Samsung also complains that Apple seeks to prevent it from using "common, functional, obvious and otherwise unprotectable elements of design patents, trademarks and trade dress, rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung."
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
Yeah, before Apple releases their next iPhone, they wait and see what Samsung is coming out with, then Apple orders their engineers to copy it, down to the millimeter almost!
Message to Apple: Let it go...move on...you already have about 95% of the tablet market. Why are you fighting so much for the remaining 5%? Yeah, I know....you have every right to protect your inventions.....but jeez, maybe you should wait until there are real competitors out there so that the Feds don't regulate this market as a monopoly.
If Apple doesn't defend its' patents now, it is more difficult to get the courts to enforce the patents later.
So are the post offices of East Texas also filled with Samsung's random letters?
Does Samsung have a department which sends their random letters out weekly, monthly or what?
The east districts could have filings. But the US market is different from the EU. for an injunction to go through it has to pass a 4 step process. the EU has one.
And if you think Samsung knew when Apple would file, please show me evidence of this (no, the timing doesn't count ) or ANYWHERE that shows Apple informed samsung of said filing.
Apple will SUE any competition that starts gaining share in their target market. Their patents are broad enough that they can do this.
Of course. If their patents give them a real legal chance in their estimation they will test the legal waters *every time.* They can ignore small fry, obviously. But they will naturally go after the big ones. Why? Simple. They don't think it's cool for someone with significant manufacturing/distribution capability, who Apple thinks is using their IP, to be allowed to sell the allegedly questionable product in an unfettered fashion.
So what do they do? Apply to the courts. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE CAN.
Further, if Apple does indeed have a case (and from what we've seen it looks like they do), then there is really nothing you can hold against them. If you were in Apple's position, you would do exactly the same thing. It's rather stupid in business to allow a competitor to get away with something at your expense. If you can afford to, you test your argument in the courts.
Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
They also ignore any companies that don't pose a huge risk (even ignoring samsung's own Bada)
Naturally. You go after those that can hurt you - again, under the assumption that they are using what is yours in an unlawful fashion.
Apple is just exercising their legal rights. Everyone else can do the same. Whoever comes out on top, comes out on top. That's the nature of the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
because they are using the courts as a blunt weapon and not as something to "force companies to innovate".
It makes no difference. The law is blind to deeper intentions. Apple could, for all anyone knows, be pursuing these companies thinking that they are completely blameless and trying to protect themselves. You can go on all day about their "real" intentions, but if they have a legitimate case (so far they do) then that's all that the law can consider.
You might think you know the "real story", but it can't be proven one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Apple is trying to shut the companies down.
Of course. If these companies are in violation, and the law provides injunctions as a remedy, then what's the natural thing to do? Pursue these legal remedies.
Apple is not trying to shut down companies. Apple is trying to block the sale of products that they feel are in violation, and so far the courts agree. What else do you expect Apple to do?
If the non-sale of these products end up shutting down companies, then you need to take a serious look at how these companies are managed and wonder why they persisted in violating IP law. The company has no one to blame but themselves. Too bad they aren't diversified enough, maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
They pretty much HAVE to fight.
Or they can stop using Apple's IP. Or sure, they can fight. So what. They choose to fight it, that's their business. If Apple is in the right, why bother sympathizing with these companies?
Sorry, as a consumer, you might want some of their products. But that has nothing to do with the law. If the product you want gets axed due to legal decree, who are you going to blame? You can blame no one but the offending entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
The only thing that would protect Samsung (maybe) is going to windowsphone7. Not because it is free of any patent violations, but because Apple would get countersued with stuff it can't dismiss.
You don't know what Apple can be countersued with. For that matter neither do I. Apparently, and to some people's surprise, courts have already decided in Apple's favour on some things that lay people thought were impossible to enforce.
Samsung could possibly go to WP7. Which would also mean choosing a platform that consumers don't give a sweet damn about. WP7 is heading the way of WebOS. For the time being I'd avoid that platform because it might very well suffer the same fate as the Zune.
