or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows - Page 3

post #81 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post
 

 

Amazing how often you still here that old Xerox story, isn't it?

 

Here are a few other desperate statement that have made the rounds over the past couple of days:

 

Hah! See Apple is also a slavish, criminal copier! Forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right, it seems that a number of Android fans believe that Apple being found guilty of infringing on an essentially worthless patent (c'mon, $152,000? That wouldn't even buy a house) was some sort of turning point, and now Apple is now as low as Samsung. 

To begin with, being found guilty of infringement is nothing new for Apple. 

 

http://bgr.com/2012/12/13/apple-guilty-patent-infringement-iphone/

 

Secondly, there is a big difference being found guilty of patent infringement, and being found guilty of wilful patent infringement. The first is because you didn't check and find an obscure patent that is essentially worthless ($152,000); the second is because you deliberately stole someone else's hard work ($119million).

 

Hah! Apple didn't get anywhere near what they asked for! This is true, but did anyone think Apple was really going to land such an outrageous amount of money? I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers didn't. But this case has always been more about sending a message than actually making money (which is just as well because so far, Apple has made zilch).  The message has been sent: If you steal how stuff, no matter how trivial the patent, then we will drag you through every court on the planet, no matter what it costs us – and what it costs you. But what Apple was expecting was a larger amount than this because it needs to ensure that folk understand the expense involved in copying their stuff.

 

Samsung has already confessed to having copied Apple's stuff; what they're fighting for is to minimise the costs of doing so. And this is a fight they cannot afford to lose. Samsung's R&D is poorly-focussed and ineffective. They cannot skate to wear the puck is going to be, so they send out fifty blind hockey players on to the ice and get them to skate around until the puck runs into one of them. Their poor attempt at fingerprint recognition is one example; too little too late. 

 

The awful Galaxy Gear smart watch: foisted on an unsuspecting market as soon as they heard Apple was working on a smart watch. A calculated gamble: get something out their first, no matter how bad it is, then no one can say we copied Apple. Not sure this will work, because their smartphones were on sale before Apple released the iPhone. The problem was with what their phones turned into as soon as they took a close look at the iPhone. 

 

This behaviour is par for the course for Samsung, they did it to Sharp, Pioneer and now Apple according to this article in Vanity Fair

 

Samsung are ruthless in their will to dominate any market they enter and will use any means to get their way.

 

Stealing others work and creating long drawn out court battles is what they have always excelled at.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #82 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Do you really think the iPhone was just a bunch of ideas "scribble down" while drinking a latte? It was 5 years in development and thousands of man hours.  And because your misinformed let me correct you on the oft incorrectly used Apple copied Xerox meme.  Apple did not copy xerox.
They were invited to PARC research at Xerox where Xerox had very very early and crude versions of a GUI and using a very crude object oriented point and click environment on a computer that was a prototype called the Alto.  IT was not patented.  Steve Jobs was invited there to see this.  In fact about half of the original Macintosh team were former PARC employees.  Before Apple visited PARC they had already been working on there own gui with a mouse and point and click.  They asked the folks at PARC if they could use some of the ideas the y saw and incorporate them into the macintosh gui they were already working on.  They agreed to let Apple use some of there ideas.  In return for this Steve Jobs gave them a substantial portion of original issue stock in apple computers first stock offering.  The deal was signed and Xerox got there shares of Apple stock in return for the use of there ideas.  Xerox later sold those shares of apple stock which today would be worth billions and billions of dollars.
Apple did not steal PARC's ideas they were paid for them and agreed to it.
No I am not misinformed and I do think that most ideas are spontaneous and formed out of the working context and that an idea is fine but it's implementation is the actual achievement.
My point is that Apple wasn't infringing on Xerox because they had to do the implementation (and didn't steal the source code).
But they did copy Xerox and it doesn't matter if they paid for it or Xerox agreed to it or Xerox didn't patent it (or do you think that it is right to steal something if it isn't protected?)
Edited by knowitall - 5/4/14 at 7:19am
post #83 of 100
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
But they did copy Xerox

 

No.

 
…or do you think that it is right to steal something if it isn’t protected?

 

Do you not know what theft is?

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 #84 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

No I am not misinformed and I do think that most ideas are spontaneous and formed out of the working context and that an idea is fine but it's implementation is the actual achievement.

The idea creates the value; any engineer can implement something. Just look at Samsung documents!
post #85 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.

 

Scribbled on … what? I assume you were going to say "scribbled on a patent application" because that's what utility and design patents are (in layman's terms): ideas written down. It's awful naive to assume there's no hard work involved. And secondly, you don't patent implementations (e.g., source code). You protect implementations with copyrights.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #86 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

No.

