Samsung should just accept that it lost and pay up instead of prolonging this further, allow Apple to get on innovation
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 Demands $1 Billion From Samsung for Design Patent Violations as New Damages Trial Kicks Off
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Samsung should just accept that it lost and pay up instead of prolonging this further, allow Apple to get on innovation
When the lawsuit started, I totally agreed with Apple. But now it’s time to move on. Focus on what really matters and innovate.
Erm don't you mean Samsung actually!
[doublepost=1526499290][/doublepost]
This is not to do with that. This,if you read the article, is about Samsung being found guilty (YES THEY WERE AND ARE GUILTY! GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!) Of copying Apple and doing so to as much a possible. Apple won the case then ever since Samsung ha been dragging it's heals and wanting the money back it paid Apple.
Samsung in my view need to be taught a lesson because otherwise they will keep doing it again and again.
They are rotten to the core. I man no offence they could not get the Galaxy Note 7 right even with 3 attempts! Then when it finally came to light in the media Samsung just moaned and whined about howe expensive it would be for them, not how people nearly died and people (I think)got hurt!
[doublepost=1526499478][/doublepost]
That ha nothing to do with this. You do know that this is ONLY and I mean only about Samsung copying Apple as much a possible.
Maybe you are a Samsung fan and can not bear the truth but hey pal...THEY COPIED APPLE!
In court documents came to light that were internal Samsung documents basically saying how best can we copy Apple as much as we can.
In other words how do we rip off the iPhone!!!!
Enough said.
[doublepost=1526499569][/doublepost]
That has NO bearing on this matter at hand. It is a different matter and a different case. So nothing to do with this in any way shape or form at all ever or indeed anywhere...period!
Just plain WRONG! IBM/BellSouth Simon Personal Communicator was 1994. LG Prada was 2006. iPhone (whose name Apple stole from Cisco) wasn't until 2007.
This cracks me up. Now I don’t think that Apple invented everything that they put into the iPhone or rounded corners or whatever, but you can’t be serious if you act like the entire phone industry didn’t change directly because of the iPhone.
This case was about design patents not marketing. iPhone's success was in the latter. LG won an award for the Prada's design a full year before the iPhone was released. In patent law, prior work is supposed to trump group misconception. Apple's forte' is bringing things to market. Similarly, in spite of Gustave Whitehead flying 2 years prior to Orville & Wilber, the Wright brothers were better at marketing themselves.
Well, yes.
This particular trial is only about the amount of the awards. Businesses and law professors support Samsung as far as being against massive awards for design patents. Even the Supreme Court agreed that the full profit should not be the default amount.
Heck, I suspect that half of Apple's lawyers secretly support Samsung as well. Can you imagine how short a time Apple would survive, if every time Apple was found to infringe on say, someone's icon patent, that Apple should have to owe that person every penny it made on a product with that icon?
--
An interesting side note is that at least one of the design patents has been tentatively invalidated by the USPTO. But Koh continues to allow giving Apple awards for it, saying that if its invalidation becomes final, Apple can always give the money back.
Last edited:
There were plenty of touch smartphones with apps before the iPhone. Heck, the very first smartphone on the planet was a keyboardless touch device designed to load third party apps.
Remember, the first iPhone did not support third party apps. That's why many smartphone owners of the time saw it as interesting, but crippled.
By 2002, many of us were using Windows Mobile phones, with apps in icon grids, and even slide-to-unlock:
The 2003 Origio all touch smartphone not only came with a very nice browser, but also an orientation sensor:
The 2005 Korean Pidion is a nice piece of pre-iPhone design that Apple always tries to hide from the jury. And no wonder:
By mid 2006, the idea of an all touch capacitive screen phone was everywhere. Probably the coolest design concept was this one by BenQ:
In mid 2006, Synaptics, the people who make the touchpad that most laptops use, were showing off their working prototype touch phone whose body was so sensitive, you could actually send a kiss:
Heck, Samsung came out in Korea with an all-touch smartphone in the summer of 2006:
And, as we know from the trials, Samsung was working on further touch oriented refinements. Here's another piece of prior art that Apple managed to hide from the jury:
It was so obvious by 2006 that a finger friendly UI on a capacitive screen was the near future, that analysts wrote about it:
They even correctly predicted that this switch to finger friendly UIs would happen in 2007, and would likely be pushed by a device that would get a lot of publicity. (They thought this would come from it being featured in a movie, but the publicity came from the Jobs demo instead!)
Then there's the Nov 2006 announcement of the Open Linux developer phone, with multitouch and pinch zoom. Even four icons in a dock. Of course, few paid attention to it until the iPhone demo months later in Jan 2007:
In short, with or without Apple, the time of the full touch smartphone was coming, and Apple knew it. Heck, it's no doubt why Jobs broke normal secrecy and showed off barely working prototype iPhones six months before any product would be ready for sale. Many phone makers were moving towards similar designs, and he did not want to be seen as following everyone else.