WP7 phones are already in stores (have been for almost a year) and MS has been steadily losing share with them. If Google gets into hot legal water with Android and manufacturers shy away from the platform (the Moto purchase will help in this) then WP7 might have a chance, though the strategy for it will have to be re-thought and re-evaluated entirely. Because for the time being there's a WebOS situation going on with WP7.
MS had their chance to make an incredible first impression and the whole thing fizzled. And competing with Apple in a segment where Apple has an overwhelming lead in mindshare is usually a losing game, unless you can radically shift your way of thinking to Apple's way of thinking. Most don't have what it takes to do that. You can't out-Apple Apple. You need about 30 years of Apple-like philosophy and values under your belt to achieve it. An ambitious and progressive start-up could do it. Not MS, though. Not under their current leadership. Forget it. You'll need a radical paradigm shift at MS. They aren't really set up for that.
Interesting how there are all these "common, functional, and obvious" ways of going about things that never seem to happen before Apple does it. In fact, there's typically a period right after Apple introduces a new product (iPod, iPhone, iPad, Air) when a fair number of tech pundits/Apple haters/competitors declare that the new design is stupid and wrong and will never amount to much. Sealed batteries, high prices, "insufficient" specs, walled gardens..... those never seem to strike a lot of people as common, functional, or obvious until Apple starts to have a lot of success, at which point the same people declare that nothing Apple has done is innovative, they just got to where everyone was "obviously" going a bit early.
Remember when the iPad was just a big iPod Touch? When it had a comically large bezel? When abandoning the stylus was a critical shortcoming? When a sealed battery made it practically disposable and terrible value for the money? When the lack of a full array of ports rendered it all but useless? And the glossy screen made it unusable? And just generally there was no point because no one needed a stupid big media tablet for "consumption"?
But when Samsung slavishly copies exactly those horrible mistakes, it's because those horrible mistakes are common, functional, and obvious. OK.
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
the UI for the iphone has remained fundamentally unchanged for 4 years. The ui changes hitting this year are things that were present in other platforms (android and webOS) previously.
But that's not the issue here. What Samsung is arguing is that certain designs (such as a slate for a tablet design) are obvious, and shouldn't be given to any one company. Just like the idea of a desk being supported on (at least) two sides that oppose one another is obvious.
I think Apple has a really strong case with Touchwiz, and the galaxyS lines. But they're going after ALL of samsung's android models (even those with stock) and then ignoring Bada which is touchwiz built on a different OS. if apple's concerned about stolen IP, why are they leaving Bada alone? why haven't they attacked HP yet?
the UI for the iphone has remained fundamentally unchanged for 4 years.
Which is precisely its genius. It works so well and is so well thought out that it remains the same UI on the #1 handset; the same UI that is a part of by far the dominant mobile OS in the market. And we're talking about a closed platform here - a "walled garden."
There's probably a good reason Apple's stuck with it. They aren't stupid.
It just works. Consumers seem to agree.
Measure twice, cut once. Apple seems to have done it right the first time, and it has a lot of staying power because it's evidently the only truly viable and usable mobile OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
The ui changes hitting this year are things that were present in other platforms (android and webOS) previously.
Didn't do too much for them, now did it? Especially in the tablet space. The competition needs to flood the market in order to achieve higher share.
Lots of cool things had been present in otherwise deficient and poorly-conceived products. I'm glad that someone can take them and make them meaningful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
But that's not the issue here. What Samsung is arguing is that certain designs (such as a slate for a tablet design) are obvious, and shouldn't be given to any one company. Just like the idea of a desk being supported on (at least) two sides that oppose one another is obvious.
It all depends who owns the IP. Seems Apple does, and it seems that under the IP laws that have existed all this time, that IP is valid.
And the whole desk analogy is way too simplistic to apply here.
