Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate. Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology. If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there? The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity). Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into. To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation. Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless. Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done. Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate. If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.
You are 100% correct. If companies are unable to protect their innovation, where is the incentive to innovate?
It would be good for Samsung to lose this case. It will force them to innovate instead of piggyback and that will benefit us all (including them)
I understand what you're getting at but the same can be said of any problem/obstacle, people will follow whatever someone else came up with. Apple greatly benefits from the problems Samsung overcame making the components used in the iPhone.
Agreed, But Samsung chooses to sell those components to Apple and Apple pays them for their innovation.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
Like almost every time some one quotes Steve, you are taking the comment out of context.
Apple is as much about making money as the next, but the money isn't the key when they design. They don't cut corners to save costs if it brings down the quality of he product and so on
They won't take license fees because it's not about money!
More to the point, these are not SEP and thus Apple doesn't have to share. Since these are the tech that makes the iPhone an iPhone, of course they aren't going to.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone. Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do? Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want. The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now. It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly. And biggest of all EASE OF USE. The iPhone introduced that. But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market? Not respond? When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired. Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones. This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way. It stops innovation.
3) AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design. This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside. The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point. Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus. But they were rapidly becoming button free. You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate. There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons. Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI. Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS. It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device. It has a better UI (especially with ICS).
I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has. Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use. Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there. They just need refinements like capacitive. In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs. iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S. But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do. You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
Job's stated that the coming lawsuits were in fact not about the money, but about principle. He would not accept an offer for settlement if presented. His intent is to destroy Android, as he felt it to "be a stolen product".
It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone.
This BS by Ive is just a diversion to make Apple look like it isn't under the grip of its investors(masters).
The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.
What the hell does that prove? I imagine that if you could fix door frames you would have a regualr job around Cupertino while Job's was alive.
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
Except that for the most part Samsung and other competitors didn't innovate. They copied. This is especially obvious with Samsung since they not only copied the overall design and look & feel, but the trade dress and packaging, down to the color and fonts.
If the competitors innovated, then there would probably be no lawsuit.
There's more than one way to do a phone UI. There's a lot about Apple's UI that I actually don't like. And I have seen some things on some other phones that I think do improve upon Apple's designs. But the competitors need to take that further. And there's lots of ways they could have done that: the screen could have been 16:9 (like HTDV) or even 2.35 (to emphasize widescreen movie downloads). The app icons didn't need to be square. The home pages (with the app icons) could have worked horizontally. The home button didn't need to be in the middle of the phone. They could have drastically improved performance. They could have had physical keyboards. And those are just a few off of the top of my head.
From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well. So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.
The one thing I agree with you is that even though Apple created the iPhone with no competition, they do need good competition in order to keep innovating.
And Ive was an idiot for saying "we didn't do it for the money". Apple is a public company. You never say that to shareholders, even if Apple decided to not manage to the share price, as some companies elect to do.
exactly how does someone walk into best buy, select an item that says "samsung galaxy tab," walk to the registers, pay for it, get it home, open it -- and only THEN realize it's "not an iPad"??
while I do believe samsung has infringed upon apple's patents, I just don't understand how the scenario above actually *takes place*. if you're paying hundreds of dollars for something, don't u make sure u have the correct item *before* paying for it? I'm sorry, but are people really THAT stupid?
Apparently. Samsung's own evidence says that the main reason for returns at Best Buy is people who thought they were buying an iPad and found out later that they weren't. Whether or not you can understand that is irrelevant.
But if you have even a shred of honesty, you have to admit that Samsung's design for the product and the packaging appear intended to make it look as close to the iPad as they thought they could get away with.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
You might start by not misrepresenting the argument. No one said that Apple doesn't care about money. What Ives said is that when designing new products, 'insanely great' is the top criterion.
2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone. Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do? Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want. The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now. It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly. And biggest of all EASE OF USE. The iPhone introduced that. But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market? Not respond? When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired. Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones. This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way. It stops innovation.
Who ever said that no one made a slate product before the iPhone? That's not anywhere in the article at all. Once again, you should read for comprehension before commenting.
3) AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design. This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside. The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point. Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus. But they were rapidly becoming button free. You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate. There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons. Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI. Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS. It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device. It has a better UI (especially with ICS).
In case you haven't noticed, there are several lawsuits. Some are about design and some are about technology. They will each be defended separately. If Samsung can prove that Apple doesn't have anything unique, then they'll win.
However, Samsung's own evidence is that they discarded all of their designs that didn't look like the iPhone and instead chose the one that looks the closest to the iPhone.
I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has. Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use. Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there. They just need refinements like capacitive. In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs. iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S. But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do. You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.
His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.
I thought that too, and it surprises me since it's the first time I think I noticed it so much. They usually try to be objective and that's good, seems like the writer didn't bother this time, again pretty unusual.
From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well. So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.
You are missing the whole point. From the leaks about prototypes, one of the prototypes look very much like the Lumia 800/900. So on any exterior design point, Apple did consider using such design before Nokia had made it public. Proves the limited design capabilities when you are working around a touch screen.
Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.
That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations. They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).
I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here. Let us compete. That will bring innovation. The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside. Sure some of it is standards based. But only standards based because the EU in a huge party pushed GSM as a EU wide standard to allow for better competition. This created the patents that are essential towards the operation of such standards. That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it. And now Apple wants to refuse anyone to use iPhone tech. Sure its not considered standards based, but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.
The fact is, you can not out innovate the iPhone without borrowing the simplicity it brought to the market. I know I brushed it off when it appeared on the market due to the lack of features ignoring the 'magic' and revolution was in simplicity. Things like a proximity sensor or multitouch or capactive display.
