This AI article describes a moment in which Samsung apparently evaluated an Apple product in ways that were useful in determining the direction of their own products.
The article I linked to describes a moment in which Apple apparently evaluated a Samsung product in ways that were useful in determining the direction of their own products.
Neither article is likely to have any material effect on the outcomes of the specific allegations on trial, which will of course be decided by the jury there, not any of the posters in this obscure forum.
But those who get their news from multiple sources have an opportunity to gain a perspective about how companies work which may differ from the more selective portrayal offered here in AI.
ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make one.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
I mentioned 'design style' not 'design'. So your 'argument' falls flat on its face.
Read, before you comment.
You can interpret 'design style' as a generic design, more like an idea.
You could also interpret is as a 'design fragment'.
Look at the examples I gave to understand it better.
And in my opinion even a design doesn't qualify as patentable, unless it has an implementation or something that's comparable (like a very defailed blueprint accomanied by a simulation).
J.
Forgive me, my mistake. As I assume you are using these terms:
Design = the plan of construction for a specific object (e.g. iPhone).
Design style = a general plan of construction for multiple similar objects (e.g. "candy bar" shaped mobile phones).
Design fragment = a small part when added to other parts completes a plan of construction for a specific object (e.g. large screen dominating the face of a mobile phone).
The reason I misinterpreted your post is because the article is on the subject of Apple suing Samsung based on multiply 'design fragments' used in a specific product to make up one 'design'. Forgive me if I assumed your were talking about a 'design style' in your comment posted below the article about a 'design' patent infringment case (a specific plan of construction, not a general plan of construction). So that begs the question why you're commenting on general design for a product category when the topic of the article is about a specific design for a specific product.
Your opinion of US design patent law is contrary to the reality of the situation. It may be the patent system is flawed. However, Apple and Samsung are trying to operate within that possibly flawed system, hence they're defending themselves in a court of law. While you may dismiss this trial as pointless or something that shouldn't exist in the first place, the reality of the system we all operate within dictates it should exist. The outcome will determine if Apple should've sued Samsung at all.
[deleted the majority of the comment others have already responded to]
But those who get their news from multiple sources have an opportunity to gain a perspective about how companies work which may differ from the more selective portrayal offered here in AI.
I agree with you that AI has a bias in Apple's favor just as Fox News has a bias favoring one specific political party vasting over another and MSNBC vice versa. I don't think anyone was disputing that, were they? Ok maybe some were, but I just ignore those people and let them live in their bubble where everything Apple does is perfect and MS, Samsung, Google, and everyone else is yucky. Reasonable people understand AI is presenting one side of the story at worst. And as you said, just as Samsung draws inspiration from Apple and Apple draws inspiration from Samsung, that's probably not going to be relavent to the case.
Thank you for the grammar correction, I edited my post. The wallowing part was in reference to a previous post he made about a historical time period in the US that was anti-Asian probably due to some general American sentiment after WWII. I believe he may have thought people were railing against Samsung on this forum because of that mostly long-forgotten anti-Asian sentiment. Thankfully, that's not the case.
I usually stay away from subtopics like this... I thought the OP dropped a racist card for no reason...
But maybe I can help a little...
I was born before WWII, and was a teen-ager in the 1950's. My pre-teens were in a suburb of Minneapolis, Mn. My teens and early adult years were spent in Pasadena, CA. California was pretty tolerant in those days. I don't recall any particular racial or ethnic bias -- until we moved to Las Vegas (1964-68), then ChicagoLand (1968-71).
It always seemed odd that a Black man like Sammy Davis Jr. could be the headline star performer at a top hotel on the Las Vegas strip... but he couldn't stay at the hotel.
ChicagoLand was another thing altogether -- it was a mish-mash of racial and ethnic communities (not a melting pot) and everyone seemed to hate/resent/envy everyone who was different. I worked for IBM in Des Plaines, and remember talking to a fellow worker who was moving to the area. He complained that he couldn't afford to buy a house in Skokie. I suggested he look for a house in an outlying community... He responded that he was Jewish and Jews were supposed to live in Skokie where they were accepted.
From ChicagoLand we went to Tucson, AZ (1971-1973), then Palo Alto, CA (1973-1989). We bought a house in Saratoga -- about 3/4 mile from what was later to become Apple HQ.