It's funny how Apple keeps achieving first-mover status, backed by immense popularity thereafter, and the competition ends up crying about it. Why can't they do the same as Apple did? Seems all the big game-changers have an Apple logo on them . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
I think Apple has a really strong case with Touchwiz, and the galaxyS lines. But they're going after ALL of samsung's android models (even those with stock) and then ignoring Bada which is touchwiz built on a different OS. if apple's concerned about stolen IP, why are they leaving Bada alone?
No one says Apple can't pick their battles. Anyone can. You go to court against those that can hurt you unlawfully. You deal with those products that can hurt you unlawfully.
Then why aren't they "defending" themselves against Bada? against WebOS? against the playbook?
Well, the playbook is defunct and, oh, it didn't copy the look and feel of the iPad like the galaxy devices do. Are you simple? Or are you just deliberately trolling this thread?
I don't want to get involved in this protracted fight you seem to be having with everyone here today, but I don't think you have any evidence to support this statement at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Apple will SUE any competition that starts gaining share in their target market. ...
You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
This is DED paraphrasing the legal team. Pretty sure what they actually said is in legalese. It's impossible for DED to see anyone not from Cupertino as having a valid argument and he writes his "articles" as such.
When you have a community design, something that hinges on an "informed" user being confused between the two, changing the aspect ratio and comparing the "main screen" of the iphone to the "app screen" of an android device (which is rarely if ever, used in promotions or sales material) is dishonest. If Samsung is clearly copying (and I think Apple has an argument with Touchwiz) they shouldn't have to resort to warping pictures to exaggerate the effect.
I don't see any percentage in arguing with you so I'll just point out that while that might be your opinion, the facts speak otherwise.
It's also pretty clear from the framing of your own statements above that you have a severe bias if not against Apple per se, then against Daniel.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you have any thinking power at all you must see that it's kind of foolish for you to expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you start off with this diatribe against the bias of the author. You might as well start everything you say with "I'm really biased against the author of this article and everything he says but ..."
I don't want to get involved in this protracted fight you seem to be having with everyone here today, but I don't think you have any evidence to support this statement at all. You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
There isn't any proof that Apple only sues those who appear a little successful in competing with them. But the timing of the suits they filed might leave that impression with some who don't really understand what Apple is all about..
The Droid line from Motorola was the first smartphone to get serious comparisons to the iPhone as well as pretty good sales figures. Apple promptly sued them.
HTC was next to gain traction with quality devices that were favorably compared to Apple's product. Apple sued them. Then along came Samsung with devices even thinner than Apple able to produce . . .
You get the idea. Is there anyone else who can actually compete with Apple, or has even shown any potential to do so in the near future?
So IMO it's understandable why some people might get the mistaken impression they really are predatory and making prodigious use of the courts as tho they're a division of Apple to stifle competition.
There isn't any proof that Apple only sues those who appear a little successful in competing with them. But the timing of the suits they filed might leave that impression with some who don't really understand what Apple is all about..
The Droid line from Motorola was the first smartphone to get serious comparisons to the iPhone as well as pretty good sales figures. Apple promptly sued them.
Just a minute... Motorola sued Apple first... and then Apple sued Motorola shortly there after.
Well, the playbook is defunct and, oh, it didn't copy the look and feel of the iPad like the galaxy devices do. Are you simple? Or are you just deliberately trolling this thread?
Apple is suing over the 7inch Samsung tab, they're also suing over the Nexus S, the transform, the Gem, and countless other phones that also look nothing like the iphone (and a good chunk of them run stock android, not android)
Did you actually read the lawsuits, or do you just defend apple, no matter what?
I don't want to get involved in this protracted fight you seem to be having with everyone here today, but I don't think you have any evidence to support this statement at all. You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
They're suing to shut the other companies down. To deny imports and for excessive damages. They're not suing to get licenses, and they're not going after the worst vioations of their IP, but rather the companies that are giving them the most competition.
Or are you also going to ignore the fact that not every android phone runs touchwiz, and not every phone looks anywhere near an iphone.
Just a minute... Motorola sued Apple first... and then Apple sued Motorola shortly there after.
