It seems sort of like the Michael Jordan case. He wears Air Jordans every match even though they're not allowed because Nike pays the fine for each game. Samsung is paying the fine and making a profit still.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks for $379 Million in Damages Retrial Against Samsung
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/01/wsj-apple-to-use-samsung-retina-displays-on-next-ipad-mini/
Earlier this month, there was a rumor that Apple was facing possible delays with its next-gen iPad mini due to supplier issues with an (also rumored) next generation Retina display. Now WSJ is reporting that Apple may have gotten around the problem thanks to, of all companies, Samsung.
Last edited by a moderator:
They already got a $600 million judgment in this lawsuit. This article is focusing on the remaining amount which apple has pegged at $379 million. Samsung says $52 so if it's somewhere in the middle, say $200 million, then an overall $800 million is pretty close.
Good artist copy. Great artist steal.
Check out this video and you'll Apple hasn't done much inventing. Remixing sure, but inventing nope. Sorry, rounded corners don't count.
Oh and for the cheap low end phones...ever heard of the Galaxy S4? Not exactly cheap...
All it takes is willful ignorance and an arbitrary definition of invention in order to believe this claim.
So Samsung only has to pay (assuming Apple wins) 979m instead of 1050m, which means all that has happened is that 6.76 percent has been knocked off the original damages award, and more legal fees have been incurred. Surely the $50m saved has not been worth the continuing bad publicity.
Good artist copy. Great artist steal.
Check out this video and you'll Apple hasn't done much inventing. Remixing sure, but inventing nope. Sorry, rounded corners don't count.
Oh and for the cheap low end phones...ever heard of the Galaxy S4? Not exactly cheap...
All it takes is willful ignorance and an arbitrary definition of invention in order to believe this claim.
Unfortunately both the person you quoted (tech4all) and the guy in the video are correct about Apple not inventing much.
This was even discussed at TED by Kirby Ferguson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4
Last edited:
Theres nothing in tech4all's argument or Kirby Ferguson's presentation that leads to willful ignorance. You do realize that your comment is pretty offensive, right?
Leads to? The argument that Apple has not invented much is based on willful ignorance - ignoring the things that they did invent and creating arbitrary categories and definitions to dismiss the things that they do discuss.
For instance, in Kirby's multitouch example, he dismisses Apple's invention of a Multi-Touch implementation based on the fact that multi-touch, in general, already existed.
Exactly, and Apple has done this many times before and continues to do this.
The problem isn't the fact that Apple didn't invent. The problem is that Apple UNETHICALLY uses their power to create a monopoly through a flawed system.
This problem becomes is worse when people prefer to have an allegiance to a corporation instead of tossing it aside and promoting whats best for the consumer. There's no reason to be an 'Apple Stan.' There's also nothing wrong with point out Apple's failures.
Yes. Is that a problem?
That's not a fact.
Nice rant. Again, based on your own arbitrary opinions.
What does that have to do with what we were talking about?
They had a BIG monopoly during the iPod's peak. They owned about 85-90% of the market. They swallowed up pretty much all orders of NAND memory, thereby making it impossible for other players to purchase any NAND or even get any at such a price that made it possible to compete. And guess who provided them that large cut? SAMSUNG.
They're pushing for the monopoly via iOS but we all know its not going to happen with Android being an open platform.
----------
Sorry, it most definitely *IS* a fact that Apple hasn't invented many things. Tech4all's linked video already proves that. The problem is now you for being in denial.
And what was UNETHICAL about that?
You just made that up.
Let's start over. What definition of invent are you using? And what would you consider "many things"?
Comical how you ridicule others for being biased where you obviously have an axe to grind with Apple.
This is quite a bizarre supposition. Firstly, every system of law has flaws, due mostly to being tweaked by lawmakers with vested interests or who are insufficiently versed in the question to comprehend appropriate answers.
Secondly, in this case, whether Apple or anyone else, a patent application is filed on the presumption of a new product or design component, or on intellectual property associated with implementing a coherent concept. If whatever the patent application refers to already exists in the form being described in the application, the patent isn't granted.
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong, ethically or legally, using the legal framework and system of laws to protect your work.
Fourthly, there is no monopoly of any kind here. Nothing prevents any other individual, group or company from investing their time and energy in developing these ideas first, implementing them first, and patenting them, or in recognizing that a patent already exists and either negotiating to use that patent, or developing their own systems to do the same things in ways that don't infringe the patent. Or even challenging the patent to invalidate it, or have it recognized as standards essential if it is so crucial to the function of competitive products that they couldn't work otherwise.
What 'the flawed system' doesn't and shouldn't allow is the intellectual property, investment and design skills of one person to be unilaterally stolen with no adequate protections and means of redress.
Patent law does need serious examination to ensure it really does protect what it needs to and not what it should not, but it isn't Apple's fault - or indeed any other patent holder's fault - that it works the way it does, and has to be used in the means it is used.
Pointing out apple's shortcomings is just another way of constructive criticism. There's no bias here although certain things Apple does, does get on my nerves while other things they do/produce I will hold in very high regards (I wouldnt be on this board if I didnt find at least ONE of apple's products useful enough to buy, use, and talk about online here).
Too late. That was done in 2011 and quietly passed by Congress and signed by the President.
It's all better now.
Oh?