...but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.
Yeah, pretty much a standard requirement now, after Apple demonstrated how to put all of those parts together to make something other than a Blackberry clone...
That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations. They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).
I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here. Let us compete. That will bring innovation. The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside. ...
That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserati Man
Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate. Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology. If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there? The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity). Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into. To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation. Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless. Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done. Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate. If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.
You are 100% correct. If companies are unable to protect their innovation, where is the incentive to innovate?
It would be good for Samsung to lose this case. It will force them to innovate instead of piggyback and that will benefit us all (including them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I understand what you're getting at but the same can be said of any problem/obstacle, people will follow whatever someone else came up with. Apple greatly benefits from the problems Samsung overcame making the components used in the iPhone.
Agreed, But Samsung chooses to sell those components to Apple and Apple pays them for their innovation.
Like almost every time some one quotes Steve, you are taking the comment out of context.
Apple is as much about making money as the next, but the money isn't the key when they design. They don't cut corners to save costs if it brings down the quality of he product and so on
More to the point, these are not SEP and thus Apple doesn't have to share. Since these are the tech that makes the iPhone an iPhone, of course they aren't going to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
This article fails on several fronts.
1) If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit. They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.
2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone. Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do? Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want. The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now. It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly. And biggest of all EASE OF USE. The iPhone introduced that. But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market? Not respond? When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired. Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones. This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way. It stops innovation.
3) AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design. This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside. The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point. Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus. But they were rapidly becoming button free. You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate. There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons. Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI. Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS. It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device. It has a better UI (especially with ICS).
I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has. Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use. Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there. They just need refinements like capacitive. In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs. iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S. But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do. You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
Job's stated that the coming lawsuits were in fact not about the money, but about principle. He would not accept an offer for settlement if presented. His intent is to destroy Android, as he felt it to "be a stolen product".
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Ive is lying through his teeth.
It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone.
This BS by Ive is just a diversion to make Apple look like it isn't under the grip of its investors(masters).
The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.
What the hell does that prove? I imagine that if you could fix door frames you would have a regualr job around Cupertino while Job's was alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices. It could create less innovation. It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.
Except that for the most part Samsung and other competitors didn't innovate. They copied. This is especially obvious with Samsung since they not only copied the overall design and look & feel, but the trade dress and packaging, down to the color and fonts.
If the competitors innovated, then there would probably be no lawsuit.
There's more than one way to do a phone UI. There's a lot about Apple's UI that I actually don't like. And I have seen some things on some other phones that I think do improve upon Apple's designs. But the competitors need to take that further. And there's lots of ways they could have done that: the screen could have been 16:9 (like HTDV) or even 2.35 (to emphasize widescreen movie downloads). The app icons didn't need to be square. The home pages (with the app icons) could have worked horizontally. The home button didn't need to be in the middle of the phone. They could have drastically improved performance. They could have had physical keyboards. And those are just a few off of the top of my head.
From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well. So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.
The one thing I agree with you is that even though Apple created the iPhone with no competition, they do need good competition in order to keep innovating.
And Ive was an idiot for saying "we didn't do it for the money". Apple is a public company. You never say that to shareholders, even if Apple decided to not manage to the share price, as some companies elect to do.
Apparently. Samsung's own evidence says that the main reason for returns at Best Buy is people who thought they were buying an iPad and found out later that they weren't. Whether or not you can understand that is irrelevant.
But if you have even a shred of honesty, you have to admit that Samsung's design for the product and the packaging appear intended to make it look as close to the iPad as they thought they could get away with.
You might start by not misrepresenting the argument. No one said that Apple doesn't care about money. What Ives said is that when designing new products, 'insanely great' is the top criterion.
Who ever said that no one made a slate product before the iPhone? That's not anywhere in the article at all. Once again, you should read for comprehension before commenting.
In case you haven't noticed, there are several lawsuits. Some are about design and some are about technology. They will each be defended separately. If Samsung can prove that Apple doesn't have anything unique, then they'll win.
However, Samsung's own evidence is that they discarded all of their designs that didn't look like the iPhone and instead chose the one that looks the closest to the iPhone.
Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.
I thought that too, and it surprises me since it's the first time I think I noticed it so much. They usually try to be objective and that's good, seems like the writer didn't bother this time, again pretty unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well. So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.
You are missing the whole point. From the leaks about prototypes, one of the prototypes look very much like the Lumia 800/900. So on any exterior design point, Apple did consider using such design before Nokia had made it public. Proves the limited design capabilities when you are working around a touch screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.
That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations. They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).
I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here. Let us compete. That will bring innovation. The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside. Sure some of it is standards based. But only standards based because the EU in a huge party pushed GSM as a EU wide standard to allow for better competition. This created the patents that are essential towards the operation of such standards. That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it. And now Apple wants to refuse anyone to use iPhone tech. Sure its not considered standards based, but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.
The fact is, you can not out innovate the iPhone without borrowing the simplicity it brought to the market. I know I brushed it off when it appeared on the market due to the lack of features ignoring the 'magic' and revolution was in simplicity. Things like a proximity sensor or multitouch or capactive display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
...but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.
Yeah, pretty much a standard requirement now, after Apple demonstrated how to put all of those parts together to make something other than a Blackberry clone...
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations. They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).
I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here. Let us compete. That will bring innovation. The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside. ...
That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
By your logic brick and timber merchants will have the right to use any building built with materials they've sold.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }