AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design won't be 'legally problematic'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design won't be 'legally problematic' - Page 2

post #41 of 72
5/30/11 at 11:24am
This is the oddest response from a company executive I've heard in a long time. It's kind of like saying, there's no danger in jumping off the Empire State building, because I don't believe in gravity.
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
post #42 of 72
5/30/11 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

My last post got me wondering. How much of the process could be robotic? Since labor costs are what drives manufacturing overseas, what if all the labor could be done by machines? Big cost up front, but once in operation, machines don't draw salary or bennies. Small work force to maintain and re-program when required. Pipe dream? Maybe. But Apple has resources to try it out in the U.S. on a proof-of-concept basis for some small but significant component.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I would imagine that almost all the components are manufactured using a high degree of automation. It is the final assembly that is the most difficult to automate. A human has two highly dexterous robotic-like mechanisms which can work in tandem, known as hands. Today's robots just can't match the ability of human hands when it come to complicated motions like assembling iPhones.

You're probably right. But I was thinking more of constituent components rather than final assembly. Still, if the government made this a high national priority, and found a way to mobilize the best minds of science and industry behind it, maybe a breakthrough could be made.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #43 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:11pm
Lol... The anti-Korean sentiment is palpable with you kids. Glad you could turn copyright infringement into a racial issue.

Apple is the most sued company in tech and they have no problem taking whatever suits them then getting out of it later with lawyers. It's pretty sad that you put them on a pedestal and then attack an entire culture as if it's somehow a different game.

Same game. Using an extremely narrow definition of "copying" will give you a narrow output for "copiers," but you've missed the point if you do so.

Bottom line: they all are trying to pull a profit and will do so in whatever manner seems most promising, without any, even slight, consideration for morality or righteousness.

Your "American business is all about love and hand jobs" and "Koreans are all thieves" ideology is hilarious, mostly because it came into existence because of a lawsuit between tech companies. Good job not thinking for yourselves!

Cheers.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki View Post

"Koreans are all thieves" ideology is hilarious, mostly because it came into existence because of a lawsuit between tech companies. Good job not thinking for yourselves!

Who the heck was saying that?
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #45 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Samsung execs don't see an issue. The reason for this narrow view is that these Korean companies were built up on copying each others design and tech. As far as they are conceded this is just doing business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Part of the problem, may be Korean culture and business practices. I get the feeling that they don't have a problem with blatant copying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedster View Post

Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves.

Apparently each of these think it's just part of being Korean. Surely American's would do no such thing thank goodness.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #46 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Part of the problem, may be Korean culture and business practices. I get the feeling that they don't have a problem with blatant copying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedster View Post

Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Samsung execs don't see an issue. The reason for this narrow view is that these Korean companies were built up on copying each others design and tech. As far as they are conceded this is just doing business.

Once they lose in court for copying Apples trade dress they might come to think differently.

And a more reasonable take might be...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well, if you're going to specifically mention cars, it's not just Hyundai or Koreans... emulating or copying a fashionable design is pretty widespread. Most car designs today owe some design inspiration from Chris Bangle, who was design chief at BMW for many years (see http://www.businessweek.com/autos/au...bangles_l.html and http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Communi...g/Bangle-blog/). In particular, all the deep, flowing creases and "character lines" stamped into everything from the Audi A7 to the Honda CRZ all came from Bangle's work on cars like the BMW Z4.

It's ironic that Bangle's new gig is to design fashionable smartphones and laptops for...Samsung.

I think it would be difficult to show that Korean business practices lack ethics, at least, not to any greater or lesser degree than anywhere else. They do have different copyright law, however.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently each of these think it's just part of being Korean. Surely American's would do no such thing thank goodness.

Haha. You beat me because I was editing on an iPad 2.

...if only I had a galaxy tab... I hear they copy faster.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:41pm
"Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design aren't 'legally problematic'"

Seemed not to have been a problem when MS decided to copy the original Mac OS and call it "Windows"
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 72
5/30/11 at 12:52pm
I think I struck a nerve with Galbi. Misunderstandings aside, it was not my intent to be biased in my thinking about Korea. Apologies abound. I did not use the term "exclusive to Korea" at all in my first posted comment. The business practice of "emulating another companies success" is thoroughly used in all forms of industries all over the world. You mentioned Amazon in your retort just to name one. As for the level of ACCEPTANCE of doing business this way, well, I guess that depends on your point of view. Or more to the point, what company you work for. As for any perceived ignorance in the business world, well, all I can say is Wow......
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 72
5/30/11 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Because the market punish innovation. e.g. Kyocera Echo is different, but people just hate it.

