I guess I still have no idea what that means: what 'game' is Apple playing that Samsung is trying to emulate?
PS: Not at all trying to be obtuse or clever.
It's just a turn of phrase to suggesting that one can learn to be better than their opponent by studying their philosophies and tactics.. but that's too verbose. So, to restate, no one is begrudging Samsung for learning from Apple's philosophies and tactics, then using them to out maneuver them in the market.
This is clearly a case of Contempt of Court. You can go to prison for that - indefinitely. Someone should too, Samsung have been playing this case (and others) in the media to poison the public against Apple and for Samsung. I hope the Judge smacks them down - hard.
Samsung should be made to build a giant prison (at their expense) around their headquarters in South Korea. It will be staffed with Apple guards (again at Samsung's expense), the mess hall will only serve apple-based dishes, and the warden is Scott Forstall.
It's just a turn of phrase to suggesting that one can learn to be better than their opponent by studying their philosophies and tactics.. but that's too verbose. So, to restate, no one is begrudging Samsung for learning from Apple's philosophies and tactics, then using them to out maneuver them in the market.
Understood, but which Apple philosophies and tactics involve violating direct court orders?
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"</span>
What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.
And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.
In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?
The difference, of course, is that Apple pays for the stuff it gets from Samsung (or will have to pay when they finally reach an agreement or get a court order for the FRAND license rates).
Samsung, OTOH, seems to think that they can copy without compensation.
This is clearly a case of Contempt of Court. You can go to prison for that - indefinitely. Someone should too, Samsung have been playing this case (and others) in the media to poison the public against Apple and for Samsung. I hope the Judge smacks them down - hard.
Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really. What would be worse for Samsung is if the judge advises the jury about what went on, and instructs them to consider this behaviour as part of their deliberations.
The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural. This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."
The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding. It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff. It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.
Samsung was dressed down in court on Tuesday after the company leaked evidence excluded from the proceedings to media outlets and issued an out-of-court statement saying the exhibits "would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."
The comment refers to the exclusion of a deposition taken from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori which outlined a conversation he had with the company's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive over what an iPhone would look like if it were made by Sony, reports PC Magazine.
"The Judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone," Samsung said in a statement. "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence."
I don't get how the quote from Shin Nishibori being excluded prevents Samsung from showing their internal designs that led to the F700 and other phones??? This quote from Shin does nothing (imho) to establish beyond doubt that Samsung didn't copy. Am I missing something or is there a disconnect there?
Quote:
While Apple argued the iPhone "changed phones forever" during its opening statement, the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
Car manufacturers use parts from many different companies other than their own, but if another auto manufacturer made a car that looked nearly identical to theirs, they would take them to court. I'm not sure if they're trying to argue that because they make a number of the internal components that they should be allowed to copy? Or that they're more innovative (which really has nothing to do with the case)? Or that design shouldn't be protected? Their response just doesn't seem on target at addressing the complaint.
Understood, but which Apple philosophies and tactics involve violating direct court orders?
I'm not sure how that relates to my comment as it doesn't seem germane to the conversation. To restate — since it appears my comment was written too poorly — I am agreeing with your initial assessment and that we all know where Samsung got its inspiration from, and that's fine, but the problem comes from violating IP instead of using that inspiration to create your own IP.
Samsung's utterly lame attempted sophistry here is truly pathetic.
even more pathetic, tho, are the various blogs and "journalists" who are picking this Samsung BS up as if it were for real. hello, Wired? talk about media whores ...
it will be very interesting to see how the Judge reacts. to maintain control of the proceedings she needs to slam Samsung hard. at least a $1 million sanction, plus mandatory formal retraction.
Samsung is accused of copying Apple's design and violating Apple's patents. The issue of where Apple got the idea is totally irrelevant. Either Samsung is guilty or they're not - regardless of the source of Apple's inspiration.
And what's with these guys? One court tells them to stop destroying evidence before a case - yet they do it anyway in the Apple case.
