Except the ones that are powered by Windows Phone 7.
And they really have nothing to do with this suit because, shockingly, for once, Microsoft came up with their own interface that looks absolutely nothing like iOS.
As a long-time user of Apple exclusively, I have to once again express my appreciation and admiration for Windows Phone 7. I played around with it for the purpose of a paper I wrote, and I was surprised by nearly everything about it. It's beautiful, clean, and actually original.
Google should have done something equally dissimilar. They chose to steal. Samsung could have enhanced Android away from iOS. They chose to make it more so.
Perhaps I should have referred to the parts as" commoditized" rather than "cheap and generic." The point being Apple doesn't want to own the infrastructure for manufacturing RAM (a major part of what Samsung makes for them) or even component chips or CPU's. The value Apple adds is in the proprietary parts of the product, not the freely available parts (design, engineering, interface, OS components, software, hardware tweaks, etc.)
[And Samsung can't just "cut Apple off" as there are contracts in place and Samsung would immediately be crippled financially, reputationally, and legally.]
Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.
Seemed not to have been a problem when MS decided to copy the original Mac OS and call it "Windows"
It was not an issue in that particular decision.
Apple lost that case on the basis of the fact that they had a poorly written license agreement and the court determined that Microsoft had the right to use those design elements. The court never ruled on 'look and feel' in that case.
Moreover, 'look at feel' is not the same as 'trade dress'.
There's an excellent and easy to understand explanation of some of the issues involved with industrial design, intellectual property law and trade dress specifically here:
Samsung really doesn't appear too concerned about Apple's suit. Not satisfied with just an iPhone-like smartphone, they've elected for an iPod-like one too.
Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.
Of course apple could go for setting up their on production facilities (we're talking about 4-5 years here at minimum), though you'd see a high raise in the price you pay for your iPhone (and not all will be willing to pay) or a drop in Apple's profit (not exactly what investors want to see)
You'd really be better of, if you'd have a little bit knowledge about market dynamics, production chains, product pricing and anything related.
Comments
Except the ones that are powered by Windows Phone 7.
And they really have nothing to do with this suit because, shockingly, for once, Microsoft came up with their own interface that looks absolutely nothing like iOS.
As a long-time user of Apple exclusively, I have to once again express my appreciation and admiration for Windows Phone 7. I played around with it for the purpose of a paper I wrote, and I was surprised by nearly everything about it. It's beautiful, clean, and actually original.
Google should have done something equally dissimilar. They chose to steal. Samsung could have enhanced Android away from iOS. They chose to make it more so.
Perhaps I should have referred to the parts as" commoditized" rather than "cheap and generic." The point being Apple doesn't want to own the infrastructure for manufacturing RAM (a major part of what Samsung makes for them) or even component chips or CPU's. The value Apple adds is in the proprietary parts of the product, not the freely available parts (design, engineering, interface, OS components, software, hardware tweaks, etc.)
[And Samsung can't just "cut Apple off" as there are contracts in place and Samsung would immediately be crippled financially, reputationally, and legally.]
Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.
That doesn't matter at all.
Oh yes it does.
That's China. You have to set a precedent first. There's not a lot of law-abiding going on in the electronics industry there.
geography a strongpoint?
Nowadays, consumers are just sheeps
sheeps?
sheeps?
I believe he meant sheepseses.
"Samsung exec says Apple's claims of copying iPhone design aren't 'legally problematic'"
Seemed not to have been a problem when MS decided to copy the original Mac OS and call it "Windows"
It was not an issue in that particular decision.
Apple lost that case on the basis of the fact that they had a poorly written license agreement and the court determined that Microsoft had the right to use those design elements. The court never ruled on 'look and feel' in that case.
Moreover, 'look at feel' is not the same as 'trade dress'.
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/...559_010610.pdf
Oh yes it does.
And I'm supposed to reply as though you've said anything that matters? I'm right. By virtue of the fact that they remain unsued and Samsung doesn't.
geography a strongpoint?
As far as I know, China's pretty close to China.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/31/s...p-dares-you-t/
Looks like cowering isn't part of their business plan.
Apple can replace Samsung, in the longer term anyway, fortunately Apple has the contracts to ensure it lasts till then. Samsung can not replace Apple. They are th Wold's largest consumer of nearly everything they buy from Samsung. Apple was a customer it was foolish to steal from.
Of course apple could go for setting up their on production facilities (we're talking about 4-5 years here at minimum), though you'd see a high raise in the price you pay for your iPhone (and not all will be willing to pay) or a drop in Apple's profit (not exactly what investors want to see)
You'd really be better of, if you'd have a little bit knowledge about market dynamics, production chains, product pricing and anything related.