Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Samsung Agree to End Non-U.S. Patent Disputes

Dave.UK said:
Dyson lost against Samsung and Samsung countersued.

Always good to know the facts when trying to look smart ;)
Click to expand...

That just means they lost and NOT that the very existence of the cheesy dyson clone by Samsung isn’t obviously a copy, smarty-pants

----------
Michael Goff said:
And Apple has been fined for copying Samsung.

If you pay attention to the lawsuits they win, though, it's not current products. Yet people are acting like they STILL copy.[/QD

No its a judgment on patents NOT copying. Nice try though!
Click to expand...
 
Michael Goff said:
And Apple has been fined for copying Samsung.

If you pay attention to the lawsuits they win, though, it's not current products. Yet people are acting like they STILL copy.
Click to expand...

There's an actual debate going on right now about whether or not Samsung copies its design from Apple.

This is nuts.

Of course Samsung swipes ideas from Apple, you just have to look at their designs side by side.

The funny thing about the Apple versus Samsung debate is that Samsung has been stealing from everyone for years now. It's not an Apple exclusive thing.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-copies-2012-1?op=1#ixzz39kOwAJOm
 
yellowtruck said:
There's an actual debate going on right now about whether or not Samsung copies its design from Apple.

This is nuts.

Of course Samsung swipes ideas from Apple, you just have to look at their designs side by side.

The funny thing about the Apple versus Samsung debate is that Samsung has been stealing from everyone for years now. It's not an Apple exclusive thing.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-copies-2012-1?op=1#ixzz39kOwAJOm
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said they never copied. I said they're not copying Apple at this point.
 
Oletros said:
Size? There were popular smartphones with screen size more than 3.5" in 2006-2007 before the iPhone was released

----------



The my XDA Flame with a 3.7" 640x480 didn't existed and they didn't sold them in February 2007
Click to expand...

Congrats on completely missing the point.
 
yellowtruck said:
That just means they lost and NOT that the very existence of the cheesy dyson clone by Samsung isn’t obviously a copy, smarty-pants
Click to expand...


The move follows the decision by Dyson in October 2013 to drop a patent infringement case that it brought against Samsung in August, in which it claimed that the Korean giant had copied the steering system used in its Motion Sync cleaner from the Dyson DC37 and DC39 cleaners, which had then been on sale for two years.

Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/17/samsung-dyson-vacuum-cleaner-patent-copyright
Click to expand...

Little bit of reading wouldnt go amiss. ;)
 
cmaier said:
I seem to recall hearing similar things from Nokia and RIM management a couple years back.
Click to expand...

Nokia and RIM have/had a different problem than Samsung right now. RIM (now just Blackberry) didn't have a real strategy. They didn't modernize quick enough. Actually, the same went for Nokia. They both grasped their legacy OS and legacy devices and hoped that it would be enough while the rest of the world moved on. Changing to WP didn't save Nokia, at the point when they switched there was no saving Nokia. I expect BB to remain alive for a few more years, maybe longer if they find the right downsizing model to becoming a small-time player.

Samsung's problem comes from the fact that they've hit a block on their phones. If you have an S4 or a Note 2, then why did you really need a Note 3 or S5? Samsung needs to get out of small-upgrade mode and come up with something huge. Of course, then they'll likely be forced back into the mode where they do small updates again.

So, yes, two separate problems.
 
Michael Goff said:
Nokia and RIM have/had a different problem than Samsung right now. RIM (now just Blackberry) didn't have a real strategy. They didn't modernize quick enough. Actually, the same went for Nokia. They both grasped their legacy OS and legacy devices and hoped that it would be enough while the rest of the world moved on. Changing to WP didn't save Nokia, at the point when they switched there was no saving Nokia. I expect BB to remain alive for a few more years, maybe longer if they find the right downsizing model to becoming a small-time player.

Samsung's problem comes from the fact that they've hit a block on their phones. If you have an S4 or a Note 2, then why did you really need a Note 3 or S5? Samsung needs to get out of small-upgrade mode and come up with something huge. Of course, then they'll likely be forced back into the mode where they do small updates again.

So, yes, two separate problems.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Different problems. Will be same result.
 
cmaier said:
Agreed. Different problems. Will be same result.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the notion that a few lesser quarters will bring down a company (not even the small section of the company that makes up mobile as I doubt you're suggesting Samsung as a whole will go down).
 
Michael Goff said:
I don't agree with the notion that a few lesser quarters will bring down a company (not even the small section of the company that makes up mobile as I doubt you're suggesting Samsung as a whole will go down).
Click to expand...

The mobile division is done. They are getting eaten alive at the bottom of the market, and they can't compete at the top. They can't be the cheapest android provider and they don't know how to be the best. Let's check back here in a few quarters and see how we did in our guesses.
 
cmaier said:
The mobile division is done. They are getting eaten alive at the bottom of the market, and they can't compete at the top. They can't be the cheapest android provider and they don't know how to be the best. Let's check back here in a few quarters and see how we did in our guesses.
Click to expand...

We should make sure to have concrete predictions of what's going to happen in a few quarters. What do you think will happen?
 
jrswizzle said:
IYa ya....let's trot out all the prototypes everyone else had but ignore the fact that the iPhone was in prototype well before 2007 as well.
Click to expand...

