Yes, but Samsung can't lose face. Admitting to copying is something they cannot do. They cannot just move on. So they play the FRAND/SEP abuse game. Badly.
I can't keep track of all the history rewriting Samsung does. Do they have a list of their current forum meme/talking points published somewhere? You know, for their fans to reiterate on the Web?
I can't keep track of all the history rewriting Samsung does. Do they have a list of their current forum meme/talking points published somewhere? You know, for their fans to reiterate on the Web?
I don't know of any but there should be one. Their lawyer admitted to the copying during the last damages hearing. It was a very interesting thread to say the very least.
i was thinking the same thing, when they said they both sides would have inside legal counsel there. It was probably more of the lawyers whispering things in their ears.
I would like to believe if Steve was still around, he would have told the lawyers to leave the room and Steve would have just explain how he was going to use his $160B to burn them.
He lost the right to do that sort of thing when it became a publicly traded company. I didn't see him as the type to make empty threats, so I don't think it would have gone down that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Yes, but Samsung can't lose face. Admitting to copying is something they cannot do. They cannot just move on. So they play the FRAND/SEP abuse game. Badly.
Do companies in general ever admit anything? I don't see this as unique to any of them. The actual trials were quantified though. I don't know that an agreement not to design too similarly would fix everything.
I wonder if the reason why we see so few new products from Apple is because Samsung blatantly copies Apple, and Apple has very little protection from the courts in the U.S. (and around the world) that would ban any Samsung product that infringes Apple's IP.
Which may be the reason why Apple wants an anti-cloning clause that would prevent Samsung from cloning anything Apple produces.
I wonder if the reason why we see so few new products from Apple is because Samsung blatantly copies Apple, and Apple has very little protection from the courts in the U.S. (and around the world) that would ban any Samsung product that infringes Apple's IP.
I don't think this is the case at all. They complain about it, yet their sales have grown immensely in spite of this. They are in arguably better off today than they would have been if none of the idevices had ever existed.
Quote:
Which may be the reason why Apple wants an anti-cloning clause that would prevent Samsung from cloning anything Apple produces.
Anti-cloning is kind of a colloquial term there. If it was something written into a contract, the actual stipulations would be quantified in far greater detail.
I think it's more than that. If the technology needed to make something work right is not there, then Apple is willing to wait until they, or someone else, develops that technology. Look at Microsoft with tablets. They failed because the technology for tablets wasn't "ripe" enough. Apple waited and worked on the technology until they got it right. With Samsung and the "smart" watch, they just hobbled something together for the bragging rights of being one of the first. Whatever the iWatch turns out to be, I'm betting Apple will have another game-changer.
I think it's more than that. If the technology needed to make something work right is not there, then Apple is willing to wait until they, or someone else, develops that technology. Look at Microsoft with tablets. They failed because the technology for tablets wasn't "ripe" enough. Apple waited and worked on the technology until they got it right. With Samsung and the "smart" watch, they just hobbled something together for the bragging rights of being one of the first. Whatever the iWatch turns out to be, I'm betting Apple will have another game-changer.
The technology needed is almost always there, the big hurdle is can it be used and still keep the product affordable. Lead can be turned to gold but the process costs much more than the amount of gold one can make.
Comments
Did you forget that they did admit to copying?
I can't keep track of all the history rewriting Samsung does. Do they have a list of their current forum meme/talking points published somewhere? You know, for their fans to reiterate on the Web?
I don't know of any but there should be one. Their lawyer admitted to the copying during the last damages hearing. It was a very interesting thread to say the very least.
To which "matter" are you specifically referring to?
Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung mobile chief Shin Jong-Kyun met in the U.S. last week but were unable to hammer out an agreement…
To which "matter" are you specifically referring to?
It's "mind over matter"... If you don't mind, it don't matter.
i was thinking the same thing, when they said they both sides would have inside legal counsel there. It was probably more of the lawyers whispering things in their ears.
I would like to believe if Steve was still around, he would have told the lawyers to leave the room and Steve would have just explain how he was going to use his $160B to burn them.
He lost the right to do that sort of thing when it became a publicly traded company. I didn't see him as the type to make empty threats, so I don't think it would have gone down that way.
Yes, but Samsung can't lose face. Admitting to copying is something they cannot do. They cannot just move on. So they play the FRAND/SEP abuse game. Badly.
Do companies in general ever admit anything? I don't see this as unique to any of them. The actual trials were quantified though. I don't know that an agreement not to design too similarly would fix everything.
Hmm...
I wonder if the reason why we see so few new products from Apple is because Samsung blatantly copies Apple, and Apple has very little protection from the courts in the U.S. (and around the world) that would ban any Samsung product that infringes Apple's IP.
Which may be the reason why Apple wants an anti-cloning clause that would prevent Samsung from cloning anything Apple produces.
I wonder if the reason why we see so few new products from Apple is because Samsung blatantly copies Apple…
No, Apple rejects ideas that don’t work.
Hmm...
I wonder if the reason why we see so few new products from Apple is because Samsung blatantly copies Apple, and Apple has very little protection from the courts in the U.S. (and around the world) that would ban any Samsung product that infringes Apple's IP.
I don't think this is the case at all. They complain about it, yet their sales have grown immensely in spite of this. They are in arguably better off today than they would have been if none of the idevices had ever existed.
Anti-cloning is kind of a colloquial term there. If it was something written into a contract, the actual stipulations would be quantified in far greater detail.
No, Apple rejects ideas that don’t work.
I think it's more than that. If the technology needed to make something work right is not there, then Apple is willing to wait until they, or someone else, develops that technology. Look at Microsoft with tablets. They failed because the technology for tablets wasn't "ripe" enough. Apple waited and worked on the technology until they got it right. With Samsung and the "smart" watch, they just hobbled something together for the bragging rights of being one of the first. Whatever the iWatch turns out to be, I'm betting Apple will have another game-changer.
The technology needed is almost always there, the big hurdle is can it be used and still keep the product affordable. Lead can be turned to gold but the process costs much more than the amount of gold one can make.