I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?
That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense
They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.
Sorry, I replied to my own post instead of yours, so here again:
"We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims," Ilagan said. "That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. Its not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that."
I have no doubts that American customers will pay for this since Samsung will definitely put a tiny bit of this loss into ever single product they sell.
I agree with you in this case. I made this comment when the first few comments had come in and they were a little bit over the top with the "Ha Ha we won" attitude. I do think Apple has a lot more time to plan what to do and the people in charge there seem to be doing better than I could. I really just wanted to get the point across that Apple and Samsung remain business partners for a reason. Samsung does have the ability to produce top quality when they are making components, and they do not reap anywhere near the kind of income from their IP that Apple does for what they do. In the comment section of another article here there are a couple of people arguing that Samsung is run by a Dr Evil type of management team. I believe the situation is more complex then this, but it is a meme that seems to fit the cultural situation. I do think the level of support for IP shown in our culture is important, but it is clearly not the only way things are done.
I have a business which is franchising in Seoul Korea and I can say that trust is the big problem in international business deals. We do not really have any evidence that we will continue to receive the royalty checks we are due. We did get a small first check and the business is struggling to adapt to the local culture. The problem is that we are not getting any sales reports to compare the income to. This is not a small matter. It is much harder to trust someone who is unwilling to document their work. As is evident in this trial, documentation of work is taken as risky by the Korean business culture. What are you hiding if you don't want your work documented?
I think Apple understands that this is no simple case of just copying on one level, but on another, they simply want Samsung to recognize where they are out of line. It is really doubtful that Samsung is really going to get the message from this one case. I think that it is going to take time before Apple and Samsung can settle this case. It is telling that Apple's pretrial settlement price was about 20% cheaper than the jury verdict. The longer Samsung fights to defend copying this obvious, the more this is going to cost them.
Very interesting movie. I had no clue about history of Korea. Thx.
You're welcome.
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
It is my understanding that Apple is reliant on Samsung for several patents that are necessary for the production of the ARM chips used in the iPad and IPhone. I will admit I do not have the source for this, but it stands to reason that there are patents used by each foundry which make the necessary yield of top quality chips possible. The technology that is necessary to create chips on the 32 nm node is so specific that Intel could not use another foundry to produce their chips even if they wanted to, without redesigning and optimizing the final chip tape out.
What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?
Its ok, you don't have to put your big boy pants on just yet, its still fresh and new, I know one day it will be all better, Samsung will appeal, rectangles, innovation, anticompetition, I know sweetie, I know...
As much as I prefer their design and engineering abilities in the world of TV, I still had to join a class action suit to be reimbursed for repairs prompted by their use of out-of-date, crap capacitors in my current set.
CSR's lied, avoided answers, denied the problem for a coupleof years until a response was forced in court.
Samsung is right in that is a loss for consumers, "who always want something for nothing". Those of us who consume to produce understand and appreciate quality and are willing to pay for it. I certainly never liked having my work ripped off and it being credited to others -- happened too many times. Giving credit where it is due; that is all that is required.
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.
Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.
No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.
Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?
No problem, I see it right that companies copy each other, because they'll copy each other anyway (they exchange patents like if it was a cards game). I said the patents system no longer protects the one with low resources, and that's what I think. Don't lose the time with this supposedly war, which is no war, nor justice, it's just a cards game. They're playing poker, that's it.
The problem here is that they can play poker, but any independent developer wishing to use any patented technology cannot enter the game.
No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.
Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?
Use your resources to conduct Research and Development of products, and NOT revert to the easy way out of copying/stealing other companies' ideas for personal profit
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.
This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
hahahah
But wouldn't you? Look at it again.
Duplicate post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac512
I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?
That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense
They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.
Sorry, I replied to my own post instead of yours, so here again:
From http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
"We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims," Ilagan said. "That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. Its not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that."
Samsung, if your Korean electronics and tech are so sh*t hot and truly original, where's your Neil Armstrong?
R.I.P.
