Samsung make great products now? Not if my Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 is anything to go by - the screen is unresponsive (particularly close to the bezels), it suffers from lag despite having an equivalent speed processor and twice the ram of my ipad2 and in landscape mode, the keyboard virtually fills the screen making it difficult to see what you are typing.  Also, its battery life is not as good and the build quality is cheap.  Wish I had the iPad mini instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

Samsunf's copying is shameless but theft is the wrong term for it. ...

No, theft is exactly the right word for it.

I have never understood how they can argue that innovation is being harmed by not being allowed to copy others. If anything it should drive innovation because when you are not allowed to copy from somebody else, you have to make your own solution, and thereby you are forced to innovate (or at least develop your own solutions, which hopefuly will lead to new and useful inventions).

Why are they allowed to get away with that argument without being challenged by the interviewer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryd 

I have never understood how they can argue that innovation is being harmed by not being allowed to copy others. If anything it should drive innovation because when you are not allowed to copy from somebody else, you have to make your own solution, and thereby you are forced to innovate (or at least develop your own solutions, which hopefuly will lead to new and useful inventions).

Why are they allowed to get away with that argument without being challenged by the interviewer?

 

I believe it's nigh impossible to create any new smartphone or tablet product today without someone claiming it infringes on someone else's IP. Often those claims turn out legitimized in the courtroom or by a licensing agreement between the parties. Whether you choose to call that use of someone else's IP theft, stealing, copying, unfair or simply an oversight it cane still end up as infringement. Every company, Apple included, does it. 

No doubt sometimes the infringing company has no idea of the "theft", whether by choice or by ignorance. Perhaps some don't like the IP holders licensing terms and choose to avoid it until their hand is forced. Others may be well aware that their product is using IP owned by someone else but make a business decision that the profit to be gained outweighs any penalty or licensing they might have to pay. Certainly there's times when a company is aware of another's claims but doesn't consider them valid in the first place and thus properly ignored. Calling one "stealing" and another justified is often a product of someone's opinion rather than facts.

A small newcomer with a great original idea may never see any success with their competitive product if they end up in the the crosshairs of Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Motorola or some other large multi-national. Who could afford to take them on? A simple threat of litigation from one of those might be enough to abandon the idea. So yes, the high level of IP claims and lawsuits in the past couple of years probably does become a roadblock for innovation. If he doesn't come loaded with pockets full of money a small innovators only chance for a return on his investment may be to sell out to one of the big guns. As for the major players they just build their products and pay what they have to as needed. Lawyers and judgments are just normal business expenses. Just my opinion of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

Eun didn't talk about the JURY VERDICT that put his company on the hook for over a billion to Apple?

 

He didn't?

 

 

 

 

Oh.

You mean this one?

Judge Finds No Willful Infringement of Apple Patents by Samsung

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/judge-finds-no-willful-infringement-of-apple-patents-by-samsung

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


I hope Samsung pays you well for your shilling.

In this case, it wasn't accidental. Not only did the Tab look so much like the iPad that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference, but Samsung's internal documents indicate that they specifically set out to copy the iPhone. They had a long list of things that they needed to change to make their phones copy the iPhone.

It was a clear, deliberate decision to copy Apple's IP. Unfortunately, they're going to get away with it - they've made far more from their blatant copies than any fine will remedy.

As I hope Apple pays you well for yours. /s

You sound silly and juvenile. I've said several times that Samsung "copied" Apple in many ways as you well know. They may still for that matter tho it's becoming less obvious. You didn't bother at all to address the points I really made in my post tho. Why?

I'd love to know if you believe that broadly written and issued software patents might be a hindrance to innovation in some cases rather than helping push the mobile industry forward. Do you have an opinion on that, which was the point of my post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRulez 

You mean this one?

 

Judge Finds No Willful Infringement of Apple Patents by Samsung

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/judge-finds-no-willful-infringement-of-apple-patents-by-samsung

Did you actually read the article you posted?

At best, even if Samsung did not infringe wilfully, they still did what they did. Sometimes "unintentional stupidity due to a complete lack of creative ability" counts as an excuse. 

They're still on the hook for around a billion dollars. 

Also interesting, that a jury - some of which was made up of everyday consumers - concluded that Samsung are ripoff-artists. The general consensus has been, for at least the last 18 months if not more, that Samsung are ripoff-artists. This is obvious at the product level - from hardware design to even the packaging. Even Samsung's own lawyers made statements that insinuated the same. 

Samsung is probably one of the most notoriously corrupt and shameless copycats in the entire industry. it's in their DNA. Just like Apple has a certain "culture" in the way that it operates, so does Samsung. Samsung's culture:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151659/samsung-takes-excluded-evidence-to-the-media-gets-reprimanded/40#post_2158987

^^^^^^^

Yeah. A golf bag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider 

During a panel at the D: Dive Into Media conference on Monday, Samsung Executive Vice President David Eun outlined a bold initiative to drive innovative thinking at the intersection of hardware and software

This talk of the "intersection of" sounds vaguely familiar... oh, right, Jobs talked about the intersection of technology and liberal arts.  He also talked about the marriage of hardware and software coming from the same company.

It's amazing how someone can talk about innovation and yet echo another person's words in the same breath.  Are they willfully ignorant, or just missing the part of the brain which allows for self-awareness?

What a load of crap.  Since when did making your product barely distinguishable from your competitor become "innovation"?

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude too on whether these "innovation centers" Samsung is planning turn out to be "imitation centers".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

 

 

Did you actually read the article you posted?

 

At best, even if Samsung did not infringe wilfully, they still did what they did. Sometimes "unintentional stupidity due to a complete lack of creative ability" counts as an excuse. 

 

They're still on the hook for around a billion dollars. 

It's not over quite yet.  Considering that a number of the patents in play there have been found preliminarily invalid, I'd be surprised if the final outcome were even three-fourths of that, likely far less before it's all done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davesmall 

Samsung steals technology from Apple and then they call it innovation. How utterly ridiculous.

What, microsoft has been doing it from the beginning.  Steals everything from others and calls it innovation.  

Originally Posted by bwik 
Apple should have taken a different tack.  Instead of saying Galaxies were _like_ Apple products, Apple should have asserted that galaxies _were_ Apple products.

There's probably a legal requirement that disallows them from saying that. Or, rather, that claiming one instead of the other would be able to hold up in court.

Originally Posted by TBell 
Apparently, Apple was going to run Palm as an independent subsidiary to compete directly in the keyboard segment against RIM. 

That sounds like the opposite of anything Apple would do.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 
At best, even if Samsung did not infringe wilfully, they still did what they did. Sometimes "unintentional stupidity due to a complete lack of creative ability" counts as an excuse. 

Hey, can that decision be challenged? Because a person would have the IQ of a box turtle if they're stupid enough to think that Samsung didn't willfully infringe.

They innovated nothing the Android OS is provided by google, the only innovation is the kind of double speak that they spew out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Because a person would have the IQ of a box turtle if they're stupid enough to think that Samsung didn't willfully infringe.

If you see turtles graduating with a doctorate from Harvard Law School, you can make a mint selling some of what you're smoking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by auxio 

This talk of the "intersection of" sounds vaguely familiar... oh, right, Jobs talked about the intersection of technology and liberal arts.  He also talked about the marriage of hardware and software coming from the same company.

 

It's amazing how someone can talk about innovation and yet echo another person's words in the same breath.  Are they willfully ignorant, or just missing the part of the brain which allows for self-awareness?

It helps to know computer history.   Jobs himself got many of his thoughts and phrases from others.  

For example, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware" originally came from Alan Kay, who advocated tablet computers back in the late 1960s, and later worked at Apple for a while.

The "intersection of technology and arts" is a speech theme that dates at least back a decade, if not two or three.

However, these things are worth repeating by anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

It helps to know computer history.   Jobs himself got many of his thoughts and phrases from others.  