 

Do you not know what theft is?

 

Yes, denying a fact isn't very constructive.

Yes, I know what theft is, but it seems that you don't.

post #87 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 

 

Scribbled on … what? I assume you were going to say "scribbled on a patent application" because that's what utility and design patents are (in layman's terms): ideas written down. It's awful naive to assume there's no hard work involved. And secondly, you don't patent implementations (e.g., source code). You protect implementations with copyrights.

My argument is against the current patent system, you seem to have missed that.

post #88 of 100
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

Yes, denying a fact isn't very constructive.

 

I agree. So where’s the fact, exactly?

 
Yes, I know what theft is…

 

Then you calling the aforementioned content theft is pretty darn confusing. In fact, it’s indicative of not knowing what the word ‘theft’ means.

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 #89 of 100
Samsung vs apple.
This js the picture ... Get ready samy..

http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe

Distribute at will
.
.
post #90 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatboyharrison View Post

...oh so just imagine the mobile landscape now if apple had "stuck" to just macs?

 

Better still, imagine the current computer lansdscape now if Apple hadn't bothered with Mac!

post #91 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by crysisftw View Post
 

 

Better still, imagine the current computer lansdscape now if Apple hadn't bothered with Mac!

Or imagine the current software landscape if software patents had been popular when the fundamental ideas in software were being developed (e.g. every technique described in CLRS). Bill G once opined: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html?_r=0)

post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Then you calling the aforementioned content theft is pretty darn confusing. In fact, it’s indicative of not knowing what the word ‘theft’ means.

Can you explain what you mean (and be a little constructive)?

Or do you like to wisecrack only?

post #93 of 100
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
Can you explain what you mean

 

Sure thing: APPLE STOLE NOTHING FROM XEROX. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEFT IS.

 

Got it?

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 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Or imagine the current software landscape if software patents had been popular when the fundamental ideas in software were being developed (e.g. every technique described in CLRS). Bill G once opined: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

 

Yes, and that was Bill Gates' excuse for ripping off several products. He also used the position of the severly popular Windows to establish several monopolies in the market, killing companies like Netscape. Talk about a 'standstill industry' and a 'sly usage of patents'.

post #95 of 100
Quote:
 Yes, and that was Bill Gates' excuse for ripping off several products. He also used the position of the severly popular Windows to establish several monopolies in the market, killing companies like Netscape. Talk about a 'standstill industry' and a 'sly usage of patents'.

Don Knuth wrote around the same time as the Bill Gates quote: 

 

"When I think of the computer programs I require daily to get my own work done, I cannot help but realize that none of them would exist today if software patents had been prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s." (http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt)

 

Knuth is one of the most influential figures in the history of software. What "excuse" did he need?

post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sure thing: APPLE STOLE NOTHING FROM XEROX. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEFT IS.

 

Got it?

Yes, your a wisecrack only.

post #97 of 100
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
Yes, your a wisecrack only.


Thanks for all the proof, then, that Apple stole from Xerox. I’m certain we believe you now.

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 #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Thanks for all the proof, then, that Apple stole from Xerox. I’m certain we believe you now.

We? What persons are behind the Tallest Skil account?
But it is clear you (or what group of people is behind your account) didn't read my comment correctly, I stated that Apple copied from Xerox, I didn't say they stole from Xerox (read my comment again if you don't believe me).
post #99 of 100
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
I stated that Apple copied from Xerox, I didn't say they stole from Xerox (read my comment again if you don't believe me).

 

Read it again. Not sure how you’re not implying it. Could you expound?

 
But they did copy Xerox and it doesn't matter if they paid for it or Xerox agreed to it or Xerox didn't patent it (or do you think that it is right to steal something if it isn't protected?)

 

And no, again, they didn’t copy Xerox. Or maybe the creators themselves are lying.

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 #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Read it again. Not sure how you’re not implying it. Could you expound?

And no, again, they didn’t copy Xerox. Or maybe the creators themselves are lying.

Ok, thanks for the link, I haven't read that before (interesting view on the state of software development and user interfaces).
It doesn't change my opinion, but I do see your point. it all depends I think on how you interpret 'copy'.
I didn't meant a literal copy of course (I mentioned that) but they did copy what they had seen.

Edit: note that they mention (your second link) that the big jump in interface design was probably after the visit to Xerox (and have no evidence that it was prior art).
Edited by knowitall - 5/10/14 at 7:53am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows