Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products.
Oh look, another troll to add to my block list. Nothing like Samsung getting a smackdown to bring everyone out of the woodwork.
You didn't answer the question. How can she punish anyone for a company releasing information to the public? While she may not like it, it isn't illegal. Where does she think we are the old USSR?
Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products.
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
Ah, but time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so the concept of something predating the Big Bang is not possible.
Galactus pre-dated the Big Bang. He was part of the universe before this one and survived the crunch and the bang.
Oh you want REAL not made up Marvel stuff Still the concept can totally be there even if we don't have science to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
Not to mention if Samsung just stopped shipping stuff to Apple they would be back in court for breach of contract.
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.
Oh ok, you say I couldn't be more wrong so that immediately invalidates what I said. Good call. My point (that seems to have totally bypassed your reasoning filter) is that comparing raw material to complex components is a bad analogy. Aside, why are you arguing that the Samsung components are a commodity if they are custom made for Apple? If it's proprietary, it should no longer be considered a commodity. I assure you that Apple DOES NOT design all of the internal components from the ground up. Not trying to argue that Samsung deserves the title of "innovator", but they probably deserve a little more respect than Apple, you and the general Apple evangelical crowd give them-- which is approximately none.
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
8 billion dollars? After expenses, it was 2 billion dollars, which Apple seems wants to take from them. I still don't understand how Apple is going to prove that for every dollar Samsung made, Apple lost a dollar. That makes the assumption that the ONLY two players in the market are Apple and Samsung AND that EVERY person will go out and buy an Apple product if Samsung's weren't available. THAT seems very, very unlikely to be proven.
Actually, they probably have a contract with Apple, so they cannot cut ties immediately. If Samsung were to drop Apple as a customer, Apple simply wouldn't be able to respond quick enough to find other suppliers. I actually see Samsung raising their prices on Apple and then Apple raising their prices towards the customer. We all lose.
I still don't see where this copying. The tablet and OS look totally different. The Galaxy S did look a bit like a 3GS, but I am sorry, I just don't believe someone would walk out of a store with a box that has the SAMSUNG moniker on it truly believing they bought an Apple product. Total BS...or people who have serious mental problems.
The case isn't about who came up with the idea first (though I can't remember anyone arranging apps into tiles before Apple. I could wrong though) ; it's about Samsung copying Apple's designs.
before i purchased an iPhone 3GS back in June 2009, i had a cellphone from the Sony Ericsson K700 family of products (in fact, i still have it stored in a box someplace). and, yes, the apps (or more accurately: common phone functions, games and other things) on the K700 were arranged in tiles.
I still don't see where this copying. The tablet and OS look totally different. The Galaxy S did look a bit like a 3GS, but I am sorry, I just don't believe someone would walk out of a store with a box that has the SAMSUNG moniker on it truly believing they bought an Apple product.
that's the very issue we're facing.
- people predisposed to Apple will highlight the similarities between specific Samsung and Apple products
- people predisposed to Samsung will highlight the dissimilarities between specific Samsung and Apple products
from an objective standpoint, both groups have elements to support their claims. when the verdict is reached, i'll be avoiding online forums for a few days because the virtriol will be high and mighty
why wasn't Samsung able to get these submitted by the deadline? Presumably these are important documents. Why did Samsung wait to the last-minute to get them entered as evidence?
There's definitely something suspicious about the supposed earlier designs. Not least the fact that it took a further 2 years after the original iPhone to actually bring the Galaxy S to market. That's likely down to Android not getting a software keyboard until 2009 but even so, their 2007/2008 phone designs looked very little like their concepts and nothing like the iPhone:
There's definitely something suspicious about the supposed earlier designs. Not least the fact that it took a further 2 years after the original iPhone to actually bring the Galaxy S to market. That's likely down to Android not getting a software keyboard until 2009 but even so, their 2007/2008 phone designs looked very little like their concepts and nothing like the iPhone:
it's more than just suspicious that Samsung did not attempt to introduce this "evidence" until after the filing deadline. Samsung had to know it would help its defense from the beginning of the case, long before. the only good reason to hold it back until the last minute would be to shield it from Apple's pre-trial discovery and deposition investigations. and don't forget all those missing Samsung emails too, which the jury will hear about. which means there is something connected with this "evidence" and those emails that was even more important for Samsung to hide. what? well industrial espionage is the obvious possibility. any evidence of that on Samsung's part would be devastating to its defense, and they had to know it.
but i doubt very much it was Schmidt - he was spying on Apple for Google which he ran, not Samsung which he didn't care about then at all.
