Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy S wanted to be a copy of the 3GS in term of general look and feel.
But you cannot pretend that a successfull design trend is not followed by competitors. If you look at LCD TVs from a few meters, they are absolutely identical. The same was for a lot of consumer electronic products, way before the iPhone introduction. The value added of an iPhone is not in the rounded corners rectangular shape, nor in the slide-to-unlock concept. Those aspects are just weapons to be used in lawsuits. Ask yourself: do you buy iPhone because of rounded corners rectangular shape and slide-to-unlock concept?
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Heh heh... classic GG response: deflect the question, meander, and obfuscate.
freediverx, we all know you got the answer to your question!
Heh heh... classic GG response: deflect the question, meander, and obfuscate.
freediverx, we all know you got the answer to your question!
Anant, you're more than welcome to offer your opinion on what I asked. I think it's quite discussion-worthy, particularly since the iPhone has been found to infringe on patents belonging to other companies who would have been well within their rights to ask that the product be banned rather than agree to license their IP. That Samsung wasn't that company owning those patents doesn't matter.
I suspect both you and the OP are artificially limiting the argument so as to avoid offering your own opinions on a very valid question.
Sony was once worth nearly $150. Now it is worth less than $20. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Sony is doing well.
I'm referring to the their mobile devices innovation as of late. Their high end models seem to resonate well from a quality/design perspective and the compact versions of them aren't just smaller devices with cheaper components but actual smaller versions with the same components (*what* a concept right?). This seem to work for the Swedish market at least where they are pushing out several much cheaper Samsung Galaxys from the operators top selling lists at the moment...
Anant, you're more than welcome to offer your opinion on what I asked. I think it's quite discussion-worthy, particularly since the iPhone has been found to infringe on patents belonging to other companies who would have been well within their rights to ask that the product be banned rather than agree to license their IP. That Samsung wasn't that company owning those patents doesn't matter.
I suspect both you and the OP are artificially limiting the argument so as to avoid offering your own opinions on a very valid question.
Er... his question was a very simple one. I'll repeat it. He asked: "Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent?"
Why only Samsung? Thats a simple question too, as is your obvious avoidance of offering an opinion but still getting involved in the discussion.
Not once have I seen you give a straight aswer to a straight question. A straight answer would be "No, sorry, I cannot, even though I've implied as much strongly in all my previous posts". It's not that hard.
Instead, it's the never-ending "Why did you ask me that question? I prefer another question that more suits my agenda, so I won't answer, and instead make further baseless insinuations".
Why only Samsung? Thats a simple question too, as is your obvious avoidance of offering an opinion but still getting involved in the discussion.
I am just pointing out -- especially to those who have not been in the forum for too long -- that your classic MO as a poster is to redefine the premise of the questioner to suit your agenda. That's all.
I personally have little or no interest in his (or your) question.
I am just pointing out -- especially to those who have not been in the forum for too long -- that your classic MO as a poster is to redefine the premise of the questioner to suit your agenda. That's all.
I personally have little or no interest in his (or your) question.
Just finished the interview, great quotes from Ive, but of course the author can't resist throwing in this cliched shittiness:
Quote:
Ive describes Jobs as “my closest friend” and says he finds it “odd and tough to talk about him, because it doesn’t feel that long ago that he died.” There is, perhaps, another reason. Since Jobs died, Apple has hit a rough patch, at least by its ludicrously high standards. It has not had a break-out hit. There has been no Apple TV set to revolutionize home entertainment. No spiffy watch. (Yet.) The firm’s share price has slumped and it has lost its title of the world’s most valuable firm. Some speculate that, without Jobs, Apple has lost its golden touch. An acclaimed new book by the former Wall Street Journal technology writer Yukari Iwatani Kane dubs the company “the haunted empire.”
Yeah, having every new product smash the records of the previous, and smashing sales, revenue, and profit records pretty much every quarter indeed qualifies as a "rough patch". And I guess a product such as the 5S, which is pretty much the most successful smartphone in history sales-wise, with 5 million in the 1st weekend, doesn't quality as a "break-out hit". Neither does the iPad Air, apparently, which could very well be the best reviewed consumer tech product in history, and has had ridiculously high sales. Nope, not a "break-out" hit either. Cause that would contradict the "Apple in a slump" agenda. There isn't a shred of an indication that Apple has lost its "golden touch", whatever the hell that means. Quite the standards this interviewer has. I'd like to see a company or product he considers a success. I'm geting tired of this intellectual laziness, and people in the media mindlessly repeating a narrative that is not supported by any kind of empirical evidence.
