Samsung have effectively made the largest conglomerate in history and many occasions on proven themselves above than the South Korean government. I only hope that their corruption will be rooted out by the international community. South Korea is powerless against this disgusting Chaebol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
LOL. What has Samesung ever innovated? All's they do is copy Apple and others. That is why their name is: Same-sung.
I think we saw some of that analysis during the trial. Samsung actually did change the default iconography to be more iOS like from the standard android set. But, it does make sense that the other suits that are outstanding will have some interesting landmines to cross.
Samsung says less innovation, since when does copying represent innovation? Sorry Samsung but your blatant copying doesn't and shouldn't be awarded anything except what you got today.
Hey fellow Apple fans, it is Samsuck. You are not going to believe how many Koreans in Korea are celebrating Apple victory today. And the Japanese are loving it, too. And I can hear Steve Ballmer laughing so loud that I just woke up and typed this....on an iPad, of course.
It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.
To Samsung:
Would Samsung vouch that it is not copying another Apple exclusive technology which is scheduled to debut in its upcoming iOS device(s)?
Hint: An innovation that will redefine photos taken from digital camera or phones with camera function.
Quote:
Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
To Samsung:
May be it will take massive "copying" of Samsung phones by China firms and flood the markets with "clones" for your top management to wake up. Oh, you should thank me cause I have been encouraging those who have shown strong interest in your SIII to go ahead to give it a try (while I am sticking to iPhone 4 and probably iPhone 5 when it is announced) as I want the market demand to grow significantly large enough for those China firms to be keen on "cloning" SIII and flood the developing Asia markets with them.
Companies should go thermonuclear with each other more often. If Xerox had a jury like the one that sat in the Apple-Samsung case, guess who would be forking over billions?
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Companies should go thermonuclear with each other more often. If Xerox had a jury like the one that sat in the Apple-Samsung case, guess who would be forking over billions?
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Actually I stand corrected. They didn't. It was a patent issue and limitations etc...that allowed them to use it or copy it as it were.
[1] If you think that it is okay to download stolen software, music, or porn then you probably shouldn't be angry at Samsung.
[2] The real question now is will Apple take the high road, and lock in the win they have made in this case and offer to cross license technology with their partner, Samsung.
[1] assumes Samsung did not resell their ripoffs as originals and make billions of dollars in the process. They did.
[2] is false because Samsung is not "Apple's partner", merely one of many parts suppliers/assemblers who themselves manufacture chips etc. based on foreign innovations, R&D, etc. (read Samsung's use of British ARM chip architecture, etc.). Samsung is far from the innovator Apple is; rather they have always specialized in ripping off other western and Japanese innovators throughout many electronics industries (Sony, GE, you name it) and then rebranding and selling them. What yesterday's decision did was merely expose the tip of a gigantic Samsung iceberg; it's only that in Apple, Samsung picked the wrong company to rip off as they can afford to take even the biggest corporation/chaebols to court. Stupid move, Samesung.
No, frigging wait, seriously?! SERIOUSLY?! Samsung themselves said, "rectangles with rounded corners"?! THEY SAID THAT?! And more importantly, they said it after the Galaxy Tab was found to NOT BE INFRINGING ON IT?!
BA H AH AH AH AH AH AHA HAH AH!
I think they want to try and continue to manipulate the public perception through the media. Some people will lap it up. It works both ways though. Even though Apple didn't win on the design patent, the media will simplify the entire case to be that Samsung copied Apple so whenever people look at a Samsung product, people will be thinking about which competing Apple product they tried to clone. I'm not too surprised the design patent didn't win as the drawings don't look like the iPad:
The patent drawings actually look more like the prior art tablets. If they had specified the unique parts of the iPad design, it might have held a bit more weight. It's obvious from the products themselves but they'd have to be able to prove they came up with the design first. The huge win makes up for it though and Samsung's response shows how shallow their position was all along.
Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
Well, you just go ahead and "continue" that.
If the counterfeit market disappeared, I suppose that does harm some consumers. How would your average blue collar worker be able to buy a Prada-style handbag for his missus? The people who wouldn't think twice about a ripped-off fashion design are the same people who would be happy buying a Samsung product.
Fake tan, fake boobs, fake blonde... the only thing that's natural is they'd be marketing Samsung phones.
There are plenty of non-infringing products on the market for consumers to choose from.
Assuming that Samsung actually pays the billion dollars - what if Apple were to use that to expand its US operations and take production capacity out of Samsung's plants?
Or here's an idea, give Apple a tax break on overseas money equal to their investment in US production capacity.
Just seems to me that on the one hand it would make it harder for samsung to copy Apple's work if they were not a manufacturer in the supply chain of Apple products - then again without Apple products filling up their production capacity they would be able to crank up the production rate of their copies.....
Assuming that Samsung actually pays the billion dollars - what if Apple were to use that to expand its US operations and take production capacity out of Samsung's plants?
I'm not sure that works. For starters, Apple isn't in the 1997 position where they only had $1.5 billion remaining in cash. If they felt it was feasible to build a foundry for manufacturing their own ASIC designs based on the ARM reference designs there is nothing that would have prevented from doing so.
Now I do think it's possible that they could do this as they build up and out their ASIC knowledge. It's only been 2 years since we were first introduced to the Apple A-chip, the A4, and two years before that that Apple bought P.A. Semi, so I could easily see them having their own US foundry in another 2 years... I just don't see the connection with it from winning this court case.
