I don't know about very nice, its samsung's best phone, ill give you that, I personally think is another bloated piece of crap, but thats just me, it is selling well but mostly because samsung has established its brand by making themselves as much like apple as possible, and they are preying on the ignorance of the consumer. If Samsung had not got where they are by copying, theyd be greasing the bottom of the barrel along with all the others.
Galaxy S III is doing so well because it's Samsung's flagship phone and they've marketed the hell out of it. Here in the USA practically every AT&T and Verizon commercial features it. During the Olympics every other commercial featured a S III as Samsung was a sponsor.
In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.
The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.
The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!
Galaxy S III is doing so well because it's Samsung's flagship phone and they've marketed the hell out of it. Here in the USA practically every AT&T and Verizon commercial features it. During the Olympics every other commercial featured a S III as Samsung was a sponsor.
Same here in Portugal, you almost cannot walk 100 m in Lisbon without seeing one giant poster of it ( and i am ignoring the anti Apple choir of reviewers from the TVs ). And here in Portugal people always buy in horde what is publicized em masse.
In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.
The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.
The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!
Indeed!
The western cheap-in-order-to-have-all mentality is well used by Samsung.
People want cheap phones with tech of smartPhones, with that mentality they will sell their good old mother.
They were all different: As for Tylenol, it was not a good example. Many drugs were $3 or more per pill when they first came out as it require prescriptions. Either you pay for it out of the pocket, or your health insurance company is paying it (hence why healthcare is expensive). When the patent expired, then they made them cheaper. Only then companies can make similar products with same ingredient.
Exactly. Patents are designed to give the inventor exclusive rights to a product for a given time.
Lipitor used to be $170 for a one month supply. Because it was so expensive (and because most insurance companies don't like to pay for proprietary products), my insurance only paid about $10 of that, so I was paying $160. In the year before generics came out, they sent out a 'copay' card which effectively reduced the price by $40. In the last few months, they increased the discount to $50 - but it still cost $110 out of pocket. Generics came out at around $50 - and insurance paid $35 of that for a net cost of $15.
Now, without the ability to charge very high prices, Lipitor would probably never have been commercialized. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a pharmaceutical product to market with no guarantee of success. It is the high potential profit that encourages companies to develop and market new drugs. After the patent expires, the cost comes down.
Consumer electronics are somewhat different for several reasons:
1. Patent expiration is not really an issue. The technology changes rapidly enough that by the time a patent has expired, the products based on it are probably obsolete.
2. There are plenty of alternatives. If you don't want to pay the price of a phone from one vendor which has lots of patented technologies, you can always buy a phone without those technologies from another vendor. This competition keeps prices under control. For example, the Tab isn't any cheaper than the iPad it copies.
3. The patents that are required to make the device work are almost always covered by FRAND/SEP so there is competition for basic workable devices. Patents only cover the extras.
Note that Google's argument about not making money on Android is a weak argument - they can still be held liable for contributory infringement.
Mueller makes some interesting comments, though: "Apple may also want to reassert the patents it withdrew to streamline the case and ask the judge to speed up a second suit it filed against Samsung last January that asserts four more patents -- some of which, according to Mueller, are even more powerful than the ones it just won with. There are dozens of Apple v. Samsung cases around the world yet to be decided, not to mention pending suits against HTC and Motorola Mobility, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Google."
With even more suits against Samsung and some potentially even stronger than this one, Samsung has an incentive to settle. I could picture them agreeing to pay the damages for this suit in order to get Apple to drop the other ones. And from Apple's perspective, that's not a bad deal if it comes with an admission of guilt and an agreement to stop copying.
Galaxy S III is doing so well because it's Samsung's flagship phone and they've marketed the hell out of it. Here in the USA practically every AT&T and Verizon commercial features it. During the Olympics every other commercial featured a S III as Samsung was a sponsor.
Apparently they only sold around 10 million of them last quarter, of their overall 30 million. The rest were their lower-tier phones.
Samsung is doing well because they can flood the market like a champ. The consumer satisfaction crown belongs to Apple. Apple commands over 30% of the US market with barely 3 phones. All under one roof.
The jury might have "decided" the case after one day of deliberation (note: this is not 2nd day of the 3 week trial)...
What some people seem to forget (not necessarily including you, talking in general now), is that the jurors have been sitting there for three full weeks listening to evidence and testimonies. They eat dinner every evening, and sleep every night. They think about the case while in the shower in the morning... They have had plenty of time to reflect over this for a very long time...
The fact is that these jurors have used more of their time to listen to both parties and decide this trial, than most people giving their opinions about what the outcome should have been and how they reached their conclusion. I hardly think any of the comments on this (or any other) website has been thought through for 24 hours before being typed and the "Submit" button clicked. Not even twenty minutes. The average time from end typing to clicking submit is probably in the region of 20 seconds
You're right. I misread the headline and reacted without truly reading the article.
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 a very simple answer, it was beyond "similar". And I'm not just addressing this to you, but to all who seems to think this verdict was unjust.
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
you mean the ipad Mini? I don't think that will be a great idea personally, and I think it would be far more inspired by the success of the Kindle than anything Samsung has done.
Agreed and I would add, note apple history of developing their existing products. and I think the "ipad mini" was on it's way regardless of competition.
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.
Also, there was no direct competition when the price of the IPhone (or iPad) was set -- Apple set the bar on the device high, and the bar on the price low -- believing that no one would directly (and illegally) copy their IP.
