i thought ford went bankrupty before a govt. bailout...so that's all roses...and im sure ford would have done much better if people did just copy there lame designs...samsung def ripped off apple and deserve to be reprimanded for it...maybe samsung should put money into new designs and not new lawyers...
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
Firstly, cars have been around quite a long time and its patients have expired. Plus, there are several ways to design a phone or tablet, however, Samsung wants to imitate a successful product!
I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly.
Totally...
I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.
The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.
In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.
With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.
Apple has plenty of other markets to distribute its supply constrained products. It can wait on Korea, if need be. In the mean time, Samsung will alienate the Apple fans. A black market will emerge to fill the demand, hurting the Korea resellers.
Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
Other than the identical hardware claim (they're quite different really), I generally agree with your post. Samsung went out of their way to learn lessons from Apple's products. Now whether Apple is going after them because they imitated the teacher too much, or instead are the biggest competitive threat to Apple's devices is less certain IMHO. Perhaps a bit of both. So far Apple has only gone after those who have seen success against them, Motorola (Droids), HTC (Thunderbolt) and Samsung.
This is the only way they make profits is but finding cracks in apples designs so they can have a slice of the profit. Apple doesnt nearly sue as much as other phone companys sue apple.
Sorry for the language... peace.... i felt the need to pitch in my 2 cents lol
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
if you patented the process of vulcanizing rubber to make car tires - and someone else started using a heat treatment process to improve the durability of car tires - then yes you would most likely sue the maker of the tire - but would you sue every company or customer who used the finished product?
And even if it is a given then it is not possible to make a conveyance with rolling tires that do not use some sort of heat treating process on those tires - does that necessarily mean that every tire maker out there has copied your technology?
there are all sort of questions about just what can and should be covered by a patent and how literal or strict should that patent be interpreted.
personally I don't think it should be possible to patent general ideas - but only specific implementations. just consider the mouse trap - how many 100s (or is it 1000s) of mouse capturing devices have been patented - so clear the idea of a mechanical device used to detain, capture, or kill a small rodent by itself cannot be patented.
or even the lightbulb - the original patent that helped establish a dominant light fixture was not on the bulb itself but the screw in base of the bulb so that a failed bulb could be easily replaced - an invention that is still used in the majority of light fixtures 100 years after it was invented. so again the idea of a socketized replaceable lighting device is not patented but rather the particular size and shape and method (screw) by which the bulb and socket are mated is what was patented.
Um... this is already how patents work. You patent a particular way of doing something and then no one else can do it the same way... but are free to devise a different way to solve the same problem.
Yes, the screw in light bulb socket was patented. So was the competing bayonet socket. Two solutions to the same problem. Two separate patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
personally I don't think it should be possible to patent general ideas - but only specific implementations. just consider the mouse trap - how many 100s (or is it 1000s) of mouse capturing devices have been patented - so clear the idea of a mechanical device used to detain, capture, or kill a small rodent by itself cannot be patented.
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
Agree 100% great point! Enough already with the lawsuits!
Comments
Totally...
i thought ford went bankrupty before a govt. bailout...so that's all roses...and im sure ford would have done much better if people did just copy there lame designs...samsung def ripped off apple and deserve to be reprimanded for it...maybe samsung should put money into new designs and not new lawyers...
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
Firstly, cars have been around quite a long time and its patients have expired. Plus, there are several ways to design a phone or tablet, however, Samsung wants to imitate a successful product!
왜 유럽에서 빰맞고 한국에서 개드립이야- 뭐 하자는거야 이거? 유럽가서 소송걸어야지 왜 한국에서 까부는거야?
맞고 한 하자는거서 어야지 왜?
유럽에? 국에서 개드.국에서 이야- 뭐,소송걸!! 고 한 하자,부는,서 까부? 야 이거? 유럽가, 한국에는,거야? 는,서 까부?
왜 서 빰,지 왜지 왜;개드!! 립, 걸!! 고 한 !! ? 야 이거? ;p
We will then see the mother of all black-markets right in samdungs homeland.
Is Apple going to stop using Samsung LCD screens on the iPad and the iPhone?
They already have, LG is back up to speed.
TSMC is getting ready to make Apple's custom processors.
I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly.
Totally...
I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.
The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.
In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.
With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.
Samsung would win any litigation that is held in South Korea. This would at least save Samsung "face" when they loose all impartial litigations.
Kinda reminds me of the Soccer World Cup that was co-hosted there... There was this allegedly rigged match...
Samsung would win any litigation that is held in South Korea. This would at least save Samsung "face" when they loose all impartial litigations.
The peeps would be pissed. All the girl bands who do the record execs use iPhones.
Whatever it is, they better not affect sales in the US.
Are you going to get medieval on their asses?
Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
Other than the identical hardware claim (they're quite different really), I generally agree with your post. Samsung went out of their way to learn lessons from Apple's products. Now whether Apple is going after them because they imitated the teacher too much, or instead are the biggest competitive threat to Apple's devices is less certain IMHO. Perhaps a bit of both. So far Apple has only gone after those who have seen success against them, Motorola (Droids), HTC (Thunderbolt) and Samsung.
왜 유럽에서 빰맞고 한국에서 개드립이야- 뭐 하자는거야 이거? 유럽가서 소송걸어야지 왜 한국에서 까부는거야?
According to translate.google.com:
Why Europe's ppammatgo gaedeuripyiya in Korea - are you doing this? Why go to Europe, I'm calling the lawsuit in South Korea's skittish?
Well, Google isn't perfect either...
Samsung need to F**K OFF
This is the only way they make profits is but finding cracks in apples designs so they can have a slice of the profit. Apple doesnt nearly sue as much as other phone companys sue apple.
Sorry for the language... peace.... i felt the need to pitch in my 2 cents lol
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
if you patented the process of vulcanizing rubber to make car tires - and someone else started using a heat treatment process to improve the durability of car tires - then yes you would most likely sue the maker of the tire - but would you sue every company or customer who used the finished product?
And even if it is a given then it is not possible to make a conveyance with rolling tires that do not use some sort of heat treating process on those tires - does that necessarily mean that every tire maker out there has copied your technology?
there are all sort of questions about just what can and should be covered by a patent and how literal or strict should that patent be interpreted.
personally I don't think it should be possible to patent general ideas - but only specific implementations. just consider the mouse trap - how many 100s (or is it 1000s) of mouse capturing devices have been patented - so clear the idea of a mechanical device used to detain, capture, or kill a small rodent by itself cannot be patented.
or even the lightbulb - the original patent that helped establish a dominant light fixture was not on the bulb itself but the screw in base of the bulb so that a failed bulb could be easily replaced - an invention that is still used in the majority of light fixtures 100 years after it was invented. so again the idea of a socketized replaceable lighting device is not patented but rather the particular size and shape and method (screw) by which the bulb and socket are mated is what was patented.
Yes, the screw in light bulb socket was patented. So was the competing bayonet socket. Two solutions to the same problem. Two separate patents.
personally I don't think it should be possible to patent general ideas - but only specific implementations. just consider the mouse trap - how many 100s (or is it 1000s) of mouse capturing devices have been patented - so clear the idea of a mechanical device used to detain, capture, or kill a small rodent by itself cannot be patented.
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
Agree 100% great point! Enough already with the lawsuits!