And seemingly you know and understand much less than you think. Before Apple contracted Samsung to produce touch screens for the iPhone and iPad, there was no market - it didn't exist..
There have been touch screens for many years albeit with a stylus. I had a Palm Pilot and an Archos tablet in the 1990s. The Palm Pilot and other PDAs from Psion and HP were a roaring success in the 1990s. Apple may have failed with the Newton but others succeeded. There were many thousands of apps available to download for the Palm way before iTunes was ever conceived. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if Steve got the idea for the AppStore from that period. That's how life works you see. People imitate what they see around them. Companies see what's works and they follow. It happens in every industry sector around the world. The Patent system was originally intended to allow people to protect their inventions. I don't see how the iPad is an "invention" in that sense given that other tablets existed before the iPad. I don't expect you to agree with me, the iSheep on here seldom do agree with me.
There is also honour, reputation and integrity as well. That's something Japanese and Korean companies consider to very important.
Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.
This is utterly hilarious. Where was this honour and integrity when they made their money stealing Apple's designs right down to the box the product came in? Slavish copying from Far Eastern companies has been going on for too long and it has damaged the economies of all the Western countries who make the stuff that is being stolen. It has to stop. Samsung are just being slow to get the message that they will no longer be allowed to do this going forward.
That's it? They've had anemic sales, but Apple could easily get 10x that.
I doubt it'll go that high. We'll see if any of those patents are invalidated. On the trade dress issue, I'm curious how they came up with $24/device. Really you have no idea if Apple will see anything. You might see a couple patents invalidated. The actual amount awarded based on trade dress (assuming they accept that) could be much less. Samsung could appeal that. These threads are likely to be populated by investment zombies that hope to see Apple's share price rise due to collection of damages. I kind of doubt it. Any kind of final settlement could still be way way out.
This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will most certainly be much lesser.
It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part.
This isn't about the money. They don't want Samsung using their nonSEP IP and the restrictions will be that they can't use them for the most part. THAT is what they want the power to do. The money is to sting Samsung a little. By basically the profits and only the profits from the violations, Apple gets the money that Samsung made without seeming too douchy
Apple only buys it's components from Samsung because they presumably are the best and they can't source the same quality elsewhere. Let's see how well the iPad does with second rate screens from LG or whoever.
There are already non Samsung parts in Apple's stuff. In particular the screens. And LG is one of the suppliers.
Apple has been abusing the broken patent system, and I do not appreciate Apple being bully and wasting money and energy in suing less talented competion.
Apple is no more abusing the system than all the folks that are suing Apple for patent violations.
And Apple is no more required to hand over all their innovations to the world for its open and free use than they are to solve world hunger, end unemployment or cure cancer. Where something is part of a standard Apple plays by those rules. But when it is not, they have every right to keep it for themselves for the term of the patent. That is the core right that the patent system was founded on as was a company's right to tell those cheap, lazy, less talented companies they have to do things for themselves and not just copy everyone else.
Apple's method for calculating their IP value vs Samsungs FRAND IP value is highly distorted. Without Samsungs IP for UMTS Apple is dead in the water on 3G technology and their devices go no where. As for their high valuation for trade dress, well that is more hot air hype.
Which is why that IP is under FRAND to avoid distorted prices. You can bet that Apple is very aware of how much other companies are paying and the value is based on that pricing and the 'non discriminatory' part of the FRAND rules.
Whereas the non SEP IP that Apple holds can be valued at whatever they want to value it at because there are no rules. They are valuing it at a level to basically take any profit that Samsung made by copying. Which they don't have to do, they could value it at the retail amount of the phone. But since the bulk of that isn't profit they would come off at major jerks. and not all press is good press despite what some folks try to sell you
Agreed. Even Microsoft who has often been accused of "starting the copy machines when Apple releases a new product" has taken the time to design their own fairly unique smart phone. I don't care for the tiles, the shape is different and seems different than anything else I have seen. That said I wouldn't own one but at least they used their own stuff.
I need to stop reading this site, otherwise I will start hating Apple.
$2 for tap to zoom per device? This is just ridiculous.
I know you guys like to talk about how Apple is always innovating. But that's bullshit. Their innovations are like "double the screen resolution" or "make the device thinner". This is the kind of innovations we have seen in the last few years. So what else could they do other than to use their stupid patents against their competitors?
I don't really feel good about being an Apple user right know.
If you are somehow implying that that doubling the screen resolution (actually more than double), and being able to provide enough of them for the mass market, and also making the device thinner, while maintaining industry leading run times, are trivial devices then you truly do not have a clue of what it takes to make something like your examples happen.
"What warning? We never got a letter?" (quietly pushes paper shredder under desk with foot)
Indulge me one cross-post. The letter Samsung should write to Apple:
We, Samsung, acting as patsies for our overlords Google, shamelessly ripped off a ton of stuff from Apple, and we are not sorry, because we are scumbag ripoff merchants with no ethics or respect for the rule of law.
We also contemptuously flooded as many legal systems around the world with as much nonsense as we can and destroyed key evidence... because we have no regard whatsoever for any standards expected of us as a major international corporation.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac
And seemingly you know and understand much less than you think. Before Apple contracted Samsung to produce touch screens for the iPhone and iPad, there was no market - it didn't exist..
