should be obvious - giving $1B to Apple hurts.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
Delaying matters in a very non-linear way if the delay one would need to come up with the non-infringing product would make them miss the market window.

I'm confused. They sold a different product in that new market window.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26488 posts, RR: 75
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Apple is still the dominant player

Samsung is the world's largest smartphone maker - not Apple.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
this does not change the $1 Billion verdict -- it just means that those patents cannot also be used to block Samsung from selling the infringing devices.

The legal remedy is far easier to deal with than the equitable one.

Quoting virginblue4 (Reply 13):
And in the same hearing, they denied Samsung's request for a re-trial due to jury misconduct -

Its very, very difficult to win a motion for a new trial on jury misconduct. Its an easier issue on appeal.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Only 3 devices that Samsung still makes would have been blocked.

That the Galaxy S2 was ever included is a joke. I own a Galaxy S2 and have used plenty of iPhones - they aren't that similar.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
I think Apple is entirely justified. They invented the iPhone. Samsung did not design or invent the iPhone.

Samsung doesn't make iPhones

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
A lot of the Samsung product is outright copied. Now, there is a difference between "influenced by" and outright forgery.

What in the world are you talking about? Certainly not the phones.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
It patents the combination of shapes that results in the iPad, which yes, covers the Samsung knock-offs.

While the Galaxy Tab looks a lot like the iPad, the screen is configured completely differently.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
The S3 does not infringe.

Apple begs to differ, and has tried to say otherwise.

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
But it should be obvious - giving $1B to Apple hurts.

Pride, more than anything. Neither company actually needs that money - which is kind of sad, if you think about it.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
That the Galaxy S2 was ever included is a joke. I own a Galaxy S2 and have used plenty of iPhones - they aren't that similar.

"Similar" is not the test for patent infringement.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
It patents the combination of shapes that results in the iPad, which yes, covers the Samsung knock-offs.

While the Galaxy Tab looks a lot like the iPad, the screen is configured completely differently.

The screen was not one of the inventive elements of the patent. Look at the Galaxy Tab 10(.0) and the original iPad when they're both turned off. They are VERY easy to confuse. The Galaxy Tab mimics the iPad's design.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26488 posts, RR: 75
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
They are VERY easy to confuse. The Galaxy Tab mimics the iPad's design.

In that they are both black, with glass screens? They are not at all easy to confuse.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11345 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
In that they are both black, with glass screens? They are not at all easy to confuse.

If you're being serious here, we'll have to agree to disagree.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Tim Tams In The US-can We Get Them? posted Thu May 22 2003 17:07:09 by Mirrodie
Student In The US Arrested In School-shooting Plot posted Sat Dec 15 2012 16:34:22 by Mortyman
Why Is The Voting Process In The US So Ridiculous? posted Tue Nov 6 2012 15:33:28 by AA7295
Another US Shooting, Whats Up In The US? posted Mon Aug 13 2012 16:04:16 by TheCommodore
Slavery? In The US? Now? posted Fri Aug 10 2012 19:06:39 by fr8mech
Virgin Mobile (in The US) ... posted Mon Aug 16 2010 23:31:17 by varigb707
Guns In The US - How Is It In Real Life? posted Tue Aug 10 2010 05:23:53 by AustrianZRH
Best Restaurant In The US? posted Tue Jul 20 2010 16:42:31 by ALTF4
Radio Station Acronyms In The US posted Tue Jun 1 2010 11:11:17 by lh526
Soccer(Football)What's Happening In The US posted Sun May 2 2010 14:59:26 by njxc500