So apparently, if you don't create what everyone calls innovative, you should never be able to compete in the market.
No one said you wouldn't be allowed to compete. And no one said anyone is required to make it easy for you.
Market realities aren't what they were 15 years ago. Even 10 years ago.
Theft isn't tolerated like it used to be. Even "homages" to others' designs are open to challenge. Some companies, like Apple, care enough about their IP that they'd rather go to court than cross-license.
Welcome to the jungle.
Bluster and bluff.
Samsung currently supports (in rough order of importance)
Android
Bada
Windows Phone
Tizen
I suppose you have a genius insight as to how the bastard offspring of Bada and Tizen is going to Take. Over. The. World!!!1! Uh, whatever
Intermittent windshield wipers....
Look it up.
Apple plans it so when they bring a lawsuit, all production, development and sales stop because all these employees are also Apple lawyers. THey can't do two things at once.
Like Google with their apparent endorsement of their subsidiary's abuse of F/RAND based patents, you mean that kind of patent troll?
How about a company giving patents they bought to another company for the sole purpose of suing a competitor, an example being Google giving patents to HTC, that kind of patent troll?
For a company that whines a lot about the unfairness of patents and spend millions in lobbying whoever will listen, they sure embrace the methods of the lowest patent trolls.
Google IS hypocrisy manifest.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
Well, considering that one of the criteria for being granted a PI is for Apple to prove that they "face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted", I would think this was self-evident.
I suppose one could make the argument that Apple's lawyers don't truly represent Apple, or they are possibly ignorant of how a preliminary injuction works. Is this something you are suggesting???
In the sense that folks stop buying iPhones etc no. but there is always and already is a huge feedback back lash all over various sites. Engadget for example is packed with people bashing Apple over this. And not light hearted jabs, there's near death threats level stuff. Sad part is that most of it is taking jabs about the Siri interface so clearly they didn't bother to read what patent is being invoked because it's not trade dress.
Course if Apple was the one being accused of infringing they would be cheering that the big bad Apple is about to get smacked. Even if the patent in question is bases off anything in the accused product etc.
Engadget is always full of people bashing Apple over anything really, this is no different.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
They haven't decided between a single operating system, and they possibly never will. Samsung's business model is to make a wide variety of products, throw it at the wall, and see what sticks. This style is great for rapidly adjusting your designs to the changing consumer 'winds' in minor iterations, but obviously doesn't lend itself well to coming out with 'revolutionary' designs. Fortunately, we have risk taking innovators like Apple to fulfill that role...
In regards to all the copying allegations, I simply do not believe that it is as straightforward as Samsung blatantly copying Apple. I DO believe that Apple came out with a great product that had the ability to change what consumer's expected in a smartphone. The portion of Samsung's many models that sold well did so because they came closer to this new expectation of consumers. For example, Samsung didn't choose to move away from keyboards and to touchscreens in some attempt to copy Apple. Instead, they made both, and phones with keyboards didn't sell because they didn't meet the criteria for what consumer's sought in a smartphone.
I also think the reason so many Samsung phones are coming out with larger screens is because this is the latest shifting in the consumer 'winds'; consumers simply are desiring larger screens. Would I ever suggest Apple was copying Samsung by going with a larger screen? Of course not, because I recognize that this is simply a company trying to stay in sync with the expectations of their consumer.
Anything Apple does always have fandroids, crazy microsoft fans and nerds screaming.
To be ignorant and blunt: If they love Samsung so much: move to Korea.
hmmmm, so if you like toyota, move to japan
if you like bmw, move to germany
if you like fosters, move to australia
if you like Dolce and Gabbana, move to italy.
If you like Nikon so much, move to Japan
If you like SAP so much, move to germany
If you like Michelin so much, move to france
If you like Rolex so much, move to Switzerland
If you like playstation so much, move to Japan.
Seems to me that in life there is ALWAYS a product made froma foreign company that you will like over an american product. Surely you will not say EVERYTHING you like is by an american company. So I really don't understand your thinking. Because someone chooses a Korean phone over an american phone they should move to that country?
Anything Apple does always have fandroids, crazy microsoft fans and nerds screaming.
To be ignorant and blunt: If they love Samsung so much: move to Korea.
Ridiculous. I'd write an answer, but words refuse to get typed in the face of so much stupidity. I have a message from the Universe for you: "Please emigrate to another universe."
---
Also, if this Samsung thingie is "the most preordered piece of electronics in the history of the world" or something, then people LIKE it... Should really a company be able to block sales of such a successful product? Besides, I remember people on this forum explaining that Apple "had it all right" due to sales of iPad/iPhone/etc.... So does "the most preordered product" mean that Samsung has it all right, by the same logic?
All this seems a lot of noise and not much worth... I'd rather have a new version of iPhone at WWDC.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Ridiculous. I'd write an answer, but words refuse to get typed in the face of so much stupidity. I have a message from the Universe for you: "Please emigrate to another universe."
---
Also, if this Samsung thingie is "the most preordered piece of electronics in the history of the world" or something, then people LIKE it... Should really a company be able to block sales of such a successful product? Besides, I remember people on this forum explaining that Apple "had it all right" due to sales of iPad/iPhone/etc.... So does "the most preordered product" mean that Samsung has it all right, by the same logic?
All this seems a lot of noise and not much worth... I'd rather have a new version of iPhone at WWDC.
To be fair, and i'm no apple fanboy i'll tell you THAT, it should not matter if people "like" a product if it is found to be infringing on a patent in a court of law.
I would hate to patent a macrowave (something that freezes things in 1 minute :) ), then have kenmore or some other company rip it off, add a better deign to the casing, and reap huge profits.
The patents in this case, well at least the one that got htc in trouble, seems to be legit. Its none of that rectangle with curved edges bullcrap (Would LOVE to see how an iTV would look diff to any Samsung TV, i'm betting rectangle with unclutttered front), but in this case, it seems it was genuinely good idea, and props to apple for pulling it off. If there is prior art well then its invalid, but up till now there is none.
I don't even see what google's problem is. Just get rid of the menu, which seems to be the bone of contention. If its a website, go straight to the browser, if its a phone number, go straight to the dialer. 95 out of 100 times that's what you will choose from the menu ANYWAY. And in four years, you can bring it back and reveal it like a feature that never existed, like what apple did when it revolutionized by smartphones by 'introducing' multi-tasking.
So yes, I am with Apple on this one as they seem to be genuinely defending a good idea that they came up with. And as i said, i ain't no apple fanboy.
What does Apple care about them? They weren't going to buy an iPhone, so how does it affect Apple?
That was the argument I used when Samsung made their "why are you standing in line" commercials. Hardcore Apple fans weren't going to buy a Samsung smartphone anyway so why did they care what they thought?
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
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
... What happened to the days when everyone feared the monopoly, and how they stifle innovation etc? ..
It is difficult to reason with Apple fans. (And I say that as someone who used to be a hardcore apple fan when I was a kid/teenager.)
I am taken by "oooo so shiny, me like shiny, apple so shiny" just as much as the next person (okay, maybe even more so), but not when it is at the expense of more important values like intellectual freedom. I can't claim to be an expert about intellectual property (but will say my bias is strongly against the idea in general), but it seems to me that Apple is being hypocritical on top of trying to obstruct innovation
Edit: My apologies to apple fans about the first line. I've read many reasonable posts on this forum, and I know many apple fans in real life. What was going through my head at the time were posts from some who seem to defend Apple no matter what they do-- where product bugs/flaws are spun as "the correct way" or "irrelevant" until it is fixed, for example. lt is human nature to defend what you love, and defend the "home team". I don't mean to insult the people here because I'm sure I am and will be guilty of this just as much as anyone else.
So people shouldn't be able to protect the ideas they have? What sort of world is that?
So people shouldn't be able to protect the ideas they have? What sort of world is that?
I'm not sure. It doesn't really exist, so I couldn't tell you. That is why it is just my bias. It might be a utopian fantasy, and the reality of it might be slower overall innovation (or the free exchange/use of ideas could lead to explosive innovation, I have no idea). I don't know.
I just can't wrap my head around this issue, other than to say I have a very strong impulse against one person or group having the right to forcefully limit someone else's intellectual freedom.
