or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung vows to step up legal action against Apple for 'free riding' on its inventions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung vows to step up legal action against Apple for 'free riding' on its inventions - Page 3

post #81 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.

People like freedom. YES! INDEED! That's why 90%+ of the world's computers run Windows!

Maybe Apple will be surpassed one day. But can you describe how they are currently *in the process* of being surpassed?
post #82 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post

Samsung CEO failed the basic jobs of being a CEO.

As a CEO one of his main jobs is damage control. This is basic and the guy is burying Samsung in stupidity and this is how.

This is not a matter of who is right or wrong. This is damage control or in other words, trying to come alive with less losses as possible.

Samsung is not known exactly as a innovator, so, they have not a single strong patent to defend themselves. Apple on the other hand, is a strong innovator and has at least 300 patents just for the iphone and iPad. So, in court Samsung has very little chances of winning anything.

These are the scenarios they had:

1) Apple complained they were copying their stuff and asked for changes. This was previous to court action. At this time, they should have made changes. They missed their chance. This was the least loss case.

2) Apple started a court action in the US. They should contact Apple and try to settle. Instead they pushed their luck and Apple started other actions in other countries, they retaliate in all countries, using phony arguments as "the tablet idea was created in a 1969 movie" and are losing in every country.

3) Apple pissed, started to moving their processors, display, flash and memory orders from Samsung to Toshiba, Soc and other companies in Japan. Samsung is losing their major customer, Apple and a 7.8 billion dollar check every year.

And the worst part of that for them is that Tim Cook is a master of the supplies and logistic. I am sure Cook's strategy will inflict maximum damages to Samsung in all fronts, without causing any trouble for idevices production.

Resuming: instead of making some changes to their hardware and software and keep Apple as a customer, losing a couple of dollars to do that, they decided to spank Apple and lose their 7.8 billion check and at the same time, send a message to the industry on how they treat their customers.

Again, this is not a question of who is wrong or write, this is damage control.

Nice job Samsung.

while apple has many patents samsung have way more

apple have changed some fundamentals regarding smart phones,but Samsung did too
and when it comes to patents related to wireless standards (innovations ) Samsung have more than what apple have.
post #83 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Samsung sure feels as though they are right. Perhaps there may be some validity into what they are saying?

The bottom line is it doesn't matter. Apple is stagnating. It used to be that apple held the top spots in phones, tablets, mp3 players, and pc's.

Pc's in the 80s/90---obviously not now.

mp3 players--still dominated by apple due to their simplistic nature.

tablets---ipad2 losing fast--galaxy 7.7 is much much more attractive.

phones--obviously not.

Intelligent people don't like being told what they can and cannot do with the devices they own. That's always been apple's main problem. The control and guidance is good at the beginning of a device lineage, but ends up killing it off down the line. Apple paradoxically innovates. Unless it can find a new niche in the next 2-3 years, it's going to be downhill from here.
post #84 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post

Samsung CEO failed the basic jobs of being a CEO.

As a CEO one of his main jobs is damage control. This is basic and the guy is burying Samsung in stupidity and this is how.

This is not a matter of who is right or wrong. This is damage control or in other words, trying to come alive with less losses as possible.
...
Nice job Samsung.

Nice summation. Apple sticks to their guns, Samsung acts defiant, arrogant and stupid. I hope Apple prevails and that Samsung pays the price.

But this whole thing is part of the culture of moving production overseas to exploit cheap labor markets. Chinas MO for a long time now has been a tit for tat that calls for companys to transfer patent technology to them in exchange for both moving production facilities there and also to be able to sell to their enormous population. Even though we're talking about South Korea here, its a mindset thing and its much the same.

Still looking forward to when Apple builds some of its own fabs in the US, even something token. Even if it's just their main contractor, HonHai, much as they did in Brazil. Not holding my breath though, I guess thats too old school now.
post #85 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.

Thanks for the perspective, but I think you will need some better thought out arguments to prevail around here.
post #86 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Let people copy each other's designs. Why? Because then it truly comes down to who makes the best product. Even if they look the same

Look and feel is a differentiator in defining a "better" product, particularly when technology is basically a commodity.

If you spent years to design a new product offering that became wildly popular because it appealed to the masses because of it's bold, new design, you'd be a happy camper. How happy would you be if, a few months later, a competitor slavishly copied your design, adding his logo in place of yours, you might even be flattered if the product was not a cheap knock-off. But, how would you feel if it was a cheap knock-off that caused people to think that your product was also cheap?
post #87 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

The bottom line is it doesn't matter. Apple is stagnating. It used to be that apple held the top spots in phones, tablets, mp3 players, and pc's.

Pc's in the 80s/90---obviously not now.

mp3 players--still dominated by apple due to their simplistic nature.

tablets---ipad2 losing fast--galaxy 7.7 is much much more attractive.

phones--obviously not.