There have been touch screens for many years albeit with a stylus. I had a Palm Pilot and an Archos tablet in the 1990s. The Palm Pilot and other PDAs from Psion and HP were a roaring success in the 1990s. Apple may have failed with the Newton but others succeeded. There were many thousands of apps available to download for the Palm way before iTunes was ever conceived. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if Steve got the idea for the AppStore from that period. That's how life works you see. People imitate what they see around them. Companies see what's works and they follow. It happens in every industry sector around the world. The Patent system was originally intended to allow people to protect their inventions. I don't see how the iPad is an "invention" in that sense given that other tablets existed before the iPad. I don't expect you to agree with me, the iSheep on here seldom do agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
There is also honour, reputation and integrity as well. That's something Japanese and Korean companies consider to very important.
Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.
This is utterly hilarious. Where was this honour and integrity when they made their money stealing Apple's designs right down to the box the product came in? Slavish copying from Far Eastern companies has been going on for too long and it has damaged the economies of all the Western countries who make the stuff that is being stolen. It has to stop. Samsung are just being slow to get the message that they will no longer be allowed to do this going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's it? They've had anemic sales, but Apple could easily get 10x that.
I doubt it'll go that high. We'll see if any of those patents are invalidated. On the trade dress issue, I'm curious how they came up with $24/device. Really you have no idea if Apple will see anything. You might see a couple patents invalidated. The actual amount awarded based on trade dress (assuming they accept that) could be much less. Samsung could appeal that. These threads are likely to be populated by investment zombies that hope to see Apple's share price rise due to collection of damages. I kind of doubt it. Any kind of final settlement could still be way way out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit
This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will most certainly be much lesser.
It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part.
This isn't about the money. They don't want Samsung using their nonSEP IP and the restrictions will be that they can't use them for the most part. THAT is what they want the power to do. The money is to sting Samsung a little. By basically the profits and only the profits from the violations, Apple gets the money that Samsung made without seeming too douchy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Apple only buys it's components from Samsung because they presumably are the best and they can't source the same quality elsewhere. Let's see how well the iPad does with second rate screens from LG or whoever.
There are already non Samsung parts in Apple's stuff. In particular the screens. And LG is one of the suppliers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardkim
Apple has been abusing the broken patent system, and I do not appreciate Apple being bully and wasting money and energy in suing less talented competion.
Apple is no more abusing the system than all the folks that are suing Apple for patent violations.
And Apple is no more required to hand over all their innovations to the world for its open and free use than they are to solve world hunger, end unemployment or cure cancer. Where something is part of a standard Apple plays by those rules. But when it is not, they have every right to keep it for themselves for the term of the patent. That is the core right that the patent system was founded on as was a company's right to tell those cheap, lazy, less talented companies they have to do things for themselves and not just copy everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Apple's method for calculating their IP value vs Samsungs FRAND IP value is highly distorted. Without Samsungs IP for UMTS Apple is dead in the water on 3G technology and their devices go no where. As for their high valuation for trade dress, well that is more hot air hype.
Which is why that IP is under FRAND to avoid distorted prices. You can bet that Apple is very aware of how much other companies are paying and the value is based on that pricing and the 'non discriminatory' part of the FRAND rules.
Whereas the non SEP IP that Apple holds can be valued at whatever they want to value it at because there are no rules. They are valuing it at a level to basically take any profit that Samsung made by copying. Which they don't have to do, they could value it at the retail amount of the phone. But since the bulk of that isn't profit they would come off at major jerks. and not all press is good press despite what some folks try to sell you
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/samsung-faces-credibility-problem-with.html
Samsung was warned about destruction of evidence in an earlier case, but apparently didn't learn anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
Please, lets be grown up here.
Apple has the right to protect its creations.
It´s easy to create, Just DO your work.
Microsoft is doing it.
Why Samsung wouldNOT?
Agreed. Even Microsoft who has often been accused of "starting the copy machines when Apple releases a new product" has taken the time to design their own fairly unique smart phone. I don't care for the tiles, the shape is different and seems different than anything else I have seen. That said I wouldn't own one but at least they used their own stuff.
"What warning? We never got a letter?" (quietly pushes paper shredder under desk with foot)
Quote:
Originally Posted by xmiku
I need to stop reading this site, otherwise I will start hating Apple.
$2 for tap to zoom per device? This is just ridiculous.
I know you guys like to talk about how Apple is always innovating. But that's bullshit. Their innovations are like "double the screen resolution" or "make the device thinner". This is the kind of innovations we have seen in the last few years. So what else could they do other than to use their stupid patents against their competitors?
I don't really feel good about being an Apple user right know.
If you are somehow implying that that doubling the screen resolution (actually more than double), and being able to provide enough of them for the mass market, and also making the device thinner, while maintaining industry leading run times, are trivial devices then you truly do not have a clue of what it takes to make something like your examples happen.
Indulge me one cross-post. The letter Samsung should write to Apple:
We, Samsung, acting as patsies for our overlords Google, shamelessly ripped off a ton of stuff from Apple, and we are not sorry, because we are scumbag ripoff merchants with no ethics or respect for the rule of law.
We also contemptuously flooded as many legal systems around the world with as much nonsense as we can and destroyed key evidence... because we have no regard whatsoever for any standards expected of us as a major international corporation.
That about sums it up, no?