"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
I think Apple would argue they steal good ideas as a starting point but then sprinkle their magic fairy dust upon them to create something entirely new and better.
People use this general statement quite often to infer some sort of contradiction in Apple's values.
If a group of companies are making really poor MP3 players and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy music, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a portable music player.
If a group of companies are making really poor mobile phones and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy software, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a mobile phone.
If one company has made a revolutionary, iconic product and you come along and make one that follows the lead of that revolutionary product by trying to recreate the eco-system, the UI, the hardware design, the presentation and so on, you've stolen a great idea.
Ideas vary greatly in their specificity and the level of innovation has to relate to how unique you make your own work. The statement about 'stealing great ideas' in the context it's used only has merit when someone points out examples of any time they've picked up an Apple product and thought it was identical to something else before it. I've never seen that happen.
Nothing looked or behaved like the first Macintosh, OS 9, OS X, iOS, the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Some things like iTunes and the App Store had examples before them but again it comes down to the details.
There are examples of innovative things Apple didn't do like Facebook, Twitter, DropBox, LEAP Motion, Kinect, PlayStation/SNES, Canon EOS. In the fields they choose to be part of, they are generally 2nd to no one so if they are stealing great ideas I'd like to know who it's from.
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">Tim Cook was eloquent and restrained in his memo regarding the victory. Steve Jobs would have played it differently. Just reading the venom Jobs had for Google, I'm guessing his feelings with Samsung would be similar.</p>
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">There are a lot of myths out there about Apple and Xerox PARC. Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox. Stock options were exchanged for the preview. In Addition, Apple made dramatic improvements to the Xerox GUI. Steven Levy covers this in his fascinating book, Insanely Great.</p>
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">I found two quotes from Steve Jobs in the Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal vein:</p>
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."</p>
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."</p>
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Arial;">I think Apple would argue they steal good ideas as a starting point but then sprinkle their magic fairy dust upon them to create something entirely new and better.</p>
Back up to the basics.
Ideas are public domain. You can not protect an idea via copyrights, patents, or trademarks.
Inventions are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by patents.
Written works are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by copyrights.
So it's not inconsistent to talk about using others' ideas and still object to them stealing your patented inventions. Two entirely different things.
Back up to the basics.
Ideas are public domain. You can not protect an idea via copyrights, patents, or trademarks.
Inventions are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by patents.
Written works are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by copyrights.
So it's not inconsistent to talk about using others' ideas and still object to them stealing your patented inventions. Two entirely different things.
That's why Samsung's prior art claims were so bogus. They were all just ideas not implementations of those ideas into a workable product.
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
You know, you should really research what you are claiming before parroting something from "Pirates of Silicon Valley" or worse any MS vs Mac debate on the web or anywhere else for that matter.
Facts - and I quote:
"Steve Jobs’ visit of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in 1979 became in 1999 a topic in the movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley”. The narrator in this scene (role of Steve Wozniak”) says more or less, that the Apple guys got a “miracle bag” from Xerox: the idea of the WYSIWYG, the mouse-driven graphical user interface – “like rich people giving junky old stuff to the Salvation Army, only the junk turns out to be a Rembrandt.”
But to be fair: The movie does not tell the whole story: Yes, the Macintosh team took up the ideas of the Xerox PARC, but it also changed numerous operating modes and added countless new features. Accordingly, the Xerox Alto did not imply, for example, menus flapping down from the upper edge of the screen, but operated with some kind of a pop-up window instead. Moreover, the window did not open automatically by double-clicking on a document, but had to be opened manually. During months of painstaking work, Atkinson had written the QuickDraw routine for the Lisa and the Macintosh, which allowed for overlapping windows to be drawn on the computer screen for the first time.
Macintosh-Developer Andy Hertzfeld said in an Interview with CNET:
Q: What’s your response when people say the Mac engineers stole everything from Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center?
A: I just say, well, someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Maybe in the very broadest sense we were inspired by Xerox. But literally no code was taken, I mean not a single line of code.
Q: Didn’t a lot of people join Apple from Xerox?
A: Just one person on the Mac team, more on the Lisa team–four or five. Many of the ones who came from PARC came after the Mac shipped. Alan Kay, who was the visionary and driving force behind Xerox PARC, came to work at Apple just about the time I was leaving, in March 1984. Once he came there, about 10 PARC people came.
Sure Apple and Steve got something that was a treasure, but they spun it into pure gold. They may take ideas started by someone else, but turned it into something that no one has imagined before. That is artistic inspiration in every sense of the word. To reduce it to an idea that because they used oil paints and someone else made the formula for oil paints before them and therefore any beautiful thing they made because they didn't make the original oil paint formula l (though they did improve on it) is meaningless and even worse, considered stealing is just nonsense (in the purest meaning of that word!)
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
Why can't you just admit that Apple paid Xerox for the rights to their ideas (paid with stock options), and also that Apple did a lot of work developing the Xerox ideas for use in a computer interface? That much is clear from every direct source involved at the time.
You've never heard anyone from Xerox accuse Apple of stealing the ideas - don't you wonder why that would be? The only comments from Xerox are from some of the engineers, who say Xerox management should have let them do more work on the ideas, and should not have let Apple have access.
That is all so totally different from Samsung's blatant stealing and copying - you really can't/won't see that? Or is it you just have to keep arguing because you can't admit you made a mistake? It's okay - you can let it go.
People use this general statement quite often to infer some sort of contradiction in Apple's values.
If a group of companies are making really poor MP3 players and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy music, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a portable music player.
If a group of companies are making really poor mobile phones and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy software, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a mobile phone.
If one company has made a revolutionary, iconic product and you come along and make one that follows the lead of that revolutionary product by trying to recreate the eco-system, the UI, the hardware design, the presentation and so on, you've stolen a great idea.
Ideas vary greatly in their specificity and the level of innovation has to relate to how unique you make your own work. The statement about 'stealing great ideas' in the context it's used only has merit when someone points out examples of any time they've picked up an Apple product and thought it was identical to something else before it. I've never seen that happen.
Nothing looked or behaved like the first Macintosh, OS 9, OS X, iOS, the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Some things like iTunes and the App Store had examples before them but again it comes down to the details.
There are examples of innovative things Apple didn't do like Facebook, Twitter, DropBox, LEAP Motion, Kinect, PlayStation/SNES, Canon EOS. In the fields they choose to be part of, they are generally 2nd to no one so if they are stealing great ideas I'd like to know who it's from.
Another example (for those who refuse to understand) would be the Wright Brothers. You could say they stole the idea of building an airplane. Then they went out and did it, accomplishing something nobody else could.
Innovation, invention and improvement. Companies who can do these three things well excel and should be rewarded especially when the outcome of these result in new and exciting products, like the iPhone.
With no guarantee of success, Apple employees spent years working on products away from family and loved ones. The Apple ecosystem sacrificed and labored long. What should its reward be?
I salute Apple for defending itself and for the values it projects and inspires. They have the right to benefit from and protect the fruit of their hard work.
Reward greatness, and more greatness will follow. Here’s to the crazy ones.
Another example (for those who refuse to understand) would be the Wright Brothers. You could say they stole the idea of building an airplane. Then they went out and did it, accomplishing something nobody else could.
Yeah or even Picasso himself, who the quote comes from. There were many painters before him but his cubist style of painting made his work unique. The way that we all reach our current state of awareness and knowledge is by going through a process of absorbing information created and repeated by others so anything further created is an extension of this.
The act of stealing is different from copying because theft doesn't leave the original behind, you claim the original as your own and only you have the original. The degree of originality is all in the details.
It's easy to say they copy everything. It's easy to offer up plenty of evidence thereof. But they have done some decent work in component research, and it's certainly improper to sling insults of a nationalistic or racial nature around, blanketing the whole company.
I think they ought to just drop out of the product business entirely and focus on fulfilling requests from other companies. They're spectacular at copying; they can copy others' designs in the component orders they receive.
