As ALL companies likely 'size up' their wares against the competition, and then seek to improve upon said competition's efforts.
Apple has made a complete industry out of doing exactly this... Inventing Nothing but Improving Upon What Others Already Created.
This is ridiculous. Your comment implies that to improve upon something is not to invent something. For instance, if your view was taken literally you would say the first company to come out with a wireless home phone didn't invent anything because there were wired home phones before it. Apple is successful because it invents solutions to shortcomings found in other's products. The improvements are the inventions.
Samsung on the other hand was not improving upon Apple's ideas, instead it was trying to match Apple's products detail for detail.
At this point, the entire case is pretty moot... I mean really... look at the two devices now... the iPhone 4S versus the Galaxy 3... between the two OSs and the actual phone... only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
Honestly, you have to wonder about Apple and the top brass... sometimes it's like the nerdy kids in school grew up... and instead of learning to share and play together they fight like pissy kids.
I guess it never occurred to you that without Apple's lawsuit, Samsung would have continued making their devices look exactly like Apple's. The lawsuit may well be the only reason why the SIII now looks different.
Furthermore, even though the SIII looks different, that doesn't mean that it's not infringing on some of Apple's utility patents.
At this point, the entire case is pretty moot... I mean really... look at the two devices now... the iPhone 4S versus the Galaxy 3... between the two OSs and the actual phone... only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
Honestly, you have to wonder about Apple and the top brass... sometimes it's like the nerdy kids in school grew up... and instead of learning to share and play together they fight like pissy kids.
I have a feeling Apple isn't in HDTVs yet because all the people who they are suing right now, have those HDTV patents!
The entire suit is not moot. The suit is about both design and utility patents. Samsung made a lot of money copying Apple's design patent. Apple wants Samsung to give up its profit for the past copying of the product.The lawsuit is also about utility patents, which Apple claims Samsung is still using. I remember when the first Galaxy phones came out. They were displayed at a Best Buy store, and in a ten minute span of standing by the display I heard three different parties refer to the phone as an iPhone.
Some models of the Galaxy S III are made in Vietnam, maybe it's cheaper than China or the factories are away from prying eyes as I am not aware of any media coverage of conditions for workers, yet.
I wonder if the margins Samsung makes on the S III make it a "luxury" item, priced as it is exactly the same as a compatible iPhone.
Again, it's not margins that make something a luxury item. If it were, a Hyundai might be a luxury item while a Lamborghini might not be.
What makes a product a luxury item is its price relative to the competition, it's prestige, and so on. Manufacturing cost has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether something is a luxury item.
The SIII is no more a luxury item than the iPhone is - and no less. Their price is close to the same and they serve the same segment of the market. They both have similar levels of prestige. Personally, I don't consider something that has a 30% or so market share to be a luxury item, but if you do, then both the iPhone and the SIII are luxury items - whether the manufacturer makes 80% margins or 2% margins.
I don't want to step into a politics argument, but I would like to say something about US taxes. Due to exemptions, subsidies, and all other manner of tax "loopholes", corporations, especially large ones, probably don't pay an effective tax rate equal to the standard corporate tax rate stated on simple US tax rate tables.
Our tax system is very complex, perhaps too much so, and in my opinion favors big business over new/small businesses. It's definitely too complex for me to draw up a simple solution, but I could try: remove all exemptions, subsidies, and what have you from the corporate tax scale, then reduce the corporate tax rate. The theory in my mind would have larger corporations pay about the same effective tax rate, but smaller businesses would end up paying a lower effective rate generally speaking.
As for individual income tax, I think it needs to very slowly be raised back to "pre-Bush tax cuts" levels, you know when our country's budget was running a surplus so we can pay down our debt and put money borrowed back into Social Security. (HAHAHAHA, none of this will ever happen).
Last year, Bank of America, one of the biggest banks in the world, paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. So as you say, the tax rates mean very little because most companies find ways around paying it. Look at Mitt Romney. His father, George was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns. Mitt doesn't want to do so because he probably didn't pay any taxes. Roosevelt was elected to four terms as President. He was President during the Great Depression. He understood to get out the depression, Americans had to get paid well enough to be able to spend money on things to move the economy. He also understood corporations cannot be allowed to have so much power as to be able to buy the government.
Last year, Bank of America, one of the biggest banks in the world, paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. So as you say, the tax rates mean very little because most companies find ways around paying it. Look at Mitt Romney. His father, George was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns. Mitt doesn't want to do so because he probably didn't pay any taxes. Roosevelt was elected to four terms as President. He was President during the Great Depression. He understood to get out the depression, Americans had to get paid well enough to be able to spend money on things to move the economy. He also understood corporations cannot be allowed to have so much power as to be able to buy the government.
