Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone following the trial and paying attention to important things like FACTS and TESTIMONY and the INTERNAL EMAILS WITHIN SAMSUNG should have clearly been expecting the outcome Apple was awarded. No reasonably intelligent person, looking at the situation objectively, taking, you know, THE LAW into consideration, and leaving EMOTION out of it, could have possibly come to any other conclusion than Samsung WILLFULLY and with specific intent copied Apple's patented features and trade-dress.

Samsung has proven it has nary an iota of corporate honor. Hell, even in their own post-verdict remarks, Samsung doesn't deny that they copied. Samsung basically argues that they should have been allowed to continue to copy.

And, contrary to Samsung's post-verdict claims, this verdict is the best possible outcome for consumers. Now Samsung and others will be FORCED to actually innovate. Copying another company's patented features is NOT innovation. It's the exact opposite of innovation.

It's when companies come up with completely new and better ways of designing a UI that we, the consumers, get true innovation. And that is exactly why the iPhone became such a sensation! It was something the world had never seen before and Apple knew full well that dishonorable companies like Samsung would want to copy it, so Apple patented the hell out of it. Just as every single one of YOU would do if you ever created/innovated something new and wonderful. Particularly if it cost you MILLIONS of dollars to get there!

And speaking of honor, every single person that celebrates and condones Samsung's dishonorable practices is a person without personal honor themselves. The whines and complaints are not any surprise to me, however. Personal honor has been going in the toilet since the '70s in this country. These days, far too many individuals simply want to mimic the sickening typical corporate greed credo of "screw the other guy before he screws me".

I applaud Tim Cook and the entire team at Apple for fighting for what is right and just. I applaud them for NOT settling for anything less than a clear and decisive victory over the illicit activities of a dishonorable company!

Mark

And I applaud you for saying it just as it should be said.

----------

It was never about competition or innovation for me. My issue is with the broad scope of Apple's design patents. I am pursuing what should and should not be patentable.

But the law is not about what it SHOULD be, it's about what it is or rather what you can make it be. What you are talking about is politics, fighting for votes in congress, this case is about the law. Apple was right about the law and they won.
 
No way dude!! F apple. They copied everything and innovated nothing!! They suck!! Samsung would have made those last 2 phones just like that even if Apple had not beaten them to it! :p

Where is the down vote button?

----------

i think its pretty hard to have an unbiased debate about the results on a forum like this.

You can't have an unbiased debate regardless of the circumstances.
 
I agree I should be able to go copy the Harry Potter series and sell it to you for half price, you benefit cause it is cheaper, I benefit cause I make money. The only person who looses is the actual person who created the material.

Maybe we should change copyright laws on CD's and movies too, that way you can buy it for cheap, then the consumer wins right..... Wrong, people will stop creating if they cannot protect there intellectual ideas.

Consumers win when companies compete on there own merit, not on coping material where someone/a company spent millions developing the idea, and someone can spend thousands copping it to under sell the creator and take market share.

Where copyright should change is the length of protection, at least for media. The fact that the happy birthday song is copyrighted, as well as classical pieces, is utterly ludicrous. At some point it should become public property, just like patents. Whether it's the lifetime of the artist or 100 years (whichever is longer) I'd be fine with it. At a certain point though everything should become public; that's the point of patents. They encourage innovation without permanently stifling advances.

As per the 2 year patent lifetime comment by another user -- if that happened, pharma and all medical innovation would cease to exist. The impetus towards developing NCEs is already lower than it should be given the robust generics industry.
 
First time on the forum. So please be nice :)
Honestly, after all the legal back and forth, it would seem most agree that most of the patent claims are bogus and some are legit.
Be that as it may, being a HTC user when the Droid Incredible came out I switch to the iPhone 4 as it was "cleaner" in terms of the OS. Similarities? Really? Not many apart from a few. But that is the thing...
I fly back and forth from China, Japan and Hong Kong (which is not like China, believe me), once a month and frankly, copying and stealing ideas is not an issue.
It is totally a business ethic they use constantly. You should see the cars China makes that look identical to BMW, Audi, Benz, etc.
Doesnt make it okay, but Samsung, HTC...they really dont "create" there own stuff. They copy, not all of it, but quite a bit.
I know this sounds racially befuddled, but it is not meant to be after all, I am Japanese. So in the end, it all kinda makes sense Samsung lost, and to be fair they should, but Apple needs to knock off the finger pointing to a great degree.
 