Intelligent people don't like being told what they can and cannot do with the devices they own. That's always been apple's main problem. The control and guidance is good at the beginning of a device lineage, but ends up killing it off down the line. Apple paradoxically innovates. Unless it can find a new niche in the next 2-3 years, it's going to be downhill from here.

Or to rephrase:

Pc's in the 80s/90--- now the fastest growing PC sales.

mp3 players--still dominated by apple by a huge margin.

tablets---still dominated by Apple by a huge margin.

phones--easily the best selling smartphone.

Did I miss something?
post #88 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


Samsung has thousands of patents, but mostly pertain to manufacturing.

Unfortunately for Samsung, these patents are useless against Apple, since Apple is not a manufacturer.

How about the other patents, those that don't pertain to manufacturing? And are not encumbered with FRAND terms?
post #89 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post

When Apple threw the match to stop other manufacturers making products it started the patent wars. Problem is even for how awesome the iphone is it is only 4 years old, these competitors have been at this for far longer with deeper patents. It made since for samsung to not go after apple too hard when it was a supplier, but with apple moving away and becoming so aggressive it is now time to change stance. Style, form factor, layout; all these elements can be found in various competitors long before apple sold a single phone. Palm essentially had all three since the early 90's, and motorola was not far behind, in the end apple is waging a war not protecting its rights. Love apple products, hate apple strategy.

Actually, the "match", as you put it, was thrown by Google. It took advantage of a loophole in patent law whereby an individual (presumably including corporate individuals) can make a copy of a patented product for their own personal use without paying a license fee to the patent holder. It blatantly copied Apple's proprietary work, and the proprietary work of others, then disseminated it as "Android" for free.

The rest, as they say, is history.

What's really sad is that so many see Google as blameless or even heroic in all this, when clearly they have benefitted from their actions, and just as clearly that was their intent. They dodged around their moral responsibility to recompense the owner of a property for use of their property. They are morally bankrupt, as are those who benefit frrom their actions at Apple's expense.
post #90 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did I miss something?

The part where that guy really, REALLY needs to follow his username.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #91 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Or to rephrase:

Pc's in the 80s/90--- now the fastest growing PC sales.

mp3 players--still dominated by apple by a huge margin.

tablets---still dominated by Apple by a huge margin.

phones--easily the best selling smartphone.

Did I miss something?

There's a difference between you and I.

I am forward-looking.
post #92 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post


The more chips you produce with the exact same design, the better you get at it, lowering costs and increasing margins. A customer like Apple really is the dream of any fondry: they need millions of chips using the exact same design, for an extended and predictable period of around 2 years. There really isn't a single foundry in the world who would turn down the kind of business Apple brings in, no way in the world.


This whole line of reasoning assumes that Apple pays a lot for chips, compared to other chip buyers. I have seen reports to the contrary.

Other than the general principle that big orders are better than small orders, do you have any data showing that Samsung makes better profits (more in an absolute sense, more %, more $/unit of risk, whatever relevant metric you can cite) from Apple compared to other chip buyers?
post #93 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

I am forward-looking.

Do the kids have a new definition for 'forward' of which I'm unaware?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #94 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

There's a difference between you and I.

I am forward-looking.

I'm sure you are, in your own mind. Such as that is....
post #95 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

There's a difference between you and I.

I am forward-looking.

I think you may be confusing forward-looking with hallucinating, but don't let that stop you. Many geniuses were ridiculed at first.
post #96 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

There is a simpler solution if that was the case.

Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.

Apple negotiates long term guaranteed deals with its suppliers. So actually, it IS like they are forced to manufacture for Apple, at least until the expiration of the agreed upon period. Perhaps Samsung is hoping to encourage Apple to terminate early. (Apple often has an "I can terminate early for just about any reason but you can't" clause. Not very fair, mind you, but it's good to be King.)

Nevertheless, I agree with your message: this seems like a particularly bad reason to sue. There are ways to move forward to protect your $7.8 B revenue while you begin to replace it gradually. The nuclear option just doesn't seem smart.

Thompson
post #97 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Thanks for making my point. I guess you have never seen a Rolex knock off. It's hard to tell the difference ... Oh and they are illegal.

The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles. Nor can I see Rolex ever stating that some Timex was a close copy of their high quality and respected timepieces. As far as Rolex and Lexus are concerned publicly, other non-premium companies (ie. Timex or Hyundai) aren't capable of building either a Rolex or Lexus. To give even a second thought would be ridiculous to their marketing arms.

If Apple wants to be a premium supplier of electronics, they should act like it. Instead they give Samsung acknowledgement that yes, they've built a tablet or phone that's just like an iPhone/iPad ("copyist"). So if's it's less expensive or the comparable Apple product isn't available or lacks some specific feature they might want, Samsung's product will do just as well, thank you. It's a copy. Even Apple says so.

