or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung says verdict is not an Apple win, but a 'loss for the American consumer' [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung says verdict is not an Apple win, but a 'loss for the American consumer' [u] - Page 4

post #121 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

At least Apple's patent wasn't invalidated, right?

 

Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.

 

Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.

 

Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy. 

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

post #122 of 162
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post
I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now.

 

That wasn't at all the context in which you were posting.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #123 of 162

Time for your medicine Fandroids, get ready for WIndows phones all around...bwahahahahahaha

post #124 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. 

No, you are not.

post #125 of 162
Quote:

Originally Posted by kikkO View Post


The answer should have been, what have Koreans innovated? Throughout history they've copied, just ask their neighbor Japan.

 

 

Very interesting movie. I had no clue about history of Korea. Thx.

post #126 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. I guess I just don't see it as clever or original to use these well worn puns. I'd rather see something original even if the attempt at being funny or clever failed, or a cogent argument as to why they are scummy, copyists.

Samsunk anyone?

OK, the first time, it's funny. But when it is systematically repeated, it becomes boring. 

post #127 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Obviously the jury didn't fall for Samsung's complete over simplification. This was about a lot more than "rounded rectangles". Samsung's lawyers aren't that obtuse but they were assuming the jury was. They assumed wrong.

True, but I'm disappointed that the jury fell for Samsung's silly Fidler patent nonsense.

I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision? 

post #128 of 162

Yes it is a loss for companies that are not creative and need to steal other companies designs and intellectual property in order to try to compete in the tech industry. It's just a crying shame that they now have to pay. I'm really going to lose sleep over this.

post #129 of 162

Apple's inspiration for the lawsuit was a bowl of water... a bowl of cold water thrown in Samsung's face.

post #130 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

Incorrect. Apple could have made someone else make ARM chips and other components for them. There might be some sacrifices, but they'd have access to the same alternatives as everyone else. And Apple could certainly exist even if the iPhone and iPad had never been created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac512 View Post

I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision? 

That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense

They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Can I upgrade my 3GS and 4 to a version of iOS that has all the new bells and whistles? I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?

Well, yes. iOS 5.1.1 runs just fine on a 3GS:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20069641-1/how-well-does-ios-5-run-on-iphone-3gs/
"We've been running iOS5 on a iPhone 3GS for the last 24 hours and have had no problems with it. It runs smoothly and the experience doesn't seem noticeably different from running iOS4. We'll let you know if we encounter any bugs as they come along, but for now it seems safe to say iOS5 works fine on the 3GS."

Now, there might be a few features that won't run due to the age of the hardware, but iOS 5 runs just fine on a 3GS-and that hardware is several years old.

In contrast, even a brand new Android phone may never run even today's version of Android, much less future versions.

Thanks for proving the point.
"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 #131 of 162
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
Apple's inspiration for the lawsuit was a bowl of water... a bowl of cold water thrown in Samsung's face.

 

Samsung should be thankful. Microsoft only got a glass of ice water… 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #132 of 162

"should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer."

 

Somebody call the Wambulance.  Boo Hoo.   Like I said in the other post Samscum is just butt hurt for the reaming they got at the hands of a jury who saw them for the liars they are.

post #133 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala View Post

"It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rounded corners and rectangles."

 

What incredible arrogance and ignorance.

A disgusting company !

To Samsung, and those that believe "design" can't be copied or stolen I present:

 

post #134 of 162

I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.

 

The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.

post #135 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.

 

The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.

So you have no problem with the car above?

post #136 of 162
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post
So you have no problem with the car above?

 

Well, it's a little ostentatious and boat like, but as a present I wouldn't complain.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #137 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Well, it's a little ostentatious and boat like, but as a present I wouldn't complain.

hahahah

 

But wouldn't you? Look at it again.

post #138 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

hahahah

 

But wouldn't you? Look at it again.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #139 of 162
Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac512 View Post

I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision? 

That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense

They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.

 

Sorry, I replied to my own post instead of yours, so here again:

 

 

From http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

 

"We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims," Ilagan said. "That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. Its not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that."

 

 
post #140 of 162

Samsung, if your Korean electronics and tech are so sh*t hot and truly original, where's your Neil Armstrong?

 

R.I.P.  :( 

post #141 of 162
I have no doubts that American customers will pay for this since Samsung will definitely put a tiny bit of this loss into ever single product they sell.
post #142 of 162

I agree with you in this case.  I made this comment when the first few comments had come in and they were a little bit over the top with the "Ha Ha we won" attitude.  I do think Apple has a lot more time to plan what to do and the people in charge there seem to be doing better than I could.  I really just wanted to get the point across that Apple and Samsung remain business partners for a reason.  Samsung does have the ability to produce top quality when they are making components, and they do not reap anywhere near the kind of income from their IP that Apple does for what they do.  In the comment section of another article here there are a couple of people arguing that Samsung is run by a Dr Evil type of management team.  I believe the situation is more complex then this, but it is a meme that seems to fit the cultural situation.  I do think the level of support for IP shown in our culture is important, but it is clearly not the only way things are done.  

 

I have a business which is franchising in Seoul Korea and I can say that trust is the big problem in international business deals.  We do not really have any evidence that we will continue to receive the royalty checks we are due.  We did get a small first check and the business is struggling to adapt to the local culture.  The problem is that we are not getting any sales reports to compare the income to.  This is not a small matter. It is much harder to trust someone who is unwilling to document their work.  As is evident in this trial, documentation of work is taken as risky by the Korean business culture.  What are you hiding if you don't want your work documented? 