Back to the WWII and "yellow race" references. In all this time and travels, I never encountered any anti-yellow sentiment (or any real prejudice other than the afore mentioned).
What I do recall is, that in the late 1940's and early 1950's Japanese-manufactured products were cheap, crude, flimsy -- made of tin or plastic. They were a joke! However, I don't think that this was racial... It is my understanding that the Japanese (and German) manufacturing was destroyed or dismantled as a result of WWII. While they wanted to produce good products, they lacked the means to do so.
Now, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise... The Japanese ad the Germans, Russians, Italians, etc. had to rebuild their manufacturing infrastructure from scratch. It took decades, but they ended up with the most modern manufacturing capability, when compared to the US' aging facilities. Combine that with, skilled, plentiful labour and you have a manufacturing powerhouse.
South Korea went through a similar renaissance as a result of the Korean war.
One big difference with Korea, however, is that their government and business organizations were not dismantled by the "victors"... As I understand, the relationship between business and government is very close and much the same as it was prior to the war... except they now have modern manufacturing facilities/advantages. Others have developed these relationships in prior threads.
This may be an over-simplication, but I can't believe that any even-headed person of any "group" would slur or begrudge another because of his "group".
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
But that is due to disinterest and stupidity... not bigotry.
Edit:
I do have some memories of the Korean war:
I was quite impressed with all the different countries that spent troops and treasure to preserve South Korea's right to exist.
There was, at the time a racial slur: The "Yellow Menace" or the "Yellow Peril".... Interesting that this was directed at the Chinese Communists -- rather than the Koreans!
And, I suspect it had more to do with politics than race.
When I replied there was only that one sentence, and no, it still makes no sense. I'll take your revision of "pass-it", but "wallowing in what could have been"? What is that about?
Anyway, I did realize that he was not a native English speaker and I should have worded my post more sensitively. Good advice. The phrase is "chock full" by the way.
Actually, I'd say the full phrase is, "Chock Full o' Nuts." In looking over the thread, I'd say that very accurate too. :-)
So that begs the question why you're commenting on general design for a product category when the topic of the article is about a specific design for a specific product.
Ok, I wrote the answer to your question in the last sentence of my post.
Basically, it seems to me that the arguments presentend in the court case indicate (to me) that they are talking about 'design styles' not specific designs. Hence the argument.
And I know that my opinion about patent law differs from the current US reality, but law evolves and in this case, has to evolve, to something manageable.
Court cases like this will eventually drive the law in the correct direction.
South Korea went through a similar renaissance as a result of the Korean war.
So if you want your country to become a powerhouse manufacturer and export your product to the United States, you first need to invite the US to come to your country and wage a war. Once everything is destroyed the US will help you rebuild it better than before and also buy your products as an apology for killing so many of your countrymen.
I suppose the reason we haven't seen a Viet Nam auto industry emerge is because they refused to lose the war, which apparently is the way the game is supposed to be played.
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
But that is due to disinterest and stupidity... not bigotry.
Thank you for your personal account and experiences. It makes me glad to live in California where intolerance is... more muted than other places in the country, generally speaking.
I won't comment much on your political opinions other than to say I respectfully disagree with you. As a civilization grows and becomes more complex, it's governing body must do the same or fail in my opinion. In our, what is it, democratic republic(?), our government is a mirror of its people, society, and culture. If it wasn't as big and complex as our society, I don't believe it would be the same form of representative-based government. As new things are invented or discovered, new laws must be enacted and enforced.
You bring up a great point though. In those other countries that had to rebuild, that was a distinct advantage over us that is manifesting now, but they had to go through terrible times to gain that advantage. I sincerely hope the US doesn't have to go through such a crisis to emerge advantagous decades later. Hopefully we are smart enough to execute a managed rebuilding of our infrastructure (and it would be so cheap to do it right now with the global economy struggling).
ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make a smaller version of our already wildly popular device.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
You think those two are equivalent?
So if you want your country to become a powerhouse manufacturer and export your product to the United States, you first need to invite the US to come to your country and wage a war. Once everything is destroyed the US will help you rebuild it better than before and also buy your products as an apology for killing so many of your countrymen.
I suppose the reason we haven't seen a Viet Nam auto industry emerge is because they refused to lose the war, which apparently is the way the game is supposed to be played.
Or perhaps it was because the country helping Vietnam rebuild after the war was Russia - think of the difference in West German industry and East German industry.