Apparently they only sold around 10 million of them last quarter, of their overall 30 million. The rest were their lower-tier phones.
Samsung is doing well because they can flood the market like a champ. The consumer satisfaction crown belongs to Apple. Apple commands over 30% of the US market with barely 3 phones. All under one roof.
Really? Well the way people go on about them and all the hype you'd think they sold 3 times as many,
In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.
The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.
The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!
Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by glemmestad
Sarcasm works horribly on the internet. I should have learned that by now!
Yeah, I was wondering.
My mistake, then. I'll edit accordingly.
In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.
The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.
The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Galaxy S III is doing so well because it's Samsung's flagship phone and they've marketed the hell out of it. Here in the USA practically every AT&T and Verizon commercial features it. During the Olympics every other commercial featured a S III as Samsung was a sponsor.
Same here in Portugal, you almost cannot walk 100 m in Lisbon without seeing one giant poster of it ( and i am ignoring the anti Apple choir of reviewers from the TVs ). And here in Portugal people always buy in horde what is publicized em masse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr
In many ways, Samsung is the winner in this trial. It went from the low-tier of cell phone makers to the very top of the market (in numbers sold, not profits) on the basis of stolen IP. Now it has to pay a small fraction of the profits it has made and has also avoided the billions in development costs that were borne by Apple.
The jury sent a message, and perhaps, its conservative calculation of damages will serve to insulate the verdict from appeal.
The American patent and jury systems are the huge highlight of this case. Reaffirmed, sir!
Indeed!
The western cheap-in-order-to-have-all mentality is well used by Samsung.
People want cheap phones with tech of smartPhones, with that mentality they will sell their good old mother.
Exactly. Patents are designed to give the inventor exclusive rights to a product for a given time.
Lipitor used to be $170 for a one month supply. Because it was so expensive (and because most insurance companies don't like to pay for proprietary products), my insurance only paid about $10 of that, so I was paying $160. In the year before generics came out, they sent out a 'copay' card which effectively reduced the price by $40. In the last few months, they increased the discount to $50 - but it still cost $110 out of pocket. Generics came out at around $50 - and insurance paid $35 of that for a net cost of $15.
Now, without the ability to charge very high prices, Lipitor would probably never have been commercialized. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a pharmaceutical product to market with no guarantee of success. It is the high potential profit that encourages companies to develop and market new drugs. After the patent expires, the cost comes down.
Consumer electronics are somewhat different for several reasons:
1. Patent expiration is not really an issue. The technology changes rapidly enough that by the time a patent has expired, the products based on it are probably obsolete.
2. There are plenty of alternatives. If you don't want to pay the price of a phone from one vendor which has lots of patented technologies, you can always buy a phone without those technologies from another vendor. This competition keeps prices under control. For example, the Tab isn't any cheaper than the iPad it copies.
3. The patents that are required to make the device work are almost always covered by FRAND/SEP so there is competition for basic workable devices. Patents only cover the extras.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/25/will-apple-now-sue-google/
Note that Google's argument about not making money on Android is a weak argument - they can still be held liable for contributory infringement.
Mueller makes some interesting comments, though:
"Apple may also want to reassert the patents it withdrew to streamline the case and ask the judge to speed up a second suit it filed against Samsung last January that asserts four more patents -- some of which, according to Mueller, are even more powerful than the ones it just won with.
There are dozens of Apple v. Samsung cases around the world yet to be decided, not to mention pending suits against HTC and Motorola Mobility, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Google."
With even more suits against Samsung and some potentially even stronger than this one, Samsung has an incentive to settle. I could picture them agreeing to pay the damages for this suit in order to get Apple to drop the other ones. And from Apple's perspective, that's not a bad deal if it comes with an admission of guilt and an agreement to stop copying.
Apparently they only sold around 10 million of them last quarter, of their overall 30 million. The rest were their lower-tier phones.
Samsung is doing well because they can flood the market like a champ. The consumer satisfaction crown belongs to Apple. Apple commands over 30% of the US market with barely 3 phones. All under one roof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glemmestad
The jury might have "decided" the case after one day of deliberation (note: this is not 2nd day of the 3 week trial)...
What some people seem to forget (not necessarily including you, talking in general now), is that the jurors have been sitting there for three full weeks listening to evidence and testimonies. They eat dinner every evening, and sleep every night. They think about the case while in the shower in the morning... They have had plenty of time to reflect over this for a very long time...
The fact is that these jurors have used more of their time to listen to both parties and decide this trial, than most people giving their opinions about what the outcome should have been and how they reached their conclusion. I hardly think any of the comments on this (or any other) website has been thought through for 24 hours before being typed and the "Submit" button clicked. Not even twenty minutes. The average time from end typing to clicking submit is probably in the region of 20 seconds
You're right. I misread the headline and reacted without truly reading the article.
It's a very simple answer, it was beyond "similar". And I'm not just addressing this to you, but to all who seems to think this verdict was unjust.
Only if one is wallowing in chickensh*t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbine
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
Maybe this is one of the one or two:-
Agreed and I would add, note apple history of developing their existing products. and I think the "ipad mini" was on it's way regardless of competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial.
edit: already said by someone else
Cite a link please?
Also, there was no direct competition when the price of the IPhone (or iPad) was set -- Apple set the bar on the device high, and the bar on the price low -- believing that no one would directly (and illegally) copy their IP.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.