I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
4. Sony Ericsson candy bar
5. Another Sony Ericsson candy bar
6. Motorola Razor
7. iPhone 3G
8. iPhone 4
She didn't want the matter going to appeal, because then she'd be under a microscope. So she pushed for a settlement. That *was* one of the theories anyway.
It's gratifying, though, that this went to a jury.
I would argue for that very reason she was easy on Samsung when she could have sanctioned them multiple times their bullshit. She knew anything she did to punish them would be used for appeal.
In fact, I think that was part of Samsung's strategy, to piss the judge off to use that for the appeal process.
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor [I]because[/I] of their thievery.
I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
Each was good in their own time.
I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D
I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D
Okay, so I don't remember the model designation, so I described the Motorola as what it most resembled. It was a brick with a keypad and pull-out antenna. But hey, it was way smaller than a bag-phone, and you could put it in your pocket...if you had really, really huge pockets. The NEC smaller brick could fit in a regular pocket, and you could walk with only a slight limp.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Yeah we saw it, but the amount of damages was less than what they would have to pay the teams of lawyers. It was pocket change and Apples sales in South Korea are negligible when compared to the entire picture. Now if this was in China, that would be a horse of a different color.
That was published a few days ago. It's largely irrelevant because the numbers are quite small. Furthermore, it's clear to everyone that it's a bogus decision. The South Korean court basically forced Apple to license patents against its will because it somehow equates FRAND and non-FRAND patents - unlike every other court in the world who has considered the matter. Read Foss Patents for a review of that decision and why it's not a useful precedent. In fact, it's likely to spur major international fall out since it basically allows S Korean companies to steal whatever they want.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
That would be dangerous territory indeed. Luckily no one is saying that, since similar ? copied.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
This post doesn't make sense. Tylenol's drug patent ran out and you can get acetaminophen as a generic.
well, let's go see what the original iphone cost (600 unsubsidized) and the iphone 3g cost (200 w/contract). Also, there are more than one ways to design a phone. If there isn't, why are we all expecting a new design from Apple every year or two?
Why doesn't coke allow other soda companies to use their curvy glass bottle design?
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so,
That's actually a feature of the patent system. Your work is protect from copying for a period of time so that there is incentive to create new things. Then after that period of time expires, the plans for the original design are freely available from the patent office to make copying easier. The patent system is designed to give the inventors a trade; "We'll protect you for a time in exchange for making your knowledge available to the public." That's a win-win scenario.
The alternative is trade secret. Companies are free to keep their innovations secret for as long as they can. If they can't their work can be copied freely as soon as the secret is exposed. If they can (like the formula for Coke) they can continue to manufacture their product without direct copies for as long as they like.
The current patent time is 20 years (recently updated from 17 years to match international patent laws). Maybe this should be shorter for computer hardware, where it seems that anything older than 10 years is so obsolete that it's unusable, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
well, let's go see what the original iphone cost (600 unsubsidized) and the iphone 3g cost (200 w/contract). Also, there are more than one ways to design a phone. If there isn't, why are we all expecting a new design from Apple every year or two?
Why doesn't coke allow other soda companies to use their curvy glass bottle design?
The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.
That's actually a feature of the patent system. Your work is protect from copying for a period of time so that there is incentive to create new things. Then after that period of time expires, the plans for the original design are freely available from the patent office to make copying easier. The patent system is designed to give the inventors a trade; "We'll protect you for a time in exchange for making your knowledge available to the public." That's a win-win scenario.
The current patent time is 20 years (recently updated from 17 years to match international patent laws). Maybe this should be shorter for computer hardware, where it seems that anything older than 10 years is so obsolete that it's unusable, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
Moore's Theorem would point to a dramatically different timeline...similar to chip development.
What’s amazing to remember is that those awful pre-Apple phone designs were exactly the kind of thing we all drooled over up until 2007!
Not me. I hated all cell phones and only used a pay as you go phone if I absolutely had to. They sucked. Tiny screens and small buttons, horrible menu systems.