Samsung's counsel replied to Judge Koh's demand for an answer on what the intent of the public release of the Sony-inspired iPhone design slides on Tuesday was.
In a court filing this morning, Samsung explained why it was not at fault for offering excluded trial evidence to the press, saying that information was in the public domain because it had already been published.
"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," John B. Quinn, of Samsung's law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP said in a filing this morning."
Apparently the Judge doesn't follow TheVerge, because Samsung is correct as far as I can see. TheVerge had a story up very early Monday morning (1am!), distilled from court filings they had perused over the weekend. That article was published prior to Judge Koh's ruling the evidence wouldn't be admissable in her court, putting it clearly in the public domain. I'm not even sure TheVerge was even first to publish it. It's just the first one I noticed.
Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products.
Why would people end up "paying more"? If you own any of the other million phones available, you'll do fine. If you want the Apple iOS experience, you'll pay for an iOS device.
I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.
Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).
Hope you did not spend too much money patenting it.... your patent expired about 50 million years back - at which point the only thing you could have received as compensation was a lot of hot air (because nothing else existed)! And even if your patent is still valid, I doubt if anyone can actually copy the Big Bang, even if they wanted to ;-) As for using things derived from the Big Bang, it is perfectly legal, as long as you don't use the Big Bang itself.
And in any case, Big Bang is not an Essential patent - you can always design around Big Bang by using God and Creation techniques.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.
I agree, i think its the best way to live, i geek out all day & work out all the time too, when you are feeling fit your mind gets pretty nimble too.
delete
Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh look, another troll to add to my block list. Nothing like Samsung getting a smackdown to bring everyone out of the woodwork.
You didn't answer the question. How can she punish anyone for a company releasing information to the public? While she may not like it, it isn't illegal. Where does she think we are the old USSR?
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
Here's a good summary of the action to date. Samsung looks lost. Fighting with the judge over an issue after you've already been overruled 3 times? Begging the judge to allow something into evidence? Really sad.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/apple-to-jury-iphone-changed-everythingthen-samsung-built-knockoffs/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Ah, but time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so the concept of something predating the Big Bang is not possible.
Galactus pre-dated the Big Bang. He was part of the universe before this one and survived the crunch and the bang.
Oh you want REAL not made up Marvel stuff
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
Not to mention if Samsung just stopped shipping stuff to Apple they would be back in court for breach of contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
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.
Oh ok, you say I couldn't be more wrong so that immediately invalidates what I said. Good call. My point (that seems to have totally bypassed your reasoning filter) is that comparing raw material to complex components is a bad analogy. Aside, why are you arguing that the Samsung components are a commodity if they are custom made for Apple? If it's proprietary, it should no longer be considered a commodity. I assure you that Apple DOES NOT design all of the internal components from the ground up. Not trying to argue that Samsung deserves the title of "innovator", but they probably deserve a little more respect than Apple, you and the general Apple evangelical crowd give them-- which is approximately none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.
Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.
8 billion dollars? After expenses, it was 2 billion dollars, which Apple seems wants to take from them. I still don't understand how Apple is going to prove that for every dollar Samsung made, Apple lost a dollar. That makes the assumption that the ONLY two players in the market are Apple and Samsung AND that EVERY person will go out and buy an Apple product if Samsung's weren't available. THAT seems very, very unlikely to be proven.
Actually, they probably have a contract with Apple, so they cannot cut ties immediately. If Samsung were to drop Apple as a customer, Apple simply wouldn't be able to respond quick enough to find other suppliers. I actually see Samsung raising their prices on Apple and then Apple raising their prices towards the customer. We all lose.
I still don't see where this copying. The tablet and OS look totally different. The Galaxy S did look a bit like a 3GS, but I am sorry, I just don't believe someone would walk out of a store with a box that has the SAMSUNG moniker on it truly believing they bought an Apple product. Total BS...or people who have serious mental problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
8 billion dollars? After expenses, it was 2 billion dollars, which Apple seems wants to take from them.