According to FOSSPatents' Florian Mueller, Motorola already knew Apple was preparing to sue them. Their suit was preemptive in the hope it would improve their chances of defending themselves.
I don't see any percentage in arguing with you so I'll just point out that while that might be your opinion, the facts speak otherwise.
It's also pretty clear from the framing of your own statements above that you have a severe bias if not against Apple per se, then against Daniel.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you have any thinking power at all you must see that it's kind of foolish for you to expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you start off with this diatribe against the bias of the author. You might as well start everything you say with "I'm really biased against the author of this article and everything he says but ..."
I mean WTF?
Why should anyone listen to you after that?
Please give me a SINGLE example of an article Daniel's posted here that hasn't been an attack against a competing operating system (or he doesn't take an unrelated article and make it this). you'll notice the site can go for a long time without a single article posted by him. And then when something like the Samsung issue happens, suddenly there are 10 posts where he does everything he can to villify whoever he sees as attacking Apple.
Of course I am biased against him. You know, like anyone rational is biased against Glenn Beck. Even if you consider yourself a conservative, you still can see why Beck's not the brightest bulb in the bunch, just like you can appreciate Apple, and even support them, but know that DED isn't the person you should be quoting.
And remember, they sued HTC first. The company that was making crazy amounts of money. Are you telling me that anyone would confuse a HTC Hero or Google Nexus One for an iPhone? And then samsung started making massive profits, and look at that, Apple sued.
Again, (since you missed it) I think Apple has a VALID point when it comes to touchwiz, and even the galaxy S lines of phones. but they're going after ALL samsung android products (and not all samsung touchwiz products)
So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.
Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.
Even some of the icons are similar in terms of design, layout, and even color. Does the icon for the "phone" app OBVIOUSLY have to be whitish handset tilted at that specific angle on a green background? What do you think?
Even some of the icons are similar in terms of design, layout, and even color. Does the icon for the "phone" app OBVIOUSLY have to be whitish handset tilted at that specific angle on a green background? What do you think?
Thompson
I think you're talking about something I'm not talking about
Comments
Samsung also complains that Apple seeks to prevent it from using "common, functional, obvious and otherwise unprotectable elements of design patents, trademarks and trade dress, rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung."
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
My favourite line from the article is
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
Yeah, before Apple releases their next iPhone, they wait and see what Samsung is coming out with, then Apple orders their engineers to copy it, down to the millimeter almost!
Message to Apple: Let it go...move on...you already have about 95% of the tablet market. Why are you fighting so much for the remaining 5%? Yeah, I know....you have every right to protect your inventions.....but jeez, maybe you should wait until there are real competitors out there so that the Feds don't regulate this market as a monopoly.
If Apple doesn't defend its' patents now, it is more difficult to get the courts to enforce the patents later.
If Apple doesn't defend its' patents now, it is more difficult to get the courts to enforce the patents later.
Then why aren't they "defending" themselves against Bada? against WebOS? against the playbook?
So are the post offices of East Texas also filled with Samsung's random letters?
Does Samsung have a department which sends their random letters out weekly, monthly or what?
The east districts could have filings. But the US market is different from the EU. for an injunction to go through it has to pass a 4 step process. the EU has one.
And if you think Samsung knew when Apple would file, please show me evidence of this (no, the timing doesn't count ) or ANYWHERE that shows Apple informed samsung of said filing.
Apple will SUE any competition that starts gaining share in their target market. Their patents are broad enough that they can do this.
Of course. If their patents give them a real legal chance in their estimation they will test the legal waters *every time.* They can ignore small fry, obviously. But they will naturally go after the big ones. Why? Simple. They don't think it's cool for someone with significant manufacturing/distribution capability, who Apple thinks is using their IP, to be allowed to sell the allegedly questionable product in an unfettered fashion.
So what do they do? Apply to the courts. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE CAN.
Further, if Apple does indeed have a case (and from what we've seen it looks like they do), then there is really nothing you can hold against them. If you were in Apple's position, you would do exactly the same thing. It's rather stupid in business to allow a competitor to get away with something at your expense. If you can afford to, you test your argument in the courts.