Why, because apple has patents to protect their products and designs from copy cat companies?

God forbid a company stands up for whats legally theirs right?

Their patents are so obvious it defies logic. They shouldn't have ever been granted in the first place fanboi.

----------

over 10 years and you've learned nothing.

Go ahead, design and patent something that sells for billions - I can't wait to copy it and make billions for myself from your initial effort ..afterall, you won't mind will you? :rolleyes:

If the patent is bogus ********, I'd be stunned it got a patent in the first place.
 
Their patents are so obvious it defies logic. They shouldn't have ever been granted in the first place fanboi.

Totally agree...

"basic patent law states that if an idea is “obvious” to an “ordinary observer” at the time of its invention, it doesn’t deserve patent protection."

From the Bloomberg article on March 29, 2012. Some of the patents are very silly. And does anyone bring up the IBM Simon or the 1994 Fiddler Tablet? No, because they are not relevant to many, even though those are both "rectangles" with other iPad/iPhone/Android like features...
 
Their patents are so obvious it defies logic. They shouldn't have ever been granted in the first place fanboi.

Calling someone a "fanboi" does not validate your opinion. Also, obvious to who? Just because it's "obvious" now doesn't mean it was obvious then, and the USPTO agreed. Hindsight bias is a bitch.

If the patent is bogus ********, I'd be stunned it got a patent in the first place.

If it's approved by the USPTO then it's valid, providing a court doesn't later overturn it. These patents were not challenged or overturned. Are you saying you are more qualified than Samsung's patent lawyers and the USPTO? Clearly you don't deal with legal much. May I ask what your line of work is?
 
But it's ok that without Motorola there would be no iPhone. Right?
BULL!!!

what is with you and Motorola? you seem to be unaware of the result of their attempted blocking of certain manufacturers' use of their 'Standard' technology! Okay I'll bite:

If you want your tech to be considered an Industry Standard, you first have to agree to license it fairly & equally to whomever requires its use! If you don't agree, there are usually other technologies waiting in the wings that will agree to be bound by those terms ..and sometimes the others can be better than the ratified Standard - i.e: BetaMax Vs. VHS, etc ...with me so far?

Motorola agreed to be bound by those rules, had the standard ratified by an International panel, then tried to dictate to the marketplace who could & couldn't use said Standard & tried to set differing pricing structures depending on who the licensee was ..which is Dishonorable, Contrary to the agreement & Unlawful.

They were roundly beaten with a thorny stick when they went to court under pressure from their new owner ...proving the new owner has zero morals & zero respect for the industry or the law! and you support that? Motorola is no longer the Motorola of the past, it's running under Google leadership now.

Now If you really want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop browsing headlines, and read further into a story before you post what you think is the bottom line! You're constantly missing the point & annoying folk with your ridiculous defense of the indefensible.
 
Last edited:
same colour...and same design icons?? sure :D:D:D
im not american but i wonder how many americans work at SAIT:rolleyes:
sure samsung is innovating but i dont see them much better than HTC in that front.
granted samsung tvs are 'great' now but i still prefer sinking sony (also know they have shared plants).

Why are you talking about icons of apps? That's a discussion of Android versus iOS. Yes Samsung creates a skin for certain apps with touchwiz, but a phone app is a phone app.

----------

Their patents are so obvious it defies logic. They shouldn't have ever been granted in the first place fanboi.

----------



If the patent is bogus ********, I'd be stunned it got a patent in the first place.

Agreed. When you right a paper, there is something called "common knowledge" that you do not have to reference or source to avoid plagiarism; for example, "the sky is blue." Some of these patents apple hold are so obvious that no one patented them because they assumed it was just logics and they expected the courts to dismiss any attempt to patent logics.

Of course the courts over software based claims haven't caught up yet, so we are stuck with a messed up system and none of the courts know how to deal properly with these claims so they side with the american company, regardless of Samsung's argument.
 
All this talk about how this hurts competition are either trolls or lack the necessary capacity for processing information and coming to logical conclusions about it.

Look at what Microsoft is doing. Now that's competition. Competition is coming up with your own ideas and running with it on the fair, open market. We'll see how well Metro does in the mobile space. I don't particularly like it, personally, but I respect Microsoft for the choices they made, and for doing their own thing. Apple won't be suing them. Apple has no grounds for suing them, under the law or under common sense.

