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 Granted Access to Unreleased Samsung Hardware in Patent Suit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those numbers are hardly comparable, as are the companies. Samsung is a giant company with products in a far wider range than Apple ever will bother with. Like Sony, Samsung is an IC maker, something Apple has little interest in. And Apple is notorious for spending less in R&D than expected. I almost wonder if they leave some things out of R&D that others might put in there.
Christian Science Monitor?? Ok....
Ok how about
http://www.boston.com/business/tech...sung_to_triple_capital_rd_spending_this_year/
"Samsung Electronics said Monday it will more than triple investment in capital spending and research and development this year to a record 26 trillion won ($22.7 billion)" Note it's Samsung Eletronics' R&D $$$.
My point is that MAYBE Samsung is innovative. I bring up US patents ranking, and someone says that's because they have more lawyers than engineers. I bring up R&D spending and someone brings up how much Microsoft spends but they are not innovative (which I agree). Some just don't want to admit that maybe Samsung is an innovative company?
Last edited:
So if i sue Apple can I get some early access to their prototype iPhones?
Next they're going to be demanding the source code for Windows.
Next they're going to be demanding the source code for Windows.
Still...this has got to feel like when Michael Jackson had his family jewels photographed under court order.
"No one unauthorized will see the results."
"Yeah, sure."
But seriously who cares. These (with the exception of tab 8.9) HAVE been released to the market, except for US market.
It's hard to see any company as innovative in the tablet market except Apple as of 2011. Tablets have been around for many years, including the earlier Apple models. None of them succeeded except the Palm Pilot for awhile, and now the iPad. And arguably, the Pilot was more a predecessor to today's phones than something like the iPad.
It's much easier to look at finished products (sales figures and user feedback) to see market success than an income statement. Patent numbers certainly mean nothing to the market. I think you are trying to look from a perspective that is not only different than some of these other posters, but is also ridiculously hard to actually prove anything. That's why R&D is kept separate, companies don't want to claim it is part of the actual mfgr of a product, which would upset its profit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfair to allow a competitor to copy your product to the point people can't even tell them apart
So you think stealing others idea's is fair?
Strange.
Would you feel the same if it was your hard work others were copying?
why does it sicken you? Does it affect you in any way?
or are you concerned about heartless multi billion dollar corporations being nice, pleasant, and fair to each other?
Ha. Apple stole everything it ever used to create the empire it has. Admittedly by Steve. (and rightly so in pioneering innovation) so for them to b#tch and moan about Samsung is the whole kettle and pot thing all over again. Can you say "Xerox" gui?
So you think stealing others idea's is fair?
Strange.
Would you feel the same if it was your hard work others were copying?
Steve steals others' ideas also. Obviously you haven't been following up the lawsuit story as much. So many have posted on the threads here and others how Apple stole others' ideas.
Anything that Apple uses from their unreleased devices that is patentable tech could be used as part of a counter-suit later.
Plus, for that very reason, the Apple lawyers will never let the information from Samsung spread very far inside Apple. It exposes Apple to possible liability just having the information!
All this hoopla so Steve could get his hands on a pre-production Samsung Galaxy Tab. Nicely played.
Actually, we all realize that patent infringement cases require specific examples of software code or hardware. Building the case based on photos or video, would severely limit Apple's chance for successful litigation.
Actually, we all realize that patent infringement cases require specific examples of software code or hardware. Building the case based on photos or video, would severely limit Apple's chance for successful litigation.
This is interesting and in a weird way it actually give a positive message about the Samsung product and I can't see how Apple don't see this.
By ignoring Samsung, and producing their own better product, Apple create the impression that they are not worried about a inferior product and they are confident about their own device.
By publicly appearing to be worried to this extent, and wanting to see the product, they are in effect lending their opinion the fact that this Samsung device muse be good, and good enough to threaten their "Apple" product. After all it's it's worse, why would they worry?
It's odd they cannot see this, and they are actually by this act, promoting the Samsung product as being good enough to threaten Apple.
By ignoring Samsung, and producing their own better product, Apple create the impression that they are not worried about a inferior product and they are confident about their own device.
By publicly appearing to be worried to this extent, and wanting to see the product, they are in effect lending their opinion the fact that this Samsung device muse be good, and good enough to threaten their "Apple" product. After all it's it's worse, why would they worry?
It's odd they cannot see this, and they are actually by this act, promoting the Samsung product as being good enough to threaten Apple.
Please provide us with some relevant examples.. This is more then just a simple feature here and there... it is the entire hardware and software being copied, right down to the icons themselves.... and for people to quote some Xerox GUI that is now 30+ years old.. people also ignore the fact that Xerox had no intention of selling any product based on that GUI.
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
http://www.droidmatters.com/news/st...ys-been-shameless-about-stealing-great-ideas/
There. And I wasn't even thinking of Xerox gui.
hexor, I hope you actually visit the 2 links. I spent all 2 minutes to put it together.
I disagree it's entire hardware/software being copied. Seriously?
Actually, no, they aren't. If you refer to the Galaxy 10.1v (the actual product name) - it definitely looks great. And I'd really love Apple to implement the curved back-design because it seems to be more ergonomic.
And please watch some YouTube vids on this tablet. You will see that your claim of being a 'blatant rip-off' are just pure and utter nonsense.
Maybe check this one:
On YOUTUBE
@ten-oak-druid
U need to go back and read your first comment. Maybe will understand why people are consider u half retarded right now.
Version 2 has not been released, therefore it has no sales numbers.
On another note, I don't consider the Galaxy Tab 10.1 a ripoff of the iPad. There is nothing about it that resembles the iPad other than the fact that it's thinner. The back is made of plastic. The screen size is different. The OS is honeycomb which is nothing like iOS.
Right now this lawsuit is more about the phones. For that, Samsung must pay. They have totally copied the iPhone within the past 2 years.
U need to go back and read your first comment. Maybe will understand why people are consider u half retarded right now.
Version 2 has not been released, therefore it has no sales numbers.
On another note, I don't consider the Galaxy Tab 10.1 a ripoff of the iPad. There is nothing about it that resembles the iPad other than the fact that it's thinner. The back is made of plastic. The screen size is different. The OS is honeycomb which is nothing like iOS.
Right now this lawsuit is more about the phones. For that, Samsung must pay. They have totally copied the iPhone within the past 2 years.
Last edited:
I just find it ironic that Tim Cook is effectively in charge of daily operation while suing samsung. He rose up through the ranks of Apple by resolving parts shortage issue largely through working with samsung. I guess it's about the business.
I am sure they would be unhappy, but since Apple is not copying other manufacturers hardware it is irrelevant. As much as I loath litigation, companies with large amounts of IP are required by law to defend their IP. One single missed IP violation can be used as grounds for dismissal of all future litigation because it sets precedent.
Simple fact is that companies who innovate must litigate, and even then it does not always help because there are the people of some countries who appear to have no morals and copy everything.