It's easy to think that Ive's comments about "giving a damn" are meant to imply that other companies and designers don't give a damn. But while that could be true in many cases, I don't think that's his point. I think between the lines is the subtle point that Apple obsesses over producing products that actually communicate their care, or in some cases, obsesses over getting out of the way of a product's essence doing the communicating. Just because a group may care about the quality of their work, doesn't mean they'll know how to actually conceive, design, create, test, redesign, polish, and ultimately mass-produce something that equally reflects their passion and care. Thus his comment that Apple's success is a "victory for...giving a damn". Many people believe in those principles, few have actually brought them into reality and profitability.
Not once have I seen you give a straight aswer to a straight question. A straight answer would be "No, sorry, I cannot, even though I've implied as much strongly in all my previous posts". It's not that hard.
Instead, it's the never-ending "Why did you ask me that question? I prefer another question that more suits my agenda, so I won't answer, and instead make further baseless insinuations".
I can find several instances of Apple being found to infringe on patents that are not FRAND-pledged. I can't find one where the owner of that patent was Samsung. In what way does that change the discussion and further why would it matter it was Samsung or instead someone else? The OP is the only one who can answer what his point was and he seems to have gone silent on the subject.
Since you seem to have an interest what's your opinion on whether infringement of one or two patents should warrant barring a product from the market that otherwise licenses thousands of others? Any opinion at all?
Comments
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Here’s my question. We know this. MARVIN has confirmed it. Why isn’t he banned? Why aren’t all his posts deleted?
Because I’m no longer in a position of power and Marvin can’t be here 24/7.
At least the Indians give us Sunday off their spam.
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy S wanted to be a copy of the 3GS in term of general look and feel.
But you cannot pretend that a successfull design trend is not followed by competitors. If you look at LCD TVs from a few meters, they are absolutely identical. The same was for a lot of consumer electronic products, way before the iPhone introduction. The value added of an iPhone is not in the rounded corners rectangular shape, nor in the slide-to-unlock concept. Those aspects are just weapons to be used in lawsuits. Ask yourself: do you buy iPhone because of rounded corners rectangular shape and slide-to-unlock concept?
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Heh heh... classic GG response: deflect the question, meander, and obfuscate.
freediverx, we all know you got the answer to your question!
Anant, you're more than welcome to offer your opinion on what I asked. I think it's quite discussion-worthy, particularly since the iPhone has been found to infringe on patents belonging to other companies who would have been well within their rights to ask that the product be banned rather than agree to license their IP. That Samsung wasn't that company owning those patents doesn't matter.
I suspect both you and the OP are artificially limiting the argument so as to avoid offering your own opinions on a very valid question.
Sony was once worth nearly $150. Now it is worth less than $20. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Sony is doing well.
I'm referring to the their mobile devices innovation as of late. Their high end models seem to resonate well from a quality/design perspective and the compact versions of them aren't just smaller devices with cheaper components but actual smaller versions with the same components (*what* a concept right?). This seem to work for the Swedish market at least where they are pushing out several much cheaper Samsung Galaxys from the operators top selling lists at the moment...
Anant, you're more than welcome to offer your opinion on what I asked. I think it's quite discussion-worthy, particularly since the iPhone has been found to infringe on patents belonging to other companies who would have been well within their rights to ask that the product be banned rather than agree to license their IP. That Samsung wasn't that company owning those patents doesn't matter.
I suspect both you and the OP are artificially limiting the argument so as to avoid offering your own opinions on a very valid question.
Er... his question was a very simple one. I'll repeat it. He asked: "Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent?"
Can you? If you can't, say 'no, I can't.'
The rest is bs.
Why only Samsung? Thats a simple question too, as is your obvious avoidance of offering an opinion but still getting involved in the discussion.
Interview here: http://time.com/jonathan-ive-apple-interview/
Why only Samsung? Thats a simple question too, as is your obvious avoidance of offering an opinion but still getting involved in the discussion.
Not once have I seen you give a straight aswer to a straight question. A straight answer would be "No, sorry, I cannot, even though I've implied as much strongly in all my previous posts". It's not that hard.
Instead, it's the never-ending "Why did you ask me that question? I prefer another question that more suits my agenda, so I won't answer, and instead make further baseless insinuations".
Why only Samsung? Thats a simple question too, as is your obvious avoidance of offering an opinion but still getting involved in the discussion.
I am just pointing out -- especially to those who have not been in the forum for too long -- that your classic MO as a poster is to redefine the premise of the questioner to suit your agenda. That's all.
I personally have little or no interest in his (or your) question.
Well since his comments were prompted by this post:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/165514/apples-ive-describes-struggle-for-perfection-in-interview-calls-copycat-designs-theft#post_2489267
if there's any classic "redefining the discussion" going on it would be on his part and not mine sir. Again, you're quite welcome to take part. I would honestly like to know your opinion on whether you believe a products already licensing umpteen thousand patents should be barred from the market if they might be infringing on one or two.
If you don't have an opinion then fair enough. Freediverx apparently does and I'm trying to figure out what it is.
Just finished the interview, great quotes from Ive, but of course the author can't resist throwing in this cliched shittiness:
Yeah, having every new product smash the records of the previous, and smashing sales, revenue, and profit records pretty much every quarter indeed qualifies as a "rough patch". And I guess a product such as the 5S, which is pretty much the most successful smartphone in history sales-wise, with 5 million in the 1st weekend, doesn't quality as a "break-out hit". Neither does the iPad Air, apparently, which could very well be the best reviewed consumer tech product in history, and has had ridiculously high sales. Nope, not a "break-out" hit either. Cause that would contradict the "Apple in a slump" agenda. There isn't a shred of an indication that Apple has lost its "golden touch", whatever the hell that means. Quite the standards this interviewer has. I'd like to see a company or product he considers a success. I'm geting tired of this intellectual laziness, and people in the media mindlessly repeating a narrative that is not supported by any kind of empirical evidence.
It's easy to think that Ive's comments about "giving a damn" are meant to imply that other companies and designers don't give a damn. But while that could be true in many cases, I don't think that's his point. I think between the lines is the subtle point that Apple obsesses over producing products that actually communicate their care, or in some cases, obsesses over getting out of the way of a product's essence doing the communicating. Just because a group may care about the quality of their work, doesn't mean they'll know how to actually conceive, design, create, test, redesign, polish, and ultimately mass-produce something that equally reflects their passion and care. Thus his comment that Apple's success is a "victory for...giving a damn". Many people believe in those principles, few have actually brought them into reality and profitability.
This is the new Apple that priorizes design versus functionality and progressively downgrades the appliations and hardware functionality:
SOFTWARE
- Missing scroll arrows.
- Missing scrolls.
- Missing color labels.
- Missing left pane colors.
- Missing resume playback on iTunes.
- Missing editing QuickTime Player features.
- Missing editing iMovie features.
- Missing electronic signatures via certificates.
- Missing folders to sort Application-side of Dock.
- Missing feature to prevent disk mounting at startup.
- Missing convenient Finder search engine like in Mac OS 9 (Sherlock).
- Etc.
HARDWARE
- Missing light pocketable Mac for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations.
- Missing disk activity light on Macs.
- Missing power-on key on keyboard.
- Missing frontal ports on Mac.
- Missing numeric keyboard with USB 3 hub.
- Missing true matte displays.
- Missing 3D displays and 3D playback.
- Missing Full Picture-in-Picture (two Digital Terrestrial Television tuners inside)
- Missing Blu-ray playback.
- Missing Thunderbolt 2 Display 4K with USB 3
- Etc.
What a shame, Apple - If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
DO NOT GET ME WRONG - I LOVE THE MAC, BUT IT COULD BE MUCH BETTER!!!
I can find several instances of Apple being found to infringe on patents that are not FRAND-pledged. I can't find one where the owner of that patent was Samsung. In what way does that change the discussion and further why would it matter it was Samsung or instead someone else? The OP is the only one who can answer what his point was and he seems to have gone silent on the subject.
Since you seem to have an interest what's your opinion on whether infringement of one or two patents should warrant barring a product from the market that otherwise licenses thousands of others? Any opinion at all?
You lost me at missing scroll arrows. I'm guessing you don't like the corrected (you probably see it as reversed) scrolling introduced in Lion.
Thus is a joke post, right? Don't forget missing one-cup coffee maker with usb3 ports + Bluray playback.