Simple.
They also ignore any companies that don't pose a huge risk (even ignoring samsung's own Bada)
Naturally. You go after those that can hurt you - again, under the assumption that they are using what is yours in an unlawful fashion.
Apple is just exercising their legal rights. Everyone else can do the same. Whoever comes out on top, comes out on top. That's the nature of the system.
because they are using the courts as a blunt weapon and not as something to "force companies to innovate".
It makes no difference. The law is blind to deeper intentions. Apple could, for all anyone knows, be pursuing these companies thinking that they are completely blameless and trying to protect themselves. You can go on all day about their "real" intentions, but if they have a legitimate case (so far they do) then that's all that the law can consider.
You might think you know the "real story", but it can't be proven one way or the other.
Apple is trying to shut the companies down.
Of course. If these companies are in violation, and the law provides injunctions as a remedy, then what's the natural thing to do? Pursue these legal remedies.
Apple is not trying to shut down companies. Apple is trying to block the sale of products that they feel are in violation, and so far the courts agree. What else do you expect Apple to do?
If the non-sale of these products end up shutting down companies, then you need to take a serious look at how these companies are managed and wonder why they persisted in violating IP law. The company has no one to blame but themselves. Too bad they aren't diversified enough, maybe?
They pretty much HAVE to fight.
Or they can stop using Apple's IP. Or sure, they can fight. So what. They choose to fight it, that's their business. If Apple is in the right, why bother sympathizing with these companies?
Sorry, as a consumer, you might want some of their products. But that has nothing to do with the law. If the product you want gets axed due to legal decree, who are you going to blame? You can blame no one but the offending entity.
The only thing that would protect Samsung (maybe) is going to windowsphone7. Not because it is free of any patent violations, but because Apple would get countersued with stuff it can't dismiss.
You don't know what Apple can be countersued with. For that matter neither do I. Apparently, and to some people's surprise, courts have already decided in Apple's favour on some things that lay people thought were impossible to enforce.
Samsung could possibly go to WP7. Which would also mean choosing a platform that consumers don't give a sweet damn about. WP7 is heading the way of WebOS. For the time being I'd avoid that platform because it might very well suffer the same fate as the Zune.
WP7 phones are already in stores (have been for almost a year) and MS has been steadily losing share with them. If Google gets into hot legal water with Android and manufacturers shy away from the platform (the Moto purchase will help in this) then WP7 might have a chance, though the strategy for it will have to be re-thought and re-evaluated entirely. Because for the time being there's a WebOS situation going on with WP7.
MS had their chance to make an incredible first impression and the whole thing fizzled. And competing with Apple in a segment where Apple has an overwhelming lead in mindshare is usually a losing game, unless you can radically shift your way of thinking to Apple's way of thinking. Most don't have what it takes to do that. You can't out-Apple Apple. You need about 30 years of Apple-like philosophy and values under your belt to achieve it. An ambitious and progressive start-up could do it. Not MS, though. Not under their current leadership. Forget it. You'll need a radical paradigm shift at MS. They aren't really set up for that.
Ballmer needs to GTFO.
Remember when the iPad was just a big iPod Touch? When it had a comically large bezel? When abandoning the stylus was a critical shortcoming? When a sealed battery made it practically disposable and terrible value for the money? When the lack of a full array of ports rendered it all but useless? And the glossy screen made it unusable? And just generally there was no point because no one needed a stupid big media tablet for "consumption"?
But when Samsung slavishly copies exactly those horrible mistakes, it's because those horrible mistakes are common, functional, and obvious. OK.
My favourite line from the article is
Because we all know that Apple is just so lazy and really doesn't put much effort into innovation.
the UI for the iphone has remained fundamentally unchanged for 4 years. The ui changes hitting this year are things that were present in other platforms (android and webOS) previously.