I agree with you in this case. I made this comment when the first few comments had come in and they were a little bit over the top with the "Ha Ha we won" attitude. I do think Apple has a lot more time to plan what to do and the people in charge there seem to be doing better than I could. I really just wanted to get the point across that Apple and Samsung remain business partners for a reason. Samsung does have the ability to produce top quality when they are making components, and they do not reap anywhere near the kind of income from their IP that Apple does for what they do. In the comment section of another article here there are a couple of people arguing that Samsung is run by a Dr Evil type of management team. I believe the situation is more complex then this, but it is a meme that seems to fit the cultural situation. I do think the level of support for IP shown in our culture is important, but it is clearly not the only way things are done.
I have a business which is franchising in Seoul Korea and I can say that trust is the big problem in international business deals. We do not really have any evidence that we will continue to receive the royalty checks we are due. We did get a small first check and the business is struggling to adapt to the local culture. The problem is that we are not getting any sales reports to compare the income to. This is not a small matter. It is much harder to trust someone who is unwilling to document their work. As is evident in this trial, documentation of work is taken as risky by the Korean business culture. What are you hiding if you don't want your work documented?
I think Apple understands that this is no simple case of just copying on one level, but on another, they simply want Samsung to recognize where they are out of line. It is really doubtful that Samsung is really going to get the message from this one case. I think that it is going to take time before Apple and Samsung can settle this case. It is telling that Apple's pretrial settlement price was about 20% cheaper than the jury verdict. The longer Samsung fights to defend copying this obvious, the more this is going to cost them.
-delete-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac512
Very interesting movie. I had no clue about history of Korea. Thx.
You're welcome.
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
It is my understanding that Apple is reliant on Samsung for several patents that are necessary for the production of the ARM chips used in the iPad and IPhone. I will admit I do not have the source for this, but it stands to reason that there are patents used by each foundry which make the necessary yield of top quality chips possible. The technology that is necessary to create chips on the 32 nm node is so specific that Intel could not use another foundry to produce their chips even if they wanted to, without redesigning and optimizing the final chip tape out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?
Its ok, you don't have to put your big boy pants on just yet, its still fresh and new, I know one day it will be all better, Samsung will appeal, rectangles, innovation, anticompetition, I know sweetie, I know...
As much as I prefer their design and engineering abilities in the world of TV, I still had to join a class action suit to be reimbursed for repairs prompted by their use of out-of-date, crap capacitors in my current set.
CSR's lied, avoided answers, denied the problem for a coupleof years until a response was forced in court.
Samsung is right in that is a loss for consumers, "who always want something for nothing". Those of us who consume to produce understand and appreciate quality and are willing to pay for it. I certainly never liked having my work ripped off and it being credited to others -- happened too many times. Giving credit where it is due; that is all that is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO
You're welcome.
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Not racist, now, are you. "It's in their blood". Wow, you're quite a despicable human being.
No, not in the least bit. I didn't know about their history until someone showed me that video and dug a little deeper. When someone, whether it be a kid, individual or corporation acts in a certain way, a good way to understand their actions is to learn about their history.
Is it racist only when a negative connotation is attached? What if a positive connotation was used? For example, Germans contributed more to society than any other country on this planet. Would that be considered as racist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
So you have no problem with the car above?
No problem, I see it right that companies copy each other, because they'll copy each other anyway (they exchange patents like if it was a cards game). I said the patents system no longer protects the one with low resources, and that's what I think. Don't lose the time with this supposedly war, which is no war, nor justice, it's just a cards game. They're playing poker, that's it.
The problem here is that they can play poker, but any independent developer wishing to use any patented technology cannot enter the game.
No, it's still racist.
Lessons LEARNED:
Innovate, do NOT Imitate
Use your resources to conduct Research and Development of products, and NOT revert to the easy way out of copying/stealing other companies' ideas for personal profit
Be Original and NOT a Copycat/Knock-off
Accept the truth, and NOT deny it
Stealing does NOT pay
Be a Winner, NOT a Loser
Buy Apple, NOT Samesung!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
No, it's still racist.
My bad, I had no intention for it to be viewed that way.
On another note, I wonder if this will radically change the way smartphone makers design their phones.
"Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer." that's good and way to go, Samsung. Just be careful to not stealing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO
I hope people now will understand that Korean companies and Koreans copy because it's in their blood. Their role in history was to imitate their neighbors, they have no true identity. Even their written language was recently changed from Chinese characters.
Koreans carry that history and tradition into the 21st century. First they copy the shit out of Japan and now the West, because they think they could get away with it [in Asia at least], Apple stood their ground and won.
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.
This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)