If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
There are plenty of lawsuits regarding a car's external design resemble another car too much. It's just that no body really pay attention to auto sector anymore.
You miss the point. Samsung is infringing on Apple's IP. Apple puts effort into innovating, then others copy it lock stock and barrel. That simply is not fair.
If you had invented something and others ripped you off, you would be upset as well.
That would make sense if that was what actually was happening.
There are plenty of lawsuits regarding a car's external design resemble another car too much. It's just that no body really pay attention to auto sector anymore.
Ford sued Ferrari over the use of "F-150" in racing. That's about all I can come up with, so it looks like one car manufacturer suing another is pretty rare nowadays.
1. Don't be a dick. 2. If you are unsure, see rule 1.
Now, this nonsense about people being confused really is being taken to the extreme. No one is going to confuse a Samsung tablet with an Apple iPad. The branding alone makes it very clear what the devices are and who makes them. This applies to phones as well.
Talk to people who sell these phones. I did this over the weekend after reading an article last week. The customers are not THAT stupid. They know what an iPhone and iPad is and they know the difference between Apple products and Samsung products.
The time and money wasted on this superfluous nonsense is getting in the way of actually producing products.
I disagree. I've heard countless people say their samsung phone is the same thing as an iPhone. I've heard salesman pitch samsung devices as being knockoffs of the iPhone. The packaging looks almost identical, the devices look almost identical, just because you're a tekkie and follow AI and know the difference doesn't mean every consumer does.
It seems pretty clear reading all these forums the past few months that anyone who claims to be an artist says apple has every right to sue samsung, that if someone copied their creativity so unscrupulously they would be pretty upset. Meanwhile, many of the engineers are all failing to understand because every company copies one another. Here in lies the difference between the two companies as well. Samsung is a hardware/engineer based company so they reverse engineer stuff all the time, they don't see a problem. Apple is primarily avdesign driven company, they are furious that samsung is piggy-backing on all their handwork and creativity.
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
If you invented and patented "the car," why would you not have the right to sue anyone and everyone who made one that infringed on your claims?
But the first car was patented in 1789-90 (by Oliver Evans [in the 1940s, the US Navy named a ship after him]). The US patent would have expired about 1803. It's free for anyone now, GM, Ford, Toyota, ....
By the way, since when does Apple "control...the majority of the smart phone market" ? And in what sense are they "hiding" behind anything?
Apple has all of its eggs in one basket. Destroy that basket and you have Apple teetering to the negotiation table.
Baloney.
First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.
None of us know what all the contracts entail, how long they're good for, nor what penalty clauses are involved. Heck, most could be year to year for all we know.
As for avoiding Samsung altogether, where have you seen that Apple can do so, that everything can be sourced elsewhere? Even Samsung's competitors make use of Samsung semi-conductors and chips.
Are you a complete idiot, democrat or just dysfunctional in some way? That is exactly what Apple did, they released a superior product. They aren't hiding behind anybody they are rather going after the ripoff artist at Samsung. What you should be asking is why is Samsung so lazy that they can develop their own technology and user interfaces.
I don't think it has anything to do with laziness.
PS - I like the way you slipped democrat into your line of abuse. It was very very very clever and not dysfunctional or idiotic.
Not to mention the boxing events when the Olympics were held in Seoul. That's not even an allegation. The Korean boxing associating put so much pressure on the judges and refs to the point that the bias was so blatant that the international olympic committee for boxing awarded the outstanding boxer award to a silver medalist (he might even have one the outstanding athlete of the games award, it was that shameful), --an American who 'lost' to a Korean in the gold medal match despite completely dominating him. I forgot the American's name but he moved on to a stellar professional career.
Then there was also the spectacle of a Korean boxer who actually lost (the only Korean I suppose who had the bad luck to fight before honest judges) --he was so upset that the cheating machine didn't work for him that after the fight he pouted like a three year old, sat in the middle of the ring, and refused to move for quite some time.
None of us know what all the contracts entail, how long they're good for, nor what penalty clauses are involved. Heck, most could be year to year for all we know.
As for avoiding Samsung altogether, where have you seen that Apple can do so, that everything can be sourced elsewhere? Even Samsung's competitors make use of Samsung semi-conductors and chips.
Apple doesn't use any Samsung semi-conductors, except for the RAM and flash chips, which they could get from other sources (Elpida, Micron both make LPDDR2 and flash memory, for example). Samsung fabs the Apple SoC's, but it's almost a public secret that from the A6 onwards, TSMC will produce them (no reason why they couldn't do it, they basically have the exact same equipment as Samsung, I know this because I work for the supplier of said equipment). The radio IC's are from Infineon and Qualcomm. The screens Apple already gets from LG, Wintek and I think a third supplier. The battery is custom, don't know where they are produced but definitely not Samsung. The cameras are from OmniVision, for the iPhone 5 some people are speculating it will have a Sony cam. The gyroscope/accelerometer are from STMicro. The case is not made by Samsung, and the iPhones are assembled by Foxconn and Pegatron.
