No. Its Apple's determination to force those who would infringe its patents and thus steal its intellectual property to "invent their own stuff." To force this issue, Apple apparently feels it needs to pursue litigation against each and every instance of patent infringement. It's the fact that the court doesn't allow Apple to bring all its complaints of Samsung infringement at one time that forces Apple to bring a handful at-a-time and thus bring multiple lawsuits over an extended period of time. The damage awards are what will persuade Samsung it's better to work around Apple's patents than infringe them.
These lawsuits cost Apple in terms of distraction and legal fees but reward Apple in terms of compensation for past infringements and a greater level of assurance its competition will be more hesitant in the future to infringe its patents.
These lawsuits cost Samsung in terms of legal fees, judgement awards, and future R&D when it makes the determination that it might be cheaper to innovate on its own rather than outright copy its competition. As to any rewards Samsung attains, those are doubtful. Some might say that Samsung wins in the court of public opinion, but my view is that Samsung's huge (+$11 billion) marketing budget and distasteful competitive practices (paid blogging, spreading of mistruths, paid sponsorships like the recent Ellen selfie and David Ortiz selfie), etc are what is driving the anti-Apple bias.
So maybe Apple figures that it can change the whole Samsung culture of copying instead of inventing and designing. Good luck with getting that by lawsuit. The company seems to have scads of great engineers, but it has yet to see that design for users is the real art that should rule engineering.
Maybe Apple is hammering on that with them in the background, but then why would they want to give away their secret? Am I starting to sound like Rogifan?
Considering Samsung's marketing budget and sleazy practices, I question the integrity of the source. How long before we discover that Kellerfay works for Samsung?
I don't know if they are paid by Samsung, but I immediately distrust any site that uses the word "webinar."
#1 Android did not invent pull down notifications. These have been around at least since WebOS, and incidentally, Apple hired the engineer who came up with it.
#2 Are you really going to compare the few features in iOS that might resemble similar ones on Android to the blatant, well-documented and comprehensive copying that Samsung has done?
So basically smartphones before the iPhone looked like Blackberry's and after looked like the candy bar style phones we have today, plus the android app drawer screen is not the same as the home screen.
Don't get wrong, Samsung was obsessed with cloning the iPhone just like before it they were obsessed with cloning Blackberry. Samsung is the prime example of a fast follower and they mimic a lot of their competitors. Look at the vacuum cleaner that mirrors one from Dyson. Of course Dyson sued but then ended up withdrawing the suit. I'm not arguing whether Samsung copied or not, but whether all of this is worth it in the end for Apple. People here say Samsung needs to be publicly shamed. OK well Apple won the previous trial but I don't see where Samsung felt any shame or the public thinks of them in a more negative way. Do you have any links or examples of how this trial is really hurting Samsung?
Look at the evidence. He states that these documents are nothing illegal, then let's that fact alone carry the implication that Samsung did nothing wrong. While he left off the fact that, after creating these documents, Samsung then went on to implement Apple's patented method for unlocking a phone. How could a patent expert not make that point? It shows clear bias and intent to mislead his audience. How is that representative of a reduction in bias on his part? Please tell me you comprehend this!
You're preaching to the choir. I've consistently opined that Mueller has an agenda and perhaps driven by a contractual obligation. 'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed that for the past several years yourself. You really thought his previous to this month consistently and 100% anti-Google posts were logically sound and included all the pertinent facts? You should read some of my previous posts concerning where I thought he might have pledged his allegiance.
What he's written the past 3 or 4 years contrasts starkly with the previous 20 when he fought tooth and nail against software patentability and for widely available access to technology rather than artificial money-driven restrictions engineered by companies like Microsoft. Only very recently has he moved back towards his roots.
Based on his total history and if I had to choose one or the other I'd say the past 4 years or so was his "paid-to-post-by-a-biased-source" period and he's now being more faithful to his honest beliefs.
Some might say that Samsung wins in the court of public opinion, but my view is that Samsung's huge (+$11 billion) marketing budget and distasteful competitive practices (paid blogging, spreading of mistruths, paid sponsorships like the recent Ellen selfie and David Ortiz selfie), etc are what is driving the anti-Apple bias, only some of which touches on the issue of intellectual property battles.
Ah yes, the Oscars Ellen selfie that Samsung paid for, in contrast to all of her actual, unsolicited tweets made from her iPhone...
Which war is that? The one for customer loyalty and profits, or the one for meaningless marketshare based on sales of low end, low profit toys that aren't used for web browsing or shopping?
Ask Steve Jobs. He was the one who referred to it as a holy war. And if Apple has nothing to fear from "low end, low profit toys that aren't used for web browsing or shopping" what is the point of wasting all this time and money suing Samsung? At the end of the day won't consumers flock to the real thing and not the cheap, shameless inferior copies?
Ask Steve Jobs. He was the one who referred to it as a holy war. And if Apple has nothing to fear from "low end, low profit toys that aren't used for web browsing or shopping" what is the point of wasting all this time and money suing Samsung? At the end of the day won't consumers flock to the real thing and not the cheap, shameless inferior copies?
I'm not questioning there's a war. I'm asking who you think is winning and how you're keeping score. Apple cares about more than just money. They care about principles and the strength of their brand. And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about.
At the end of the day won't consumers flock to the real thing and not the cheap, shameless inferior copies?
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
No one will they care who "wins". And what is winning anyway? It's not like the GS4/5 or Galaxy Note will be pulled from shelves. IF Apple wins, Samsung pays a fine (big deal they're swimming in cash) and then goes to the media playing the sympathy card and whining about a biased court. And the anti-Apple and financial media will dutifully paint Samsung as the victim and Apple the big bully. Mark my words.
Absolutely. Sammy will be branded a copycat and thief. There will always be negative Apple spin. Apple sells and draws traffic.
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
I'm not questioning there's a war. I'm asking who you think is winning and how you're keeping score. Apple cares about more than just money. They care about principles and the strength of their brand. And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about.
And that's where I question if this trial is really worth it, if it really is going to strengthen their brand.
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
Exactly. It wasn't that long ago that Microsoft persuaded the masses into buying their copy-cat, inferior platform which almost put Apple out of business (at least partly Apple's fault, in Jobs' absence).
And that's where I question if this trial is really worth it, if it really is going to strengthen their brand.
Of course it is, by proving publicly that Samsung is a fraud and that anything "innovative" on their platform was stolen from Apple. This dispels the myth that Samsung's $14 billion marketing budget has created painting Apple as a company in decline, having lost its innovative spirit. Samsung is trying to cheapen the value of Apple's innovation by blatantly copying it. These trials will help prevent that from happening.
Absolutely. Sammy will be branded a copycat and thief. There will always be negative Apple spin. Apple sells and draws traffic.
They're already branded that, and it hasn't prevented from doing quite nicely. Those that have played nicely are teethering on extinction. They're all losing the little market share they have.
Daniel is educating people with cold hard facts, not throwing out rumors like other sites.
Originally Posted by bradipao
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
brad, you didn't read the rest of my comment, just like politicians. Daniel isn't insulting Apple, he's simply presenting the facts brought out at the trial. As for slide-to-unlock, Samsung and others tried their own way to unlock a phone and couldn't come up with something that worked well for the customer. You take a lot of things for granted, like nothing is new or unique or desirable for the user. The first cell phone I had was a pain to turn on and operate so I bought an iPhone and have looked back.
Considering Samsung's marketing budget and sleazy practices, I question the integrity of the source. How long before we discover that Kellerfay works for Samsung?
I don't know if they are paid by Samsung, but I immediately distrust any site that uses the word "webinar."
I mean, really?
Exactly. Sounds like some fly-by-night outfit that no on has heard of.
But, since they posted some impressive-looking charts on the internets, Gatorguy is assuming they must be telling the truth......
Comments
So maybe Apple figures that it can change the whole Samsung culture of copying instead of inventing and designing. Good luck with getting that by lawsuit. The company seems to have scads of great engineers, but it has yet to see that design for users is the real art that should rule engineering.
Maybe Apple is hammering on that with them in the background, but then why would they want to give away their secret? Am I starting to sound like Rogifan?
Considering Samsung's marketing budget and sleazy practices, I question the integrity of the source. How long before we discover that Kellerfay works for Samsung?
I don't know if they are paid by Samsung, but I immediately distrust any site that uses the word "webinar."
I mean, really?
Don't get wrong, Samsung was obsessed with cloning the iPhone just like before it they were obsessed with cloning Blackberry. Samsung is the prime example of a fast follower and they mimic a lot of their competitors. Look at the vacuum cleaner that mirrors one from Dyson. Of course Dyson sued but then ended up withdrawing the suit. I'm not arguing whether Samsung copied or not, but whether all of this is worth it in the end for Apple. People here say Samsung needs to be publicly shamed. OK well Apple won the previous trial but I don't see where Samsung felt any shame or the public thinks of them in a more negative way. Do you have any links or examples of how this trial is really hurting Samsung?
You're preaching to the choir. I've consistently opined that Mueller has an agenda and perhaps driven by a contractual obligation. 'd be surprised if you hadn't noticed that for the past several years yourself. You really thought his previous to this month consistently and 100% anti-Google posts were logically sound and included all the pertinent facts?
What he's written the past 3 or 4 years contrasts starkly with the previous 20 when he fought tooth and nail against software patentability and for widely available access to technology rather than artificial money-driven restrictions engineered by companies like Microsoft. Only very recently has he moved back towards his roots.
Based on his total history and if I had to choose one or the other I'd say the past 4 years or so was his "paid-to-post-by-a-biased-source" period and he's now being more faithful to his honest beliefs.
Some might say that Samsung wins in the court of public opinion, but my view is that Samsung's huge (+$11 billion) marketing budget and distasteful competitive practices (paid blogging, spreading of mistruths, paid sponsorships like the recent Ellen selfie and David Ortiz selfie), etc are what is driving the anti-Apple bias, only some of which touches on the issue of intellectual property battles.
Ah yes, the Oscars Ellen selfie that Samsung paid for, in contrast to all of her actual, unsolicited tweets made from her iPhone...
Ask Steve Jobs. He was the one who referred to it as a holy war. And if Apple has nothing to fear from "low end, low profit toys that aren't used for web browsing or shopping" what is the point of wasting all this time and money suing Samsung? At the end of the day won't consumers flock to the real thing and not the cheap, shameless inferior copies?
I'm not questioning there's a war. I'm asking who you think is winning and how you're keeping score. Apple cares about more than just money. They care about principles and the strength of their brand. And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about.
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
Absolutely. Sammy will be branded a copycat and thief. There will always be negative Apple spin. Apple sells and draws traffic.
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
Exactly. It wasn't that long ago that Microsoft persuaded the masses into buying their copy-cat, inferior platform which almost put Apple out of business (at least partly Apple's fault, in Jobs' absence).
And that's where I question if this trial is really worth it, if it really is going to strengthen their brand.
Of course it is, by proving publicly that Samsung is a fraud and that anything "innovative" on their platform was stolen from Apple. This dispels the myth that Samsung's $14 billion marketing budget has created painting Apple as a company in decline, having lost its innovative spirit. Samsung is trying to cheapen the value of Apple's innovation by blatantly copying it. These trials will help prevent that from happening.
They're already branded that, and it hasn't prevented from doing quite nicely. Those that have played nicely are teethering on extinction. They're all losing the little market share they have.
Daniel is educating people with cold hard facts, not throwing out rumors like other sites.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
brad, you didn't read the rest of my comment, just like politicians. Daniel isn't insulting Apple, he's simply presenting the facts brought out at the trial. As for slide-to-unlock, Samsung and others tried their own way to unlock a phone and couldn't come up with something that worked well for the customer. You take a lot of things for granted, like nothing is new or unique or desirable for the user. The first cell phone I had was a pain to turn on and operate so I bought an iPhone and have looked back.
Their brand is strong enough. It's for posterity, so that the next would be copier will think twice.
. I no longer purchase Samsung products
Sounds like Mueller's arguing with only half the facts. I have to wonder about all the sources, seen and unseen, of Mueller's income these days.
Most AI commenters have been pretty comfortable with his sources of income and saw no need to question his objectivity....
until now.
Um... I see ONE AI commenter raising a question.
Did I somehow miss all the others?
Considering Samsung's marketing budget and sleazy practices, I question the integrity of the source. How long before we discover that Kellerfay works for Samsung?
I don't know if they are paid by Samsung, but I immediately distrust any site that uses the word "webinar."
I mean, really?
Exactly. Sounds like some fly-by-night outfit that no on has heard of.
But, since they posted some impressive-looking charts on the internets, Gatorguy is assuming they must be telling the truth......