Apple and HTC Settle Patent Dispute, Agree to Ten Year License

[swy05]

Originally Posted by haruhiko

I've said many times Apple started the war against the wrong enemy. Steve reportedly was shocked when he saw an HTC Android phone, but he didn't realise that Samsung is the real threat, because they're the most important supplier of Apple - only they have the same ability to integrate hardware and software, also its design are more like Apple.

On the other hand, HTC, pretty much killed themselves with OS update restrictions and flooding phones around the market. So Apple hasn't any big incentive for continuing the lawsuit against HTC.

I really hope that the same treatment will be applicable to all smaller Android manufacturers, so that Samsung's domination in the Android market will be controlled. If the other players die out because of Samsung, then it's Apple vs Samsung forever - it's just different sides of the same coin.

Up until 5 or so years ago, Apple was the only smartphone company making any money. They were dominant and every other cellphone company was fighting for scraps.

But Samsung changed all of that and now Samsung is slowly becoming the dominant cellphone maker.

Now it's only Apple and Samsung controlling the market.

You say to control Samsung. Why not control Apple?

5 years ago when Apple was "the only" cellphone maker, did you say Apple needs to be controlled?

So when another company is starting to dominate, it's bad and they need to be controlled.

When Apple is dominating it's a good thing.

The defacto logic on this board. Rinse and repeat.

[Casiotone]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Not even close. Doug Englebart's group showed off the first mouse driven UI (and video conferencing and so much more) in 1968 while Steve Jobs was turning 13.

This caused Xerox, a year or two later, to open the Palo Alto Research Center (Xero PARC) to persue GUIs and the replacement of the paper office. Which is exactly what they did: they invented the modern windowed GUI with icons, object oriented programming, laser printers and office networking.

Attachment 376666



Apple hired on a lot of the Xerox PARC developers, who continued to refine the GUI they'd invented. They added pulldown menus, for example, but it was all just icing on the basic cake.

IMO, the praise goes to the developers, not the companies they worked for at first or later.

If Apple had never existed, another old or new company would've picked up on GUIs soon enough. The time was ripe and the Xerox developers would've gone anywhere who would allow them to finish up and take it to market.

I'm not one of those who says that Apple "invented modern GUIs", but you seem to oversimplify Apple's contribution by reducing it to the addition of pulldown menus.

Did you know that on the Xerox Star, to move a desktop icon you had to:

1-Click on the icon you want to move
2-Press the "Move" key on the keyboard(!)
3-Click on the destination position on the desktop grid

Want to delete a file on a Xerox Star? Click on the file and hit the "Delete" key!

Was the trashcan on the Mac a better idea? One could argue that there are better ways to implement a GUI based delete function, but Microsoft did like the idea enough to "recycle" it! (Along with Atari, Commodore and many others who also had the "obvious" idea of putting a trashcan icon on their desktop).

These are just some examples, there are numerous other ways in which the Xerox Star was different from the Lisa or the original Mac.

Many are quick to assume that because the Xerox Star screenshots are visually similar to the original Mac that it worked the same way.

[haruhiko]

Originally Posted by swy05

Up until 5 or so years ago, Apple was the only smartphone company making any money. They were dominant and every other cellphone company was fighting for scraps.

But Samsung changed all of that and now Samsung is slowly becoming the dominant cellphone maker.

Now it's only Apple and Samsung controlling the market.

You say to control Samsung. Why not control Apple?

5 years ago when Apple was "the only" cellphone maker, did you say Apple needs to be controlled?

So when another company is starting to dominate, it's bad and they need to be controlled.

When Apple is dominating it's a good thing.

The defacto logic on this board. Rinse and repeat.

Apple didn't dominate 5 years ago. Check your facts and come back please.

[Vitrum]

Will it blend ? That is the question...

[BuckusToothnail]

Originally Posted by KPOM

No, the EU is investigating Samsung.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-89_en.htm



Nice try, though.

WRONG!

You said, "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their standards-essential LTE patents to try to drive out competition."

The case above has NOTHING to do with Samsung's LTE patents.

In fact, it specifically states, "In 2011, Samsung sought injunctive relief in various Member States' courts against competing mobile device makers based on alleged infringements of certain of its patent rights which it has declared essential to implement European mobile telephony standards."