TS, personally I think copyrights are more appropriate for software, but I'm far from an expert. There's more well-versed guys than me on both sides of the discussion and they both have some valid points IMO. This is one of the articles that made sense to me, but not surprising since I'm not a fan of software patents in general. ;)
http://www.cato.org/publications/techknowledge/case-against-literary-software-patents
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
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
What (and maybe you're the wrong person to ask), in summary, is the difference in protection afforded to patents and copyrights?
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
But (and with very little knowledge of my own in this regard) I'm thinking that entire pieces of software should be copywritten (not patented) and the specific implementation of a feature within that software heretofore unseen in any software could be patented.
I dunno. I just think that intellectual property, regardless of form, should be protected in some way, even if it's not a patent.
Yeah I'm probably the wrong guy to ask but I'll at least tell you how I understand it.
The basic difference (I think??) between the protection of a software copyright and patent is that a copyright would protect the expression of that idea used by the programmer/owner, but that the actual processes/methods used to accomplish it would not be protected. In other words Google couldn't copy Apple's data tapping implementation if it was protected by copyright, but they could create their own version of it from scratch.
A comparison I had seen somewhere uses Microsoft Word and Corel Wordperfect as examples. MS has a copyright on Word so that Corel could not legally copy it. But they could still legally create their own expression of Word features to use for Wordperfect.
IMHO ( I'm no expert either) It seems like copyrights would encourage more creativity and innovation in software than the most of the software patents we have now. It's far from clear how specific patents assigned to ABC, DEF, and HIG companies might apply to products XYZ company wishes to produce today, with numerous and vaguely worded claims and unforseen uses. Smaller companies may not even chance what they believe to be a new and innovative product for fear that some big player might claim to have had the idea first. I believe I read an average patent case could reach a million dollars. What start-up or small developer has the backing to stand up to a patent claim, bogus or not, from one of the major companies?
As long as the software was created from scratch, with that companies own spin on the idea, I don't why there should be a problem. Others will of course disagree and their opinions are no less valid than mine.
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
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
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
first, there are two separate things with regards to copying. Android did not copy iOS source code, Android is an implementation of an operating system for embedded devices (mostly phones). It was started BEFORE the iphone was released. What has been "copied" is portions of the interface... ie how a user interacts with the device. It wasn't copied though, as no source code (that I know of) was stolen from apple and used to make the device. The idea for some of these things was borrowed... However lets put it this way... Apple was not the first smart phone maker. What if RIM sued apple for making a phone that has a built in web browser? sure apple took RIMs idea (and don't tell me they didn't borrow ideas from RIM etc, everyone does, even if unconsciously) and made it far better, but they still built their phone off of the ideas laid out previously. Likewise apple wasn't the first to make an mp3 player etc. Should they not be allowed to have made those devices then? There was no burglar that ran in and stole apple's code. Saying that it is theft is just plain silly.
Now, one could ask how much has android "improved" upon the iphone experience, and many would say it hasn't. However, what if a fandroid said apple shouldn't have been allowed to implement multitasking because android did it first, or notifications or whatever. Right now the smart phone market is becoming relatively mature, and it's not likely that a "killer new feature" will blow away people and be a must have. I'm using an iphone4, and I can't think of what an iphone 5 would offer that would make me go "I really need to upgrade to this device". In a mature market like this, you cannot expect every new product to be mind blowing, and as android got to the touch screen after apple they're going to be called the copycat.
maybe android manufacturers owe apple for patent royalties (i haven't really seen a great case for this yet), but this current move by apple just makes apple look greedy. companies "violate" patents left and right, this isn't theft, it's a fact of life in the tech business. Apple is probably in violation of thousands of patents, many by the big guys who won't sue apple because they're in violation of apple's patents etc. This is the reality with the messed up patent system we have right now. There are some things samsung should be forced to do (change their icons for instance, as they were way too similar to apple's to be a coincidence), but should their phones and tablets be blocked from being sold? Flat out NO. Doing that would only serve to add a few billion more dollars to apple's coffers, and is not a "fair" business tactic. Hopefully the courts have as much sense.
Phil
If you have a few minutes, this video will show just how un-iPhone-like the new Galaxy S3 is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ake1B0WPXYg
Or for those bothered by his English, try this one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT0gO_wNOhA&feature=related
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
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