... Are you a complete idiot, democrat or just dysfunctional in some way?....
It's so funny (to non-Americans I suppose), how the word "democrat" which refers to possibly the single most important political principle ever discovered and has been honoured and revered since the time of ancient Greece, has become an insult in late 20th century America.
America, "land of the free," home of democracy, but "democrat" is an insult. WTF?
Future historians will certainly be most amused and interested in this perverse turn of events. It might even be used as a demarcation of the point at which the USA really began it's transformation into a Fascist state.
Yep...let see who made the first aerodynamic car...... Or you could say "insert car name here" violates the "look and "feel" of "again insert car name here" When it all comes down to the natural evolution of style and function. If everyone took Apple's cue then EVERY industry would be suing each other because ALL businesses copy successful designs.
What a ridiculous argument.
The worlds *second* aerodynamically designed automobile would definitely *not* violate the rights of the first one because aerodynamics is a principle, not a design element. If the second aerodynamically designed auto was however a very similar shape and form to the first one, then it *would* violate the first design patent because it would be a close copy of the exact shape.
There are many possible aerodynamic shapes, so there is no need to copy another one because it's a principle applied to the underlying design. Your argument actually supports Apple's position on the Samsung suit.
You wouldn't mistake the phone for an iPhone but creatively speaking it Samsung definitely steps on Apple's toes. Its pretty shameless and clearly shows where Samsung gets their inspiration. I am not sure if Apple or Samsung benefits most from this kind of ad, however.
Comments
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
There are plenty of lawsuits regarding a car's external design resemble another car too much. It's just that no body really pay attention to auto sector anymore.
Is Apple going to stop using Samsung LCD screens on the iPad and the iPhone?
I think the Retina display are all made by LG.
You miss the point. Samsung is infringing on Apple's IP. Apple puts effort into innovating, then others copy it lock stock and barrel. That simply is not fair.
If you had invented something and others ripped you off, you would be upset as well.
That would make sense if that was what actually was happening.
Show them who is the real boss.
Apple has all of its eggs in one basket. Destroy that basket and you have Apple teetering to the negotiation table.
Good job Sammy.
Show them who is the real boss.
Apple has all of its eggs in one basket. Destroy that basket and you have Apple teetering to the negotiation table.
lolwut.
There are plenty of lawsuits regarding a car's external design resemble another car too much. It's just that no body really pay attention to auto sector anymore.
What was the latest one?
1. Don't be a dick. 2. If you are unsure, see rule 1.
Now, this nonsense about people being confused really is being taken to the extreme. No one is going to confuse a Samsung tablet with an Apple iPad. The branding alone makes it very clear what the devices are and who makes them. This applies to phones as well.
Talk to people who sell these phones. I did this over the weekend after reading an article last week. The customers are not THAT stupid. They know what an iPhone and iPad is and they know the difference between Apple products and Samsung products.
The time and money wasted on this superfluous nonsense is getting in the way of actually producing products.
I disagree. I've heard countless people say their samsung phone is the same thing as an iPhone. I've heard salesman pitch samsung devices as being knockoffs of the iPhone. The packaging looks almost identical, the devices look almost identical, just because you're a tekkie and follow AI and know the difference doesn't mean every consumer does.
It seems pretty clear reading all these forums the past few months that anyone who claims to be an artist says apple has every right to sue samsung, that if someone copied their creativity so unscrupulously they would be pretty upset. Meanwhile, many of the engineers are all failing to understand because every company copies one another. Here in lies the difference between the two companies as well. Samsung is a hardware/engineer based company so they reverse engineer stuff all the time, they don't see a problem. Apple is primarily avdesign driven company, they are furious that samsung is piggy-backing on all their handwork and creativity.
If I invented a car, does that give me the right to sue every other car maker in the world? I think it's hysterical that Ford and GM both have made cars and trucks that look nearly identical for decades, and yet both have been successful without suing each other constantly. Why do you think that is? Apple already controls the majority of the smart phone market, so what exactly are they afraid of? If competition is such an issue for them, maybe they should release a superior product instead of hiding behind a bunch of overpaid suits.
If you invented and patented "the car," why would you not have the right to sue anyone and everyone who made one that infringed on your claims?
But the first car was patented in 1789-90 (by Oliver Evans [in the 1940s, the US Navy named a ship after him]). The US patent would have expired about 1803. It's free for anyone now, GM, Ford, Toyota, ....