Why?
They are the world's leading phone maker.
Samsung has been the number one seller of handsets in the US for at least five or six years by mainly cloning successful phones, sorry perhaps I should rephrase that to "giving people choice".
Unfortunately, this time they took on the wrong adversary, Apple stood up for themselves and were vindicated in a court of law.
The first successful commercial GUI product was the AppleMacintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]
Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]
The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
I wonder who thinks Apple is doing a 180 course change from the direction Jobs set?
I wonder who thinks Apple can't survive without Jobs?
I wonder if this case will go down as the first big win for Cook?
I think you both have valid points but I am leaning toward xRCx on this one. I've listened to those All Things D audio clips of Steve Jobs not to long ago and do think that both Jobs and Cook would have said essentially the same thing but Jobs would have used a subtle word or two that was slightly less humble sounding. Not necessarily a caustic term but something a little more direct.
It's just my opinion one I am sure many will not agree with but I feel Apple in the long run will be better without Steve Jobs. I feel Cook will be a strong leader for Apple at the same time he has far more class than Steve Jobs. I feel many forget that for decades Steve Jobs was seen as a failure compared to Bill Gates. The first iPhone was released on June 29th 2007 for the most part up until that point Steve Jobs and Apple could really only hold onto the iPod as a blockbuster product. Steve Jobs always seem bitter and in part I think he came off that way because he was always in the shadow of Microsoft.
Jobs then simply moved to another villain known as Google. He always seemed too concern about getting back at someone.
On the flip side Tim Cook has and will benefit from Steve Jobs ability not to give up. He will benefit from not having to feel like he was beaten up for decades. It's easy to be humble when you start out as a leader when you are already on top.
You can't reasonably say that Samsung doesn't think the law doesn't apply to them. If it didn't they wouldn't have even bothered with showing up in court as that is a part of the legal system.
Now there's an interesting speculation - the consequences of a summary judgement in default against Samsung had it simply refused to respond to Apple's lawsuit.
Comments
People use this general statement quite often to infer some sort of contradiction in Apple's values.
If a group of companies are making really poor MP3 players and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy music, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a portable music player.
If a group of companies are making really poor mobile phones and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy software, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a mobile phone.
If one company has made a revolutionary, iconic product and you come along and make one that follows the lead of that revolutionary product by trying to recreate the eco-system, the UI, the hardware design, the presentation and so on, you've stolen a great idea.
Ideas vary greatly in their specificity and the level of innovation has to relate to how unique you make your own work. The statement about 'stealing great ideas' in the context it's used only has merit when someone points out examples of any time they've picked up an Apple product and thought it was identical to something else before it. I've never seen that happen.
Nothing looked or behaved like the first Macintosh, OS 9, OS X, iOS, the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Some things like iTunes and the App Store had examples before them but again it comes down to the details.
There are examples of innovative things Apple didn't do like Facebook, Twitter, DropBox, LEAP Motion, Kinect, PlayStation/SNES, Canon EOS. In the fields they choose to be part of, they are generally 2nd to no one so if they are stealing great ideas I'd like to know who it's from.
Back up to the basics.
Ideas are public domain. You can not protect an idea via copyrights, patents, or trademarks.
Inventions are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by patents.
Written works are specific implementations of ideas and can be protected by copyrights.
So it's not inconsistent to talk about using others' ideas and still object to them stealing your patented inventions. Two entirely different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I contemplated bringing this image out of retirement the first time I saw this mentioned. Now that I've seen it again…
Whoa, did they fix GIFs? Is that animated for everyone else?
lol its totally animated, haha how can anyone not look upon this and at the very least smile. Made my day
When does SAMMY write a big check with LOTS of zeros?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink
When does SAMMY write a big check with LOTS of zeros?
probably never, they will likely work something out with apple in terms of trade off after years of appeals and public tantrums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
You know, you should really research what you are claiming before parroting something from "Pirates of Silicon Valley" or worse any MS vs Mac debate on the web or anywhere else for that matter.
