Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.
If what you say is true, why would Samsung ignore a judge's order - not once, but twice - to avoid turning it over?
The answer, of course, is that Google uses an unusual definition of 'open'. They mean 'partially open, but we keep some of the code confidential and our licensees can do so, too'.
Furthermore, licensees can add their own proprietary code on top of Android, so having copies of Android would not give Apple all of Samsung's modifications.
The most important reason, however, is rules of evidence. If Apple were to use Google's code, they would have to establish (almost line by line) that the code was being used by Samsung. That would mean one of two things - either have Samsung's people testify after a lengthy evaluation of the code that it's theres (and even then there's room for error) or simply get the code from Samsung to avoid any such legal difficulties.
2. The sun was in their eyes?
3. Thought the judge was talking to the OTHER Samsung?
4. Their car broke down?
5. When the deadline was given they thought they were referring to the Seoul timezone?
6. Oh, the judge meant THIS year?
7. It's in their other pair of pants?
8. Sorry. No understand English!
9. Their legal team was too busy designing the S III: http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-is-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/
This post is even better if you add an imaginary drumroll and cymbal crash!
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
An appeal (what they should have filed) is asking the court to reconsider.
Simply ignoring the court order (to turn stuff over) is stupid.
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
and there would be fines sanctioned
this is just standard form. the court tells you to do something, you file an appeal. it is rejected and you don't do what you were told then you are in contempt and you pay for it. figuratively and/or literally
@FreeRange - Good luck arresting Korean citizens, in Korea.
You do realize that we've done exactly that but with British citizens in the UK. Just a matter of declaring them terrorists and extraditing. Do we have extradition treaties with S. Korea?
Better yet, let's extradite Samsung, after all, corporations are people, are they not?.
If people would do the right thing to begin with these lawsuits would never happen. Buy products from the people that create (invent) them. They are the ones who incur the r&d expense and take all the risk that people will buy what they create. A copy is a copy. People should not reward counterfeiters. More truly new innovation would be the result. How much cheaper would an ipad or iphone be if Apple didn't have to include the cost of defending it's inventions in the price? Unfortunately people do not always shop with a conscience. Apple may need to start producing products of the "self destructing if tampered with" nature - mission impossible style. Where would that leave the competition? Support the people who invent and create what you want to purchase and they will continue to innovate in response. Support the copy cats and they will continue to steal. Vote with your wallet.
Is there a major difference in Apple adding to and improving what Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry and others created and Samsung, Motorola, HTC and Nokia adding to and improving on what Apple created? None of these guys, Apple included, were capable of inventing their products in a vacuum. They all need and rely on each others inventions and creativity to be successful.
Is there a major difference in Apple adding to and improving what Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry and others created and Samsung, Motorola, HTC and Nokia adding to and improving on what Apple created? None of these guys, Apple included, were capable of inventing their products in a vacuum. They all need and rely on each others inventions and creativity to be successful.
Of course there's a difference.
Apple often builds on open source stuff (and gives back to open source). The authors intend for that to happen.
Apple sometimes uses concepts that others have created and then modifies the concept for its own use. Again, as long as this isn't a slavish copy or a patented technology, it's understood that people will use good ideas that others created.
In some cases (such as Apple's arrangement with Xerox), Apple negotiates a deal to gain access to technologies.
Similarly, when you invent something, patent it, and then release it as FRAND, you are giving permission for others to use it under FRAND terms. You create an obligation for yourself to treat everyone fairly and reasonably.
What the companies you are talking about have done is quite different. Samsung's Tab was so similar to the iPad that even Samsung's attorney couldn't tell the difference. Look at the accessories that Samsung sells. They really couldn't come up with their own design for a charger? In addition, many of the things in products from the companies that you cited infringe on Apple's patents which were NOT released to the industry as FRAND.
Surely even an Apple-hating shill can comprehend the difference.
Evolution does take a gene pool. It just seems the family (apple) tree is becoming a little wreath shaped. Need some new seeds from different plants.
Yeah, Apple hasn't done anything new. The iPhone 4 years ago. The iPad 2 years ago. Siri. The Ultrabook (which their competition was doing such a bad job of copying that Intel had to subsidize them).
There are some versions of Android "available to anyone" and then there are other versions protected by "trade secrets", which is what Google claimed when asked to produce Nexus code in one of the Motorola trials.
Doing it without permission would probably come under illegally obtaining evidence.
Android 4.0 code is open source and published. Google is saying that they (or perhaps Samsung?) enhanced/fine-tuned the software for use with the Nexus which would make that a trade secret. Android is open source (depending on who's definition you use), but the enhancements or add-ons for particular devices might not be.
Android 4.0 code is open source and published. Google is saying that they (or perhaps Samsung?) enhanced/fine-tuned the software for use with the Nexus which would make that a trade secret. Android is open source (depending on who's definition you use), but the enhancements or add-ons for particular devices might not be.
In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).
In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).
Pretty much correct, tho it was only the 3.0 Honeycomb tablet-specific build that was significantly delayed as far as I know. Google did eventually publish it a few months ago once 4.x was released. I suspect that had more to do with Amazon's Fire, with Google delaying the Honeycomb build release as much as possible to force them into using the older Gingerbread code for their forked version..
What reasons other than "they obviously stole it" could there be for Samsung to have not been able to get this in on time? They had months.
I'm guessing there are pretty strict requirements on who can view and study it once it's turned over. It's not like it just becomes public domain. Anyway withholding it seems pointless to me. What could they possibly gain from just postponing such a thing?