Let's not take political sides here for the sake of others.
If someone writes a term paper after doing a ton of research and someone else gets a hold of the paper and writes a paper based on what the original person wrote, I think most would see it is plagiarism and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. To me, it appears that Samsung got a hold of Apple's work and copied it. Now, it also doesn't matter if they just copied one part of the paper or not, it would still be wrong and considered plagiarism. To me, if Samsung has even copied part of what Apple patented, it is still wrong.
Now if this other person had done their own research and came to the same conclusions in their paper, that would seem OK to me. I don't see Samsung presenting the research that they did to reach the same design conclusions that Apple did. Samsung is saying Apple copied this and that so we should be allowed to copy. That doesn't seem like a good argument. Maybe Samsung will eventually show their research that can lead to the conclusion that they came up with things on their own but that is not how they are arguing the case at present.
If someone writes a term paper after doing a ton of research and someone else gets a hold of the paper and writes a paper based on what the original person wrote, I think most would see it is plagiarism and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. To me, it appears that Samsung got a hold of Apple's work and copied it. Now, it also doesn't matter if they just copied one part of the paper or not, it would still be wrong and considered plagiarism. To me, if Samsung has even copied part of what Apple patented, it is still wrong.
Now if this other person had done their own research and came to the same conclusions in their paper, that would seem OK to me. I don't see Samsung presenting the research that they did to reach the same design conclusions that Apple did. Samsung is saying Apple copied this and that so we should be allowed to copy. That doesn't seem like a good argument. Maybe Samsung will eventually show their research that can lead to the conclusion that they came up with things on their own but that is not how they are arguing the case at present.
JMO opinion though.
plagiarism |?pl?j??riz?m|
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
If you use other papers as a source for your research and cite the source as well as quoting any and all passages you've taken verbatim you are not plagiarizing. Your instruction my flunk you because you didn't do your own research in a way they required thus feeling you were lazy but that is not the same as plagiarizing.
The entire suit is not moot. The suit is about both design and utility patents. Samsung made a lot of money copying Apple's design patent. Apple wants Samsung to give up its profit for the past copying of the product.The lawsuit is also about utility patents, which Apple claims Samsung is still using. I remember when the first Galaxy phones came out. They were displayed at a Best Buy store, and in a ten minute span of standing by the display I heard three different parties refer to the phone as an iPhone.
I really wish I held the design patent for a "circular spoked appartus made out of wood, steel, iron, or aluminum alloys with or without a rubberized outer ring."
On a side note, if the "Father of email" had his way we'd all be paying licensing fees for sending electronic forms of messages. We should all be grateful that he's not forcing a quarter of the world's population to pay up. And yes, there is an actual person who owns the patent for email.
Forget the galaxy S (I think Samsung is guilty there) but do people here REALLY think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad? Not even the OS is similar in almost any way...
Forget the galaxy S (I think Samsung is guilty there) but do people here REALLY think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad? Not even the OS is similar in almost any way...
I genuinely want to know...
Yes, I think the first Galaxy Tab 10.1 was Samsung's attempt to follow the iPad's design as closely as possible while utilizing their available tech. This allowed them to cut a lot of corners by following the IP of their competitors too closely. I'm not just talking about inspiration. I'd say Nokia was inspired by the iPod with the Lumia but I would in no way say it's copy, clone or in anyway steals from Apple's IP.
A couple things to consider: 1) Google warned Samsung that the Galaxy 10.1 was too close to Apple's design. 2) Samsung's own investigation into why people returned the device was because people thought they were buying an iPad.
Now we can chalk this up to stupid buyers or just to buyer's remorse after finding it's not as easy to use as an iPad, but the former reason certainly helps Apple's case. The latter might fall into the mentality of this South Park clip.
[VIDEO]
PS: I want to create a program that replaces all these videos of people recording video from their TV screen... that then finds these people and gives them a 1 year time out from using the internet.
PPS: Any site that requires Adobe Flash I'm referring to as being Flashist. I suppose that mean I'm evoking Godwin's Rule but perhaps we need to make the world notice which sites only support Flashism.
Forget the galaxy S (I think Samsung is guilty there) but do people here REALLY think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad? Not even the OS is similar in almost any way...
I genuinely want to know...
Samsung's lawyers seem to think so, at a distance (across the court room).
PS: I want to create a program that replaces all these videos of people recording video from their TV screen... that then finds these people and gives them a 1 year time out from using the internet.
But… but that's the legal way to do it! The powers that be have told teachers that if there's a program on that they want to show their students that they're to set up a video camera and tape the TV playing it!
Samsung's lawyers seem to think so, at a distance (across the court room).
Even in this court case there was an issue with Samsung's lawyers knowing which device was which. That said, I'm not sure of the context; it might have been between different Samsung devices. Hopefully someone will put the following remarks into focus for me.
"Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller, handing him the wrong one. Schiller comments, "Well, they're confusing"."
But… but that's the legal way to do it! The powers that be have told teachers that if there's a program on that they want to show their students that they're to set up a video camera and tape the TV playing it!
I'm. dead. serious.
I didn't know that.
Agreed on being Flashist.
The irony is that is we don't install Flash thus avoiding all Flashism on the internet then we become the Not Sees*,
To be Frank, I'm just Göring to sit over here and Goebbel down some Dönitz before this conversation gets truly Mengeled. Don't want to get caught up in a heilstorm of ideologies.
To be Frank, I'm just Göring to sit over here and Goebbel down some Dönitz before this conversation gets truly Mengeled. Don't want to get caught up in a heilstorm of ideologies.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
As ALL companies likely 'size up' their wares against the competition, and then seek to improve upon said competition's efforts.
Apple has made a complete industry out of doing exactly this... Inventing Nothing but Improving Upon What Others Already Created.
This is ridiculous. Your comment implies that to improve upon something is not to invent something. For instance, if your view was taken literally you would say the first company to come out with a wireless home phone didn't invent anything because there were wired home phones before it. Apple is successful because it invents solutions to shortcomings found in other's products. The improvements are the inventions.
Samsung on the other hand was not improving upon Apple's ideas, instead it was trying to match Apple's products detail for detail.
I guess it never occurred to you that without Apple's lawsuit, Samsung would have continued making their devices look exactly like Apple's. The lawsuit may well be the only reason why the SIII now looks different.
Furthermore, even though the SIII looks different, that doesn't mean that it's not infringing on some of Apple's utility patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
At this point, the entire case is pretty moot... I mean really... look at the two devices now... the iPhone 4S versus the Galaxy 3... between the two OSs and the actual phone... only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
Honestly, you have to wonder about Apple and the top brass... sometimes it's like the nerdy kids in school grew up... and instead of learning to share and play together they fight like pissy kids.
I have a feeling Apple isn't in HDTVs yet because all the people who they are suing right now, have those HDTV patents!
The entire suit is not moot. The suit is about both design and utility patents. Samsung made a lot of money copying Apple's design patent. Apple wants Samsung to give up its profit for the past copying of the product.The lawsuit is also about utility patents, which Apple claims Samsung is still using. I remember when the first Galaxy phones came out. They were displayed at a Best Buy store, and in a ten minute span of standing by the display I heard three different parties refer to the phone as an iPhone.
Again, it's not margins that make something a luxury item. If it were, a Hyundai might be a luxury item while a Lamborghini might not be.
What makes a product a luxury item is its price relative to the competition, it's prestige, and so on. Manufacturing cost has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether something is a luxury item.
The SIII is no more a luxury item than the iPhone is - and no less. Their price is close to the same and they serve the same segment of the market. They both have similar levels of prestige. Personally, I don't consider something that has a 30% or so market share to be a luxury item, but if you do, then both the iPhone and the SIII are luxury items - whether the manufacturer makes 80% margins or 2% margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
I don't want to step into a politics argument, but I would like to say something about US taxes. Due to exemptions, subsidies, and all other manner of tax "loopholes", corporations, especially large ones, probably don't pay an effective tax rate equal to the standard corporate tax rate stated on simple US tax rate tables.
Our tax system is very complex, perhaps too much so, and in my opinion favors big business over new/small businesses. It's definitely too complex for me to draw up a simple solution, but I could try: remove all exemptions, subsidies, and what have you from the corporate tax scale, then reduce the corporate tax rate. The theory in my mind would have larger corporations pay about the same effective tax rate, but smaller businesses would end up paying a lower effective rate generally speaking.
As for individual income tax, I think it needs to very slowly be raised back to "pre-Bush tax cuts" levels, you know when our country's budget was running a surplus so we can pay down our debt and put money borrowed back into Social Security. (HAHAHAHA, none of this will ever happen).
Last year, Bank of America, one of the biggest banks in the world, paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. So as you say, the tax rates mean very little because most companies find ways around paying it. Look at Mitt Romney. His father, George was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns. Mitt doesn't want to do so because he probably didn't pay any taxes. Roosevelt was elected to four terms as President. He was President during the Great Depression. He understood to get out the depression, Americans had to get paid well enough to be able to spend money on things to move the economy. He also understood corporations cannot be allowed to have so much power as to be able to buy the government.
