jungmark wrote: »
so what Sammy's saying is that we don't know how to move mobile design/innovations forward without Apple showing us the way. Even though we've been in the biz longer than Apple has, we don't know anything.
This is a win for the United States vs the foreign countries who steal from it. Apple is an American company that and Americans should all treat it as a win for our nation.
Yes I think they will cross-license, they already offered to do that before the case I believe. When Microsoft copied the Mac and made "Windows" (a nice generic name for a generic copy), Apple sued them and won too, but later cross-licensed.
I have to give Apple credit for attempting to license their UI to Samsung and avoid litigation. I personally never thought they would do that (even with Microsoft). It was a good gesture of them to appear to be reasonable. Samsung may not be offered the licensing agreement again. Nor do I think Apple will necessarily make that offer to other, smaller manufacturers. Winning this lawsuit strengthens Apple and changes everything.
When pressed to comment on the odds of Apple winning this lawsuit Horace replied: "Again, I don’t have an opinion on legal matters. Broadly speaking, IP litigation is similar to playing the lottery."
Apple has now made the point that it should not be copied directly and protected their intellectual property rights.
The real question now is will Apple take the high road, and lock in the win they have made in this case and offer to cross license technology with their partner, Samsung. There is plenty of money to be made by both parties.
The smartphone and tablet markets taken together is the largest market by gross product that has ever been conceived of. Hundreds of billions of Dollars of profits are on the table at this point.
A simple effort to avoid infringing on each other's trade dress, and a cross license of all technical and software patents would be a huge win for both Apple and Samsung.
Please remember that Apple never made any great products until they quit fighting Microsoft and put the heart and soul of the company into the effort to make new products for the "digital life"
The problem with Horace's analogy is that there are billions of losing outcomes in a lottery. In a court case, there are only 2: lose, and split decision. Apple had done all the good faith stuff up front. It had lived the good life. Their odds were better than a Lottery. Also, Apple was playing with money it could lose, and it was money well spent in that defending your IP is important in all other IP cases (both in legal, and perception of the litigant).
It was Samsung that was shown as willfully avoiding any sort of 'partnership,' hence the claim they willfully infringed... this wasn't accidental. You want Apple to say all is forgiven? The High road is pure capitalism... if you can build something that is innovative and is less expensive, it will drive Apple to do the same, and that consumer benefit of innovation and low cost will be achieved.
Profits... Build a better tablet/phone, and you'll share in the profits... Apple wants to compete, not build a cartel, as you propose.
Cross Licensing works when there is legitimate means to gain mutual advantage. There was no advantage in Samsung's portfolio. You gotta have something to trade.
Point Last: Apple stopped trying to be a computer company fighting for corporate 'least cost' bids. Apple/NeXT made innovative products, it was just hamstrung with the 'just good enough' corporate crapware that the MS OEM model forced on us all. The race to the bottom was a no-win situation for the underdog. Apple just realized that winning wasn't 'seats', but it was building compelling product in markets where none existed, and where the user was the decision maker not the corporate purchasing agent.
macky the macky wrote: »
If Apple's win can prevent manufacturers from feeling safe from litigation when they power up their phones and tablets using Android, then Apple can dry up the support for Android-based devices. Alternately, this can force Android to drop any UI features that will get the manufacturers into litigation, thus making the Android OS less enjoyable to use.
Additionally, several court cases, including this one, have shown that Google is not capable of protecting the manufacturers as once thought. Therefore, choosing the "FREE" Android as an OS is proving to be very very expensive.
Finally, with this court win, Apple is able to finally show and monetize the lose of profits. That may finally open up Google to be liable for each copy of Android they gave away.
Apple is not a 'licensing' business. It may license underlying technology where it's not germaine to the experience, but core experience IP will likely be protected until someone forces FRAND on them (as Google is asking).
I wonder if this will make Motorola Google rethink their current litigation starting up
Samsung marketing. WTF are they thinking? Samsung and Google can't think of something more original than badly copying Apple.
How is copying innovating? Personally, I am surprised Samsung and others haven't been sued for false advertising. They mention their products are "upgradeable" with the use of SD memory. I am still trying to figure out how that is an "upgrade". SSD is different than SD memory, but it sounds like Samsung and others market it as if it is the same. The average consumer doesn't know the difference.
From what I can see Apple gave Samsung the chance to pay the royalties up front and Samsung said no. They were willing to take this chance. They lost. That's business.
Samsung, innovate? I believe not. And Apple will not raise their prices on their phones or iPads.
Even now they are whining and complaining, whats sad here is that there are people out there who believe the stuff they are saying. People who actually think Samsung is a victim of corrupt patent laws and a corrupt legal system, They believe not only that samsung is innocent of copying apple but that apple has infringed on samsung's patents as well. They actually believe this whole thing was about patenting a rectangle and anticompetitiveness, and done out of fear of competition.