Yep, and as I pointed out, pre-iPhone prototypes from various companies looked remarkably similar.

For example, in the trials we got to see one of Apple's earliest iPhone case designs from 2005, which shared rounded corners, metal trim, and flat face with a production Korean smartphone of the time.

purple_2005.png

Ironically, Unwired magazine even commented in 2005, "If Apple would ever decide to build a new Apple Newton, it could look like this new Pocket PC from Korean ODM Pidion."

The Pidion was another prior art item that was banned from the Koh trial. In Europe, when it was allowed to be shown at a design trial, Apple lost, although that could be coincidence.

jrswizzle said:
To top it all off, here's a link to a 2005 iPhone prototype that proves Apple really started the larger display craze: http://www.networkworld.com/article...tos-of-apple-s-earliest-iphone-prototype.html

;)
Click to expand...

Haha! Yeah, everything usually starts with big prototype boards, like that 2005 Apple tablet development board, which was an off-the-shelf unit anyone could buy:

2005_ipad_prototype.jpg

A lot of us have used such boards when first designing new software. Tons of options and I/O and prototyping area to help you out.

It also reminds me of the first Windows Mobile development phone on the left below:

first_wm_phone.jpg

One thing I always keep in mind is that it's not really companies that invent this stuff, but individuals that they employ. And quite often, we'll find the same people time and again... coming up with neat stuff at places like Apple and Google and Palm. They are the source of some of the shared DNA we see in competitors.
 
Last edited:
zipa said:
Everything about it is standard. It is a standard ARM processor, just as Samsung's Exynos or Qualcomm's Snapdragon. The only special thing about is that Apple does not sell it to third parties, AFAIK.

You know, it's not like Apple went out and invented a completely new CPU architecture and instruction set from scratch.
Click to expand...

You honestly know nothing about CPU design. The A6, A7 and the upcoming A8 are custom-designed by Apple themselves. Nothing standard about them. And they were designed from scratch as they share very little in common with the standard ARM CPUs out there. And they've earned nothing but praise by the tech industry due to their speed and efficient design.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7910/apples-cyclone-microarchitecture-detailed

But don't let facts get in the way. Keep it up with your revisionist history.
 
Iconoclysm said:
You really need to go learn what the term strawman means...

And as for the rest, what will it take for you to realize that Samsung is quite obviously copying Apple's design decisions. How many companies are rushing to put dimples on the backs of their phones right now?
Click to expand...

You clearly misunderstood my intent. I'm not even sure how that is possible. I know that Samsung copies many Apple design decisions, I'm not sure how that was unclear in my post. Pointing out that the GS3/4 are less of a direct copy than the GS1/2 doesn't really suggest otherwise.

PS:
A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument
Click to expand...

That's exactly what people screaming about rounded corners were doing. They misrepresented Apple's argument by saying Apple was suing over rounded corners. They weren't. Rounded corners were just one of a very extensive list that they accused Samsung of copying.
 
Dave.UK said:
Dyson lost against Samsung and Samsung countersued.

Always good to know the facts when trying to look smart ;)
Click to expand...

Dyson didn't lose, they dropped the case because they don't have the legal and financial muscle to go up against the behemoth Samsung.

A judge never ruled that Samsung didn't copy Dyson.

Always good to know the facts when trying to look smart ;)

PS: Samsung's strategy is basically infringe willingly, when caught find something we can countersue over.

“They never met a patent they didn’t think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to,” says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. “I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn’t lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.”
Click to expand...

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war
 
paradox00 said:
Dyson didn't lose, they dropped the case because they don't have the legal and financial muscle to go up against the behemoth Samsung.

A judge never ruled that Samsung didn't copy Dyson.

Always good to know the facts when trying to look smart ;)
Click to expand...

The move follows the decision by Dyson in October 2013 to drop a patent infringement case that it brought against Samsung in August, in which it claimed that the Korean giant had copied the steering system used in its Motion Sync cleaner from the Dyson DC37 and DC39 cleaners, which had then been on sale for two years.

Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...tent-copyright
Click to expand...


Try again ;)
 
Dave.UK said:
Try again ;)
Click to expand...

404

Try again ;)

I'm aware Samsungs massive team of lawyers found prior art, but Dyson still dropped the case, so a judge never issued a verdict on it.

This is all par for the course for Samsung though. Copy, get sued, countersue. I don't know why you want to pretend that the copying doesn't happen.

According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors’ patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it’s caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. “They never met a patent they didn’t think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to,” says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. “I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn’t lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.”
Click to expand...

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

----------
Oletros said:
Dyson on dropped the case because there were prior art.
Click to expand...

And they didn't feel copyright laws were strong enough to protect them. Samsung likes to drag cases out, and debating prior art would do that. Dyson couldn't afford a prolonged battle. AFIK the patent was never invalidated.

Nonetheless we know who copied whom in that case.
 
paradox00 said:
And they didn't feel copyright laws were strong enough to protect them. Samsung likes to drag cases out, and debating prior art would do that. Dyson couldn't afford a prolonged battle. AFIK the patent was never invalidated.

Nonetheless we know who copied whom in that case.
Click to expand...

And you know that Dyson felt liked that exactly how?

By the way, if you say that Dyson can't fight a case I'm UK it is clear that you Dr in know how IP law works in UK, it is not USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back