I remember a sales person asking me what i wanted in a phone. This was 2006 or so. I said I wanted a phone that could do multimedia well. Not even knowing what that might be, but I imagined Apple would get right if they ever tried. He showed me some thing and said this one does.
I recalling thinking that I could wait for something better.
This is kind of what Jobs always said that you cant ask consumers what they want because they dont know until the see it.
Its also why Samsung is guilty as hell as Apple spent the time and money to develop something entirely new
Well done, jurors. Well done. Common sense prevailed. If only the trolls on this site were equally inclined.
And now we see clearly how distorted the worldview is of the Apple-haters and the rectanglez trolls. They are nowhere near mainstream in their views: their tech/gadget/specs elitism does not represent the view of the average person.
I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Once again class, altogether now! "This has nothing to do with rounded rectangles, this has everything to do with trade dress". You may want to set down for a minute and let that sink in, or at least try to understand what that means legally. No one is saying Samsung can't make a touch screen phone, but they are saying they can't make a touchscreen phone that looks nearly identical to Apple's. Same connector, same proportions and colors, iconography, etc. This has everything to do with marketing a product and they leveraged Apple's ability to make a beautiful object for their own benefit.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Pretty sure apple tried to license its patents to Samsung. Samsung said, more or less, I dare you to sue us, see ya in court, even during the trial they had chances to settle, they dug their heels in and go knocked the F out.
Don't kid yourself Samsung was never Apple's direct competitor, they are a follower, a parasite leeching off of apples innovation and success, sure they have sold alot more smartphones that apples other "competitors" but competitors challenge each other to innovate and succeed in the industry, I dare you to name one design, marketing decision that apple has changed due to Samsungs ill gotten success.
Samsung is a peon compared to apple and any doubt about that was just cleared up indefinately.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
It's maybe a minor thing for me to pick at, but Tylenol *used* to have a patent for paracetamol ( acetaminophen) that ran out almost 30 years ago. Back then they could have charged whatever they wanted, and did. it was a great success. They didn't have a monopoly on pain medication though.. there were several other drugs that have had just as long and great of a success... Ibuprofen and aspirin both trade on brand ( Advil and Bayer ) so much that people don't even know what the actual chemicals are... they just know it's a pain pill. But anyway... Tylenol is a brand today because of the great patent protection and marketing they had.
Like I said.... I'm not trying to argue this too storngly becuase I know the issues at hand are much different with chemical patents and there's absolute proof if someone rips off your formulation
Comcast and TIme Warner. I'm not sure I follow here...They are required to carry competitor's programming because of the defacto monopoly you get when you can only run one wire to someone's house. They are a quasi-utility. You don't see Dish Network having to do the same with Comcast.
And finally.. competition. I respectfully say you're confusing what the public wants right now with innovation. There' not only one way to make a sophisticated internet mobile phone. The reason people THINK the way Apple does it is required for one to be a success is because that's the first product that did it very well!
You don't HAVE to have a multi touch capacitive interface. You could have a verbal+eye tracking interface for instance. You can develop your own patents on this. You can to cross licensing deals. You don't HAVE to have a UI that looks like Apple's you can do alot of great things.
Yes maybe they are indeed the next targets, or maybe they'll get good licensing deals. Apple absolutely deserves this. Their patents are finite. They will end, it won't last forever. They are the rightful inventors. Why SHOULDN'T they get to profit off of it? Think back to pre-iPhone again.
in 2006, pre iPhone ...We were dazzled by the Balackberry getting rid of the side scroll wheel and changing it to plastic trackball! ooooooo! Or we got a new flip phone with 1 extra hour of battery life. wow. We had a new version of a Tero with an OS that seems to just get fatter and not do anything new.
ANn most importantly We had phone carriers that had no interest whatsoever in making their network have any speed on it.
The entire phone industry was lazy as hell with their incremental tweaking and gouging the consumer for the last 10 years. Apple stepped in and kicked their a**es and they all deserve to die for it.
Everyone but Apple was making what the carriers wanted.