 

For example, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware" originally came from Alan Kay, who advocated tablet computers back in the late 1960s, and later worked at Apple for a while.

 

The "intersection of technology and arts" is a speech theme that dates at least back a decade, if not two or three.

 

However, these things are worth repeating by anyone.

Yup, I know all about Alan Kay -- brilliant man, and definitely a huge influence on Jobs.  Apple should have tried to hire him out of PARC a long time before they finally did (in 1984).

The thing with Jobs is that, even if all the ideas weren't his own, he definitely understood and conveyed the profound meaning of them.  With Samsung, it just feels like they are regurgitating a mish-mash of slogans.  I dunno if it's lost in translation, or they need to do some LSD and let the concepts soak in a bit more, but it just feels contrived to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

In this case, it wasn't accidental. Not only did the Tab look so much like the iPad that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference, 

If you're going to use that story, at least be accurate.  One attorney -- an older woman --  said she couldn't tell them apart from a distance.  Another attorney seated further behind her immediately spoke up with the correct answer.

It was a clear, deliberate decision to get as close as possible to the same look and feel without anything being an exact copy.   However, they still got too close.

A timely opinion piece from the respected Mercury News today.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_22565075/jon-potter-software-patent-trolls-can-be-stopped

"Few topics leave app developers and startups as frustrated as software patents. Gather app developers and publishers, and within minutes one will ask, "Have you received a patent infringement letter yet?" Then they tell varying versions of the same story.

An app gains a little notoriety or market share, and soon after receives a letter from a patent holding company (aka "troll") claiming that the app is infringing the troll's patent and requesting payment of a licensing fee. The letter identifies the patent, but it covers extraordinarily broad technology that could relate to virtually any app, website, or software.

When the app developer calls the troll for more details about the alleged infringement, the answer is chilling: that information will only be shared in the litigation discovery process. The developer's choices are to either pay the troll or hire lawyers and prepare for a financially devastating, time-consuming and distracting legal battle.

It sounds like extortion. But that is how our patent system works.

While app developers are angry with the trolls, they are also frustrated, rightly, with their government. The patent system was created to promote innovation and protect entrepreneurs. But in the trenches of the app development industry, people are intimidated and angered. App developers and entrepreneurs, the very people whom the patent system should protect, now consider software patents as inhibiting -- rather than promoting -- innovation . . ."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

That document mostly listed generic ways to improve without copying, and in fact pointed out that some parts looked too much like Apple's design and should be changed.

 

LIkewise, Apple clearly has looked at things like Notifications pulldowns from other companies, and decided their way needed improving as well.   Heck, we know for a fact that they decided to make a mini iPad after using a Samsung 7" tablet.

 

All companies do reviews and comparisons.

So Sammy can produce 132 page doc comparing its smartphones to other Android competitors? It's amazing that its "future" designs look so similar to the iPhone. It's pure bunk that it was coincidental. Not only that, Sammy has a habit of copying: witness the Blackjack.

And you bring up a 7" tablet, but Apple didn't do a 132 page presentation. They said, let's see if we can shrink the 10" original iPad into a smaller form factor rather than let's see if we can copy what Sammy has with a 7" tablet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark 

So Sammy can produce 132 page doc comparing its smartphones to other Android competitors? It's amazing that its "future" designs look so similar to the iPhone. It's pure bunk that it was coincidental. Not only that, Sammy has a habit of copying: witness the Blackjack.

I agree about the Blackjack.  

As for comparison docs, I've done my share of them.  Samsung's was not about direct copying.  It was about getting the same kind of experience.  And it wasn't even done until 2010, three years after the iPhone came out.  They were in no rush to compare.

We have no idea what docs Apple did internally.  

We do know that Apple, when designing the iPhone, took looking at other companies' designs to an entirely new level, by going so far as to commission an internal mockup of what a Sony designed smartphone might look like.  

After it was done, they then decided that parts of it looked better than Apple's iPod derived designs, so they took some inspiration from the Sony mockup.

This influence was not allowed to be told to the jury in the California trial.