Giving support to your competitor's claims of being just as good is an amateurish marketing mistake IMHO. No other premium producer would give any recognition to an upstart competitor. Apple should take their own advice: If you don't have an iPhone, well, you don't have an iPhone. Apple had no competition for their premium products until they started giving props to them with "copyist" suits. That's Apples big mistake and why they never should have started this IMHO.

If they want to be considered premium and unmatchable, don't give mixed messages by acknowledging the competition's product is pretty much the same as yours.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #98 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hmmm. . . Not sure that's a great talking point.

I see how you twisted what I said around to serve your anti-Apple bias, but otherwise I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
post #99 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackTheRat View Post

AAPL, just buy Samsung and S.Korea.

With the loose change buy the North...

Actually, looking at world trends, it's the Asian powers who may buy our companies and the US. China alone already has the Treasury by the short hairs.....

Edit/update: On the other hand... THIS article is (statistically and visually) impressive....
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Apple sues HTC over auto hyperlinking text in emails? "Good. Serves them right for competing against Apple using Android in a manner that could never be confused with iOS"

Anyone sues Apple? "Losers, cheap Asians. All Asians are cheap. Ban Asia."

It's humorous mostly.

In a tragicomic kind of way. There was an alternate future once in which Apple was not only as successful as it has been, but also still had a substantial portion of its parts and products being made in this country.

but "...roads diverged... ...and that has made all the difference."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

The term "flak" as applied to PR comes to mind.

I believe that'd be a "PR Flack"
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I love my iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs, but the truth is Apple doesn't generally have a healthy respect for trademarks and copyrights. They assume they can buy the owners off ... often after the fact. Sometimes, they simply assume small businesses would not have the wherewithal to sue.

Just because I love my wife does not mean her farts don't stink. Just because I love Apple products doesn't mean I respect all their actions.

Indeed.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #100 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Actually I have. In fact my younger brother is a recognized national expert in Rolex certification FWIW. And he doesn't base his decision on whether it's round, thin, small bezel and single button. Those are common and expected traits and not what makes a Rolex unique.

You're just going to resist getting this forever, aren't you.

There wasn't one manufacturer making a watch that looked like a Rolex watch before they were produced. After Rolex watches were produced identical looking knock-offs began to appear. They looked identical to a Rolex watch... but they were not a Rolex watch.

Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).

Simple, eh.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #101 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

You're just going to resist getting this forever, aren't you.

There wasn't one manufacturer making a watch that looked like a Rolex watch before they were produced. After Rolex watches were produced identical looking knock-offs began to appear. They looked identical to a Rolex watch... but they were not a Rolex watch.

Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).

Simple, eh.

For your analogy to work, the Galaxy Tab has to resemble the iPad so much that customers cannot distinguish them. Even Apple is not arguing that. Rolex fakes, on the other hand, are made to look identical the genuine article.
post #102 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.

I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

How about the other patents, those that don't pertain to manufacturing? And are not encumbered with FRAND terms?

Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

There's a difference between you and I.

I am forward-looking.

Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles. Nor can I see Rolex ever stating that some Timex was a close copy of their high quality and respected timepieces. As far as Rolex and Lexus are concerned publicly, other non-premium companies (ie. Timex or Hyundai) aren't capable of building either a Rolex or Lexus. To give even a second thought would be ridiculous to their marketing arms.

Then I guess you're not paying attention.

Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
For example:
http://www.internationallawoffice.co...5-001143e35d55
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y01/m05/i16/s04
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2...watchreps.html
And many, many more.

What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.

The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #103 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

For your analogy to work, the Galaxy Tab has to resemble the iPad so much that customers cannot distinguish them. Even Apple is not arguing that. Rolex fakes, on the other hand, are made to look identical the genuine article.

Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.

... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #104 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] "We've been quite respectful and also passive in a way," Lee reportedly said. "However, we shouldn't be... anymore." [...]

Hell hath no fury...

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #105 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

[...] Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).

Simple, eh.

Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.

It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.

Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #106 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.

It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.

Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

WTF are you saying?

Are you saying that Samsung copied Apple?

[0n edit: I think SockRolid has comprehension problems... or he's not following the thread... he'll improve]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #107 of 216
If Apple is using encumbered patents, then simple non-discrimatory fees are straight forward to address. These are usually associated with standards etc., and reflect agreements for the standard to be put in place, e.g., cell phone communications standards like 3G. If the violated patent is not encumbered, then SAMSUNG should get value from its intellectual property, same as Apple. Apple does not use standards based patents e.g., H.264 for the kind of suits currently under way.

However, If SAMSUNG has not revealed patents it has on standards and failed to reveal those this is not a good place for SAMSUNG. If some countries, Korea, have lower legal criteria for patents required in standards, e.g., Korean local favor 3G or CDMA then this could be a very bad precedent for Korea.