 

I think Apple understands that this is no simple case of just copying on one level, but on another, they simply want Samsung to recognize where they are out of line.  It is really doubtful that Samsung is really going to get the message from this one case.  I think that it is going to take time before Apple and Samsung can settle this case.  It is telling that Apple's pretrial settlement price was about 20% cheaper than the jury verdict.  The longer Samsung fights to defend copying this obvious, the more this is going to cost them.  

post #143 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac512 View Post

Very interesting movie. I had no clue about history of Korea. Thx.

 

You're welcome.

 

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

 

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

post #144 of 162

It is my understanding that Apple is reliant on Samsung for several patents that are necessary for the production of the ARM chips used in the iPad and IPhone.  I will admit I do not have the source for this, but it stands to reason that there are patents used by each foundry which make the necessary yield of top quality chips possible.  The technology that is necessary to create chips on the 32 nm node is so specific that Intel could not use another foundry to produce their chips even if they wanted to, without redesigning and optimizing the final chip tape out.  

post #145 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?

Its ok, you don't have to put your big boy pants on just yet, its still fresh and new, I know one day it will be all better, Samsung will appeal, rectangles, innovation, anticompetition, I know sweetie, I know...

post #146 of 162
When did Samsung start caring about consumers?

As much as I prefer their design and engineering abilities in the world of TV, I still had to join a class action suit to be reimbursed for repairs prompted by their use of out-of-date, crap capacitors in my current set.

CSR's lied, avoided answers, denied the problem for a coupleof years until a response was forced in court.
post #147 of 162

Samsung is right in that is a loss for consumers, "who always want something for nothing". Those of us who consume to produce understand and appreciate quality and are willing to pay for it. I certainly never liked having my work ripped off and it being credited to others -- happened too many times. Giving credit where it is due; that is all that is required. 

post #148 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO View Post

 

You're welcome.

 

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

 

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being. 

post #149 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being. 


No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.

 

Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?


Edited by kikkO - 8/25/12 at 4:07pm
post #150 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

So you have no problem with the car above?

 

No problem, I see it right that companies copy each other, because they'll copy each other anyway (they exchange patents like if it was a cards game). I said the patents system no longer protects the one with low resources, and that's what I think. Don't lose the time with this supposedly war, which is no war, nor justice, it's just a cards game. They're playing poker, that's it.

 

The problem here is that they can play poker, but any independent developer wishing to use any patented technology cannot enter the game.

post #151 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO View Post


No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.

Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?

No, it's still racist.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #152 of 162

Lessons LEARNED:

 

Innovate, do NOT Imitate

Use your resources to conduct Research and Development of products, and NOT revert to the easy way out of copying/stealing other companies' ideas for personal profit

Be Original and NOT a Copycat/Knock-off

Accept the truth, and NOT deny it 

Stealing does NOT pay

Be a Winner, NOT a Loser

Buy Apple, NOT Samesung!

Quote:
My job is NOT to be easy on people. My job is to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even BETTER.

--Steve Jobs on being a CEO
Reply
Quote:
My job is NOT to be easy on people. My job is to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even BETTER.

--Steve Jobs on being a CEO
Reply
post #153 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


No, it's still racist.


My bad, I had no intention for it to be viewed that way.

 

On another note, I wonder if this will radically change the way smartphone makers design their phones.

post #154 of 162

"Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer." that's good and way to go, Samsung. Just be careful to not stealing again.

post #155 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO View Post

I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.

 

Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.

Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)

 

But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.

 

This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)

post #156 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa View Post

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.

 

Just to add . . .

 

 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

 

 

 

Adoption by Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]

Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]

However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]

  • The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
  • Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
  • Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.
  • Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.

 

 

 

References

  1. ^ "Contact." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010. "PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA"
  2. ^ "driving & public transportation directions." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
  3. ^ "map." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
  4. ^ Map of Stanford Research Park on Stanford University Real Estate web site
  5. ^ Xerox PARC was the first research group to widely adopt the mouse invented by Douglas Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in Menlo Park, California,
  6. a b Gladwell, Malcolm (2011-05-11). "Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation"The New Yorker. Retrieved 2011-10-09.
  7. ^ Pollack, Andrew (1990-03-24). "Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred"The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
  8. ^ "Milestones, PARC, a Xerox company".
post #157 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post

Get your head out of your Ballmer. 

 

Very good!   :)

post #158 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post

Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)

 

But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.

 

This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)


You're right, point taken.

 

What kind of innovations in technology have we seen from Korean companies thus far?

 

When I walk into a Korean supermarket their packaging looks awfully identical to the Japanese and their cars (Hyundai Genesis coupe and Infiniti G37),

 

 

 

 

 

Their written language is a good example. They wanted to separate themselves from the Chinese. I don't understand when it comes to technology and automotive why can't Korean companies make the same separation.


Edited by kikkO - 8/26/12 at 4:57pm
post #159 of 162
This is the part everyone misses. Apple sues to prevent commoditization of their products. If The iPhone can be flagrantly copied then Apple can be beat on price and they lose. Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.
post #160 of 162
Originally Posted by mike_t View Post
Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.

 

When's that gonna happen, by the way? They threw eMachines into bankruptcy when they stole the iMac design; why haven't we heard anything about throwing every PC manufacturer into bankruptcy for stealing the MacBook Air design?

 

And Intel needs punished for claiming they're the ones that came up with this idea.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung says verdict is not an Apple win, but a 'loss for the American consumer' [u]