Ok, I wrote the answer to your question in the last sentence of my post.
Basically, it seems to me that the arguments presentend in the court case indicate (to me) that they are talking about 'design styles' not specific designs. Hence the argument.
And I know that my opinion about patent law differs from the current US reality, but law evolves and in this case, has to evolve, to something manageable.
Court cases like this will eventually drive the law in the correct direction.
J.
I see your point. I think this will be tough for the jury to decide whether Samsung was just using general designs of the industry for its products or if they were using Apple's specific designs. The line between the two is blurry in my opinion without a clear-cut answer..
There is a trend with these judges lately of narrowing the scope of these patent lawsuits, including cases not only instigated by Apple. Perhaps that's a small sign of a brighter future in patent litigation.
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
The only anti-Japanese sentiment during the 1980's was related to how well Japanese manufacturers were kicking Detroit's butt in the automobile market. This was usually done by those who had a stake in the auto-industry and were looking for political points. Interestingly, American (U.S.) buyers were voting with their wallets and had no such anit-Japanese bias. The "Big Three" auto manufacturers had gone so long unchallenged, they were complacent and happy to grind out the same old gas-guzzling high-maintenance crap forever.
The Japanese competition lit a fire under Detroit's tail feathers that forced Detroit to start building quality high-milage cars that U.S. citizens (who now had a choice) might consider buying. The "buy American" exhortations of the times (late 70s and 80s) had a tinge of racism to them, but for most people it was more of an appeal to support American workers for patriotic reasons. Eventually the general mood swung toward admiration of Japanese engineering and design. When you waken a sleeping giant, don't be surprised if he unfairly complains at first.
To be more on topic, I really believe that the US American cell phone industry was a lot like the automobile industry before Apple "woke it up" in 2007. The backlash at Apple for doing so and then enforcing their IP is a lot like the discussion that prompted me to respond now. Even now there is a lot of admiration for what Apple has brought to the market, even though it is mixed with the anger for Apple to be so disruptive.
So if you want your country to become a powerhouse manufacturer and export your product to the United States, you first need to invite the US to come to your country and wage a war. Once everything is destroyed the US will help you rebuild it better than before and also buy your products as an apology for killing so many of your countrymen.
I suppose the reason we haven't seen a Viet Nam auto industry emerge is because they refused to lose the war, which apparently is the way the game is supposed to be played.
Most Americans (I hope) won't argue that the US has instigated some wars that in hindsight look inconceived at best. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There is another saying, "The invention of one generation is the necessity of the next." Part of the problem of this trial happening during the 5th iPhone and 3rd iPad's release is that the world that once couldn't conceive of these products now see these as the only way to move forward. That could hurt Apple if that can't show that there other paths to take and being taken until Apple made the only path that was worth taking toward the future by virtue of their ideas and execution being so much more advanced than the competition.
Remember how the dissenters said that Apple didn't have a chance because the cellphone market was so entrenched? Remember when the dissenters said Apple didn't have a chance in Asia because their smartphones were so much more advanced? Remember when the dissenters said Apple didn't have a chance because it didn't have a physical keyboard? For some reason all those lame arguments have fallen away and in their place have sprung remarks about how it was obvious and the only option moving forward.
I see your point. I think this will be tough for the jury to decide whether Samsung was just using general designs of the industry for its products or if they were using Apple's specific designs. The line between the two is blurry in my opinion without a clear-cut answer..
It is to Samsung's advantage to try to keep that line as blurry as possible. However, the case is in the early stages and I believe Apple will begin to bring up more and more design specifics as they go along. Phil Schiller, on the witness stand, brought up how extremely difficult it was to design some of the aspects of making the web browsing experience simple and easy. When Samsung copied those gestures, they were directly using Apple's innovations. Watch for a lot of this early testimony to circle back into the courtroom to drive points home.
Samsung is playing a masterful defensive strategy so it remains to be seen whether truth will prevail or confusion will carry the day.
To be more on topic, I really believe that the US American cell phone industry was a lot like the automobile industry before Apple "woke it up" in 2007. The backlash at Apple for doing so and then enforcing their IP is a lot like the discussion that prompted me to respond now. Even now there is a lot of admiration for what Apple has brought to the market, even though it is mixed with the anger for Apple to be so disruptive.