If I was SAMSUNG, I would be a lot more worried about Google and Oracle from a business perspective. This could dramatically change the business model landscape for SAMSUNG.
post #108 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.



Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.



Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.



Then I guess you're not paying attention.

Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
For example:
http://www.internationallawoffice.co...5-001143e35d55
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y01/m05/i16/s04
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2...watchreps.html
And many, many more.

What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.

The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.

If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.

Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
That says premium.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.

... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.

Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.

Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.

In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.
post #110 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.

Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
That says premium.

Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.

Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #111 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

This whole line of reasoning assumes that Apple pays a lot for chips, compared to other chip buyers. I have seen reports to the contrary.

Other than the general principle that big orders are better than small orders, do you have any data showing that Samsung makes better profits (more in an absolute sense, more %, more $/unit of risk, whatever relevant metric you can cite) from Apple compared to other chip buyers?

I don't follow this reasoning so I can't really say anything sensible about it. Did you consider that maybe, Apple pays less for their chips, for exactly the reasons I described? In other words, because they place large orders over a predictable, relatively long timeframe, for identical chips?

IC production doesn't just follow the 'general principle that big orders are better than small orders', it follows the 'every new design takes millions of $$$, lots of time and high risk of unexpected production issues' principle, which basically means the more you want of the same thing, the better. If you went to Samsung to buy 10,000 complex IC's you would probably pay over $1000 a chip. If you want 10,000,000 of them, the price will be closer to $10 a piece. It's much more extreme than any other business I know of. The savings of large volumes and predictable demand go both ways (customer and supplier), since 10 hours of downtime figuring out why you get bad yields from a particular design is entirely on the supplier, and I can tell you an hour of downtime on a wafer stepper is likely a lot more expensive than you can imagine.
post #112 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.

Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.

In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.

Are you absolutely sure? Source.

[on edit: when a company is willing to say that their product is the same as another product... but better; then think about how it will be marketed at the retail level. Android does not have to be mentioned. The type of apps or the name of the app store does not have to be mentioned... "Wow... I just got a tablet that is better than the iPad! Shit! Why won't Apple let me log into their app store?!". ]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #113 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.

Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.

I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #114 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".

Do you see anywhere where they say they are different... as in Android?

[on edit: Its like saying that the Chev truck is better than the ford truck, but it looks exactly the same as the Ford truck... but then not telling the public that it runs on pig manure...

Point being... they are trying to pass it off as one thing when it's another ]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #115 of 216
I have done a quick search for Samsung's inventions and I am not seeing a whole lot out there, perhaps I am missing something. From anecdotal evidence I have watched Samsung come in and be successful manufacturing things that other people have first invented, TV's, washer/dryers, vcr's, dvd players, cell phones, etc. In Korea: ships, heavy machinery, etc. I think Samsung's forte is to copy other peoples ideas and make them cheaply, efficiently, and often of good quality. But I do not see them as inventors. I think they are kinda cheesy in the way they are acting. I mean seriously, name one thing that Samsung has invented that never existed before. You can't do it. They are a commodity producer, not a commodity inventor.
post #116 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.

. . . and offer the same features, with the same form factor, and the same capabilities.

Agreed that Samsung sees what makes the iPad successful and imitates that while making improvements/changes where they see it make's sense. Fair? Dunno. That's how business has been done for eons. Apple's not above imitation if it makes sense to their business.

In any case, the Tab and iPad are not the same product, and no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad. Claiming "confusion" is a silly talking point for lawyers, not the real world.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad.

It's funny because you think you can actually say that without looking like a completely uninformed fool.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #118 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

I have done a quick search for Samsung's inventions and I am not seeing a whole lot out there, perhaps I am missing something. From anecdotal evidence I have watched Samsung come in and be successful manufacturing things that other people have first invented, TV's, washer/dryers, vcr's, dvd players, cell phones, etc. In Korea: ships, heavy machinery, etc. I think Samsung's forte is to copy other peoples ideas and make them cheaply, efficiently, and often of good quality. But I do not see them as inventors. I think they are kinda cheesy in the way they are acting. I mean seriously, name one thing that Samsung has invented that never existed before. You can't do it. They are a commodity producer, not a commodity inventor.

Flexible OLED displays. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Flexible OLED displays. . .

as far as I have read, are considered "successes" when they only have TEN LINES OF DEAD PIXELS and are nowhere near the stage where they'd be put into any product, consumer or otherwise.

Hope I'm wrong, though (here's where you link me to a story where they've created one that doesn't suck). I've always liked the flexible display idea.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #120 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's funny because you think you can actually say that without looking like a completely uninformed fool.

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that people buy the Galaxy TAB or Moto Xoom, but are confused and think it was really an Apple iPad? Seriously?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung vows to step up legal action against Apple for 'free riding' on its inventions