$8B is the cost of all the components Apple buys from Samsung each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
The case isn't about who came up with the idea first (though I can't remember anyone arranging apps into tiles before Apple. I could wrong though) ; it's about Samsung copying Apple's designs.
before i purchased an iPhone 3GS back in June 2009, i had a cellphone from the Sony Ericsson K700 family of products (in fact, i still have it stored in a box someplace). and, yes, the apps (or more accurately: common phone functions, games and other things) on the K700 were arranged in tiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
I still don't see where this copying. The tablet and OS look totally different. The Galaxy S did look a bit like a 3GS, but I am sorry, I just don't believe someone would walk out of a store with a box that has the SAMSUNG moniker on it truly believing they bought an Apple product.
that's the very issue we're facing.
- people predisposed to Apple will highlight the similarities between specific Samsung and Apple products
- people predisposed to Samsung will highlight the dissimilarities between specific Samsung and Apple products
from an objective standpoint, both groups have elements to support their claims. when the verdict is reached, i'll be avoiding online forums for a few days because the virtriol will be high and mighty
There's definitely something suspicious about the supposed earlier designs. Not least the fact that it took a further 2 years after the original iPhone to actually bring the Galaxy S to market. That's likely down to Android not getting a software keyboard until 2009 but even so, their 2007/2008 phone designs looked very little like their concepts and nothing like the iPhone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's definitely something suspicious about the supposed earlier designs. Not least the fact that it took a further 2 years after the original iPhone to actually bring the Galaxy S to market. That's likely down to Android not getting a software keyboard until 2009 but even so, their 2007/2008 phone designs looked very little like their concepts and nothing like the iPhone:
it's more than just suspicious that Samsung did not attempt to introduce this "evidence" until after the filing deadline. Samsung had to know it would help its defense from the beginning of the case, long before. the only good reason to hold it back until the last minute would be to shield it from Apple's pre-trial discovery and deposition investigations. and don't forget all those missing Samsung emails too, which the jury will hear about. which means there is something connected with this "evidence" and those emails that was even more important for Samsung to hide. what? well industrial espionage is the obvious possibility. any evidence of that on Samsung's part would be devastating to its defense, and they had to know it.
but i doubt very much it was Schmidt - he was spying on Apple for Google which he ran, not Samsung which he didn't care about then at all.
Samsung's counsel replied to Judge Koh's demand for an answer on what the intent of the public release of the Sony-inspired iPhone design slides on Tuesday was.
In a court filing this morning, Samsung explained why it was not at fault for offering excluded trial evidence to the press, saying that information was in the public domain because it had already been published.
"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," John B. Quinn, of Samsung's law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP said in a filing this morning."
Apparently the Judge doesn't follow TheVerge, because Samsung is correct as far as I can see. TheVerge had a story up very early Monday morning (1am!), distilled from court filings they had perused over the weekend. That article was published prior to Judge Koh's ruling the evidence wouldn't be admissable in her court, putting it clearly in the public domain. I'm not even sure TheVerge was even first to publish it. It's just the first one I noticed.
Turns out THIS is the Sony device that Samsung says Apple copied. (A Sony walkman, not a phone after all... and one inspired by Apple!)
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/01/the-sony-device-samsung-claims-inspired-apples-iphone/?source=yahoo_quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products.
Why would people end up "paying more"? If you own any of the other million phones available, you'll do fine. If you want the Apple iOS experience, you'll pay for an iOS device.
I guess lawlessness is condoned in South Korea. Obviously copyright violations are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.
Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).
Hope you did not spend too much money patenting it.... your patent expired about 50 million years back - at which point the only thing you could have received as compensation was a lot of hot air (because nothing else existed)! And even if your patent is still valid, I doubt if anyone can actually copy the Big Bang, even if they wanted to ;-) As for using things derived from the Big Bang, it is perfectly legal, as long as you don't use the Big Bang itself.
And in any case, Big Bang is not an Essential patent - you can always design around Big Bang by using God and Creation techniques.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
I read it "IReen", not iReen...
IR, as Infra Red...
Might be completely wrong about it though.
If it was Infrared, it would be IR. It clearly states IReen