Nowadays, consumers are just sheeps, who'd use facebook/twitter/google/amazon etc just because that's what everybody is using. Apple is the only company would can innovate because, unfortunately, that the sheeps also buy Apple products because it's Apple. It's not that Apple's products aren't innovative, but because if your consumer is just some 60-year-old dude who knows very little about technology, anything too different would be confusing. That's why iOS evolves slowly. It has no choice.

It is unwise to generalize using age, because you have no basis for it. Yes, there are older folks who are technology challenged. But, there are many youngsters that are also clueless. Sure there are those Geeky types that study, build, talk on and on, and do know a lot. Good for you. But, it doesn't give you the right to generalize.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 72
5/30/11 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Really? Not "problematic"?

Because the courts have already ordered Samsung to hand over their devices. A determination has already been made that Apple has a case. That's kinda problematic.

after apple request - to help them build evidence for a case.

The only problem occurs when the final ruling is handed down, then they take it to a higher court, followed by another ruling, then take it up higher again...

by that time, all of hte products in question are no longer on the market and the whole thing means little to anyone

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #52 of 72
5/30/11 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

:And Apple will get to them all in good time.

they have been around longer than the phones apple are currently takin samsung to court over.

the aPhone the mPhone, the iPhone mini, all fun copies sitting on the counters of many downtown Shanghai, Bangkok, Ho Chi Min City etc etc etc

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #53 of 72
5/30/11 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

they have been around longer than the phones apple are currently takin samsung to court over.

That doesn't matter at all.

Quote:
the aPhone the mPhone, the iPhone mini, all fun copies sitting on the counters of many downtown Shanghai, Bangkok, Ho Chi Min City etc etc etc

That's China. You have to set a precedent first. There's not a lot of law-abiding going on in the electronics industry there.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #54 of 72
5/30/11 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I know that many say this is business as usual, but I can't help but think that Apple would be wise to start lining up alternate suppliers. Even better would be to use some of its cash to start a dedicated component manufacturer. Doesn't have to have Apple's name on it, just fund and own it. They could even contract out to supply others to make it self-supporting. Put it in Taiwan where the U.S. has more leverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Good Idea.


Not really.
One of Apple's greatest strengths is in creating superior products out of cheap generic parts (ie Samsung, BSD Unix, CUPS, Webkit, etc.) combined with their own innovative and proprietary hardware (PA Semi, Optimized ARM, etc.) and software (Next, Aqua, Quartz, etc.) That's how they maintain such big margins. Owning a component foundry would slow them down. They never could have ramped up iPod, iPhone, iPads, etc. fast enough. Never could have swiched instantly to Intel or ARM chips, etc.
The fact is, Apple acts like, moves like, shifts gears like, innovates like, and IS a startup company. Not a lumbering slow giant, like Samsung.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 72
5/30/11 at 3:22pm
I believe Apple wants to renegotiate their relationship w/ Samsung and this is how they're beginning.

They will powwow (See Cook flying to S Korea.) and get either Samsung to straighten up OR to terminate their long term supply agreements so that Apple can move on and find a partner that is trustworthy.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 72
5/30/11 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

But have failed to realize the REAL copy of the iPhone is here:




The HiPhone.

Lol. I love how in those images, the HiPhone's battery is never full. You charge it up, turn it on, and the battery is probably half gone.

Chinese gray-market knock-offs aren't subtle. I'm sure the average "Rolexx" or "Lois Vuitton" product sold in Chinese flea markets are also designed to impress the neighbors.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #57 of 72
5/30/11 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Not really.
One of Apple's greatest strengths is in creating superior products out of cheap generic parts (ie Samsung, BSD Unix, CUPS, Webkit, etc.) combined with their own innovative and proprietary hardware (PA Semi, Optimized ARM, etc.) and software (Next, Aqua, Quartz, etc.) That's how they maintain such big margins. Owning a component foundry would slow them down. They never could have ramped up iPod, iPhone, iPads, etc. fast enough. Never could have swiched instantly to Intel or ARM chips, etc.
The fact is, Apple acts like, moves like, shifts gears like, innovates like, and IS a startup company. Not a lumbering slow giant, like Samsung.

You make a good point. But I still worry about the consequences if those cheap generic parts (and I'm not sure that the parts Samsung makes for them are all that generic) are suddenly cut off. Or held hostage. It's fine to be light on your feet, but that doesn't help if you step off a cliff.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #58 of 72
5/30/11 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That possible advance information is likely why the judge is letting Apple's lawyers see Samsung's soon to be announced/released stuff.