Its so very sad to me that people are actually this dim witted.
I think on an Apple centric news aggregator like this it is worth noting that Samsung is more than just a copy cat. They make high quality products, especially components in cellphones, and they take pride in the quality of the products they make. Culturally, they do not "see" that copying the "best" in a competitors product is anything more than competition. You need to do more than just dismiss Samsung as "Samesung". You need to realize that there are a lot of people who honestly believe we would be better off if Samsung could make their high quality knock offs. Many of those people feel that technology improvements and small businesses would benefit if IP rules made it much harder to obtain a patent. If you think that it is okay to download stolen software, music, or porn then you probably shouldn't be angry at Samsung. I actually think the price Samsung paid is in line with what should be reasonable for the actions they took. I don't think suing some kid for tens of thousands of dollars for downloading a few songs is reasonable. People that run servers that actively benefit from showing stolen products should be hit much harder. That is my view and it is pretty consistent with what I believe to be fair and reasonable.
Apple still needs Samsung to make the high quality parts that are used in the iPhone. There is an extensive class of patents which Samsung uses to make those products which Apple has been benefiting from. If you have been paying attention to the news you would realize that Apple has had big quality issues with the LG panels being used to build the new retina macbook pro. Apple should be willing to settle this dispute with Samsung without hanging all of their business on the results from this one case. One of the best bloggers on the web, Asymco's Horace Deidu, made the point that suing your competitor for IP infringements like this is not a good business plan. When pressed to comment on the odds of Apple winning this lawsuit Horace replied: "Again, I don’t have an opinion on legal matters. Broadly speaking, IP litigation is similar to playing the lottery." Apple has now made the point that it should not be copied directly and protected their intellectual property rights. The real question now is will Apple take the high road, and lock in the win they have made in this case and offer to cross license technology with their partner, Samsung. There is plenty of money to be made by both parties. The smartphone and tablet markets taken together is the largest market by gross product that has ever been conceived of. Hundreds of billions of Dollars of profits are on the table at this point. A simple effort to avoid infringing on each other's trade dress, and a cross license of all technical and software patents would be a huge win for both Apple and Samsung. Please remember that Apple never made any great products until they quit fighting Microsoft and put the heart and soul of the company into the effort to make new products for the "digital life"
What chip patents does Apple use? SSD memory and RAM memory that Samsung makes is the same as others, they just have more fab centers to crank them out. Apple designs their own ARM processors and Samsung just mfg them. Samsung panels? Their AMOLED are not that good, they are subject to burn in far easier than LCD and Samsung uses those panels in their own Smartphones and Tablets.
I looked at their previous Flagship SmartTV, the D8000 series. I looked at a tear down and their power supplies are mediocre. But that's what people have to expect at that price point. I consider Samsung just another run in the mill Asian electronics company with better than average build quality, but not much more than that. They don't have the HIGH END product quality, they have med product quality, IMO. In their appliance division, there are others that are better quality. TVs, there are others with better build quality. Computers, they aren't the highest quality.
I see them very similar to that of Hyundai. They may look kind of like a Mercedes, but they aren't a Mercedes.
Apple needed a new design team and they needed to get Mac OS to be Unix which they did, but once they got their direction, they are just constantly getting better.
I agree it's a bit stale if you've seen it a few times. But for those who haven't, it is still funny and clever, I would assume. (In fact, I thought that it brilliant in the image in the 'busted' post above, with the 'E' hidden behind the Android's now chopped off head).
In any event, are you now taking on the role of style advisor?
Agreed. I am in the market for a new fridge...it won't be a Samsung.
Thats interesting. I was just looking at new fridges, and ovens. I shied away from Samsung myself! I'm actually looking at the GE stuff that they shifted back to the US. Those, and LG and Bosch.
When it is all boiled down we see the farcical legal system that has been created to protect the 'interests' of corporations, rather than the interests of inventors and the consumers of technology products. So don't blame Apple for screwing Samsung to the floor boards, blame the legal system that ties inventors and product developers in knots, not to mention prevents the distribution of effective medicines to Third World countries, and allows the patenting of human genes that inhibit ground-breaking scientific research.
If the world contained half as many patent lawyers, and twice as many scientists and engineers actually doing basic and applied research, and inventing new technologies and products, we would all be far better off.
Good point. Will GE now sue Samsung? I have all GE appliances but even though I am obligated to buy them because of a family employment/investment situation I think the GE appliances are terrible. I have had nothing but problems with the Cafe line I purchased. My friends who have Samsung kitchen equipment are very satisfied with them.
solipsismx wrote: »
Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. I guess I just don't see it as clever or original to use these well worn puns. I'd rather see something original even if the attempt at being funny or clever failed, or a cogent argument as to why they are scummy, copyists.