It replaced an aging monochrome TREO 180 that had also been so very helpful in terms of data sync. I am in ways sorry TREO declined. A Moto Razr went back after a day. Pfwaw... iPhone was a cell phone that 'needed no manual'. Is there still a role for that?
I hold a decidedly dim view of anyone expressing an affinity for anything Samsung, especially in terms of 'design'... Does Samsung represent so much of what is wrong in this world...?
I find it funny as now Samsung design is differnt than any iPhone and it is far more atractive than iPhone (put features aside, but remember that some of them came to Samsung way long before Apple applied them and they were not innovation, but only improvement - some people do not seem to have notice that).
So okay pay for 2007 copying, but not allow new designs to be copied. So far having both phones in hand I am more attractd to Samsung at first look (although iOS has a lot of advantages over ANdroid in some areas).
If Samsung hadn’t stolen their ‘leg up’ from Apple would they even have got where they are? I think if they, and others, had been forced to take their own evolutionary path they wouldn’t be in the mobile business at all.
And remember the true culprit for most of the IP theft hasn’t even taken the stand. Apple shouldn’t stop, they should use this as a test case and push the litigation portfolio as far as they can across other vendors and their mastermind.
Ugh... Can anybody just point me to a summary of the summary.
Samsung won by copying the iPhone to significantly increase their mobile business while getting away with it by
dragging out a lengthy trial and, at the end, only paying (at most) $500M.
Precisely - Samsung should pay Apple a sum equivalent to lost iPhone profits x Samsung global sales units less any IP chargebacks based on design elements Samsung actually contributed.
I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for? They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm. Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.). Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
Oh just stifle the blathering nonsense.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out the Apple settled for substantially less than $500. Otherwise Samsung would keep fighting as they have all along.
And in terms of the physical design, the iPhone wasn’t anything special until the iPhone4 came out. It was iOS that really made the iPhone special and beautiful. Not to say design isn’t a positive. But I would love to have iOS in a Galaxy S9 as much as in the iPhoneX.
Ultimately this case is pointless. The time and expense will never work out to make Samsung (or others) not see blatant thievery as a excellent way to enter and control a part of the market. This is ultimately a slap on the wrist for a giant.
I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for? They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm. Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.). Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
Oh just stifle the blathering nonsense.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out the Apple settled for substantially less than $500. Otherwise Samsung would keep fighting as they have all along.
And in terms of the physical design, the iPhone wasn’t anything special until the iPhone4 came out. It was iOS that really made the iPhone special and beautiful. Not to say design isn’t a positive. But I would love to have iOS in a Galaxy S9 as much as in the iPhoneX.
I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for? They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm. Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.). Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
Oh just stifle the blathering nonsense.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out the Apple settled for substantially less than $500. Otherwise Samsung would keep fighting as they have all along.
We don't know that, Samsung are also desperate for A13 orders so this could be part of the bargaining and could actually make that number OVER $500m. Many many factors at play that we'll never know about until someone high up releases a book a few years down the line.
Isn’t only a matter of external design. Android is a stolen product . Pinch to zoom, multitouch with fingers that work for real and fast, slide to unlock , icons on grids , ecc ecc. Android is a bad copy , but anyway still violating Apple patents and technology. Android is unpunished because it allow to spy the informations of people. This is not right. It should be close
I find it funny as now Samsung design is differnt than any iPhone and it is far more atractive than iPhone (put features aside, but remember that some of them came to Samsung way long before Apple applied them and they were not innovation, but only improvement - some people do not seem to have notice that).
So okay pay for 2007 copying, but not allow new designs to be copied. So far having both phones in hand I am more attractd to Samsung at first look (although iOS has a lot of advantages over ANdroid in some areas).
Did you ever saw the notch on android products ? Samsung still copying from Apple patents published and from news when Apple is near the release a new product. But basically the technology under the smartphone is still stolen: multitouch , a full screen without bottoms to control it , pinch to zoom ecc . Samsung tryed to anticipate Apple with Face ID (patent published in 2015) and it isn’t work. So it’s true now there are difference. And for that Apple have record of sell , but look at Samsung financial reports under mobile section : they loose a lot of money every year
So does Samsung pay Apple anything? This article doesn’t say either way. Might this settlement indicate Samsung really wants to get the manufacturing contract for the A12? Is this a win-win or lose-lose for the parties?
update: other websites are saying the terms of the settlement have not been released so we may never know. Let the rumor mill run wild.
AI Apple critics: Samsung won. Evil Apple.
AI Apple supporters: Apple won. Evil Samsung.
Samsung , but in reality android, is been condemned many times . Totally they pay to Apple almost 800 milions dollars. 539 now , and other money in the past. For sure android should not able to use that technology and be back to use fisicall keyboard for their products.
I'm glad this is over but there is no clear winner. Everyone lost. You could say that Apple won a small moral victory by virtue of Samsung having been found guilty and having to pay some sizable fines to Apple. There's little consolation in a moral victory when there's no lasting value behind it because it has no deterrent effect on further breaches. Samsung may have been one of the first and most blatant offenders but they are by no means the last. Apple could continue to play whack-a-mole for the next 20 years against lower tier offenders.
On the larger playing field of international competition, Samsung demonstrated that blatant copying of a competitor's product, even a competitor who happens to be one of your largest customers, is fully justifiable for business reasons given a particular set of circumstances. If you still hold on to the moral code that "cheaters never win" this case is a cold slap in the face. Cheaters do win and when cheating can be used to keep a company from going under - cheat they will and Samsung cheated at will.
The iPhone was so transformative and disruptive to the competitive products at the time that any company that didn't copy the iPhone would be doomed to failure, or so they thought. Samsung wasted no time in jumping all over Apple with obvious copying and theft of core Apple design patents. They got slapped back a little but in the long run it was the right move for Samsung because it allowed them to live to fight another day. Simple cost of doing business. Ultimately Samsung did what they should have done from the start and came up with their own designs, but for several years they leaned heavily on cheating and IP theft to keep themselves afloat. They still copy today, but are much more adept at disguising their deception. In the end we can now see clearly that Samsung is a company with no moral convictions, no sense of shame, no pride, and especially - no soul.
Once again, patent and intellectual property protections proved to be a paper tiger. While a small number of cross licensing deals were obviously struck in Apple's favor the supposed Maginot Line of IP protecting the iPhone design that Steve Jobs alluded to early on proved to be largely ineffective and easily breached by the Samsung Copying Blitzkrieg.
Isn’t only a matter of external design. Android is a stolen product . Pinch to zoom, multitouch with fingers that work for real and fast, slide to unlock , icons on grids , ecc ecc. Android is a bad copy , but anyway still violating Apple patents and technology. Android is unpunished because it allow to spy the informations of people. This is not right. It should be close
Isn’t only a matter of external design. Android is a stolen product . Pinch to zoom, multitouch with fingers that work for real and fast, slide to unlock , icons on grids , ecc ecc. Android is a bad copy , but anyway still violating Apple patents and technology. Android is unpunished because it allow to spy the informations of people. This is not right. It should be close
Didn't Apple settle that too. Back in 2014.
Yes they did. That chapter is done and over.
But there's folks that still like to reenact the American Civil War too....
Comments
It replaced an aging monochrome TREO 180 that had also been so very helpful in terms of data sync. I am in ways sorry TREO declined. A Moto Razr went back after a day. Pfwaw... iPhone was a cell phone that 'needed no manual'. Is there still a role for that?
I hold a decidedly dim view of anyone expressing an affinity for anything Samsung, especially in terms of 'design'... Does Samsung represent so much of what is wrong in this world...?
And remember the true culprit for most of the IP theft hasn’t even taken the stand. Apple shouldn’t stop, they should use this as a test case and push the litigation portfolio as far as they can across other vendors and their mastermind.
And in terms of the physical design, the iPhone wasn’t anything special until the iPhone4 came out. It was iOS that really made the iPhone special and beautiful. Not to say design isn’t a positive. But I would love to have iOS in a Galaxy S9 as much as in the iPhoneX.
Oh just stifle the blathering nonsense.
On the larger playing field of international competition, Samsung demonstrated that blatant copying of a competitor's product, even a competitor who happens to be one of your largest customers, is fully justifiable for business reasons given a particular set of circumstances. If you still hold on to the moral code that "cheaters never win" this case is a cold slap in the face. Cheaters do win and when cheating can be used to keep a company from going under - cheat they will and Samsung cheated at will.
The iPhone was so transformative and disruptive to the competitive products at the time that any company that didn't copy the iPhone would be doomed to failure, or so they thought. Samsung wasted no time in jumping all over Apple with obvious copying and theft of core Apple design patents. They got slapped back a little but in the long run it was the right move for Samsung because it allowed them to live to fight another day. Simple cost of doing business. Ultimately Samsung did what they should have done from the start and came up with their own designs, but for several years they leaned heavily on cheating and IP theft to keep themselves afloat. They still copy today, but are much more adept at disguising their deception. In the end we can now see clearly that Samsung is a company with no moral convictions, no sense of shame, no pride, and especially - no soul.
Once again, patent and intellectual property protections proved to be a paper tiger. While a small number of cross licensing deals were obviously struck in Apple's favor the supposed Maginot Line of IP protecting the iPhone design that Steve Jobs alluded to early on proved to be largely ineffective and easily breached by the Samsung Copying Blitzkrieg.
But there's folks that still like to reenact the American Civil War too....
Kids, make a note of that.