Apple took a big gamble and innovated far beyond what any company in the entire world was willing to do. They deserve protection from leeches and "me too" devices.
I do hope that the lawsuits end all around and competition in ernest gets going again. It's a little bit ironic I think that this whole thing actually benefits Microsoft too. They never had a chance in the market until now. Android will get knocked down a notch from all the future licensing deals. Some phone companies may say ... hmm.. maybe we're better off doing a windows 8 phone. This "free" android, is costing us a lot of licensing.
It may be a 3 horse race in the next couple of years. I think that's a MUCH better alternative for the consumer.
Comments
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
4. Sony Ericsson candy bar
5. Another Sony Ericsson candy bar
6. Motorola Razor
7. iPhone 3G
8. iPhone 4
Each was good in their own time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
She didn't want the matter going to appeal, because then she'd be under a microscope. So she pushed for a settlement. That *was* one of the theories anyway.
It's gratifying, though, that this went to a jury.
I would argue for that very reason she was easy on Samsung when she could have sanctioned them multiple times their bullshit. She knew anything she did to punish them would be used for appeal.
In fact, I think that was part of Samsung's strategy, to piss the judge off to use that for the appeal process.
I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D
I guess it all depends on what country you're in, I wonder why this news isn't getting as much play time...
http://gizmodo.com/5937493/samsung-vs-apple-the-south-korean-verdict-is-in
That was published a few days ago. It's largely irrelevant because the numbers are quite small. Furthermore, it's clear to everyone that it's a bogus decision. The South Korean court basically forced Apple to license patents against its will because it somehow equates FRAND and non-FRAND patents - unlike every other court in the world who has considered the matter. Read Foss Patents for a review of that decision and why it's not a useful precedent. In fact, it's likely to spur major international fall out since it basically allows S Korean companies to steal whatever they want.
That would be dangerous territory indeed. Luckily no one is saying that, since similar ? copied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
This post doesn't make sense. Tylenol's drug patent ran out and you can get acetaminophen as a generic.
well, let's go see what the original iphone cost (600 unsubsidized) and the iphone 3g cost (200 w/contract). Also, there are more than one ways to design a phone. If there isn't, why are we all expecting a new design from Apple every year or two?
Why doesn't coke allow other soda companies to use their curvy glass bottle design?
That's actually a feature of the patent system. Your work is protect from copying for a period of time so that there is incentive to create new things. Then after that period of time expires, the plans for the original design are freely available from the patent office to make copying easier. The patent system is designed to give the inventors a trade; "We'll protect you for a time in exchange for making your knowledge available to the public." That's a win-win scenario.
The alternative is trade secret. Companies are free to keep their innovations secret for as long as they can. If they can't their work can be copied freely as soon as the secret is exposed. If they can (like the formula for Coke) they can continue to manufacture their product without direct copies for as long as they like.
The current patent time is 20 years (recently updated from 17 years to match international patent laws). Maybe this should be shorter for computer hardware, where it seems that anything older than 10 years is so obsolete that it's unusable, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.
Moore's Theorem would point to a dramatically different timeline...similar to chip development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
What’s amazing to remember is that those awful pre-Apple phone designs were exactly the kind of thing we all drooled over up until 2007!
Not me. I hated all cell phones and only used a pay as you go phone if I absolutely had to. They sucked. Tiny screens and small buttons, horrible menu systems.
I remember a sales person asking me what i wanted in a phone. This was 2006 or so. I said I wanted a phone that could do multimedia well. Not even knowing what that might be, but I imagined Apple would get right if they ever tried. He showed me some thing and said this one does.
I recalling thinking that I could wait for something better.
This is kind of what Jobs always said that you cant ask consumers what they want because they dont know until the see it.
Its also why Samsung is guilty as hell as Apple spent the time and money to develop something entirely new
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead
Another Extremely Obvious Observation,...from the outside ...not from this Jury's vantaged perception.
If Samsung never COPIED,
they would be in the EXACT SAME BOAT as RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, and now SAMSUNG, are today.