Facts - and I quote:
"Steve Jobs’ visit of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in 1979 became in 1999 a topic in the movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley”. The narrator in this scene (role of Steve Wozniak”) says more or less, that the Apple guys got a “miracle bag” from Xerox: the idea of the WYSIWYG, the mouse-driven graphical user interface – “like rich people giving junky old stuff to the Salvation Army, only the junk turns out to be a Rembrandt.”
But to be fair: The movie does not tell the whole story: Yes, the Macintosh team took up the ideas of the Xerox PARC, but it also changed numerous operating modes and added countless new features. Accordingly, the Xerox Alto did not imply, for example, menus flapping down from the upper edge of the screen, but operated with some kind of a pop-up window instead. Moreover, the window did not open automatically by double-clicking on a document, but had to be opened manually. During months of painstaking work, Atkinson had written the QuickDraw routine for the Lisa and the Macintosh, which allowed for overlapping windows to be drawn on the computer screen for the first time.
Macintosh-Developer Andy Hertzfeld said in an Interview with CNET:
from here - http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc
Specific video that should be viewed - interviewing real people who were actually THERE! - PARC scientist Larry Tesler recalls Jobs' famous Xerox visits
Sure Apple and Steve got something that was a treasure, but they spun it into pure gold. They may take ideas started by someone else, but turned it into something that no one has imagined before. That is artistic inspiration in every sense of the word. To reduce it to an idea that because they used oil paints and someone else made the formula for oil paints before them and therefore any beautiful thing they made because they didn't make the original oil paint formula l (though they did improve on it) is meaningless and even worse, considered stealing is just nonsense (in the purest meaning of that word!)
You, sir do not live in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
Why can't you just admit that Apple paid Xerox for the rights to their ideas (paid with stock options), and also that Apple did a lot of work developing the Xerox ideas for use in a computer interface? That much is clear from every direct source involved at the time.
You've never heard anyone from Xerox accuse Apple of stealing the ideas - don't you wonder why that would be? The only comments from Xerox are from some of the engineers, who say Xerox management should have let them do more work on the ideas, and should not have let Apple have access.
That is all so totally different from Samsung's blatant stealing and copying - you really can't/won't see that? Or is it you just have to keep arguing because you can't admit you made a mistake? It's okay - you can let it go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
People use this general statement quite often to infer some sort of contradiction in Apple's values.
If a group of companies are making really poor MP3 players and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy music, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a portable music player.
If a group of companies are making really poor mobile phones and you come along and make a revolutionary device that looks and behaves nothing like them along with a new way to buy software, what idea has been stolen? Nothing but a high-level idea of a mobile phone.
If one company has made a revolutionary, iconic product and you come along and make one that follows the lead of that revolutionary product by trying to recreate the eco-system, the UI, the hardware design, the presentation and so on, you've stolen a great idea.
Ideas vary greatly in their specificity and the level of innovation has to relate to how unique you make your own work. The statement about 'stealing great ideas' in the context it's used only has merit when someone points out examples of any time they've picked up an Apple product and thought it was identical to something else before it. I've never seen that happen.
Nothing looked or behaved like the first Macintosh, OS 9, OS X, iOS, the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Some things like iTunes and the App Store had examples before them but again it comes down to the details.
There are examples of innovative things Apple didn't do like Facebook, Twitter, DropBox, LEAP Motion, Kinect, PlayStation/SNES, Canon EOS. In the fields they choose to be part of, they are generally 2nd to no one so if they are stealing great ideas I'd like to know who it's from.
Another example (for those who refuse to understand) would be the Wright Brothers. You could say they stole the idea of building an airplane. Then they went out and did it, accomplishing something nobody else could.
Innovation, invention and improvement. Companies who can do these three things well excel and should be rewarded especially when the outcome of these result in new and exciting products, like the iPhone.
With no guarantee of success, Apple employees spent years working on products away from family and loved ones. The Apple ecosystem sacrificed and labored long. What should its reward be?