Why is this relevant? I'll explain it to you.

The EU is alleging that Samsung might have broken EU rules by not licensing their standard essential patents to their mobile phone competitors under reasonable FRAND terms, and instead tried sue their competitors in various EU courts for patent infringement and attempted to get their phones withdrawn from the market through sales injunctions.

Do you get it now why you're wrong? NO???

Okay, it's simple.

LTE phones weren't INTRODUCED in the EU until THIS YEAR.

In fact, the first LTE phone available in the EU was a SAMSUNG Galaxy S II LTE, and wasn't made available until FEBRUARY in Sweden, which is the first EU country that had LTE phones on sale.

This is even AFTER the date of the press release, which is January 31, and which itself was referencing to events that happened in 2011.

So how is it possible that Samsung was investigated by the EU for "improperly using their standards-essential LTE patents " by seeking "injunctive relief in various Member States' courts against competing mobile device makers" in 2011 when LTE phones weren't even on the MARKET until 2012?!

What's more, the press release specifically states, "Such commitments were given to ETSI by many patent holders, including Samsung, when the third generation ("3G") mobile and wireless telecommunications system standards were adopted in Europe."

Yes, "3G". You are aware the LTE is NOT "3G" right?

Furthermore, Samsung has NOT submitted ANY of their LTE patents for FRAND anyway!

So how is "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their standards-essential LTE patents to try to drive out competition"???

They're not!

Because none of Samsung's LTE patents are considered "standards-essential" in the EU to begin with!

So you got it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! Pretty impressive you could get so much WRONG in so FEW words. Bravo!

Nice try making stuff up though!

But let's also address your other "claim" that if Samsung defends their LTE patents against Apple that the EU will be "forcing a harsh settlement upon them" because "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their [debunked claim snipped so sentence can make theoretical sense] patents to try to drive out competition".

So since the EU issued that press release in January, what actions have the EU actually TAKEN against Samsung for these alleged offenses?

Don't know? I do.

Exactly NOTHING!

Wow, you really made a strong "argument" there.

But wait, what company WAS under investigation by the EU for "price fixing" and other antitrust violations JUST LAST MONTH???

Can you guess?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89818N20121009

And which company due to the seriousness and scope of their illegal price fixing activities and anti-trust violations were under the threat of being fined by the EU of "up to 10 percent of their global sales, which in Apple's case could reach $15.6 billion, based on its 2012 fiscal year"?

And what company under the treat of the HUMONGOUS penalty for their illegal activities and antitrust violations had to "take a whipping" with their tail behind their legs and SETTLE with the EU just LAST WEEK?

And which company through their illegal price-fixing antitrust violating schemes with four major publishers in the efforts to hurt their market-dominant competitor Amazon and drive them out of business ended up BACK-FIRING and had to offer a highly UNFAVORABLE settlement offer to the EU giving "certainly another win for Amazon"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A50SA20121106

Need another hint? It's not Samsung.

Originally Posted by KPOM

Uh, no. Apple has lost some IP suits, as well, most recently to VirnetX. If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation.


But I guess according to you, it's only patent TROLLING when APPLE owns the patent, but otherwise, it's patent INFRINGEMENT when APPLE is getting sued!

Apple certainly has LOST some "IP suits" and yes, VimetX does "deserve compensation", but don't tell that to Apple though!

Not only did Apple lose to VimetX, but VimetX is suing them AGAIN since the last lawsuit didn't cover the latest Apple products including the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad 4, and despite losing the previous case, Apple still won't pay up!

Maybe you can convince Apple "If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation" because they certainly haven't been agreeing with you!

But it's not just VimetX though, VimetX is just the tip of the iceberg.

Just this past week, a Wisconsin court threw out Apple's lawsuit against Motorola Mobility in which Apple was arguing AGAINST PAYING the license fees dictated by Motorola for using its wireless patents.

That's BAD for Apple and basically is going to end up with Apple paying Motorola (i.e. Google) 2.25% of the “iPhone minus iPod” price which in real dollar figures would be around $10 per unit, or TEN TIMES the $1 that Apple wanted to pay!

And then last week a District of Delaware court DENIED Apple's case dismissal request and allowed MobileMedia Ideas to pursue its lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its screen rotation patent.

This would be HUGE, of course, as "screen rotation" would cover every iOS device Apple has ever produced including all iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad models.

And Apple couldn't just simply remove "screen rotation" from iOS like how Samsung removed "rubber banding" from their devices so if Apple lost that case they would be liable for damages for every one of their iOS devices they ever produced as well as for future license fees.

And THEN you have Samsung's lawsuit for Apple's exploitation of their non-FRAND, non-SEP LTE patents. Since Apple is refusing to pay the license fee to Samsung and therefore blatantly committing patent INFRINGEMENT, Samsung would have no CHOICE but to ask for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad 4 in both the US AND the EU.

If that happens, like I said, it'll just land a crippling blow to Apple, ceasing revenue from their top three highest grossing products in their first and second most important markets, and sending their AAPL share price into a spinning nose dive from which they may never recover.

You wonder why Apple doesn't just take YOUR advice of "If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation" and just PAY UP!

When you consider that all of the smartphone-related patent lawsuits that Apple and its competitors have been involved in the past two years have generated a combined $20 BILLION in LEGAL COSTS and related expenditures for all parties involved, how much money is Apple WASTING on all this PATENT TROLLING?

Apple would actually be SAVING money if instead of going to court, they just fairly PAID the license fees for the patents they are using to their rightful patent owners, AND if they weren't so INTENT on patent trolling the ENTIRE INDUSTRY to get all of their competitors' products BANNED thinking they DESERVE to be a MONOPOLY.

[hchung]

Originally Posted by HMI

How much of those Hondas is actually made in the US? I heard one time that Toyota trucks were completely built into two halves in Japan, shipped to US, then those two halves were stuck together in the US, and they claimed it was "made in the US". It had something to do with US trade laws that let Japanese car makers use the label "made in US," when in fact it wasn't really.

I don't pretend to be a car expert, so I'm just putting the question out there.

Not familiar with that story.
However, I have visited a site that made entire Toyota trucks in California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI

[Elit3]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Because Apple's not "innovating" (whatever that means) right now, and can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

----------



The courts should quit with this nonsense. I mean honestly how many people give a *^!# if Apple posts an "apology" to Samsung or the British legal system or whoever on their website? Sure the Fandroids care and it drives clicks on the tech sites but the average person does not care.

I am saying, that Apple have stopped innovating. They are focusing more on who to sue next, or who's device we should compare on stage next. Tell me, what have they innovated on in the last YEAR.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by Psychj0e

You don't agree that Apple has morphed into a patent troll?
And Apple no longer designing would put the world at a loss? Really? Give your head a shake, friend.

Well considering Apple is classed as the best designer on every category they partake in and all their competitors are inspired by Apple's designs (some a bit too inspired) I'd say yeh, we would be at a loss design wise.

----------

Originally Posted by swy05

All I ever see from your posts is your undying hatred of Samsung. Are you a majority shareholder of Apple? Are you the owner?

You hate Samsung so much, here's an idea. Throw away all of your Apple products. They are basically Samsung products with an Apple sticker slapped on them. Until you do so, you can keep on calling yourself a hypocrite.

Apple tried to come to terms but Samsung didn't want to hear it? You know why? Because the terms Apple was requiring was beyond ridiculous and would have no benefit to Samsung at all.

Did Samsung set your house on fire?

I wouldn't say I hate Samsung but I am an artist and designer myself, so to see a company that blatantly copies creative work really sends me over the edge because I know how it feels to have artwork stolen from myself for others gain. iPhone is a Samsung product? Why because it used to use their screen? If phones were just a screen the iPhone would be the fattest and heaviest phone out.

[swy05]

Originally Posted by turtlez

Well considering Apple is classed as the best designer on every category they partake in and all their competitors are inspired by Apple's designs (some a bit too inspired) I'd say yeh, we would be at a loss design wise.

----------



I wouldn't say I hate Samsung but I am an artist and designer myself, so to see a company that blatantly copies creative work really sends me over the edge because I know how it feels to have artwork stolen from myself for others gain. iPhone is a Samsung product? Why because it used to use their screen? If phones were just a screen the iPhone would be the fattest and heaviest phone out.

