Apple, Samsung present closing arguments in California patent trial

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 139


    So if they win, they get 2.5 bil.? That's it? They don't get to ban the devices that copied them, they just go on selling and doing more damage.

  • Reply 102 of 139
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member


    http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/store-wars-samsung-apple-gadgets-at-10-paces-20120823-24njn.html


     


    Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.


     



     


    Quote:


    It's a flagship consumer electronics store on Sydney's George Street with smiling blue shirt-wearing sales staff, a minimalist design and smartphones and tablets that invite customers to pick up and play.


    But according to Samsung, the new store - just a block from Apple's Sydney store - was all its own idea.


     


    Everything from the store layout to the sales staff to the products and even the packaging and promotional material is uncannily Apple-esque.



  • Reply 103 of 139
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/store-wars-samsung-apple-gadgets-at-10-paces-20120823-24njn.html


     


    Funny thing is, Asher Moses - the writer of this article - has been on the anti-Apple brigade ever since he began writing for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I got into the habit of seeing his name and not even bothering to click to read his stories.


     



     



     


    Might root and brick my Galaxy Nexus and go in to demand a new one.

  • Reply 104 of 139

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I find THAT to be an inspirational feature, actually. An entire generation growing up alongside an OS they can understand and to which they can connect won't be going off and buying a PC. 



     


    This thread is dead, but I have to concur with this. My 2 year old loves using the iPad and finds his way around it very well. The apps you get for kids are amazing, so it really is like a primary entertainment-cum-education device. I really don't see him opting for a traditional PC unless his school needs it. Maybe 10 years down the line Indian schools will allow iPads as viable alternatives to PCs. 

  • Reply 105 of 139
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,105member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by logandigges View Post


    So if they win, they get 2.5 bil.? That's it? They don't get to ban the devices that copied them, they just go on selling and doing more damage.



    Neither part is necessarily correct. Apple said they want $2.5B. Highly unlikely anywhere near that amount will be awarded even if Samsung ruled against on every Apple claim. Second, banning devices is exactly what Apple is asking for too, in addition to the money.

  • Reply 106 of 139
    qualarqualar Posts: 72member


    I am going to be totally honest here.  I do want Samsung to win this case.  Not because I am an Android fan,  I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products.  I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.


     


    But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple.  I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it.  Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.

  • Reply 107 of 139


    Originally Posted by qualar View Post

    I am going to be totally honest here.  I do want Samsung to win this case.  Not because I am an Android fan,  I don't own any android devices, and not because I don't like Apple products.  I own a Mac Mini and 2 ipods.


     


    But I want Apple to lose because for some reason of late I just really dislike Apple.  I know it is not rational to dislike a company but I just cannot seem to help it.  Yes they make good products and do great marketing but the company just comes across as totally arrogant.



     


    Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!


     


    Hate without purpose is just stupidity.

  • Reply 108 of 139
    Hate without purpose is just stupidity.

    I agree!! It right up there with blind, unconditional love.
  • Reply 109 of 139

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Numbered list time!


     


    1. You're frigging joking, right? They only did it as a DIRECT RESPONSE to Apple doing it. Testing has shown that Apple's maps are higher resolution and clearer than Google's. And Apple's aren't even out of beta yet.



     


    You are truly off your rocker.


     


    You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.

  • Reply 110 of 139
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by OhReally View Post

    You are truly off your rocker.


     


    You show you have no idea what you are talking about on a regular basis.



     


    I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.

  • Reply 111 of 139

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!


     


    Hate without purpose is just stupidity.



     


    He said that he hates Apple "for some reason". A reason exists, it is just inexplicable. Now, I don't see how hate can have a purpose but that is probably me thinking on a metaphysical level.


     


    As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.

  • Reply 112 of 139

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I'd link you to the stories and the proof, but you'd ignore them. They're on this site in the archives, if you wish to peruse. Or if you don't trust any site with the word "Apple" in the title, the same stories are reported elsewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reproving you wrong.



    Are you talking about satellite photos or simple routes? Google uses vector images for roads so resolution isn't really applicable there. I also don't see why this matters. Obviously, it does to the consumer, but I don't see how this can really help or hurt an argument about which company is better. Neither Google or Apple owns a satellite.

  • Reply 113 of 139
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Samson Corwell View Post


    As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.



     


    Wait, we're calling into question the legality of being able to protect something you create? So you want NO patents, trademarks, or copyrights, then.