But that's not the issue here. What Samsung is arguing is that certain designs (such as a slate for a tablet design) are obvious, and shouldn't be given to any one company. Just like the idea of a desk being supported on (at least) two sides that oppose one another is obvious.
I think Apple has a really strong case with Touchwiz, and the galaxyS lines. But they're going after ALL of samsung's android models (even those with stock) and then ignoring Bada which is touchwiz built on a different OS. if apple's concerned about stolen IP, why are they leaving Bada alone? why haven't they attacked HP yet?
the UI for the iphone has remained fundamentally unchanged for 4 years.
Which is precisely its genius. It works so well and is so well thought out that it remains the same UI on the #1 handset; the same UI that is a part of by far the dominant mobile OS in the market. And we're talking about a closed platform here - a "walled garden."
There's probably a good reason Apple's stuck with it. They aren't stupid.
It just works. Consumers seem to agree.
Measure twice, cut once. Apple seems to have done it right the first time, and it has a lot of staying power because it's evidently the only truly viable and usable mobile OS.
The ui changes hitting this year are things that were present in other platforms (android and webOS) previously.
Didn't do too much for them, now did it? Especially in the tablet space. The competition needs to flood the market in order to achieve higher share.
Lots of cool things had been present in otherwise deficient and poorly-conceived products. I'm glad that someone can take them and make them meaningful.
But that's not the issue here. What Samsung is arguing is that certain designs (such as a slate for a tablet design) are obvious, and shouldn't be given to any one company. Just like the idea of a desk being supported on (at least) two sides that oppose one another is obvious.
It all depends who owns the IP. Seems Apple does, and it seems that under the IP laws that have existed all this time, that IP is valid.
And the whole desk analogy is way too simplistic to apply here.
It's funny how Apple keeps achieving first-mover status, backed by immense popularity thereafter, and the competition ends up crying about it. Why can't they do the same as Apple did? Seems all the big game-changers have an Apple logo on them . . .
I think Apple has a really strong case with Touchwiz, and the galaxyS lines. But they're going after ALL of samsung's android models (even those with stock) and then ignoring Bada which is touchwiz built on a different OS. if apple's concerned about stolen IP, why are they leaving Bada alone?
No one says Apple can't pick their battles. Anyone can. You go to court against those that can hurt you unlawfully. You deal with those products that can hurt you unlawfully.
This makes sense.
Then why aren't they "defending" themselves against Bada? against WebOS? against the playbook?
Well, the playbook is defunct and, oh, it didn't copy the look and feel of the iPad like the galaxy devices do. Are you simple? Or are you just deliberately trolling this thread?
Apple will SUE any competition that starts gaining share in their target market. ...
You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
This is DED paraphrasing the legal team. Pretty sure what they actually said is in legalese. It's impossible for DED to see anyone not from Cupertino as having a valid argument and he writes his "articles" as such.
When you have a community design, something that hinges on an "informed" user being confused between the two, changing the aspect ratio and comparing the "main screen" of the iphone to the "app screen" of an android device (which is rarely if ever, used in promotions or sales material) is dishonest. If Samsung is clearly copying (and I think Apple has an argument with Touchwiz) they shouldn't have to resort to warping pictures to exaggerate the effect.
I don't see any percentage in arguing with you so I'll just point out that while that might be your opinion, the facts speak otherwise.
It's also pretty clear from the framing of your own statements above that you have a severe bias if not against Apple per se, then against Daniel.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you have any thinking power at all you must see that it's kind of foolish for you to expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you start off with this diatribe against the bias of the author. You might as well start everything you say with "I'm really biased against the author of this article and everything he says but ..."
I mean WTF?
Why should anyone listen to you after that?
I don't want to get involved in this protracted fight you seem to be having with everyone here today, but I don't think you have any evidence to support this statement at all. You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
There isn't any proof that Apple only sues those who appear a little successful in competing with them. But the timing of the suits they filed might leave that impression with some who don't really understand what Apple is all about..
The Droid line from Motorola was the first smartphone to get serious comparisons to the iPhone as well as pretty good sales figures. Apple promptly sued them.
