How fast do you think Jobs and Co. are working on finding a new screen supplier? Those of us that have followed Apple for years know that the company never forgets and often exacts some type of revenge for those who cross the line.
How fast do you think Jobs and Co. are working on finding a new screen supplier? Those of us that have followed Apple for years know that the company never forgets and often exacts some type of revenge for those who cross the line.
It's not really revenge, just the consequences of their actions. If more people thought like Jobs about this topic, the world would be a far better place. Without consequences to one's actions there isn't much point in having any kind of rules or laws at all. Without laws, civilisation collapses.
Revenge would be attacking Samsung and making it suffer to the same degree that Apple thought that it suffered itself. Making a contract with a different company because the first company treats you poorly is just natural consequences (if it happens at all).
If Apple flatly denies the existence of a iPhone 5 or an iPad 3, and then later release them, they will be accused of perjury.
Apple sued Samsung for trade dress infringement on CURRENT products but also requesting to see potential trade dress infringement on its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
Samsung counter sued Apple for violating its technology patents in 10 countries for the CURRENT iPhone and iPad products but is also requesting to see potential technology patents in its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
No, it doesn't work that way. If Samsung decides to sue Apple for copying their products, THEN they may get to see such evidence in the discovery process. In Apple's current suit, Samsung almost certainly has no right to such discovery (unless the court allows them to go on a fishing expedition, which seems unlikely).
Not even then. A major factor in the judge's decision is that Samsung had already released the items in question to selected partners. That amounts to public disclosure - since the products were already in the public domain, Samsung could no longer claim that they were confidential.
Apple's prototypes, OTOH, have not left Apple or are covered by NDA. Samsung has no grounds to get them.
How fast do you think Jobs and Co. are working on finding a new screen supplier? Those of us that have followed Apple for years know that the company never forgets and often exacts some type of revenge for those who cross the line.
You could be right, although Cook (or another top Aple exec) has said that it's only the mobile division of Samsung that has "crossd the line", and that Apple has good relations with the rest of Samsung.
is anyone else amazed? why don't they just continue with that design instead of acting like they are the most valuable company in the world, and that the law will bend to them (in the US, in Korea, it might lol)
That Samsung has announced. Apple hasn't announced either. They don't exist.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
No. But they might ask you to have a psychiatric/competency hearing. Lol
Apple's suit could have merit. Samsung aka "the copyist" made some very iPhone-like smartphones. Even more iPhone-like than all the other iPhone-wannabes.
On the other hand, Samsung's suit is just saving face. Plain and simple. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense (e.g. Nokia vs. Apple) but Samsung's case is illogical and frivolous.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Your nonsensical analogy notwithstanding, Apple is the plaintiff in this suit and has not had a case "filed against them." There is no legal principle that holds "turn about if fair play", and if I accuse someone of stealing from me it doesn't directly follow that it's right and reasonable that the accuse me of the same.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Samsung did more than 'announce' the product. They showed the finished product and distributed it to various people. That means that it's in the public domain and no longer protectable as a trade secret.
Not to mention, of course, that there is also the matter that it's APPLE's lawsuit and Apple can request the samples. Samsung does not have any standing to do so. "Apple used patented technology" (even if it were true) is not a defense against the charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Sure. If you have used patented and proprietary technologies to do that, have released sample engines to various reviewers, and then get sued for intellectual property theft, then the person suing you could do exactly that.
The products are public knowledge and therefore aren't bound by rules of corporate secrecy.
Quote:
It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
We think you're making something. You have to give us access to absolutely everything you're doing to make sure you're not making it.
Yeah, that works out well...
Quote:
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
I would expect that at least pre-production examples of iPhone 5 with reasonably stable build of iOS 5 are being tested in wild, announced or not. After all, it should be released in less than 3 months - surely Apple has working units by now?
Announced or not, I don't see that too important. Why should it be easier for secretive company than for one that openly announces new products?
Additionally... I cannot see what else but iPhone 5 and iOS 5 can Samsung ask for. Since iPad 2 just came out, it is unlikely iPad 3 project is already advanced to final form, specs wise.
A lot of smugness here (as usual), but I'd expect Samsung lawyers know a bit about law and have at least some base for such request. Not unlike Nokia. I'm pretty sure number of people here were LOLing when Nokia started their case versus Apple...
Your nonsensical analogy notwithstanding, Apple is the plaintiff in this suit and has not had a case "filed against them." There is no legal principle that holds "turn about if fair play", and if I accuse someone of stealing from me it doesn't directly follow that it's right and reasonable that the accuse me of the same.
Trolls are tedious.
You are tedious yourself. Can you understand that there are two things going on ? One is Apple suing Samsung, in which Apple asks Samsung to show their prototypes and the other suit is where Samsung is the plaintiff and ask Apple to do the same.
Comments
How fast do you think Jobs and Co. are working on finding a new screen supplier? Those of us that have followed Apple for years know that the company never forgets and often exacts some type of revenge for those who cross the line.
It's not really revenge, just the consequences of their actions. If more people thought like Jobs about this topic, the world would be a far better place. Without consequences to one's actions there isn't much point in having any kind of rules or laws at all. Without laws, civilisation collapses.
Revenge would be attacking Samsung and making it suffer to the same degree that Apple thought that it suffered itself. Making a contract with a different company because the first company treats you poorly is just natural consequences (if it happens at all).