Are you serious? No, I'm being serious here. Are you serious?

You think the screen is the only Samsung component Apple uses in their iphone?

Are you serious?


Here's a shocker that might send your world tumbling upside down.

They use Samsung CPU's, memory, flash storage, and yes the screens.

So like I said, until you throw away your iPhone, you can continue to call yourself a hypocrite.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Did you even look at the document? It's the corporate equivalent of standing over the body with a smoking gun and red hands screaming "thank God I killed the *******!"

Samsung looked at every little bit of the iPhone, looked at their phone, examined all the little ways in which the iPhone experience was better, and implemented all of those in their product.

To some extent you can be inspired by the competition. If you find yourself compiling 132-page dossiers in minute detail, you've passed well beyond that point and in to purposeful copying.

I don't know every single patent Apple has on each UI feature, but morally they have been wrong and deserve justice.

As for being just a collection of parts - hello! Everything is a collection of parts! Actually, being an engineer is appreciating the unique and complex way they're arranged to create something better. After all, the pyramids are just lumps of rock.

Invention isn't all about fundamental sub-atomic physics. Engineering and invention is all about creativity and design to use those parts to solve the same problem in a much better way - like a new way to design earthquake-proof buildings from the same bricks, or a faster processing chip from the same transistors.

Engineers understand this. Steve Jobs understood this: "“In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.”

Design isn't just about making things pretty - you can't patent a painting of a certain type of subject painted in a particular style. The product of all of that engineering is design. That's the word for it.

Sadly weaker minds (people who hate Apple) will not be able to comprehend this

----------

Originally Posted by swy05

Are you serious? No, I'm being serious here. Are you serious?

You think the screen is the only Samsung component Apple uses in their iphone?

Are you serious?


Here's a shocker that might send your world tumbling upside down.

They use Samsung CPU's, memory, flash storage, and yes the screens.

So like I said, until you throw away your iPhone, you can continue to call yourself a hypocrite.

you need to understand the difference between designing and manufacturing

----------

Originally Posted by Elit3

I am saying, that Apple have stopped innovating. They are focusing more on who to sue next, or who's device we should compare on stage next. Tell me, what have they innovated on in the last YEAR.

are you saying their legal team are the same people from their design team?

[swy05]

Originally Posted by haruhiko

Apple didn't dominate 5 years ago. Check your facts and come back please.

5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Doesn't make a difference.

The fact of the matter is at a time when RIM and Nokia were failing, Apple was dominating. Android at the time was garbage so they were not even a competitor.

When Apple was dominating and everyone else was fighting for scraps, did you say they need to be controlled?

Better yet why don't we talk about the 2 companies making money right now. Samsung and Apple.

You say Samsung needs to be controlled. Why not Apple?

Until you can answer this, your blind hatred of Samsung is showing.

[Vitrum]

Originally Posted by swy05

5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Doesn't make a difference.

The fact of the matter is at a time when RIM and Nokia were failing, Apple was dominating. Android at the time was garbage so they were not even a competitor.

When Apple was dominating and everyone else was fighting for scraps, did you say they need to be controlled?

Better yet why don't we talk about the 2 companies making money right now. Samsung and Apple.

You say Samsung needs to be controlled. Why not Apple?

Until you can answer this, your blind hatred of Samsung is showing.

Get a grip buddy ! Those companys got owned by android not apple

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by swy05

Up until 5 or so years ago, Apple was the only smartphone company making any money. They were dominant and every other cellphone company was fighting for scraps.

Five years ago, Apple wasn't even a smartphone company. Nokia was dominant, RIMM was big, and they all made lots of money. Apple made good money with music players.

[xofruitcake]

Some background on HTC settlement. Android maker has gotten beaten up by Microsoft in court for years now and have been paying up license fee for settlement with Microsoft. Looks like it is Apple's turn to get their pound of flesh from Android device maker... I guess Android device maker are finding out that Android is not a free OS after all.. The cost of fighting the patent war on behave of Google and the eventual license fee make it a pretty high cost OS... And on top of that, they have to price their device at bargain basement level will hurt their profitability even more.. Eventually there will be more Android maker leaving the market and price of Android device will have to raise to pay for all the royalty..