Now, a judge tells them not to release information and they do it anyway.
Do they really think they're above the law?
They obviously think they are above the law, otherwise they wouldn't have so blatantly copied the iPhone and iPad down to the charger, packaging and packaging design. Hopefully they get hammered, and then next onto Google... the dynamic evil duo!
Because they certainly behave like it by twisting and manipulating the rules to the very fringes of legality at times.
Either way... Hopefully this will put and end to all of this seemingly anti-competitive nonsense.
Bullshit! The only anti-competitive behavior comes from Samsung meticulously copying every single aspect of the iPhone and iPad instead of creating their own innovative solutions.
it will be very interesting to see how the Judge reacts. to maintain control of the proceedings she needs to slam Samsung hard. at least a $1 million sanction, plus mandatory formal retraction.
Ooh… legally force Samsung to advertise on their website, "we shouldn't have tried to go over the judge's head".
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Bullshit! The only anti-competitive behavior comes from Samsung meticulously copying every single aspect of the iPhone and iPad instead of creating their own innovative solutions.
Ooh, and here they come to tell you that not "every single aspect" was copied.
How can Samsung argue Apple copied Sony by internal commissioning an original design with Apples internal staff to create a phone concept that was like nothing Sony ever made?
Not quite. Its more like mazda throwing a Ford engine, transmission and Ecu into a car and calling it theirs. Raw material vs Engineered Microcontrollers, circuits. Big difference.
Nice try but you couldn't be more wrong - steel is a commodity, just like the parts that Apple gets from Samsung. These are basic commodity components that Apple could source from other companies just as well - they are not unique to Samsung. And its important to point out that even though Apple gets the primary CPU from Samsung, Samsung manufactures it custom for Apple based on Apple's own design and technology.
Not quite. Its more like mazda throwing a Ford engine, transmission and Ecu into a car and calling it theirs. Raw material vs Engineered Microcontrollers, circuits. Big difference.
Fair enough, and I get your point (even though Mazda is part of the Ford Motor Company, so the analogy doesn't fit exactly). But you are right, not a raw material.
Not quite. Its more like mazda throwing a Ford engine, transmission and Ecu into a car and calling it theirs. Raw material vs Engineered Microcontrollers, circuits. Big difference.
Sammy uses a lot of their own components and their phones still suck.
Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really. What would be worse for Samsung is if the judge advises the jury about what went on, and instructs them to consider this behaviour as part of their deliberations.
The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural. This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."
The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding. It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff. It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.
I'm sure they are using overpriced american lawyers who think they are gods. Disbarment would be the appropriate punishment for them.
Whatever. Steve Jobs has said many times that he respected the workmanship and detail in Sony's products. Jony Ive has said that he respects Braun. So Apple asked one of their designers to design a phone with the attention to detail that would be on par with something Sony might do. All he was saying is set the bar really high and see what you come up with. It's not like he said see what Sony is doing and copy it.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating another company's products. There is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from another company's products. There is a line where you cross from inspiration to out and out copying. It's not like Samsung borrowed a few ideas from the iPhone and put them into some of their phones. They took A LOT from the iPhone and put it into a single phone to create an iClone.
Some of Samsung's newer handsets look somewhat different, but the one in question was damn near identical hardware to the iPhone. Google's OS borrowed a ton from iOS. The charging cable and charging brick was an exact rip-off. Oh scratch that - Samsungs are black. that's waaaay different. Samsung's packaging even magically changed to look just like Apple's. It's not about one or two things, nor is it about the ownership of rectangles.
But according to Samsung and Google, all of this is a mere coincidence.
I highly doubt it, but the court will have the final say.
I can't help but think that the culture of piracy so endemic in Asian cultures is at work here. I can just see the Samsung executives indignant at the thought that they're doing anything out of the ordinary...their ordinary that is. Perhaps the outcome of this trial will send a chill throughout groups that see nothing wrong with these practices and force them to only seek the benefits of their own endeavors.
Comments
It's just a turn of phrase to suggesting that one can learn to be better than their opponent by studying their philosophies and tactics.. but that's too verbose. So, to restate, no one is begrudging Samsung for learning from Apple's philosophies and tactics, then using them to out maneuver them in the market.
Originally Posted by SwissMac2
This is clearly a case of Contempt of Court. You can go to prison for that - indefinitely. Someone should too, Samsung have been playing this case (and others) in the media to poison the public against Apple and for Samsung. I hope the Judge smacks them down - hard.
Samsung should be made to build a giant prison (at their expense) around their headquarters in South Korea. It will be staffed with Apple guards (again at Samsung's expense), the mess hall will only serve apple-based dishes, and the warden is Scott Forstall.
Understood, but which Apple philosophies and tactics involve violating direct court orders?
The difference, of course, is that Apple pays for the stuff it gets from Samsung (or will have to pay when they finally reach an agreement or get a court order for the FRAND license rates).
Samsung, OTOH, seems to think that they can copy without compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissMac2
This is clearly a case of Contempt of Court. You can go to prison for that - indefinitely. Someone should too, Samsung have been playing this case (and others) in the media to poison the public against Apple and for Samsung. I hope the Judge smacks them down - hard.
Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really. What would be worse for Samsung is if the judge advises the jury about what went on, and instructs them to consider this behaviour as part of their deliberations.
The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural. This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."
The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding. It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff. It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.
A majority of the pictures of the phones have already been released to the media. Its in their trial briefs that was put out last week.
The only difference is these "leaks' look more like slides that would've been used to present.
Not sure on the deposition stuff, too lazy to read all 20+ pages to see if were also mentioned.
Quote:
Samsung was dressed down in court on Tuesday after the company leaked evidence excluded from the proceedings to media outlets and issued an out-of-court statement saying the exhibits "would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."
The comment refers to the exclusion of a deposition taken from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori which outlined a conversation he had with the company's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive over what an iPhone would look like if it were made by Sony, reports PC Magazine.
"The Judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone," Samsung said in a statement. "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence."
I don't get how the quote from Shin Nishibori being excluded prevents Samsung from showing their internal designs that led to the F700 and other phones??? This quote from Shin does nothing (imho) to establish beyond doubt that Samsung didn't copy. Am I missing something or is there a disconnect there?
Quote:
While Apple argued the iPhone "changed phones forever" during its opening statement, the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
Car manufacturers use parts from many different companies other than their own, but if another auto manufacturer made a car that looked nearly identical to theirs, they would take them to court. I'm not sure if they're trying to argue that because they make a number of the internal components that they should be allowed to copy? Or that they're more innovative (which really has nothing to do with the case)? Or that design shouldn't be protected? Their response just doesn't seem on target at addressing the complaint.
I'm not sure how that relates to my comment as it doesn't seem germane to the conversation. To restate — since it appears my comment was written too poorly — I am agreeing with your initial assessment and that we all know where Samsung got its inspiration from, and that's fine, but the problem comes from violating IP instead of using that inspiration to create your own IP.
Samsung's utterly lame attempted sophistry here is truly pathetic.
even more pathetic, tho, are the various blogs and "journalists" who are picking this Samsung BS up as if it were for real. hello, Wired? talk about media whores ...
it will be very interesting to see how the Judge reacts. to maintain control of the proceedings she needs to slam Samsung hard. at least a $1 million sanction, plus mandatory formal retraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And rightfully so.
Samsung is accused of copying Apple's design and violating Apple's patents. The issue of where Apple got the idea is totally irrelevant. Either Samsung is guilty or they're not - regardless of the source of Apple's inspiration.
And what's with these guys? One court tells them to stop destroying evidence before a case - yet they do it anyway in the Apple case.
Now, a judge tells them not to release information and they do it anyway.
Do they really think they're above the law?
They obviously think they are above the law, otherwise they wouldn't have so blatantly copied the iPhone and iPad down to the charger, packaging and packaging design. Hopefully they get hammered, and then next onto Google... the dynamic evil duo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Does Apple?
Because they certainly behave like it by twisting and manipulating the rules to the very fringes of legality at times.
Either way... Hopefully this will put and end to all of this seemingly anti-competitive nonsense.
Bullshit! The only anti-competitive behavior comes from Samsung meticulously copying every single aspect of the iPhone and iPad instead of creating their own innovative solutions.
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
it will be very interesting to see how the Judge reacts. to maintain control of the proceedings she needs to slam Samsung hard. at least a $1 million sanction, plus mandatory formal retraction.
Ooh… legally force Samsung to advertise on their website, "we shouldn't have tried to go over the judge's head".
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Bullshit! The only anti-competitive behavior comes from Samsung meticulously copying every single aspect of the iPhone and iPad instead of creating their own innovative solutions.
Ooh, and here they come to tell you that not "every single aspect" was copied.
How can Samsung argue Apple copied Sony by internal commissioning an original design with Apples internal staff to create a phone concept that was like nothing Sony ever made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Not quite. Its more like mazda throwing a Ford engine, transmission and Ecu into a car and calling it theirs. Raw material vs Engineered Microcontrollers, circuits. Big difference.
Nice try but you couldn't be more wrong - steel is a commodity, just like the parts that Apple gets from Samsung. These are basic commodity components that Apple could source from other companies just as well - they are not unique to Samsung. And its important to point out that even though Apple gets the primary CPU from Samsung, Samsung manufactures it custom for Apple based on Apple's own design and technology.
Fair enough, and I get your point (even though Mazda is part of the Ford Motor Company, so the analogy doesn't fit exactly). But you are right, not a raw material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Not quite. Its more like mazda throwing a Ford engine, transmission and Ecu into a car and calling it theirs. Raw material vs Engineered Microcontrollers, circuits. Big difference.
Sammy uses a lot of their own components and their phones still suck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really. What would be worse for Samsung is if the judge advises the jury about what went on, and instructs them to consider this behaviour as part of their deliberations.
The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural. This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."
The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding. It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff. It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.
I'm sure they are using overpriced american lawyers who think they are gods. Disbarment would be the appropriate punishment for them.
Whatever. Steve Jobs has said many times that he respected the workmanship and detail in Sony's products. Jony Ive has said that he respects Braun. So Apple asked one of their designers to design a phone with the attention to detail that would be on par with something Sony might do. All he was saying is set the bar really high and see what you come up with. It's not like he said see what Sony is doing and copy it.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating another company's products. There is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from another company's products. There is a line where you cross from inspiration to out and out copying. It's not like Samsung borrowed a few ideas from the iPhone and put them into some of their phones. They took A LOT from the iPhone and put it into a single phone to create an iClone.
Some of Samsung's newer handsets look somewhat different, but the one in question was damn near identical hardware to the iPhone. Google's OS borrowed a ton from iOS. The charging cable and charging brick was an exact rip-off. Oh scratch that - Samsungs are black. that's waaaay different. Samsung's packaging even magically changed to look just like Apple's. It's not about one or two things, nor is it about the ownership of rectangles.
But according to Samsung and Google, all of this is a mere coincidence.
I highly doubt it, but the court will have the final say.
Here’s the Sony phone Samsung say Apple copied in 2006:
And here’s Apple's early iPhone design from the previous year:
I can't help but think that the culture of piracy so endemic in Asian cultures is at work here. I can just see the Samsung executives indignant at the thought that they're doing anything out of the ordinary...their ordinary that is. Perhaps the outcome of this trial will send a chill throughout groups that see nothing wrong with these practices and force them to only seek the benefits of their own endeavors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How long can we expect this trial to last?
That's the 3.5 billion dollar question.