In other words, it's OBVIOUS that Samsung is having sales success
Unlike, RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, ...and others.
Their the only company with some level of success
BUT
that success was SOLELY dependent on their COPYING APPLE.
the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well
I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Once again class, altogether now! "This has nothing to do with rounded rectangles, this has everything to do with trade dress". You may want to set down for a minute and let that sink in, or at least try to understand what that means legally. No one is saying Samsung can't make a touch screen phone, but they are saying they can't make a touchscreen phone that looks nearly identical to Apple's. Same connector, same proportions and colors, iconography, etc. This has everything to do with marketing a product and they leveraged Apple's ability to make a beautiful object for their own benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Pretty sure apple tried to license its patents to Samsung. Samsung said, more or less, I dare you to sue us, see ya in court, even during the trial they had chances to settle, they dug their heels in and go knocked the F out.
Don't kid yourself Samsung was never Apple's direct competitor, they are a follower, a parasite leeching off of apples innovation and success, sure they have sold alot more smartphones that apples other "competitors" but competitors challenge each other to innovate and succeed in the industry, I dare you to name one design, marketing decision that apple has changed due to Samsungs ill gotten success.
Samsung is a peon compared to apple and any doubt about that was just cleared up indefinately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
It's maybe a minor thing for me to pick at, but Tylenol *used* to have a patent for paracetamol ( acetaminophen) that ran out almost 30 years ago. Back then they could have charged whatever they wanted, and did. it was a great success. They didn't have a monopoly on pain medication though.. there were several other drugs that have had just as long and great of a success... Ibuprofen and aspirin both trade on brand ( Advil and Bayer ) so much that people don't even know what the actual chemicals are... they just know it's a pain pill. But anyway... Tylenol is a brand today because of the great patent protection and marketing they had.
Like I said.... I'm not trying to argue this too storngly becuase I know the issues at hand are much different with chemical patents and there's absolute proof if someone rips off your formulation
Comcast and TIme Warner. I'm not sure I follow here...They are required to carry competitor's programming because of the defacto monopoly you get when you can only run one wire to someone's house. They are a quasi-utility. You don't see Dish Network having to do the same with Comcast.
And finally.. competition. I respectfully say you're confusing what the public wants right now with innovation. There' not only one way to make a sophisticated internet mobile phone. The reason people THINK the way Apple does it is required for one to be a success is because that's the first product that did it very well!
You don't HAVE to have a multi touch capacitive interface. You could have a verbal+eye tracking interface for instance. You can develop your own patents on this. You can to cross licensing deals. You don't HAVE to have a UI that looks like Apple's you can do alot of great things.
Yes maybe they are indeed the next targets, or maybe they'll get good licensing deals. Apple absolutely deserves this. Their patents are finite. They will end, it won't last forever. They are the rightful inventors. Why SHOULDN'T they get to profit off of it? Think back to pre-iPhone again.
in 2006, pre iPhone ...We were dazzled by the Balackberry getting rid of the side scroll wheel and changing it to plastic trackball! ooooooo! Or we got a new flip phone with 1 extra hour of battery life. wow. We had a new version of a Tero with an OS that seems to just get fatter and not do anything new.
ANn most importantly We had phone carriers that had no interest whatsoever in making their network have any speed on it.
The entire phone industry was lazy as hell with their incremental tweaking and gouging the consumer for the last 10 years. Apple stepped in and kicked their a**es and they all deserve to die for it.
Everyone but Apple was making what the carriers wanted.
Apple took a big gamble and innovated far beyond what any company in the entire world was willing to do. They deserve protection from leeches and "me too" devices.
I do hope that the lawsuits end all around and competition in ernest gets going again. It's a little bit ironic I think that this whole thing actually benefits Microsoft too. They never had a chance in the market until now. Android will get knocked down a notch from all the future licensing deals. Some phone companies may say ... hmm.. maybe we're better off doing a windows 8 phone. This "free" android, is costing us a lot of licensing.
It may be a 3 horse race in the next couple of years. I think that's a MUCH better alternative for the consumer.