Apple wasn't the first at anything major in the iPhone, but they were the first to market a nice combo in a big way. They could do this without risk because they had no legacy button devices to support, unlike those who had been making smartphones for years, all while creating the worldwide infrastructure and market that Apple would later take advantage of.
Last edited:
you don't honestly believe this right? did your sarcasm flag fall of?
I personally owned 2 different pocket computers that were keyboard-less, touch full screen pocket computers with digital connectivity (my first one had just Wi-Fi, my second one had Bluetooth and Wifi and could connect to a cell phoen for internet) dating to not ONLY before the iPhone, but years prior.
Saying this nonsense completely ignores that there was a visible and logical direction for mobile computing that was already establishing itself technical generations prior to Apple even entering into the mobile space.
many of them had a lot more overall fucntionality than even the first iPhone, such as installable applications, copy and paste and other things.
Thisisn't saying that the iPhone wasn't a really cool and evolutionary device that was able to speed up the process of this sort of tech movement. But to claim that they are the inventor and sole proprietor of all that is mobile tech isn't just ignorant, it's downright ludicrously dangerous to repeat.
it's amusing, my old Casio Casseopaia and Dell Axim pDA's still work to this day... although, I don't think there's been a windows CE Mobile update in 15 years for them
Marketing is a massive thing that cannot be underestimated
Just because something wasn't a massive commercial success doesn't mean ti didn't exist though
People including fanboys here constantly underestimate the strength of Apple's marketing.
"No one has heard of."? Who is this "no one" you refer to? Heard of the Sony MiniDisc? You would probably consider it a failure, right? Wrong. Actually, it was pretty huge in Eastern Asia. What about Video CD? Failure as well, right? Wrong. Still in use today, even with its sub-par picture quality.
You state "no one" like you have access to the personal thoughts, memories, and shopping habits of a large population. Meanwhile, you probably polled the people living in your house.
Granted, the items that you are dismissing weren't huge, but they were all precursors to the iPhone that you seem to place on a pedestal. The iPhone was revolutionary in that it brought the smartphone to the masses, but was made with evolutionary tech and design.
One if the many reasons the US patent office is corrupt and biased and Apple is just a joke when it comes to patents, from the evidence given in this case this week:
http://9to5mac.com/2018/05/16/samsung-apple-mac-designer-witness/#disqus_thread
Alan Ball kicked things off today by arguing that one of the patents in question, which covers to a “black, rectangular, round-corded front face for an electronic device,” applies to the finished product. In his argument, he cited the “entire smartphones” as the articles of manufacture
.....................
So yeah Apple claimed to have invented round corners, the colour black, and front faces on phones...
An utter joke and one reason why it’s international cases generally collapsed.
Let alone Apples argument that they should receive damages based in the ENTIRE phone as opposed to the actual bit they claimed to have patented and Samsung copied. I would ask what idiots would allow that, but they already have done...
http://9to5mac.com/2018/05/16/samsung-apple-mac-designer-witness/#disqus_thread
Alan Ball kicked things off today by arguing that one of the patents in question, which covers to a “black, rectangular, round-corded front face for an electronic device,” applies to the finished product. In his argument, he cited the “entire smartphones” as the articles of manufacture
.....................
So yeah Apple claimed to have invented round corners, the colour black, and front faces on phones...
An utter joke and one reason why it’s international cases generally collapsed.
Let alone Apples argument that they should receive damages based in the ENTIRE phone as opposed to the actual bit they claimed to have patented and Samsung copied. I would ask what idiots would allow that, but they already have done...
This one too...
https://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-pictures-1828.php
first announced on 12 December 2006.
Yup, just a little marketing. That’s all it is. The opportunity to strike was right there for any company, Apple was just in the right place at the right time.
[doublepost=1526549874][/doublepost]
What a surprise. The same 3 Android fans that live on an Apple forum saying the same thing. All marketing, no innovation on Apple’s end at all. They just got lucky. Right.
[doublepost=1526549969][/doublepost]
Got it. Anyone could have made the iPhone, Apple just happened to get lucky. Those products listed were the true revolutionary ones. They should be suing Apple for ripping them off.
Sometimes your posts are very reasonable and you seem to listen to others, and sometimes... you post drivel like this...
were you paying attention to the phone market back in 2005-2010? hvae you actuall been reading their financials since the 90s? how about paying attention to their Marketing materials?
Nobody is saying that Apple isn't also producing quality products. Nobody said 'it was ONLY marketing'. However, marketting for Apple has always been, especially since the return of Steve jobs one of Apples largest, most funded departments at Apple. they're bloody smart and really damn good at what they do. there are countless textbooks written and really good investigative articles written on just how APples Marketing, especially during the 00's to earyl 10's was probably one of the best marketting teams in the world.
Much of that because they had some extremely smart people running the marketing game. And i'm using marketing not the word advertising because it was a massive undertaking what they id and how they controlled the message.
Did Apple get lucky? partially yes. when The iPhone was under development, Apple was first a computer company, and 2ndary a consumer tech company. They were riding the very popular wave of iPods. They had no phone business at the time. They had absolutely ZERO momentum in the mobile phone business. This is a tremendous important factor. The competition was out there producing millions of mobile devices. This meant that the competition had existing contracts and user bases that were expecting continuations of their existing product lines. It's really hard for a large corporation to switch directions on a dime. So while Apple was secretly focusing 100% of their attention on the iPhone, Moto, Samsung, and much of the competition were busy splitting their time and money between multiple different initiatives.
So yes, Apple was in the right place at the right time, and had the right business model that their competition didn't yet have to be able to get a product out quicker than others, while going on a massive marketing campaign, which included claims that they invented just about all the tech in the iPhone, so that nobody would look to see who else was actually in the market. Apple did a fantastic job with the iPhone. nobody is saying it didn't strike hot and grow to the juggernaut it was. But at the same time, just because it managed to hit th perfect storm of timing and marketing does not suddenly mean that all those who came before it cease to exist on the grand timeline of mobile devices. Claiming otherwise isn't just asinine, it's down right disingenuous and lying. Apple was damn smart, nobody is taking credit away from them. They took bits and pieces that everyone wanted and did figure out how to get it to work together in a great package. Exactly like they did with the personal computer. exactly like they did with the mobile PMP. Exactly like they've always done. That's their company DNA
I try to be reasonable, but saying the iPhone was evolutionary, simply bound to happen, or the direct result or marketing is laughable. I am not sitting here saying Apple invented the smartphone, but they made the smartphone what it is today.
you're still unot understanding what "Im saying.
I am NOT saying that the only reason the iPhone exists is because of marketing. I'm saying that Marketing is a big reason why the iPhone was able to be a tremendously successful so quick.
Evolutionary / Revolutionary. use those terms interchangably. I'm not arguing that either if that's what you're trying to take away.
What we're trying to point out to you, is that many of the technologies that are in the iPhone pre-date the iPhone. IN the legal realm, this is considered "prior art" and is evidence used in court proceedings to show that the dubious claim of invention is not true. Apple have innovated on a lot of tech. I will never say they haven't. But innovation and Invention are two completely things. Apple did NOT invent most of the technologies in the iPhone. They took bits and pieces of what other companies had been doing, and were able to (because of lack of existing momentum) put together a damn good phone.
Where you seem to get confused is where this prior art is concerned. You're trying to say (and maybe we're misunderstanding you, if thats the case, Sorry), that because those other devices that featured many of the same tech that is in the iPhone were not as commercially successful, you're not aknowledging there importance for their innovation as well. You cannot ignore innovation just because something was a commercial flop, then give credit for that technology to the next person who uses it.
I get that, I am not saying they invented everything in the iPhone. They took upcoming tech, some homegrown, some not, and created one of the most influential pieces of tech in history. I was only commenting because you and many others (just happen to be Android arguers) are insinuating that Apple doesn't deserve credit for the iPhone. I just think that's a bit unfair and silly.
Last edited:
no, i'm not saying Apple doesn't deserve credit for the iphone. that's you assuming because you think we're just apple haters and android lovers. I use everything. I'm just a cantancerous old bastard who is critical of everything. Apple, Android, Windows, etc. I will find inacuracies in everyones comments and call em out.
Apple deserves credit for what they did with the iPhone. But at the same time, A lot of people (and seemingly yourself) would also like to give credit to Apple for things that they don't actually deserve credit for. That's what this lawsuit has always been about. Apple has made some extremely dubious claims for invention of technology that has prior art. Nobody should be denying the iPhones influence on changing the market. There are reasons this happened that are beyond just "a great device" as there have been numerous amazing devices that have failed because they also didn't have Apples marketing muscle behind them.
in this particular case, why this keeps getting dragged up, is because Samsung on the defence has had to, and has been able to show numerous times where Apple has claimed that numerous technologies they invented. The examples that are being listed are just showing that Apple's claim of invention cannot be true when there is clear evidence of prior art. When there is evidence of prior art, you cannot sue someone else for also using those technologies.
For Example: Slide to unlock was a leading example of one of the things Apple was suing for, claiming that Apple invented the idea of slide to unlock. This was considered as part of the award that Apple is claiming. However, there is evidence of devices prior to the iPhone having slide to unlock. Were those phones successful? no. But lack of success doesn't negate that the prior art existed.
I don't think any of us who you're arguing with are negating that Apple created a beautiful device that changed the market. you need to get it out of your head that's what we're saying
It may be an assumption, but it comes off that way. I get the rest of your statement here though and I agree with you, I feel that some of the claims are ridiculous. At the same time though, Samsung was pretty blatant in their approach (at the time). The prior art part you mention, I agree with. My only point was that Apple deserves credit for what they created. Instead, we get the same group of people trying to downplay it, basically saying it was inevitable and was only successful due to marketing. I just find that ridiculous.