Comments
Samsung have effectively made the largest conglomerate in history and many occasions on proven themselves above than the South Korean government. I only hope that their corruption will be rooted out by the international community. South Korea is powerless against this disgusting Chaebol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
LOL. What has Samesung ever innovated? All's they do is copy Apple and others. That is why their name is: Same-sung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetMan
I think we saw some of that analysis during the trial. Samsung actually did change the default iconography to be more iOS like from the standard android set. But, it does make sense that the other suits that are outstanding will have some interesting landmines to cross.
Props to having Gadget in your name
Samsung says less innovation, since when does copying represent innovation? Sorry Samsung but your blatant copying doesn't and shouldn't be awarded anything except what you got today.
Quote:
It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.
To Samsung:
Would Samsung vouch that it is not copying another Apple exclusive technology which is scheduled to debut in its upcoming iOS device(s)?
Hint: An innovation that will redefine photos taken from digital camera or phones with camera function.
Quote:
Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
To Samsung:
May be it will take massive "copying" of Samsung phones by China firms and flood the markets with "clones" for your top management to wake up. Oh, you should thank me cause I have been encouraging those who have shown strong interest in your SIII to go ahead to give it a try (while I am sticking to iPhone 4 and probably iPhone 5 when it is announced) as I want the market demand to grow significantly large enough for those China firms to be keen on "cloning" SIII and flood the developing Asia markets with them.
Boo f'n hoo. Apple's win in the court will make other companies get up off their asses and actually innovate instead of imitate.
Companies should go thermonuclear with each other more often. If Xerox had a jury like the one that sat in the Apple-Samsung case, guess who would be forking over billions?
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
Companies should go thermonuclear with each other more often. If Xerox had a jury like the one that sat in the Apple-Samsung case, guess who would be forking over billions?
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Actually I stand corrected. They didn't. It was a patent issue and limitations etc...that allowed them to use it or copy it as it were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie
[1] If you think that it is okay to download stolen software, music, or porn then you probably shouldn't be angry at Samsung.
[2] The real question now is will Apple take the high road, and lock in the win they have made in this case and offer to cross license technology with their partner, Samsung.
[1] assumes Samsung did not resell their ripoffs as originals and make billions of dollars in the process. They did.
[2] is false because Samsung is not "Apple's partner", merely one of many parts suppliers/assemblers who themselves manufacture chips etc. based on foreign innovations, R&D, etc. (read Samsung's use of British ARM chip architecture, etc.). Samsung is far from the innovator Apple is; rather they have always specialized in ripping off other western and Japanese innovators throughout many electronics industries (Sony, GE, you name it) and then rebranding and selling them. What yesterday's decision did was merely expose the tip of a gigantic Samsung iceberg; it's only that in Apple, Samsung picked the wrong company to rip off as they can afford to take even the biggest corporation/chaebols to court. Stupid move, Samesung.
I think they want to try and continue to manipulate the public perception through the media. Some people will lap it up. It works both ways though. Even though Apple didn't win on the design patent, the media will simplify the entire case to be that Samsung copied Apple so whenever people look at a Samsung product, people will be thinking about which competing Apple product they tried to clone. I'm not too surprised the design patent didn't win as the drawings don't look like the iPad:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
The patent drawings actually look more like the prior art tablets. If they had specified the unique parts of the iPad design, it might have held a bit more weight. It's obvious from the products themselves but they'd have to be able to prove they came up with the design first. The huge win makes up for it though and Samsung's response shows how shallow their position was all along.
If the counterfeit market disappeared, I suppose that does harm some consumers. How would your average blue collar worker be able to buy a Prada-style handbag for his missus? The people who wouldn't think twice about a ripped-off fashion design are the same people who would be happy buying a Samsung product.
Fake tan, fake boobs, fake blonde... the only thing that's natural is they'd be marketing Samsung phones.
There are plenty of non-infringing products on the market for consumers to choose from.
Also, a fun fact with a bit of irony is that many Samsung employees have iPhones. As well as many people in Seoul, which Samsung is home to.
Assuming that Samsung actually pays the billion dollars - what if Apple were to use that to expand its US operations and take production capacity out of Samsung's plants?
Or here's an idea, give Apple a tax break on overseas money equal to their investment in US production capacity.
Just seems to me that on the one hand it would make it harder for samsung to copy Apple's work if they were not a manufacturer in the supply chain of Apple products - then again without Apple products filling up their production capacity they would be able to crank up the production rate of their copies.....
I'm not sure that works. For starters, Apple isn't in the 1997 position where they only had $1.5 billion remaining in cash. If they felt it was feasible to build a foundry for manufacturing their own ASIC designs based on the ARM reference designs there is nothing that would have prevented from doing so.
Now I do think it's possible that they could do this as they build up and out their ASIC knowledge. It's only been 2 years since we were first introduced to the Apple A-chip, the A4, and two years before that that Apple bought P.A. Semi, so I could easily see them having their own US foundry in another 2 years... I just don't see the connection with it from winning this court case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
LOL. What has Samesung ever innovated? All's they do is copy Apple and others. That is why their name is: Same-sung.
Have you ever looked at the chips inside your iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Nice spin control. Less than 22 hours for deliberations? Methinks the jury thought Apple had a slam-dunk case.
I wonder if the judge will triple the damages due to willful infringement - 3 Billion would be very interesting indeed!
And I assume you would like Samsung to fail and go out of business tomorrow as well?