What Samsung has been doing is not even close to competition. The copying was blatant. The copying was willful. We know this from Samsung's own internal documents. It was Samsung's goal to create cheap clones of Apple's products, rush them to market, and take advantage of Apple's efforts in R&D and marketing to coast along.

Competition is fair, the winner chosen strictly on the merits. Microsoft spent their own money on R&D, and they're spending their own money on advertising their products. That's fair, and if Windows 8 does well in the mobile space, they will have earned it. Samsung spent no money on R&D, copied Apple's hard work, and coasted along into the market on the wake of Apple's advertising. That's not fair at all, Samsung clearly has an advantage in cost-to-market. If Samsung does well, it's because they made their product cheaper through stealing designs from their competitor, resulting in lower carrier subsidies and greater push from those carriers in the stores accordingly.

Apple is a pretty confident company, I would wager. I believe them when they say they don't mind competition, because they believe that on a level playing field they can win. They just want everyone else to make their own stuff.

Consumers should want everyone else to make their own stuff too. That's how we get interesting new ideas like Microsoft has been working on (and, wow, who'd have thought anyone would be able to say that with a straight face?). If every product looks like an iPhone running iOS, what, exactly, is the advantage to the consumer? I can't think of any. This verdict isn't going to hurt the consumer one bit, it's just going to result in more companies doing their own thing and coming up with actual new ideas.

See, your point ONLY works when a company is SUCESSFUL at being different. Apparently the Zune was extremely sucessful since it was so different from the iPod.:rolleyes: Where is the Palm pre again?

Android is diff enough now that they DON'T need anything Apple-like.

Though Apple-like devices ARE getting old. That's why I like the GSIII, as it PUSHES innovation instead of stagnating like the iPhone (so far).
 
S..

Android is diff enough now that they DON'T need anything Apple-like.

Though Apple-like devices ARE getting old. That's why I like the GSIII, as it PUSHES innovation instead of stagnating like the iPhone (so far).
does your page bounce when you scroll to the top\bottom? do you pinch to zoom in\out of images? how does it handle links in messages now?

yes! I agree the format is getting long in the tooth, But does Samsung have what it takes to 'innovate' & bring something fresh to the world? Because the first company to get that right, will own the world for the following 3 years.
 
See, your point ONLY works when a company is SUCESSFUL at being different. Apparently the Zune was extremely sucessful since it was so different from the iPod.:rolleyes: Where is the Palm pre again?

Android is diff enough now that they DON'T need anything Apple-like.

Though Apple-like devices ARE getting old. That's why I like the GSIII, as it PUSHES innovation instead of stagnating like the iPhone (so far).

Those examples were of bad management and corporate strategy failure, not poor innovation. The Zune was a fine piece of hardware, truly. Same goes for the Palm OS -- the issue there was that they never refined the responsiveness and by that point Palm management had their heads up their ass. Both of those products had plenty of potential to be big if handled correctly.
 
BULL!!!

what is with you and Motorola? you seem to be unaware of the result of their attempted blocking of certain manufacturers' use of their 'Standard' technology! Okay I'll bite:

If you want your tech to be considered an Industry Standard, you first have to agree to license it fairly & equally to whomever requires its use! If you don't agree, there are usually other technologies waiting in the wings that will agree to be bound by those terms ..and sometimes the others can be better than the ratified Standard - i.e: BetaMax Vs. VHS, etc ...with me so far?

Motorola agreed to be bound by those rules, had the standard ratified by an International panel, then tried to dictate to the marketplace who could & couldn't use said Standard & tried to set differing pricing structures depending on who the licensee was ..which is Dishonorable, Contrary to the agreement & Unlawful.

They were roundly beaten with a thorny stick when they went to court under pressure from their new owner ...proving the new owner has zero morals & zero respect for the industry or the law! and you support that? Motorola is no longer the Motorola of the past, it's running under Google leadership now.

Now If you really want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop browsing headlines, and read further into a story before you post what you think is the bottom line! You're constantly missing the point & annoying folk with your ridiculous defense of the indefensible.

Motorola invented the cell phone, not Apple as most here seem to think. And about attempted blocking, look no further than your beloved Apple.
 
Motorola invented the cell phone, not Apple as most here seem to think. And about attempted blocking, look no further than your beloved Apple.

Ooh it would have happened eventually. Isn't that how you guys shoot down all of apples innovations?
 