HTC was next to gain traction with quality devices that were favorably compared to Apple's product. Apple sued them. Then along came Samsung with devices even thinner than Apple able to produce . . .
You get the idea. Is there anyone else who can actually compete with Apple, or has even shown any potential to do so in the near future?
So IMO it's understandable why some people might get the mistaken impression they really are predatory and making prodigious use of the courts as tho they're a division of Apple to stifle competition.
There isn't any proof that Apple only sues those who appear a little successful in competing with them. But the timing of the suits they filed might leave that impression with some who don't really understand what Apple is all about..
The Droid line from Motorola was the first smartphone to get serious comparisons to the iPhone as well as pretty good sales figures. Apple promptly sued them.
Just a minute... Motorola sued Apple first... and then Apple sued Motorola shortly there after.
Well, the playbook is defunct and, oh, it didn't copy the look and feel of the iPad like the galaxy devices do. Are you simple? Or are you just deliberately trolling this thread?
Apple is suing over the 7inch Samsung tab, they're also suing over the Nexus S, the transform, the Gem, and countless other phones that also look nothing like the iphone (and a good chunk of them run stock android, not android)
Did you actually read the lawsuits, or do you just defend apple, no matter what?
I don't want to get involved in this protracted fight you seem to be having with everyone here today, but I don't think you have any evidence to support this statement at all. You make it sound like Apple is some predatory bastard here using the courts as a hammer against anyone that would dare to oppose them, instead of competing fairly on the basis of good design (which is what they actually do).
They're suing to shut the other companies down. To deny imports and for excessive damages. They're not suing to get licenses, and they're not going after the worst vioations of their IP, but rather the companies that are giving them the most competition.
Or are you also going to ignore the fact that not every android phone runs touchwiz, and not every phone looks anywhere near an iphone.
Just a minute... Motorola sued Apple first... and then Apple sued Motorola shortly there after.
According to FOSSPatents' Florian Mueller, Motorola already knew Apple was preparing to sue them. Their suit was preemptive in the hope it would improve their chances of defending themselves.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...not-other.html
I don't see any percentage in arguing with you so I'll just point out that while that might be your opinion, the facts speak otherwise.
It's also pretty clear from the framing of your own statements above that you have a severe bias if not against Apple per se, then against Daniel.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you have any thinking power at all you must see that it's kind of foolish for you to expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you start off with this diatribe against the bias of the author. You might as well start everything you say with "I'm really biased against the author of this article and everything he says but ..."
I mean WTF?
Why should anyone listen to you after that?
Please give me a SINGLE example of an article Daniel's posted here that hasn't been an attack against a competing operating system (or he doesn't take an unrelated article and make it this). you'll notice the site can go for a long time without a single article posted by him. And then when something like the Samsung issue happens, suddenly there are 10 posts where he does everything he can to villify whoever he sees as attacking Apple.
Of course I am biased against him. You know, like anyone rational is biased against Glenn Beck. Even if you consider yourself a conservative, you still can see why Beck's not the brightest bulb in the bunch, just like you can appreciate Apple, and even support them, but know that DED isn't the person you should be quoting.
And remember, they sued HTC first. The company that was making crazy amounts of money. Are you telling me that anyone would confuse a HTC Hero or Google Nexus One for an iPhone? And then samsung started making massive profits, and look at that, Apple sued.
Again, (since you missed it) I think Apple has a VALID point when it comes to touchwiz, and even the galaxy S lines of phones. but they're going after ALL samsung android products (and not all samsung touchwiz products)
So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.
Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.
Even some of the icons are similar in terms of design, layout, and even color. Does the icon for the "phone" app OBVIOUSLY have to be whitish handset tilted at that specific angle on a green background? What do you think?
Thompson
Even some of the icons are similar in terms of design, layout, and even color. Does the icon for the "phone" app OBVIOUSLY have to be whitish handset tilted at that specific angle on a green background? What do you think?
Thompson
I think you're talking about something I'm not talking about