Comments
If what you say is true, why would Samsung ignore a judge's order - not once, but twice - to avoid turning it over?
The answer, of course, is that Google uses an unusual definition of 'open'. They mean 'partially open, but we keep some of the code confidential and our licensees can do so, too'.
Furthermore, licensees can add their own proprietary code on top of Android, so having copies of Android would not give Apple all of Samsung's modifications.
The most important reason, however, is rules of evidence. If Apple were to use Google's code, they would have to establish (almost line by line) that the code was being used by Samsung. That would mean one of two things - either have Samsung's people testify after a lengthy evaluation of the code that it's theres (and even then there's room for error) or simply get the code from Samsung to avoid any such legal difficulties.
This post is even better if you add an imaginary drumroll and cymbal crash!
I'll end with number 10.
They were afraid of pulling out their tiny source code in public in case everybody laughed at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
An appeal (what they should have filed) is asking the court to reconsider.
Simply ignoring the court order (to turn stuff over) is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
and there would be fines sanctioned
this is just standard form. the court tells you to do something, you file an appeal. it is rejected and you don't do what you were told then you are in contempt and you pay for it. figuratively and/or literally
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
2. The sun was in their eyes?
3. Thought the judge was talking to the OTHER Samsung?
4. Their car broke down?
5. When the deadline was given they thought they were referring to the Seoul timezone?
6. Oh, the judge meant THIS year?
7. It's in their other pair of pants?
8. Sorry. No understand English!
9. Their legal team was too busy designing the S III:
http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-is-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/
10. Why bothers? the world will end later this year anyway.
If I had known you were granting wishes, I'd have wished for more. At least that's what my wife tells me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
If I had known you were granting wishes, I'd have wished for more. At least that's what my wife tells me.
When we die, it will always be our economies that we'll regret, not our extravagances.
Gotta take the judge seriously. When he says "Do X," he does not mean "if you feel like it."
You do realize that we've done exactly that but with British citizens in the UK. Just a matter of declaring them terrorists and extraditing. Do we have extradition treaties with S. Korea?
Better yet, let's extradite Samsung, after all, corporations are people, are they not?.
If people would do the right thing to begin with these lawsuits would never happen. Buy products from the people that create (invent) them. They are the ones who incur the r&d expense and take all the risk that people will buy what they create. A copy is a copy. People should not reward counterfeiters. More truly new innovation would be the result. How much cheaper would an ipad or iphone be if Apple didn't have to include the cost of defending it's inventions in the price? Unfortunately people do not always shop with a conscience. Apple may need to start producing products of the "self destructing if tampered with" nature - mission impossible style. Where would that leave the competition? Support the people who invent and create what you want to purchase and they will continue to innovate in response. Support the copy cats and they will continue to steal. Vote with your wallet.
Is there a major difference in Apple adding to and improving what Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry and others created and Samsung, Motorola, HTC and Nokia adding to and improving on what Apple created? None of these guys, Apple included, were capable of inventing their products in a vacuum. They all need and rely on each others inventions and creativity to be successful.
Evolution does take a gene pool. It just seems the family (apple) tree is becoming a little wreath shaped. Need some new seeds from different plants.
Of course there's a difference.
Apple often builds on open source stuff (and gives back to open source). The authors intend for that to happen.
Apple sometimes uses concepts that others have created and then modifies the concept for its own use. Again, as long as this isn't a slavish copy or a patented technology, it's understood that people will use good ideas that others created.
In some cases (such as Apple's arrangement with Xerox), Apple negotiates a deal to gain access to technologies.
Similarly, when you invent something, patent it, and then release it as FRAND, you are giving permission for others to use it under FRAND terms. You create an obligation for yourself to treat everyone fairly and reasonably.
What the companies you are talking about have done is quite different. Samsung's Tab was so similar to the iPad that even Samsung's attorney couldn't tell the difference. Look at the accessories that Samsung sells. They really couldn't come up with their own design for a charger? In addition, many of the things in products from the companies that you cited infringe on Apple's patents which were NOT released to the industry as FRAND.
Surely even an Apple-hating shill can comprehend the difference.
Yeah, Apple hasn't done anything new. The iPhone 4 years ago. The iPad 2 years ago. Siri. The Ultrabook (which their competition was doing such a bad job of copying that Intel had to subsidize them).
/s
how can " open source" have trade secrets?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
how can " open source" have trade secrets?...
Android 4.0 code is open source and published. Google is saying that they (or perhaps Samsung?) enhanced/fine-tuned the software for use with the Nexus which would make that a trade secret. Android is open source (depending on who's definition you use), but the enhancements or add-ons for particular devices might not be.
In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In addition, Google has released some versions of Android for which they did not make the source code available for a long time (maybe not at all, but I'm not sure about that).
Pretty much correct, tho it was only the 3.0 Honeycomb tablet-specific build that was significantly delayed as far as I know. Google did eventually publish it a few months ago once 4.x was released. I suspect that had more to do with Amazon's Fire, with Google delaying the Honeycomb build release as much as possible to force them into using the older Gingerbread code for their forked version..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay, let's think.
What reasons other than "they obviously stole it" could there be for Samsung to have not been able to get this in on time? They had months.
I'm guessing there are pretty strict requirements on who can view and study it once it's turned over. It's not like it just becomes public domain. Anyway withholding it seems pointless to me. What could they possibly gain from just postponing such a thing?