?? The judge is from South Korea, or does he have a picture of South Korea behind him?
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Last year, Bank of America, one of the biggest banks in the world, paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. So as you say, the tax rates mean very little because most companies find ways around paying it. Look at Mitt Romney. His father, George was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns. Mitt doesn't want to do so because he probably didn't pay any taxes. Roosevelt was elected to four terms as President. He was President during the Great Depression. He understood to get out the depression, Americans had to get paid well enough to be able to spend money on things to move the economy. He also understood corporations cannot be allowed to have so much power as to be able to buy the government.
Let's not take political sides here for the sake of others.
If someone writes a term paper after doing a ton of research and someone else gets a hold of the paper and writes a paper based on what the original person wrote, I think most would see it is plagiarism and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. To me, it appears that Samsung got a hold of Apple's work and copied it. Now, it also doesn't matter if they just copied one part of the paper or not, it would still be wrong and considered plagiarism. To me, if Samsung has even copied part of what Apple patented, it is still wrong.
Now if this other person had done their own research and came to the same conclusions in their paper, that would seem OK to me. I don't see Samsung presenting the research that they did to reach the same design conclusions that Apple did. Samsung is saying Apple copied this and that so we should be allowed to copy. That doesn't seem like a good argument. Maybe Samsung will eventually show their research that can lead to the conclusion that they came up with things on their own but that is not how they are arguing the case at present.
JMO opinion though.
plagiarism |?pl?j??riz?m|
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
If you use other papers as a source for your research and cite the source as well as quoting any and all passages you've taken verbatim you are not plagiarizing. Your instruction my flunk you because you didn't do your own research in a way they required thus feeling you were lazy but that is not the same as plagiarizing.
I really wish I held the design patent for a "circular spoked appartus made out of wood, steel, iron, or aluminum alloys with or without a rubberized outer ring."
On a side note, if the "Father of email" had his way we'd all be paying licensing fees for sending electronic forms of messages. We should all be grateful that he's not forcing a quarter of the world's population to pay up. And yes, there is an actual person who owns the patent for email.
I genuinely want to know...
Yes, I think the first Galaxy Tab 10.1 was Samsung's attempt to follow the iPad's design as closely as possible while utilizing their available tech. This allowed them to cut a lot of corners by following the IP of their competitors too closely. I'm not just talking about inspiration. I'd say Nokia was inspired by the iPod with the Lumia but I would in no way say it's copy, clone or in anyway steals from Apple's IP.
A couple things to consider: 1) Google warned Samsung that the Galaxy 10.1 was too close to Apple's design. 2) Samsung's own investigation into why people returned the device was because people thought they were buying an iPad.
Now we can chalk this up to stupid buyers or just to buyer's remorse after finding it's not as easy to use as an iPad, but the former reason certainly helps Apple's case. The latter might fall into the mentality of this South Park clip.
[VIDEO]
PS: I want to create a program that replaces all these videos of people recording video from their TV screen... that then finds these people and gives them a 1 year time out from using the internet.
PPS: Any site that requires Adobe Flash I'm referring to as being Flashist. I suppose that mean I'm evoking Godwin's Rule but perhaps we need to make the world notice which sites only support Flashism.
Samsung's lawyers seem to think so, at a distance (across the court room).
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: I want to create a program that replaces all these videos of people recording video from their TV screen... that then finds these people and gives them a 1 year time out from using the internet.
But… but that's the legal way to do it! The powers that be have told teachers that if there's a program on that they want to show their students that they're to set up a video camera and tape the TV playing it!
I'm. dead. serious.
Agreed on being Flashist.
Even in this court case there was an issue with Samsung's lawyers knowing which device was which. That said, I'm not sure of the context; it might have been between different Samsung devices. Hopefully someone will put the following remarks into focus for me.
I didn't know that.
The irony is that is we don't install Flash thus avoiding all Flashism on the internet then we become the Not Sees*,
* Did I take it too far with the pun?
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
* Did I take it too far with the pun?
To be Frank, I'm just Göring to sit over here and Goebbel down some Dönitz before this conversation gets truly Mengeled. Don't want to get caught up in a heilstorm of ideologies.
Auschwitz, now you've done it!
I don't know, perhaps you could ask one of the South Korean tourists in the Quinn Emanuel tour group.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsungs-lawyers-breached-rules-again.html?m=1