I believe the reason the judge is ordering that Samsung provide these devices to Apple is because Samsung has already released them to the market (prototypes anyway) when they gave them away at a recent convention (forgot which one).
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 72
5/30/11 at 4:13pm
"Samsung's own devices, which compete with Apple's iPhone and iPad, are powered by the Google Android mobile operating system."

Except the ones that are powered by Windows Phone 7.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 72
5/30/11 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

You make a good point. But I still worry about the consequences if those cheap generic parts (and I'm not sure that the parts Samsung makes for them are all that generic) are suddenly cut off. Or held hostage. It's fine to be light on your feet, but that doesn't help if you step off a cliff.

Perhaps I should have referred to the parts as" commoditized" rather than "cheap and generic." The point being Apple doesn't want to own the infrastructure for manufacturing RAM (a major part of what Samsung makes for them) or even component chips or CPU's. The value Apple adds is in the proprietary parts of the product, not the freely available parts (design, engineering, interface, OS components, software, hardware tweaks, etc.)

[And Samsung can't just "cut Apple off" as there are contracts in place and Samsung would immediately be crippled financially, reputationally, and legally.]
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 72
5/30/11 at 5:28pm
Where success walks, copycats follow.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #62 of 72
5/30/11 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

Except the ones that are powered by Windows Phone 7.

And they really have nothing to do with this suit because, shockingly, for once, Microsoft came up with their own interface that looks absolutely nothing like iOS.

As a long-time user of Apple exclusively, I have to once again express my appreciation and admiration for Windows Phone 7. I played around with it for the purpose of a paper I wrote, and I was surprised by nearly everything about it. It's beautiful, clean, and actually original.

Google should have done something equally dissimilar. They chose to steal. Samsung could have enhanced Android away from iOS. They chose to make it more so.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #63 of 72
5/30/11 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Perhaps I should have referred to the parts as" commoditized" rather than "cheap and generic." The point being Apple doesn't want to own the infrastructure for manufacturing RAM (a major part of what Samsung makes for them) or even component chips or CPU's. The value Apple adds is in the proprietary parts of the product, not the freely available parts (design, engineering, interface, OS components, software, hardware tweaks, etc.)

[And Samsung can't just "cut Apple off" as there are contracts in place and Samsung would immediately be crippled financially, reputationally, and legally.]

Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 72
5/30/11 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That doesn't matter at all.

Oh yes it does.

Quote:
That's China. You have to set a precedent first. There's not a lot of law-abiding going on in the electronics industry there.

geography a strongpoint?

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #65 of 72
5/30/11 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Nowadays, consumers are just sheeps

sheeps?
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #66 of 72
5/30/11 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

sheeps?

I believe he meant sheepseses.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 72
5/31/11 at 5:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

"Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design aren't 'legally problematic'"

Seemed not to have been a problem when MS decided to copy the original Mac OS and call it "Windows"

It was not an issue in that particular decision.

Apple lost that case on the basis of the fact that they had a poorly written license agreement and the court determined that Microsoft had the right to use those design elements. The court never ruled on 'look and feel' in that case.

Moreover, 'look at feel' is not the same as 'trade dress'.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 72
5/31/11 at 6:07am
There's an excellent and easy to understand explanation of some of the issues involved with industrial design, intellectual property law and trade dress specifically here:

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/...559_010610.pdf

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #69 of 72
5/31/11 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Oh yes it does.

And I'm supposed to reply as though you've said anything that matters? I'm right. By virtue of the fact that they remain unsued and Samsung doesn't.

Quote:
geography a strongpoint?

As far as I know, China's pretty close to China.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #70 of 72
5/31/11 at 9:16am
Samsung really doesn't appear too concerned about Apple's suit. Not satisfied with just an iPhone-like smartphone, they've elected for an iPod-like one too.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/31/s...p-dares-you-t/

Looks like cowering isn't part of their business plan.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #71 of 72
5/31/11 at 9:21pm
deleted
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
post #72 of 72
6/4/11 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.

Of course apple could go for setting up their on production facilities (we're talking about 4-5 years here at minimum), though you'd see a high raise in the price you pay for your iPhone (and not all will be willing to pay) or a drop in Apple's profit (not exactly what investors want to see)


You'd really be better of, if you'd have a little bit knowledge about market dynamics, production chains, product pricing and anything related.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design won't be 'legally problematic'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design won't be 'legally problematic'