  • Reply 114 of 139
    It's an epic collision of cultures. Stewart Brand and 60's idealism overlaid on rough and tumble American capitalism, where even the mighty can be humiliated vs the corrupt (from a western pov) Korean chaebols with their government enforced monopolies, unapologetic mercantilism and a self-deprecating work ethic that values uniformity.

    Maybe you kids see it different, but a baby boomer like me is rooting hard for Apple. After so many years of watching the borg-like Asian tech industry exploit the hubris of American industry, I so want Apple to kick Samsung's ass.
  • Reply 115 of 139
    qualarqualar Posts: 72member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Ooh! Legally protecting one's intellectual property! How "arrogant"!


     


    Hate without purpose is just stupidity.



     


    I did not say I disliked Apple because of this case.  I have built up a dislike due to many actions.


     


    I would agree with the legally protecting intellectual property but with some of these patents they just go too far but that is another issue.


     


    Where did I say I HATE Apple?


     


    However, I will concede as I did in my original post that even dislike is illogical.  But I would hazard a guess that you or others in this forums dislike Google and Microsoft. 

  • Reply 116 of 139
    qualarqualar Posts: 72member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Wait, we're calling into question the legality of being able to protect something you create? So you want NO patents, trademarks, or copyrights, then.



     


    No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it.  But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across,  on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards.  I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.


     


    In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms.  If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm  If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.


     


    If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah".  This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.

  • Reply 117 of 139

    Quote:


     


    As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.



     


    Great comment!!!

  • Reply 118 of 139

    Quote:


     


    As for the comment about protecting intellectual property, the counter that it is legal can be countered with the question of if it should be.



     


    Great comment!!!

  • Reply 119 of 139

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by qualar View Post


     


    No I think what people generally want are patents for things that logically should be protected. eg If you spend years and money researching a new form of battery that gives x times the power, quite rightly you should get payment from anyone else who wishes to use it.  But we should not allow patents on minute details eg Slide to unlock (I am not going to argue if Apple did or did not invent or about prior art) but providing you do not copy the exact look of how one company does something you should be in the clear ie Apple has and icon that you slide across,  on WP7 you just slide the screen upwards.  I would even argue whether we should even allow patents on minute code segments at all.


     


    In the past code evolved by people improving on old algorithms.  If we take say a sort routine we started with simple bubble sort that did the job but when data sizes increased became very slow so people built upon previous idea and the code evolved see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm  If each person in the chain patented each bit it would have took far longer to get to the optimal solution.


     


    If companies patented thing back then like they do now I imagine the Patent would be something like "Ability to sort data blah blah blah".  This would prevent anyone building any type of sort routine at all.



     


    I agree!!!


     


    To all ardent Apple defender's here:


     


    Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are  Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung.  I’m rooting for a Sam win because:



    1. IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;


    2. I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;


    3. IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;  


    4. IMHO this whole trial has one objective:  Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;


    5. IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;  


    6. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;


    7. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process  – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;


    8. IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;


    9. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)


     


    Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!

  • Reply 120 of 139
    qualarqualar Posts: 72member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gogo2000 View Post


     


    I agree!!!


     


    To all ardent Apple defender's here:


     


    Don’t think that rooting for a Samsung win is because I/we are Apple bashers or because I/we are  Sammy lovers. Both companies have some great products (I bought and own various Apple and Samsung products). Apple excels in some areas and sucks at others and the same for Samsung.  I’m rooting for a Sam win because:



    1. IMHO some of the patents make no sense and shouldn’t have been awarded. I think the whole patents attribution process should/must be revised;


    2. I don’t agree with some of the instances in which the term “copied” has been applied ;


    3. IMHO both companies have grown using technology developed by themselves but also, developed by others;  


    4. IMHO this whole trial has one objective:  Apple striking a blow at their largest competitor;


    5. IMHO, I agree that Apple has become too cocky in the past years , if they win they will become even more;  


    6. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and put a strong hold on product development and evolution – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;


    7. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent and stifle the competitive process  – as consumers it’s bad for all of us;


    8. IMHO an Apple win will amplify the idea that “they are too big to mess with” which I truly don’t like;


    9. IMHO an Apple win will open a bad precedent that will lead to a succession of lawsuits of this nature in many areas (not only in consumer electronics!)


     


    Then there is another point, I'm not an accountant nor am I financial analyst but 2,5 BILLION in damages, really?!



     


    It excellent to hear someone making perfect sense.  This mirrors my thoughts exactly.  Already we are at a stage where small players cannot enter the market for fear of infringing on someones IP and these small companies just cannot afford this type of litigation.  It is almost impossible to produce something new that some small of does not infringe because these patents are sometimes so broad.

Sign In or Register to comment.