I salute Apple for defending itself and for the values it projects and inspires. They have the right to benefit from and protect the fruit of their hard work.
Reward greatness, and more greatness will follow. Here’s to the crazy ones.
Yeah or even Picasso himself, who the quote comes from. There were many painters before him but his cubist style of painting made his work unique. The way that we all reach our current state of awareness and knowledge is by going through a process of absorbing information created and repeated by others so anything further created is an extension of this.
The act of stealing is different from copying because theft doesn't leave the original behind, you claim the original as your own and only you have the original. The degree of originality is all in the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
That's why Samsung's prior art claims were so bogus. They were all just ideas not implementations of those ideas into a workable product.
Or, in other words, prior, but not "art".
[QUOTE]
Can’t Say It Better Than This ?
Dan Frakes:
When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone’s design is “obvious.”
[/QUOTE]
"Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens."
(and by "the whole world," I mean Google.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's easy to say they copy everything. It's easy to offer up plenty of evidence thereof. But they have done some decent work in component research, and it's certainly improper to sling insults of a nationalistic or racial nature around, blanketing the whole company.
I think they ought to just drop out of the product business entirely and focus on fulfilling requests from other companies. They're spectacular at copying; they can copy others' designs in the component orders they receive.
Why?
They are the world's leading phone maker.
Samsung has been the number one seller of handsets in the US for at least five or six years by mainly cloning successful phones, sorry perhaps I should rephrase that to "giving people choice".
Unfortunately, this time they took on the wrong adversary, Apple stood up for themselves and were vindicated in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
What would you do if someone offered you a hundred and fifty million worth of stock options to take a look around your place?
The Xerox executives at head office in New York thought they were getting a good deal out of something they couldn't see the value of.
Armed with these ideas they'd bought, Apple set about refining them and making them affordable.
The rest is history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
As I said Steve Jobs "distortion Reality Field' comes into play with Xerox PARC chain of events!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
Adoption by Apple
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]
Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]
The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.
References
^ "Contact." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010. "PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA"
^ "driving & public transportation directions." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
^ "map." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
^ Map of Stanford Research Park on Stanford University Real Estate web site
^ Xerox PARC was the first research group to widely adopt the mouse invented by Douglas Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in Menlo Park, California,
^ a b Gladwell, Malcolm (2011-05-11). "Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2011-10-09.
^ Pollack, Andrew (1990-03-24). "Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
^ "Milestones, PARC, a Xerox company".
[edit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I wonder who thinks Cook will be ineffectual?
I wonder who thinks Apple is doing a 180 course change from the direction Jobs set?
I wonder who thinks Apple can't survive without Jobs?
I wonder if this case will go down as the first big win for Cook?
I think you both have valid points but I am leaning toward xRCx on this one. I've listened to those All Things D audio clips of Steve Jobs not to long ago and do think that both Jobs and Cook would have said essentially the same thing but Jobs would have used a subtle word or two that was slightly less humble sounding. Not necessarily a caustic term but something a little more direct.
It's just my opinion one I am sure many will not agree with but I feel Apple in the long run will be better without Steve Jobs. I feel Cook will be a strong leader for Apple at the same time he has far more class than Steve Jobs. I feel many forget that for decades Steve Jobs was seen as a failure compared to Bill Gates. The first iPhone was released on June 29th 2007 for the most part up until that point Steve Jobs and Apple could really only hold onto the iPod as a blockbuster product. Steve Jobs always seem bitter and in part I think he came off that way because he was always in the shadow of Microsoft.
Jobs then simply moved to another villain known as Google. He always seemed too concern about getting back at someone.
On the flip side Tim Cook has and will benefit from Steve Jobs ability not to give up. He will benefit from not having to feel like he was beaten up for decades. It's easy to be humble when you start out as a leader when you are already on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You can't reasonably say that Samsung doesn't think the law doesn't apply to them. If it didn't they wouldn't have even bothered with showing up in court as that is a part of the legal system.
Now there's an interesting speculation - the consequences of a summary judgement in default against Samsung had it simply refused to respond to Apple's lawsuit.