By the way, since when does Apple "control...the majority of the smart phone market" ? And in what sense are they "hiding" behind anything?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu0I...e_gdata_player
This ad is pretty cool, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoAhe...e_gdata_player
Good job Sammy.
Show them who is the real boss.
Apple has all of its eggs in one basket. Destroy that basket and you have Apple teetering to the negotiation table.
Baloney.
First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.
Baloney.
First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.
None of us know what all the contracts entail, how long they're good for, nor what penalty clauses are involved. Heck, most could be year to year for all we know.
As for avoiding Samsung altogether, where have you seen that Apple can do so, that everything can be sourced elsewhere? Even Samsung's competitors make use of Samsung semi-conductors and chips.
Are you a complete idiot, democrat or just dysfunctional in some way? That is exactly what Apple did, they released a superior product. They aren't hiding behind anybody they are rather going after the ripoff artist at Samsung. What you should be asking is why is Samsung so lazy that they can develop their own technology and user interfaces.
I don't think it has anything to do with laziness.
PS - I like the way you slipped democrat into your line of abuse. It was very very very clever and not dysfunctional or idiotic.
Not to mention the boxing events when the Olympics were held in Seoul. That's not even an allegation. The Korean boxing associating put so much pressure on the judges and refs to the point that the bias was so blatant that the international olympic committee for boxing awarded the outstanding boxer award to a silver medalist (he might even have one the outstanding athlete of the games award, it was that shameful), --an American who 'lost' to a Korean in the gold medal match despite completely dominating him. I forgot the American's name but he moved on to a stellar professional career.
Then there was also the spectacle of a Korean boxer who actually lost (the only Korean I suppose who had the bad luck to fight before honest judges) --he was so upset that the cheating machine didn't work for him that after the fight he pouted like a three year old, sat in the middle of the ring, and refused to move for quite some time.
Yes, a proud moment in sportsmanship.
The American was Roy Jones, Jr.
None of us know what all the contracts entail, how long they're good for, nor what penalty clauses are involved. Heck, most could be year to year for all we know.
As for avoiding Samsung altogether, where have you seen that Apple can do so, that everything can be sourced elsewhere? Even Samsung's competitors make use of Samsung semi-conductors and chips.
Apple doesn't use any Samsung semi-conductors, except for the RAM and flash chips, which they could get from other sources (Elpida, Micron both make LPDDR2 and flash memory, for example). Samsung fabs the Apple SoC's, but it's almost a public secret that from the A6 onwards, TSMC will produce them (no reason why they couldn't do it, they basically have the exact same equipment as Samsung, I know this because I work for the supplier of said equipment). The radio IC's are from Infineon and Qualcomm. The screens Apple already gets from LG, Wintek and I think a third supplier. The battery is custom, don't know where they are produced but definitely not Samsung. The cameras are from OmniVision, for the iPhone 5 some people are speculating it will have a Sony cam. The gyroscope/accelerometer are from STMicro. The case is not made by Samsung, and the iPhones are assembled by Foxconn and Pegatron.
Did I miss any parts?
... Are you a complete idiot, democrat or just dysfunctional in some way?....
It's so funny (to non-Americans I suppose), how the word "democrat" which refers to possibly the single most important political principle ever discovered and has been honoured and revered since the time of ancient Greece, has become an insult in late 20th century America.
America, "land of the free," home of democracy, but "democrat" is an insult. WTF?
Future historians will certainly be most amused and interested in this perverse turn of events. It might even be used as a demarcation of the point at which the USA really began it's transformation into a Fascist state.
Yep...let see who made the first aerodynamic car...... Or you could say "insert car name here" violates the "look and "feel" of "again insert car name here" When it all comes down to the natural evolution of style and function. If everyone took Apple's cue then EVERY industry would be suing each other because ALL businesses copy successful designs.
What a ridiculous argument.
The worlds *second* aerodynamically designed automobile would definitely *not* violate the rights of the first one because aerodynamics is a principle, not a design element. If the second aerodynamically designed auto was however a very similar shape and form to the first one, then it *would* violate the first design patent because it would be a close copy of the exact shape.
There are many possible aerodynamic shapes, so there is no need to copy another one because it's a principle applied to the underlying design. Your argument actually supports Apple's position on the Samsung suit.
Here's a Galaxy S 2 ad that "slavishly" copies Apple's "Think Different" ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu0I...e_gdata_player
You wouldn't mistake the phone for an iPhone but creatively speaking it Samsung definitely steps on Apple's toes. Its pretty shameless and clearly shows where Samsung gets their inspiration. I am not sure if Apple or Samsung benefits most from this kind of ad, however.
This ad is pretty cool, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoAhe...e_gdata_player
This is different and stands on its own feet, without impersonating Apple.