Not to sound patriotic (that word is tarnished to me forever), but I'm glad a company within the country shook things up for the rest of the competition.
Comments
ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make one.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
You think those two are equivalent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Reading isn't your strongest side I see.
I mentioned 'design style' not 'design'. So your 'argument' falls flat on its face.
Read, before you comment.
You can interpret 'design style' as a generic design, more like an idea.
You could also interpret is as a 'design fragment'.
Look at the examples I gave to understand it better.
And in my opinion even a design doesn't qualify as patentable, unless it has an implementation or something that's comparable (like a very defailed blueprint accomanied by a simulation).
J.
Forgive me, my mistake. As I assume you are using these terms:
Design = the plan of construction for a specific object (e.g. iPhone).
Design style = a general plan of construction for multiple similar objects (e.g. "candy bar" shaped mobile phones).
Design fragment = a small part when added to other parts completes a plan of construction for a specific object (e.g. large screen dominating the face of a mobile phone).
The reason I misinterpreted your post is because the article is on the subject of Apple suing Samsung based on multiply 'design fragments' used in a specific product to make up one 'design'. Forgive me if I assumed your were talking about a 'design style' in your comment posted below the article about a 'design' patent infringment case (a specific plan of construction, not a general plan of construction). So that begs the question why you're commenting on general design for a product category when the topic of the article is about a specific design for a specific product.
Your opinion of US design patent law is contrary to the reality of the situation. It may be the patent system is flawed. However, Apple and Samsung are trying to operate within that possibly flawed system, hence they're defending themselves in a court of law. While you may dismiss this trial as pointless or something that shouldn't exist in the first place, the reality of the system we all operate within dictates it should exist. The outcome will determine if Apple should've sued Samsung at all.
So where does that leave Google, Microsoft, HP, Dell and the rest of the gang on this side of the pond?
HP: "Apple may like to think that they own silver, but they don't. In no way did HP try to mimic Apple. In life there are a lot of similarities."
I think the bigger problem is the industry seems to have given up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
[deleted the majority of the comment others have already responded to]
But those who get their news from multiple sources have an opportunity to gain a perspective about how companies work which may differ from the more selective portrayal offered here in AI.
I agree with you that AI has a bias in Apple's favor just as Fox News has a bias favoring one specific political party vasting over another and MSNBC vice versa. I don't think anyone was disputing that, were they? Ok maybe some were, but I just ignore those people and let them live in their bubble where everything Apple does is perfect and MS, Samsung, Google, and everyone else is yucky. Reasonable people understand AI is presenting one side of the story at worst. And as you said, just as Samsung draws inspiration from Apple and Apple draws inspiration from Samsung, that's probably not going to be relavent to the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Thank you for the grammar correction, I edited my post. The wallowing part was in reference to a previous post he made about a historical time period in the US that was anti-Asian probably due to some general American sentiment after WWII. I believe he may have thought people were railing against Samsung on this forum because of that mostly long-forgotten anti-Asian sentiment. Thankfully, that's not the case.
I usually stay away from subtopics like this... I thought the OP dropped a racist card for no reason...
But maybe I can help a little...
I was born before WWII, and was a teen-ager in the 1950's. My pre-teens were in a suburb of Minneapolis, Mn. My teens and early adult years were spent in Pasadena, CA. California was pretty tolerant in those days. I don't recall any particular racial or ethnic bias -- until we moved to Las Vegas (1964-68), then ChicagoLand (1968-71).
It always seemed odd that a Black man like Sammy Davis Jr. could be the headline star performer at a top hotel on the Las Vegas strip... but he couldn't stay at the hotel.
ChicagoLand was another thing altogether -- it was a mish-mash of racial and ethnic communities (not a melting pot) and everyone seemed to hate/resent/envy everyone who was different. I worked for IBM in Des Plaines, and remember talking to a fellow worker who was moving to the area. He complained that he couldn't afford to buy a house in Skokie. I suggested he look for a house in an outlying community... He responded that he was Jewish and Jews were supposed to live in Skokie where they were accepted.
From ChicagoLand we went to Tucson, AZ (1971-1973), then Palo Alto, CA (1973-1989). We bought a house in Saratoga -- about 3/4 mile from what was later to become Apple HQ.
Back to the WWII and "yellow race" references. In all this time and travels, I never encountered any anti-yellow sentiment (or any real prejudice other than the afore mentioned).