If Apple flatly denies the existence of a iPhone 5 or an iPad 3, and then later release them, they will be accused of perjury.
Apple sued Samsung for trade dress infringement on CURRENT products but also requesting to see potential trade dress infringement on its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
Samsung counter sued Apple for violating its technology patents in 10 countries for the CURRENT iPhone and iPad products but is also requesting to see potential technology patents in its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
Both are same types of suits.
Not even close.
No, it doesn't work that way. If Samsung decides to sue Apple for copying their products, THEN they may get to see such evidence in the discovery process. In Apple's current suit, Samsung almost certainly has no right to such discovery (unless the court allows them to go on a fishing expedition, which seems unlikely).
Not even then. A major factor in the judge's decision is that Samsung had already released the items in question to selected partners. That amounts to public disclosure - since the products were already in the public domain, Samsung could no longer claim that they were confidential.
Apple's prototypes, OTOH, have not left Apple or are covered by NDA. Samsung has no grounds to get them.
How fast do you think Jobs and Co. are working on finding a new screen supplier? Those of us that have followed Apple for years know that the company never forgets and often exacts some type of revenge for those who cross the line.
You could be right, although Cook (or another top Aple exec) has said that it's only the mobile division of Samsung that has "crossd the line", and that Apple has good relations with the rest of Samsung.
That is a double edged sword.
Its both a pro and a con.
With Steve's health deteriorating all the time,
Citation? He looks about the same as he did last year.
its reflected in the stock price.
Yes, Apple's stock price down explains why Apple is the third largest company in the world, by market capitalization.
Steve has too much control.
Apple did fine when Steve was out getting treatment.
is anyone else amazed? why don't they just continue with that design instead of acting like they are the most valuable company in the world, and that the law will bend to them (in the US, in Korea, it might lol)
That Samsung has announced. Apple hasn't announced either. They don't exist.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
No. But they might ask you to have a psychiatric/competency hearing. Lol
J/k
You see Samsung is afraid that Apple might copy the Samsung designs that Samsung copied from Apple.
I hope you are being sarcastic
On the other hand, Samsung's suit is just saving face. Plain and simple. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense (e.g. Nokia vs. Apple) but Samsung's case is illogical and frivolous.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Your nonsensical analogy notwithstanding, Apple is the plaintiff in this suit and has not had a case "filed against them." There is no legal principle that holds "turn about if fair play", and if I accuse someone of stealing from me it doesn't directly follow that it's right and reasonable that the accuse me of the same.
Trolls are tedious.
Commercially is it because Apple do not manufacturer anything themselves and Samsung make superior stuff?
If Samsung stuff was rubbish would this airy fairy court case see the time of day?
No doubt I'll be accused of being troll for 'having my own mind'.
How about discussing why Apple chose to sue Samsung.
Commercially is it because Apple do not manufacturer anything themselves and Samsung make superior stuff?
If Samsung stuff was rubbish would this airy fairy court case see the time of day?
No doubt I'll be accused of being troll for 'having my own mind'.
No, you'll be accused of being a troll for spouting ignorant bullshit very obviously calibrated to provoke.
It's obvious that the market place is now a 'whole new ball game' and commercial tactics have certainly changed.
What exactly that "announced" mean ? Is this a legal term ? I doubt it. Both companies might have prototypes that might be evidence in a case that is filled against them. It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
Samsung did more than 'announce' the product. They showed the finished product and distributed it to various people. That means that it's in the public domain and no longer protectable as a trade secret.
Not to mention, of course, that there is also the matter that it's APPLE's lawsuit and Apple can request the samples. Samsung does not have any standing to do so. "Apple used patented technology" (even if it were true) is not a defense against the charges.
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Sure. If you have used patented and proprietary technologies to do that, have released sample engines to various reviewers, and then get sued for intellectual property theft, then the person suing you could do exactly that.
Didn't read carefully. Apple asked for their prototypes. It's a reasonable request.
What exactly that "announced" mean ?
The products are public knowledge and therefore aren't bound by rules of corporate secrecy.
It makes no difference, if you announce something or not.
We think you're making something. You have to give us access to absolutely everything you're doing to make sure you're not making it.
Yeah, that works out well...
Do you think if I announce that I will land on Mars next month court could ask me for engine of my rocket and samples of the ore I will eventually take back ? Doubt that.
Terrible analogy.
Announced or not, I don't see that too important. Why should it be easier for secretive company than for one that openly announces new products?
Additionally... I cannot see what else but iPhone 5 and iOS 5 can Samsung ask for. Since iPad 2 just came out, it is unlikely iPad 3 project is already advanced to final form, specs wise.
A lot of smugness here (as usual), but I'd expect Samsung lawyers know a bit about law and have at least some base for such request. Not unlike Nokia. I'm pretty sure number of people here were LOLing when Nokia started their case versus Apple...
Your nonsensical analogy notwithstanding, Apple is the plaintiff in this suit and has not had a case "filed against them." There is no legal principle that holds "turn about if fair play", and if I accuse someone of stealing from me it doesn't directly follow that it's right and reasonable that the accuse me of the same.
Trolls are tedious.
You are tedious yourself. Can you understand that there are two things going on ? One is Apple suing Samsung, in which Apple asks Samsung to show their prototypes and the other suit is where Samsung is the plaintiff and ask Apple to do the same.