Even when a court of law decides via jury that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple AND that Apple did NOT rip off Samsung, some people still don't relent. It's sad and amusing at the same time.
 
Even when a court of law decides via jury that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple AND that Apple did NOT rip off Samsung, some people still don't relent. It's sad and amusing at the same time.

Tbh honest i didn't expect ppl to relent. Like samcraig said same argument same players. The only difference is one side now has a court case backing their arguments. The other side has what they always had: semantics. :p
 
Team Samsung for the sake of consumers. I could care less who copied who. I don't want these lawsuits to go out of control!

Apple Wins - Apple's Lawyers Win, More Lawsuits, Consumers will eventually lose with less smartphone choices in the market.
Samsung Wins - Apple's Lawyers Lose, Consumers can continue to have the status quo, Apple still is wining regardless.

Everyone copies each other. There patents for some things are unwarranted. This case should have been dismissed entirely.

Tablet Computers with touchscreens have been around for a while, but they were not successful. The iPhone and iPad were successful because of a clever mix of design and functionality. Of course it seem somewhat ridiculous to patent the appearance of a tablet. But buyers are not only after functionality, design is important as well.

Apple' point is, that, without the iPhone/iPad, products such as the Galaxy Pad most likely wouldnt't exist.
 
I have and it is a blatant copy. At first glance, it's difficult to tell the difference between the two OSs (especially in marketing material). Now, let's look at Windows 7 and OS X Moutain Lion. They share many, many features, but both companies have clearly developed a style that distinguishes their products. Look at the "delete" function on both. In Windows it's a "Recycle Bin", green and white. In Mac OS it's "Trash" with an aluminum look and feel. They both perform the same action but the companies made efforts to distinguish their products. Now look at the "Phone" button on iOS and then in Android. At first glance, can you really tell the difference? This is the distinction between what is and isn't a blatant ripoff and defining yourself as a unique product. Even the industrial design is the same. A Galaxy looks like an iPhone.

You're talking solely about software. The patents apple cited were things like "pinch to zoom" and "rounded icons in a grid on a black background." Maybe the zoom bit is reasonable, but the icon grid? That's absurd!!! And why target Samsung for the android OS? After all, Google develops most of it, even though it's open source. The hardware aspect of the lawsuit is mostly nonsense too, the Samsung and android phones feel nothing like an iPhone, much less after th iPhone 4 was released.

When Microsoft came out with the Zune, at least they had the decency to make it turd brown so the consumer knew what they were getting. "Is that a piece of sh** your pocket? Why no, sir. It's my Zune."

I sense some bias here... :D Zunes aren't as bad as bad as you're making them out to be. ;)
 
Very good points. Although, any type of "invention" or "innovation" now days could be considered a ripoff of anything similar, even it it's not directly a copy. For this, IP and copyright laws should be adjusted accordingly.

very true. I think we saw some of that with Samsung's other implementations in recent products where they skirted around existing patents by making subtle changes to the architecture.
 
Even when a court of law decides via jury that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple AND that Apple did NOT rip off Samsung, some people still don't relent. It's sad and amusing at the same time.

No one roots for Goliath. In the minds of the public, Goliath has no rights whatsoever. Apple used to be David but now that they've become successful, they have become Goliath. Therefore, Apple shouldn't have any rights.

----------

I love Apple

but as a self-interested consumer

I think we benefit from this stealing, copying etc.
Instead, the lawyers are the big winners.

Apple could still dominate and crush samsung without winning the court battle
Put those time, dollars, and values into defeating everyone even further

^Spoken as a selfish new iphone buyer Sept 21 (expected)

You benefit only in the short term but in the long term, you lose. Being able to buy tweaked versions of the same thing isn't choice.

For all we know, if Samsung tried to innovate around "Apple's stupid, useless patents," Samsung might have found something better than those patented technologies.
 
I honestly think Apple and Samsung should merge and start patent trolling everyone. Especially Microsoft. Why because I said so. :mad:


(Thank God I'm not CEO)

----------

Those examples were of bad management and corporate strategy failure, not poor innovation. The Zune was a fine piece of hardware, truly. Same goes for the Palm OS -- the issue there was that they never refined the responsiveness and by that point Palm management had their heads up their ass. Both of those products had plenty of potential to be big if handled correctly.

Which is why Mr. Ballmer must go!:mad:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.