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/a...eal-shows.html

Google officials including former CEO and now-chairman Eric Schmidt have repeatedly denied that Android has a patent infringement problem that needs to be solved through royalty-bearing license deals. But Google's rhetoric is out of touch with reality and inconsistent with the path chosen by its device maker partners. Google's OEMs definitely realize that they must approach the problem constructively and take care of themselves rather than trust Google on this. If Google's strategy to settle all Android patent issues with Motorola's patents had worked out, there would have been a completely different kind of announcement, relating to Android at large and not only to HTC.

A month ago I published an updated list of Android patent infringement findings, and since then, Apple also won a preliminary ITC ruling against Samsung over four more patents, meaning that 20 Apple and Microsoft patents have so far been found by courts in different jurisdictions to be infringed by Android-based devices. A preliminary ITC ruling on Apple's second complaint against HTC, over a set of patents that had significant overlap with the first Samsung case in California, was due later this month (November 27).


http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/a...eady-15th.html


Here's the list (in chronological order):

April 27, 2010: Microsoft Announces Patent Agreement With HTC

June 27, 2011: Microsoft and General Dynamics Itronix Sign Patent Agreement ("Agreement will cover General Dynamics Itronix devices running the Android platform.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

June 29, 2011: Microsoft and Velocity Micro, Inc., Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android-Based Devices (FOSS Patents coverage)

June 30, 2011: Microsoft and Onkyo Corp. Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android-Based Tablets (FOSS Patents coverage)

July 5, 2011: Microsoft and Wistron Sign Patent Agreement ("Agreement will cover Wistron's Android tablets, smartphones and e-readers.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

September 8, 2011: Microsoft and Acer Sign Patent License Agreement ("Agreement will cover Acer's Android tablets and smartphones.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

September 8, 2011: Microsoft and ViewSonic Sign Patent Agreement ("Agreement will cover ViewSonic's Android Tablets and smartphones.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

September 28, 2011: Microsoft and Samsung Broaden Smartphone Partnership ("Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung's mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

October 23, 2011: Microsoft and Compal Electronics Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android and Chrome Based Devices

January 12, 2012: Microsoft and LG Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android and Chrome OS Based Devices (FOSS Patents coverage)

April 25, 2012: Microsoft and Pegatron Corp. Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android- and Chrome-Based Devices

April 30, 2012: Barnes & Noble and Microsoft Form Strategic Partnership to Advance World-Class Digital Reading Experiences for Consumers" ("Barnes & Noble and Microsoft have settled their patent litigation, and moving forward, Barnes & Noble and Newco will have a royalty-bearing license under Microsoft's patents for its NOOK eReader and Tablet products.") (FOSS Patents coverage)

July 9, 2012: Microsoft and Aluratek Inc. Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android and Chrome Based Devices

November 7, 2012: Microsoft Signs Licensing Agreements for exFAT With Sharp, Sigma, NextoDi, Black Magic and Atomos Global ("The agreements cover Sharp Android tablets, Sigma and NextoDi high-end cameras and accessories, and Black Magic and Atomos Global broadcast-quality video-recording devices.")

November 11, 2012: HTC and Apple Settle Patent Dispute (FOSS Patents coverage)

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by xofruitcake

Some background on HTC settlement.

You have to take everything that Florian "MS pays me" Mueller says about Android or Android manufacturers

Better someone not as biased as him: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3...ent-litigation

[Vitrum]

The FUTURE is NOW !

[xofruitcake]

Originally Posted by Oletros

You have to take everything that Florian "MS pays me" Mueller says about Android or Android manufacturers

Better someone not as biased as him: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3...ent-litigation

His opinion may or may not be bias (I found him very fair. He blasted some of Apple's legal maneuver in Samsung trial before the judge ruled in favor of Samsung). but the fact are pretty clear. Android maker are settling with Microsoft and pay up on the license fee. HTC is the first major Android device maker settling with Apple and that mean something. HTC has been fighting the patent war with 9 borrowed patents from Google and loss that fight because they lack standing on the borrowed patents. So Google is very much involved in these patent battle. At a minimum, HTC does not think that Google can covered them legally. HTC has been able to stay most of the litigation with Apple pending outcome of other trials until next year. So the timing of the settlement is curious ..

So far AMZN, and all the Chinese Android maker (ZTE etc.) are not paying up yet. It will be fun to see how this playing out over time as layman. But it is fair to say that Android maker is going to have a tough road ahead on the patent and licensing fee front. And Android devices will have to go up to cover all the patent cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18410563

Confidential terms
Google transferred nine patents to the Taiwanese smartphone maker in August last year.

The move was designed to help HTC counter-attack allegations that the Google-designed Android system installed on its phones infringed several of Apple's patents. Apple wants its rival's devices blocked from the US.

HTC subsequently amended an existing complaint it had already filed against Apple with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to include five of the newly acquired patents.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

This decision appears to be a precedent for the issues raised by many of today's patent transfer agreements”

Florian Mueller
Patent consultant
Inventions covered in HTC's revised filing included a method to offer "zoomed displays" of characters entered on a smartphone keypad and the use of status bars offering users information updates without disrupting an open application.

Neither Google nor HTC ever disclosed the terms of their deal, but the ITC judge's decision to reject the patent complaints "due to lack of standing" suggests that he felt that whatever rights had been transferred to the Taiwanese firm were not enough to warrant their use.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Casiotone

I'm not one of those who says that Apple "invented modern GUIs", but you seem to oversimplify Apple's contribution by reducing it to the addition of pulldown menus.

I was oversimplifying because my post was only in response to this utterly bogus base claim:

Originally Posted by alexgowers

Erm apple invented GUI's full stop.

Without the basic idea of a GUI... which was not invented at Apple.., the later refinements added to the GUI by developers working at Apple and other places could not have existed.

It's like claiming that someone who invented the pushbutton car radio or lighted gear indicator is also responsible for the invention of the car.

Many are quick to assume that because the Xerox Star screenshots are visually similar to the original Mac that it worked the same way.

I am quite aware of the differences between the Alto and Star, Lisa and Mac. I wrote a couple of GUIs (in assembler) in the '80s myself.

Mine had some worthwhile improvements as well, such as multi-tasking (i.e. windows could continue to update while one was being moved), background pixel and text storage, built-in knob and slider controls for touch, etc.

However, making such refinements doesn't mean I invented GUIs, any more than Apple did

Regards.

[swy05]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

Five years ago, Apple wasn't even a smartphone company. Nokia was dominant, RIMM was big, and they all made lots of money. Apple made good money with music players.

You know when the first iphone was released?

Yes, you guessed it.

In July 2007. It's been over 5 years.

5 years ago Apple wasn't even a smartphone company? Uhh yeah. I guess they designed and built everything in a matter of months.

Apple made good money with music players? Oh yeah, I forgot. They made good money when they ripped off Creative's UI.

Yeah.

----------

Originally Posted by turtlez

Sadly weaker minds (people who hate Apple) will not be able to comprehend this

----------



you need to understand the difference between designing and manufacturing

----------



are you saying their legal team are the same people from their design team?

Way to dodge the statement.

You hate Samsung. That's crystal clear.

Apple uses Samsung's screens, memory, flash, and CPU's. So do you hate Apple because their products are made up of mostly Samsung products.

Answer the damn question. Don't skirt around it.

Your argument is akin to people saying "Buy American and support American!" when their products are clearly made elsewhere.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by swy05

You know when the first iphone was released?

Yes, you guessed it.

In July 2007. It's been over 5 years.

5 years ago Apple wasn't even a smartphone company? Uhh yeah. I guess they designed and built everything in a matter of months.

Yeah.

The point is, in June 2007, the iPhone wasn't a highly successful and profitable product for Apple, it was a gamble. And others in the smartphone industry were already selling millions of units, and sold more units than Apple for that year.

Your original statement was plain wrong. In 2007, Apple wasn't the "only successful smartphone vendor", it was just entering the market and crossing its fingers to have a winner on its hands.

And you know what ? They originally goofed. The iPhone 4GB was a mistake, and the price point was too high. Which resulted in months later in a cancellation of the 4GB model and a price reduction through subsidies.

[swy05]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

The point is, in June 2007, the iPhone wasn't a highly successful and profitable product for Apple, it was a gamble. And others in the smartphone industry were already selling millions of units, and sold more units than Apple for that year.

Your original statement was plain wrong. In 2007, Apple wasn't the "only successful smartphone vendor", it was just entering the market and crossing its fingers to have a winner on its hands.

And you know what ? They originally goofed. The iPhone 4GB was a mistake, and the price point was too high. Which resulted in months later in a cancellation of the 4GB model and a price reduction through subsidies.

Hence the last 5 years or so.

Apple's dominance hasn't been 5 years. Hence the "last 5 years or so."

I apologize that I wasn't spot on with the number of years.

But their mobile product has been around for over 5 years.

And my point about the last 5 years or so wasn't the main point.

The main point is that Apple and Samsung are both dominating. At one point, Apple was the only dominant player in the market. But I don't hear him saying "We should control Apple."

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by etrinh

Why do you even have brand loyalty? We all know that smart phones are the new fashion trend. Let's all stop kidding ourselves. iPhone was one of the best devices out there and by all means still one of the best. Its just getting too popular with the masses and that makes it boring. So just buy whatever phone you like and use it. I don't really think people care what phone you use. it should be a productive tool for your life not a status symbol.

The only reason I bought an iPhone was for the battery life, not because it matches my Jeans

[thekev]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Not even close. Doug Englebart's group showed off the first mouse driven UI (and video conferencing and so much more) in 1968 while Steve Jobs was turning 13.

This caused Xerox, a year or two later, to open the Palo Alto Research Center (Xero PARC) to persue GUIs and the replacement of the paper office. Which is exactly what they did: they invented the modern windowed GUI with icons, object oriented programming, laser printers and office networking.

Attachment 376666



Apple hired on a lot of the Xerox PARC developers, who continued to refine the GUI they'd invented. They added pulldown menus, for example, but it was all just icing on the basic cake.

IMO, the praise goes to the developers, not the companies they worked for at first or later.

If Apple had never existed, another old or new company would've picked up on GUIs soon enough. The time was ripe and the Xerox developers would've gone anywhere who would allow them to finish up and take it to market.

You post some of the greatest references I see on here. I'm not even old enough to remember many of these things firsthand.

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Did you even look at the document? It's the corporate equivalent of standing over the body with a smoking gun and red hands screaming "thank God I killed the *******!"

Samsung looked at every little bit of the iPhone, looked at their phone, examined all the little ways in which the iPhone experience was better, and implemented all of those in their product.

To some extent you can be inspired by the competition. If you find yourself compiling 132-page dossiers in minute detail, you've passed well beyond that point and in to purposeful copying.

All you've really indicated is that they made a case study out of the iphone. the rest is conjecture.

[Foxykhat]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

With Samsung sucking up all the air in the Android space, this is a good move for HTC. Android fans love to talk about "choice," then they all buy Samsungs.

This is what kills me with the hypocrisy of anti-apple lovers. They claim they want choice. How Apple is a bully yada yada yada but they enjoying spouting how "SAMSUNG" is the way to go. Not just Android but Samsung.

[Casiotone]

Originally Posted by kdarling

I was oversimplifying because my post was only in response to this utterly bogus base claim:



Without the basic idea of a GUI... which was not invented at Apple.., the later refinements added to the GUI by developers working at Apple and other places could not have existed.

It's like claiming that someone who invented the pushbutton car radio or lighted gear indicator is also responsible for the invention of the car.



I am quite aware of the differences between the Alto and Star, Lisa and Mac. I wrote a couple of GUIs (in assembler) in the '80s myself.

Mine had some worthwhile improvements as well, such as multi-tasking (i.e. windows could continue to update while one was being moved), background pixel and text storage, built-in knob and slider controls for touch, etc.

However, making such refinements doesn't mean I invented GUIs, any more than Apple did

Regards.

While you may be aware of all this, not everyone reading your your comment was, and could be lead into thinking that Apple literally copied Xerox and simply added pull-down menus, which is not true. The screenshot you posted could easily leave that impression. That's why I felt it was important to mention some of the differences which can't be seen in the screenshot.

Have a nice day!