My comment was directed at this sentence: "The defendant's profit or loss is irrelevant."
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Samsung's profits from sales of infringing products could be used in calculating </span> the amount of profit Apple would have made absent the infringing conduct.
I wasn't trying to pass judgment on your comment or his. I was simply filling in the blank you left for anyone interested in what patent infringement damages are all about.
OK how about those who can afford the iPhone but choose Android because they prefer it. I wouldn't brand them as stupid simply because they made a different choice than yourself.
People can buy whatever they want. There are some good android alternatives if you don't like iOS. But I have never understood someone saying I don't like iOS so I use android and then buying a Samsung with it OS being is close. HTC have shown you can do something different when using android without resorting to copying and then whining when people catch you with your pants down!
Apple applied for data detecters in 1999. Many of their patents are based on computer usage and became applied to cell phones when the iPhone was introduced. Apple will lose patents to time limits, but that is god. Serial innovators gain inceasing advantage over time. Dont sweat the small stuff, and keep working hard to make the next product. Apple wont make the mistake of releasing a product before it iis ready. That way there is less time to copy it before it can gain market share.
Apple is following a very deliberate game plan. Time will tell who really can innovate.:D
Apple is threatening Android OEMs pretty intensely with its ability to earn $10 billion per quarter, mostly from phones that sell for 3x the average price of what those OEMs can ship at razor thin margins. That's where Apple is competing.
If Apple needs more leverage for forcing Android OEMs to sign licensing agreements, it has dozens of additional patents that it can bring. It hasn't even yet had the opportunity to accuse phones from a year ago on the patents it has already won. It has dozens of patents to bring to court and force Samsung ect. to pay millions of dollars to experts to deny while looking like a scoundrel.
A bigger threat to Android comes from Samsung however, which is stomping on Android OEMs with its marketing muscle and plans to migrate its users off Android as soon as it can.
I'm not sure what is worse; Samsung staying with Android and basically forking the code, or going with a new platform and taking the #1 Android phone to a new platform and thus making the Android platform look bad on the stats. It's already fluffed up by a boat load of cheap USB fobs that play pirated videos -- as if anyone is making money on these devices.
Most Android devices don't make enough money to upgrade and support -- they are throw aways. The few premium phones are a smaller part of the Android Market.
If Samsung stays; it will be the tail wagging the dog, and if they leave, the "profits" attributed to Android will (at a guess) be about half what they were. My opinion is that it's better for Google if Samsung leaves -- in the long run. Because they are going to be a competitor on a splintered platform more and more as time goes on. Better to get it over with. The other thing is; Samsung will probably do poorly with their own OS -- because they have convinced themselves that they know how to profit form their own innovation. That's a huge risk since their entire history as been assembling and perfecting other's designs. A gamble and being an innovator is the most risky position.
Apple made it look easy -- but when the introduce something "new" they've been testing it for 5 years or more. They are atypical of most "innovators" who throw out a great idea without great execution and have to sue another large company that quickly embraces and extends the idea, and usually destroys the company before a lawsuit gets traction (see; Microsoft).
Android has serious problems going forward with legacy, cheap versus high performance platforms ruining the brand, and splintering as all the manufacturers work to differentiate they brand. They need a system were everyone puts back value to the pool, because they are going to have more and more compatibility issues. Where this bites them is with development; it's going to cost more money for less profit as time goes on to be an Android developer.
Seems like a Pyrrhic victory. It portraits Apple in a way that is not entirely positive (even if it is way better than Samsung) and makes people think about Apple products. Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system. If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later. Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
I'm not sure what is worse; Samsung staying with Android and basically forking the code, or going with a new platform and taking the #1 Android phone to a new platform and thus making the Android platform look bad on the stats. It's already fluffed up by a boat load of cheap USB fobs that play pirated videos -- as if anyone is making money on these devices.
Most Android devices don't make enough money to upgrade and support -- they are throw aways. The few premium phones are a smaller part of the Android Market.
If Samsung stays; it will be the tail wagging the dog, and if they leave, the "profits" attributed to Android will (at a guess) be about half what they were. My opinion is that it's better for Google if Samsung leaves -- in the long run. Because they are going to be a competitor on a splintered platform more and more as time goes on. Better to get it over with. The other thing is; Samsung will probably do poorly with their own OS -- because they have convinced themselves that they know how to profit form their own innovation. That's a huge risk since their entire history as been assembling and perfecting other's designs. A gamble and being an innovator is the most risky position.
Apple made it look easy -- but when the introduce something "new" they've been testing it for 5 years or more. They are atypical of most "innovators" who throw out a great idea without great execution and have to sue another large company that quickly embraces and extends the idea, and usually destroys the company before a lawsuit gets traction (see; Microsoft).
Android has serious problems going forward with legacy, cheap versus high performance platforms ruining the brand, and splintering as all the manufacturers work to differentiate they brand. They need a system were everyone puts back value to the pool, because they are going to have more and more compatibility issues. Where this bites them is with development; it's going to cost more money for less profit as time goes on to be an Android developer.
Samsung isn't forking android anymore than Motorola, LG or HTC. Fragmenting yes, but it's better that these companies are all trying on one-up each other in terms of getting more from android, which is really nothing more than a foundation. Raw android really is stale as all hell and not all that functional outside of the very basic expectations of a smart device.
But between LG, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung they are all "feeding into the pool" in a way that influences Google in how they improve android, and competitors in what features they offer that are unique to their device.
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
I find it interesting that I-Phone users can't be content with enjoying their phones and leave it at that. Tell me why some spend so much time attacking a competitors phone? It's like you have a dog in the fight. You don't win or lose on a given verdict do you?
So why the hate of a smartphone? Why not direct your hate or energy towards something that matters like solving world hunger?
I suspect it is because you somehow find your I-Phone makes you better than others. Like it is a status symbol and to maintain your delusional sense of superiority gleaned from your phone you have to attack a competitive product. How weak is that. Are you that insecure that you allow your phone to help define you? If so, may I suggest a therapist.
And you defend to the death the former CEO like he is some type of God. Does your idea of God include someone who was recently found guilty of price fixing EBooks and price fixing the wages of silicone valley employees by intimating other local employers in the area to not recruit from each other (settlement).
I have owned both I-Phone and Galaxy's and IMO the Galaxy is simply a better phone. Yes, it is made of some plastic which you all declare "cheap", but I have an I-Pad that is made of plastic for the most part and you don't call it cheap. And a Mac has a lot of plastic in it and you don't declare it cheap. Does not your Hi Def TV have a plastic surround on it? Is that to cheap? I didn't think so. And do you put your treasured I-phone in a plastic case to protect it. I bet many of you do. So the plastic equals quality is a ridiculous argument.
Regarding the trial, it was proven that of the over 12,000 estimated patents in a smart phone, Apple could only find 3 that infringed. And that opinion is based on only 8 people, all of which lived in the valley next to Apple. It's conceivable that this trial if held anywhere else might have resulted in zero infringement... like it has in other countries.
Do you hate other people cars, or other possessions? Let's hope not. It's so petty.
It portraits Apple in a way that is not entirely positive (even if it is way better than Samsung) and makes people think about Apple products.
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later.
Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
Still, concerns like HTC will think twice before blatantly copying Apple.
Think HTC can afford a $120 million hit? I don't.
Apple can and will continue to sue copycats. The legal precedent is mounting.
$120 million here, $120 million there, and pretty soon it starts to add up.
Clearly the stealing will go on. The only way for Apple to keep its theiving competitors in check will be to regain marketshare and continue to set sales record for Apple's uniquely well made, innovative products.
And Apple is doing this as we speak.
U.S. Smartphone Market Share by Operating System (OS)
Dec 2010 25%
Dec 2011 30%
Dec 2012 36%
Dec 2013 42%
What we're watching is the take-down of prey in slow motion. I know we're all impatient and prefer to see big spectacular victories, but Apple is taking Android apart piece by piece.
I'm not arguing that Android won't continue to be a highly successful platform, but the whole narrative around "Apple's demise" is exactly opposite of the truth. Apple is the tortoise, Android the hare. They're both great competitors, but 2014 will be Apple's turn for a victory lap in their ongoing competition.
OK then, with < $7 per unit I suspect Samsung has a good business model. Going forward, do they need to license these patients or does Apple just have to sue every few years?
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
But what about Android phones makes them so great (aside from price)? Android was supposed to be a linux-based clone of the Palm Treo- or Blackberry-style smartphone, before Andy Rubin had his "I guess we're not gonna ship that phone" moment. Would a Palm Treo-style smart phone with many tiny keys and a small, non-touch sensitive screen, and clunky "baby" web browser have done all those wonderful things for communication and literacy in Haiti? Because that's what Google was going to give you.
I suspect what you (and most people who are Android fans) really like about Android is the iPhone-ness of it: the portable touchscreen, app-centric, wireless internet experience. It's like having an iPhone, without paying iPhone prices. It's as if a socialist Robin Hood stole the magic of the iPhone and gave it to world as Android. Is that what you're thinking? My point is: if you're gonna give Google credit for theft, give Apple credit for inventing the iPhone in the first place.
Cheap phones in third world countries are a good thing, but you are missing the finer point of this court case: cheap phones don't need to infringe on Apple's patents to still bring all that wonderful iPhone-ness to the world's poor. Samsung's "design crisis" was that their copies weren't as good as Apple's iPhone, so they embarked on efforts to more closely mimic the iPhone. Their patent infringement has nothing to do with social good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellya74u
I have friends who love their Samsung phones. When I ask what they like about it, the point out a whole host of features that, based on info from these trials, are mostly Apple invented, stolen technology features of the iPhone. Then they tell me they don't like the iPhone, often because they got a 'deal' on their more affordable phone.
Now we're getting somewhere...
Keep reading, folks -->
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later.
Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
This is the "innovate don't litigate" meme.
So you're saying Apple should keep innovating on the next big thing and let copycats keep taking Apple's best work and flood the market with cheap copies. But that's not a sustainable situation. As Tim Cook said, "we don't want to be the industry's research arm" (or words to that effect). The patent system exists to make innovation and research an economically sustainable activity. Arguing "but but but they have a one year head start" is missing the point: unlicensed copying of a company's patents means that company has to recoup the research and development cost while copyists don't have to, which is unfair competition. It's always cheaper to be a copyist, even if you're one year late.
Deep, deep down inside what all these people are saying (but are never honest enough to admit) is that they just want the "choice" (euphemism for "I won't buy from Apple") to buy their "iPhone" from Samsung, and how dare Apple do anything in court that would make the "iPhone" experience shittier on their Galaxy S Infringement Edition.
So you're saying Apple should keep innovating on the next big thing and let copycats keep taking Apple's best work and flood the market with cheap copies. But that's not a sustainable situation. As Tim Cook said, "we don't want to be the industry's research arm" (or words to that effect). The patent system exists to make innovation and research an economically sustainable activity. Arguing "but but but they have a one year head start" is missing the point: unlicensed copying of a company's patents means that company has to recoup the research and development cost while copyists don't have to, which is unfair competition. It's always cheaper to be a copyist, even if you're one year late.
Deep, deep down inside what all these people are saying (but are never honest enough to admit) is that they just want the "choice" (euphemism for "I won't buy from Apple") to buy their "iPhone" from Samsung, and how dare Apple do anything in court that would make the "iPhone" experience shittier on their Galaxy S Infringement Edition.
No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.
When someone steals the source code or a blueprint of the device Apple can sue of course, but copying in itself shouldn't be a problem because they still have to do the implementation and the R&D needed to be able to do that (exactly the same argument that clears Apple from 'copying' Xerox (pun intended)).
The exact opposite is happening on the worldwide market... which you conveniently forgot to mention. android has over 80% share and Apple less than 15%.
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
Apple has yet to include the S4 or the S5. They tried with the S4 but the Judge would not allow it in this trial. It has nothing to do with not getting much mileage, when in your vernacular the car has not even left the garage and started driving down the road for those models yet (as in there have been no lawsuits allowed on the S4 or S5 yet).
No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.
When someone steals the source code or a blueprint of the device Apple can sue of course, but copying in itself shouldn't be a problem because they still have to do the implementation and the R&D needed to be able to do that (exactly the same argument that clears Apple from 'copying' Xerox (pun intended)).
Do you really think the iPhone was just a bunch of ideas "scribble down" while drinking a latte? It was 5 years in development and thousands of man hours. And because your misinformed let me correct you on the oft incorrectly used Apple copied Xerox meme. Apple did not copy xerox.
They were invited to PARC research at Xerox where Xerox had very very early and crude versions of a GUI and using a very crude object oriented point and click environment on a computer that was a prototype called the Alto. IT was not patented. Steve Jobs was invited there to see this. In fact about half of the original Macintosh team were former PARC employees. Before Apple visited PARC they had already been working on there own gui with a mouse and point and click. They asked the folks at PARC if they could use some of the ideas the y saw and incorporate them into the macintosh gui they were already working on. They agreed to let Apple use some of there ideas. In return for this Steve Jobs gave them a substantial portion of original issue stock in apple computers first stock offering. The deal was signed and Xerox got there shares of Apple stock in return for the use of there ideas. Xerox later sold those shares of apple stock which today would be worth billions and billions of dollars.
Apple did not steal PARC's ideas they were paid for them and agreed to it.
Comments
I wasn't trying to pass judgment on your comment or his. I was simply filling in the blank you left for anyone interested in what patent infringement damages are all about.
Apple is following a very deliberate game plan. Time will tell who really can innovate.:D
Everyone wants something for nothing. Doesn't matter if one is a millionaire or a bum on the street... "Humans... We're the worst."™
Apple is threatening Android OEMs pretty intensely with its ability to earn $10 billion per quarter, mostly from phones that sell for 3x the average price of what those OEMs can ship at razor thin margins. That's where Apple is competing.
If Apple needs more leverage for forcing Android OEMs to sign licensing agreements, it has dozens of additional patents that it can bring. It hasn't even yet had the opportunity to accuse phones from a year ago on the patents it has already won. It has dozens of patents to bring to court and force Samsung ect. to pay millions of dollars to experts to deny while looking like a scoundrel.
A bigger threat to Android comes from Samsung however, which is stomping on Android OEMs with its marketing muscle and plans to migrate its users off Android as soon as it can.
I'm not sure what is worse; Samsung staying with Android and basically forking the code, or going with a new platform and taking the #1 Android phone to a new platform and thus making the Android platform look bad on the stats. It's already fluffed up by a boat load of cheap USB fobs that play pirated videos -- as if anyone is making money on these devices.
Most Android devices don't make enough money to upgrade and support -- they are throw aways. The few premium phones are a smaller part of the Android Market.
If Samsung stays; it will be the tail wagging the dog, and if they leave, the "profits" attributed to Android will (at a guess) be about half what they were. My opinion is that it's better for Google if Samsung leaves -- in the long run. Because they are going to be a competitor on a splintered platform more and more as time goes on. Better to get it over with. The other thing is; Samsung will probably do poorly with their own OS -- because they have convinced themselves that they know how to profit form their own innovation. That's a huge risk since their entire history as been assembling and perfecting other's designs. A gamble and being an innovator is the most risky position.
Apple made it look easy -- but when the introduce something "new" they've been testing it for 5 years or more. They are atypical of most "innovators" who throw out a great idea without great execution and have to sue another large company that quickly embraces and extends the idea, and usually destroys the company before a lawsuit gets traction (see; Microsoft).
Android has serious problems going forward with legacy, cheap versus high performance platforms ruining the brand, and splintering as all the manufacturers work to differentiate they brand. They need a system were everyone puts back value to the pool, because they are going to have more and more compatibility issues. Where this bites them is with development; it's going to cost more money for less profit as time goes on to be an Android developer.
It portraits Apple in a way that is not entirely positive (even if it is way better than Samsung) and makes people think about Apple products.
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later.
Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
I'm not sure what is worse; Samsung staying with Android and basically forking the code, or going with a new platform and taking the #1 Android phone to a new platform and thus making the Android platform look bad on the stats. It's already fluffed up by a boat load of cheap USB fobs that play pirated videos -- as if anyone is making money on these devices.
Most Android devices don't make enough money to upgrade and support -- they are throw aways. The few premium phones are a smaller part of the Android Market.
If Samsung stays; it will be the tail wagging the dog, and if they leave, the "profits" attributed to Android will (at a guess) be about half what they were. My opinion is that it's better for Google if Samsung leaves -- in the long run. Because they are going to be a competitor on a splintered platform more and more as time goes on. Better to get it over with. The other thing is; Samsung will probably do poorly with their own OS -- because they have convinced themselves that they know how to profit form their own innovation. That's a huge risk since their entire history as been assembling and perfecting other's designs. A gamble and being an innovator is the most risky position.
Apple made it look easy -- but when the introduce something "new" they've been testing it for 5 years or more. They are atypical of most "innovators" who throw out a great idea without great execution and have to sue another large company that quickly embraces and extends the idea, and usually destroys the company before a lawsuit gets traction (see; Microsoft).
Android has serious problems going forward with legacy, cheap versus high performance platforms ruining the brand, and splintering as all the manufacturers work to differentiate they brand. They need a system were everyone puts back value to the pool, because they are going to have more and more compatibility issues. Where this bites them is with development; it's going to cost more money for less profit as time goes on to be an Android developer.
Samsung isn't forking android anymore than Motorola, LG or HTC. Fragmenting yes, but it's better that these companies are all trying on one-up each other in terms of getting more from android, which is really nothing more than a foundation. Raw android really is stale as all hell and not all that functional outside of the very basic expectations of a smart device.
But between LG, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung they are all "feeding into the pool" in a way that influences Google in how they improve android, and competitors in what features they offer that are unique to their device.
Nah.
I find it interesting that I-Phone users can't be content with enjoying their phones and leave it at that. Tell me why some spend so much time attacking a competitors phone? It's like you have a dog in the fight. You don't win or lose on a given verdict do you?
So why the hate of a smartphone? Why not direct your hate or energy towards something that matters like solving world hunger?
I suspect it is because you somehow find your I-Phone makes you better than others. Like it is a status symbol and to maintain your delusional sense of superiority gleaned from your phone you have to attack a competitive product. How weak is that. Are you that insecure that you allow your phone to help define you? If so, may I suggest a therapist.
And you defend to the death the former CEO like he is some type of God. Does your idea of God include someone who was recently found guilty of price fixing EBooks and price fixing the wages of silicone valley employees by intimating other local employers in the area to not recruit from each other (settlement).
I have owned both I-Phone and Galaxy's and IMO the Galaxy is simply a better phone. Yes, it is made of some plastic which you all declare "cheap", but I have an I-Pad that is made of plastic for the most part and you don't call it cheap. And a Mac has a lot of plastic in it and you don't declare it cheap. Does not your Hi Def TV have a plastic surround on it? Is that to cheap? I didn't think so. And do you put your treasured I-phone in a plastic case to protect it. I bet many of you do. So the plastic equals quality is a ridiculous argument.
Regarding the trial, it was proven that of the over 12,000 estimated patents in a smart phone, Apple could only find 3 that infringed. And that opinion is based on only 8 people, all of which lived in the valley next to Apple. It's conceivable that this trial if held anywhere else might have resulted in zero infringement... like it has in other countries.
Do you hate other people cars, or other possessions? Let's hope not. It's so petty.
Seems like a Pyrrhic victory.
It portraits Apple in a way that is not entirely positive (even if it is way better than Samsung) and makes people think about Apple products.
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later.
Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
That says something about Galaxy Tab sales.
A lot, actually.
Lulz.
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
Still, concerns like HTC will think twice before blatantly copying Apple.
Think HTC can afford a $120 million hit? I don't.
Apple can and will continue to sue copycats. The legal precedent is mounting.
$120 million here, $120 million there, and pretty soon it starts to add up.
Clearly the stealing will go on. The only way for Apple to keep its theiving competitors in check will be to regain marketshare and continue to set sales record for Apple's uniquely well made, innovative products.
And Apple is doing this as we speak.
U.S. Smartphone Market Share by Operating System (OS)
Dec 2010 25%
Dec 2011 30%
Dec 2012 36%
Dec 2013 42%
What we're watching is the take-down of prey in slow motion. I know we're all impatient and prefer to see big spectacular victories, but Apple is taking Android apart piece by piece.
I'm not arguing that Android won't continue to be a highly successful platform, but the whole narrative around "Apple's demise" is exactly opposite of the truth. Apple is the tortoise, Android the hare. They're both great competitors, but 2014 will be Apple's turn for a victory lap in their ongoing competition.
OK then, with < $7 per unit I suspect Samsung has a good business model. Going forward, do they need to license these patients or does Apple just have to sue every few years?
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
But what about Android phones makes them so great (aside from price)? Android was supposed to be a linux-based clone of the Palm Treo- or Blackberry-style smartphone, before Andy Rubin had his "I guess we're not gonna ship that phone" moment. Would a Palm Treo-style smart phone with many tiny keys and a small, non-touch sensitive screen, and clunky "baby" web browser have done all those wonderful things for communication and literacy in Haiti? Because that's what Google was going to give you.
I suspect what you (and most people who are Android fans) really like about Android is the iPhone-ness of it: the portable touchscreen, app-centric, wireless internet experience. It's like having an iPhone, without paying iPhone prices. It's as if a socialist Robin Hood stole the magic of the iPhone and gave it to world as Android. Is that what you're thinking? My point is: if you're gonna give Google credit for theft, give Apple credit for inventing the iPhone in the first place.
Cheap phones in third world countries are a good thing, but you are missing the finer point of this court case: cheap phones don't need to infringe on Apple's patents to still bring all that wonderful iPhone-ness to the world's poor. Samsung's "design crisis" was that their copies weren't as good as Apple's iPhone, so they embarked on efforts to more closely mimic the iPhone. Their patent infringement has nothing to do with social good.
I have friends who love their Samsung phones. When I ask what they like about it, the point out a whole host of features that, based on info from these trials, are mostly Apple invented, stolen technology features of the iPhone. Then they tell me they don't like the iPhone, often because they got a 'deal' on their more affordable phone.
Now we're getting somewhere...
Keep reading, folks -->
Clearly the best thing to do for Apple is to create new and innovative products and use that as an advantage over competitors instead of using a flawed patent system.
If it is really difficult to implement innovations competitors have the same development time Apple has (if they are really good at it) but later to market because they start later.
Only when someone steals the source code or other blueprints Apple should go to court .
This is the "innovate don't litigate" meme.
So you're saying Apple should keep innovating on the next big thing and let copycats keep taking Apple's best work and flood the market with cheap copies. But that's not a sustainable situation. As Tim Cook said, "we don't want to be the industry's research arm" (or words to that effect). The patent system exists to make innovation and research an economically sustainable activity. Arguing "but but but they have a one year head start" is missing the point: unlicensed copying of a company's patents means that company has to recoup the research and development cost while copyists don't have to, which is unfair competition. It's always cheaper to be a copyist, even if you're one year late.
Deep, deep down inside what all these people are saying (but are never honest enough to admit) is that they just want the "choice" (euphemism for "I won't buy from Apple") to buy their "iPhone" from Samsung, and how dare Apple do anything in court that would make the "iPhone" experience shittier on their Galaxy S Infringement Edition.
No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.
When someone steals the source code or a blueprint of the device Apple can sue of course, but copying in itself shouldn't be a problem because they still have to do the implementation and the R&D needed to be able to do that (exactly the same argument that clears Apple from 'copying' Xerox (pun intended)).
The exact opposite is happening on the worldwide market... which you conveniently forgot to mention. android has over 80% share and Apple less than 15%.
Everyone wants something for nothing. Doesn't matter if one is a millionaire or a bum on the street... "Humans... We're the worst."™
You say that everyone wants something for nothing; you're projecting.
These types of cases will shrink over the next couple of years. We are seeing claims against newer Samsung devices not getting much mileage compared to everything from the GNEX, S2 and before. S3 got hit a bit, but not much has happened with the S4.
Apple has yet to include the S4 or the S5. They tried with the S4 but the Judge would not allow it in this trial. It has nothing to do with not getting much mileage, when in your vernacular the car has not even left the garage and started driving down the road for those models yet (as in there have been no lawsuits allowed on the S4 or S5 yet).
No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.
When someone steals the source code or a blueprint of the device Apple can sue of course, but copying in itself shouldn't be a problem because they still have to do the implementation and the R&D needed to be able to do that (exactly the same argument that clears Apple from 'copying' Xerox (pun intended)).
Do you really think the iPhone was just a bunch of ideas "scribble down" while drinking a latte? It was 5 years in development and thousands of man hours. And because your misinformed let me correct you on the oft incorrectly used Apple copied Xerox meme. Apple did not copy xerox.
They were invited to PARC research at Xerox where Xerox had very very early and crude versions of a GUI and using a very crude object oriented point and click environment on a computer that was a prototype called the Alto. IT was not patented. Steve Jobs was invited there to see this. In fact about half of the original Macintosh team were former PARC employees. Before Apple visited PARC they had already been working on there own gui with a mouse and point and click. They asked the folks at PARC if they could use some of the ideas the y saw and incorporate them into the macintosh gui they were already working on. They agreed to let Apple use some of there ideas. In return for this Steve Jobs gave them a substantial portion of original issue stock in apple computers first stock offering. The deal was signed and Xerox got there shares of Apple stock in return for the use of there ideas. Xerox later sold those shares of apple stock which today would be worth billions and billions of dollars.
Apple did not steal PARC's ideas they were paid for them and agreed to it.