What I do recall is, that in the late 1940's and early 1950's Japanese-manufactured products were cheap, crude, flimsy -- made of tin or plastic. They were a joke! However, I don't think that this was racial... It is my understanding that the Japanese (and German) manufacturing was destroyed or dismantled as a result of WWII. While they wanted to produce good products, they lacked the means to do so.
Now, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise... The Japanese ad the Germans, Russians, Italians, etc. had to rebuild their manufacturing infrastructure from scratch. It took decades, but they ended up with the most modern manufacturing capability, when compared to the US' aging facilities. Combine that with, skilled, plentiful labour and you have a manufacturing powerhouse.
South Korea went through a similar renaissance as a result of the Korean war.
One big difference with Korea, however, is that their government and business organizations were not dismantled by the "victors"... As I understand, the relationship between business and government is very close and much the same as it was prior to the war... except they now have modern manufacturing facilities/advantages. Others have developed these relationships in prior threads.
This may be an over-simplication, but I can't believe that any even-headed person of any "group" would slur or begrudge another because of his "group".
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
But that is due to disinterest and stupidity... not bigotry.
Edit:
I do have some memories of the Korean war:
I was quite impressed with all the different countries that spent troops and treasure to preserve South Korea's right to exist.
There was, at the time a racial slur: The "Yellow Menace" or the "Yellow Peril".... Interesting that this was directed at the Chinese Communists -- rather than the Koreans!
And, I suspect it had more to do with politics than race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
When I replied there was only that one sentence, and no, it still makes no sense. I'll take your revision of "pass-it", but "wallowing in what could have been"? What is that about?
Anyway, I did realize that he was not a native English speaker and I should have worded my post more sensitively. Good advice. The phrase is "chock full" by the way.
Actually, I'd say the full phrase is, "Chock Full o' Nuts." In looking over the thread, I'd say that very accurate too. :-)
Ok, I wrote the answer to your question in the last sentence of my post.
Basically, it seems to me that the arguments presentend in the court case indicate (to me) that they are talking about 'design styles' not specific designs. Hence the argument.
And I know that my opinion about patent law differs from the current US reality, but law evolves and in this case, has to evolve, to something manageable.
Court cases like this will eventually drive the law in the correct direction.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
South Korea went through a similar renaissance as a result of the Korean war.
So if you want your country to become a powerhouse manufacturer and export your product to the United States, you first need to invite the US to come to your country and wage a war. Once everything is destroyed the US will help you rebuild it better than before and also buy your products as an apology for killing so many of your countrymen.
I suppose the reason we haven't seen a Viet Nam auto industry emerge is because they refused to lose the war, which apparently is the way the game is supposed to be played.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
[Deleted for brevity]
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
But that is due to disinterest and stupidity... not bigotry.
Thank you for your personal account and experiences. It makes me glad to live in California where intolerance is... more muted than other places in the country, generally speaking.
I won't comment much on your political opinions other than to say I respectfully disagree with you. As a civilization grows and becomes more complex, it's governing body must do the same or fail in my opinion. In our, what is it, democratic republic(?), our government is a mirror of its people, society, and culture. If it wasn't as big and complex as our society, I don't believe it would be the same form of representative-based government. As new things are invented or discovered, new laws must be enacted and enforced.
You bring up a great point though. In those other countries that had to rebuild, that was a distinct advantage over us that is manifesting now, but they had to go through terrible times to gain that advantage. I sincerely hope the US doesn't have to go through such a crisis to emerge advantagous decades later. Hopefully we are smart enough to execute a managed rebuilding of our infrastructure (and it would be so cheap to do it right now with the global economy struggling).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Ok, I wrote the answer to your question in the last sentence of my post.
Basically, it seems to me that the arguments presentend in the court case indicate (to me) that they are talking about 'design styles' not specific designs. Hence the argument.
And I know that my opinion about patent law differs from the current US reality, but law evolves and in this case, has to evolve, to something manageable.
Court cases like this will eventually drive the law in the correct direction.
J.
I see your point. I think this will be tough for the jury to decide whether Samsung was just using general designs of the industry for its products or if they were using Apple's specific designs. The line between the two is blurry in my opinion without a clear-cut answer..
