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 Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah - because wanting people to not rip off your designs is pathetic. Put yourself in the shoes of the risk taking companies who spend millions on R&D to find the right solution and then watch as others copy them - how would you react?
If only Samsung were a hardware maker/supplier and not into everything under the sun, and the largest conglomerate the world has seen, something like this suit might hurt them.
But it won't. Some of their pride might be hurt abroad, but in their home country they are known for knocking off everything and terrorising the truly puny competition.
Apple, who look to the rest of the world like a bully, may have more to lose than that pirate/mafia that half run south Korea.
But it won't. Some of their pride might be hurt abroad, but in their home country they are known for knocking off everything and terrorising the truly puny competition.
Apple, who look to the rest of the world like a bully, may have more to lose than that pirate/mafia that half run south Korea.
You should work in retail. If I had a 10 cents every time someone came up to me saying, I bought this iPad here and I cant find a case that works with it and it be either a Samsung or Android tablet I could retire. Now wether they call all tablets iPads or not I am still not 100% sure but some people really don't know the difference.
That is where you are absolutely wrong. If your Windows CE based phone truly ran laps around the original iPhone as you suggest. Then MS would still be developing Windows mobile. Let's not get crazy here, the first iPhone revolutionized the mobile industry, and changed things forever. I just think it's ludicris for Apple to put a ridiculously high number on things. However Samsung tends to do more copying than anyone else these days.
Code/implementation is covered by copyright already. Patents do not cover code/implementations.
The only way this will end is if apple loses so badly that they cannot afford to go to court again. I really wish they lose. I buy apple products, however, they are just a ripoff if the only way to put a high price while maintains sales is through shutting competitions. I can see the evil inside apple.
I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.
And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.
there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.
2.5 billion is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And it is obvious that Apple will never get any where near to even this figure, I guess at max to few hundred million dollars. I bet Apple has spent more than that in litigation expenditure only
Between 15% and 30%. It may be different in this case, since these are Apple lawyers who probably get a salary, which would exclude them from the %
Oh goodie another MR thread that will turn into 500+ posts about how apple is evil an a big bully.
Well, they are. Just like any other big company on this planet. But in many aspects they are more annoying than other players. I can't hear the old fairy tale "everybody is stealing from us" anymore while they are stealing the ideas from others at the same time. It's sad that the Growl people didn't patent their notification system, for example.
Because that's just as innovative as "Press X to shoot"
I see. And that's why someone had already come up with it before Apple patented it?
That's the problem with some people here. They're only seeing this in hindsight. A great idea always seems obvious in hindsight.
They've been on this case for so long at this point anything to bring the tally to zero is a win in their minds.
I don't think it was a standard until the iPhone - I don't recall any other touch-screen device (going back to the Psions & later the iPaqs of the '90s and probably earleir stuff) having tap-to-zoom.
There are things that are obvious in hindsight, but nobody thought of them for a long time. And isn't it common sense that if everybody wants to use these things, but they didn't come up with the idea until Apple did, then it is absolutely not obvious?
Hate to say this, but their fault for not patenting it. Same goes with the guy who inventing the spreadsheet. These are common refrains.
The problem is small companies/individuals grossly undervalue their innovation until someone else comes along, repackages it, patents it, and makes it ubiquitous. Then everyone has to have it.
So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?