There is a trend with these judges lately of narrowing the scope of these patent lawsuits, including cases not only instigated by Apple. Perhaps that's a small sign of a brighter future in patent litigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I am of the opinion that Japan and Korea, in particular, have manufacturing advantages because of tolerant governments. I firmly believe that US Americans have put themselves at a manufacturing disadvantage -- we are overtaxed, overpaid, over regulated and overgoverned...
The only anti-Japanese sentiment during the 1980's was related to how well Japanese manufacturers were kicking Detroit's butt in the automobile market. This was usually done by those who had a stake in the auto-industry and were looking for political points. Interestingly, American (U.S.) buyers were voting with their wallets and had no such anit-Japanese bias. The "Big Three" auto manufacturers had gone so long unchallenged, they were complacent and happy to grind out the same old gas-guzzling high-maintenance crap forever.
The Japanese competition lit a fire under Detroit's tail feathers that forced Detroit to start building quality high-milage cars that U.S. citizens (who now had a choice) might consider buying. The "buy American" exhortations of the times (late 70s and 80s) had a tinge of racism to them, but for most people it was more of an appeal to support American workers for patriotic reasons. Eventually the general mood swung toward admiration of Japanese engineering and design. When you waken a sleeping giant, don't be surprised if he unfairly complains at first.
To be more on topic, I really believe that the US American cell phone industry was a lot like the automobile industry before Apple "woke it up" in 2007. The backlash at Apple for doing so and then enforcing their IP is a lot like the discussion that prompted me to respond now. Even now there is a lot of admiration for what Apple has brought to the market, even though it is mixed with the anger for Apple to be so disruptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Just because I happen to own dozens upon dozens of Apple products doesn't mean that they do no wrong.... It's a Tech Company, Not A Cult.
Had to do a double take. Washnt sure if those were Apple or Samesung devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
So if you want your country to become a powerhouse manufacturer and export your product to the United States, you first need to invite the US to come to your country and wage a war. Once everything is destroyed the US will help you rebuild it better than before and also buy your products as an apology for killing so many of your countrymen.
I suppose the reason we haven't seen a Viet Nam auto industry emerge is because they refused to lose the war, which apparently is the way the game is supposed to be played.
Most Americans (I hope) won't argue that the US has instigated some wars that in hindsight look inconceived at best. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is another saying, "The invention of one generation is the necessity of the next." Part of the problem of this trial happening during the 5th iPhone and 3rd iPad's release is that the world that once couldn't conceive of these products now see these as the only way to move forward. That could hurt Apple if that can't show that there other paths to take and being taken until Apple made the only path that was worth taking toward the future by virtue of their ideas and execution being so much more advanced than the competition.
Remember how the dissenters said that Apple didn't have a chance because the cellphone market was so entrenched? Remember when the dissenters said Apple didn't have a chance in Asia because their smartphones were so much more advanced? Remember when the dissenters said Apple didn't have a chance because it didn't have a physical keyboard? For some reason all those lame arguments have fallen away and in their place have sprung remarks about how it was obvious and the only option moving forward.
There's a term for that.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
'wouldn't be surprised if they are actually owned by his neighbor.
Hold on there, Dick. "DA" was a way of combing your hair on the back of your head to meet in the middle. But you're right, it did mean "duck's ass."
Edit: quinney says the same on the previous page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
I see your point. I think this will be tough for the jury to decide whether Samsung was just using general designs of the industry for its products or if they were using Apple's specific designs. The line between the two is blurry in my opinion without a clear-cut answer..
It is to Samsung's advantage to try to keep that line as blurry as possible. However, the case is in the early stages and I believe Apple will begin to bring up more and more design specifics as they go along. Phil Schiller, on the witness stand, brought up how extremely difficult it was to design some of the aspects of making the web browsing experience simple and easy. When Samsung copied those gestures, they were directly using Apple's innovations. Watch for a lot of this early testimony to circle back into the courtroom to drive points home.
Samsung is playing a masterful defensive strategy so it remains to be seen whether truth will prevail or confusion will carry the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
To be more on topic, I really believe that the US American cell phone industry was a lot like the automobile industry before Apple "woke it up" in 2007. The backlash at Apple for doing so and then enforcing their IP is a lot like the discussion that prompted me to respond now. Even now there is a lot of admiration for what Apple has brought to the market, even though it is mixed with the anger for Apple to be so disruptive.
Not to sound patriotic (that word is tarnished to me forever), but I'm glad a company within the country shook things up for the rest of the competition.