I'm talking about market share, not about income cash.
Apple has lost a huge market share, and continues to loose.
The only reason they still keep receiving so much money is because of that legion of fanatics, called applef... Well, you've got it.
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 Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm talking about market share, not about income cash.
Apple has lost a huge market share, and continues to loose.
The only reason they still keep receiving so much money is because of that legion of fanatics, called applef... Well, you've got it.
Maybe we should define the question with the appropriate word:
steal = blatant copying of a patented design
influenced by = influenced by it's design
Cloned = ...well cloned!
Here's a better word: infringement.
Copying is not an element of patent infringement. To prove patent infringement, Apple is not required to show that Samsung copied Apple. It's not even required to show that Samsung had access to the Apple product. Instead, to prove infringement, Apple has to show the accused Samsung device infringes each element of a claim-in-suit. And, on the PI, Apple (on this element of the test) had to show only a strong likelihood that it can prove such at trial.
The relevant comparison, for patent infringement, is Samsung product vs. the patent. Not Samsung product vs. Apple product.
I have an issue or two with these.
1) The internet back then may have not been as good as it is today on mobile device, but it surely didn't suck on some device, specifically Windows Mobile devices of yore. In most cases I was able to go full webpages(at least I did when I had my old WM device, which sites recognized as IE for desktops), but then that slowly started change as more and more mobile sites popped up.
I had a Samsung Blackjack. One of my favorite phones at that time. I also had a RAZR from Motorola. The BlackJack was better at pretty much everything, but RAZR had iTunes integration (albeit fair integration). Texting was better on the Blackjack, the web, and of course the few apps I used. But, in general (to me at least) it lacked that pop. Was way too windows'y (if that could be a word) for a phone. Clunky would be my better choice of word (not that all WinCE phones would be like this). Web was "Ok" IMO, better then most (Good screen), but not like the iPhone and Safari. Not even close.
4) I can't say for the other platforms really, but there were many apps for WM device, though many were good at best. I even remember playing an EA Tiger Woods Golf on my old HP iPaq Pocket PC.
Most def, but IMO the HP iPac and others like it were exceptions. Basically a better PDA/MiniPC. More in line of what the iPhone ends up being (better done though), but MUCH closer then say a black and white Treo (even the color ones). The bigger touch screen made it pimp though (iPac), and it was more inline to what was the palms before it, or Symbian Nokia's. At that time, lots of idea's, and different designs. Now, everything is IMO a copy of the iPhone. Which is why I think Apple is so aggressive in there patent lawsuits. As pretty much everything is finding away to look like there products. I mean, back then those devices were quite "ugly", and not so much stylish as they were functional.
6) I will give you that one, syncing my old WM Palm and Samsung devices to my iBook and Macbook Pro(on OSX) was a bit of a pain as I had to use third-party software. Under windows it was a bit better, and at the time like native Outlook support as that was the app I was using for email. That said I prefer ums and the way the iPhone and Android devices do it these days.
100% yes. Good god, before time was time, this sucked. Outside of Active Sync (cabled). We had too much to use to make this work right. And even then, new phones didn't work right away, or had to get an update to make this or that connect fully to this or that. Sucked! Now, life is pretty good across devices. And certainly getting better (no cords!
7) One could argue WM was more of a pocket computer than iPhone, because of the sole fact it gave you a full file browser(with access to all folders without the need of jail-breaking for rooting), like you would find on an desktop OS.
Certainly, but to me this is why Apple more or less won here. MS thinks well, like Microsoft. Sometimes this works well, others not at all. Their OS wasn't made for such a small screen, and apps weren't either. Let alone a touch screen. Certainly things worked, but for the iPhone and iOS, it took off. People instantly hated that there was not a physical keyboard. Now, that's standard. Even if its included as a slide out of the phone. The touch keyboard is standard. Or rather the touch screen. Stylus anyone? That went away with the iPhone. Sure, they tried to bring it back (Note), but really???? Its dead folks, let it die, LOL.
Features to be useable because it was a mini Windows OS is great, but it has to work well for it use. Another reason why I believe Apple didn't give you everything right away, nor can they. Some features need to be worked out, some may not work "right" for the device. Some may need to be licensed, or worked around. When you think about how much patents have played in all this lately. Its hard to imagine that Apple didn't know this and plan accordingly. Maybe copy and paste as something they just couldn't do right away? Or MMS even? Or DVD player for the first Mac OS X! They had to find a way round it to make it work. Same with clicking a number and it dials it. Which is common place in our minds right now, but someone else may have patented it, or maybe Apple did first, etc. At the end of the day Notification Center could be a full blown copy of Androids method. Until they sue, we will not know. So to with every other "feature" or new thing.
Wow! How stupid of Apple to single source all their components from their competition!!
Although Apple has Samsung manufacture* the processor, and buys a significant amount of Flash and DRAM from Samsung, Samsung hardly has Apple by the B___s. Note: Other than Processors, DRAM & Flash, Apple either buys the rest of the iPhone components from other companies, or at best Samsung is just one of several suppliers.
Samsung is hardly the only company in the world to make Flash or DRAM. Yes, Samsung is considered by many to be #1 for Flash / DRAM, but they only represent about 30% = 40% of the total worldwide Flash / DRAM capacity (Micron, Toshiba, Hynix and others make up the other 70% - 60%).
* As for the processor, yes it's true that Samsung manufactures the Apple processor, but Apple designed it, so they could take it elsewhere to be manufactured if need be. Samsung's manufacturing process was developed jointly with several other companies (http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31886.wss), so the Apple processor designs would move easily to either IBM or Global Foundries (and I'm sure they'ed be glad to take the business from Samsung). Another possibility would be for Apple to move the processors to TSMC (the largest semiconductor foundry in the world). It has even been rumored that Apple already had evaluation material run at TSMC last year. As a matter of fact, Samsung is relatively new to manufacturing processors / logic foundry business, so they've been aggressively partnering with anyone who could help them break into the market dominated by Intel, AMD/Chartered (which merged their fabs to create Global Foundries), and TSMC. Losing Apple's processor business would be a big blow to Samsung's efforts to become a world supplier of processors / logic.
And BTW, even if Apple was locked into Samsung as a supplier for critical components, Samsung couldn't just "refuse" to sell Apple the parts. That's a definite violation of US antitrust / antimonopoly laws and would likely result in criminal charges and probable barring of most or ALL Samsung products from importation into the US (TVs, refrigerators, microwaves, computers, phones, tablets, etc.).
Actually it is not. I say this as a software developer who has read the patent in question.
First of all, I found the patent to be rather ambiguously worded and fairly difficult to read - much more so than scientific articles in computer science journals. I'm guessing that's because it isn't really written with computer scientists in mind. The intended audience is other lawyers.
Secondly, the description of the implementation isn't actually in the patent. What you have is a graphical rendition of a very general architecture that could pretty much fit anything in between a compiler and a natural language translator. Even if you wanted to copy the patent all the help you are getting is pretty much what you yourself could have sketched out on the back of an envelope in five minutes - or just go look in any compiler textbook.
Just think of the thousands of ridiculous licenses we're paying for when we buy a new piece of electronics? Maybe Apple has a patent on "Slide to unlock" but what about actually locking the phone? That is, "A System for Enabling and Disabling User Input Processing On Mobile Devices" or some other lawered up way to make it sound impressive. You really feel that is intellectual property worthy of protection?
I would also think that perhaps Apple found that if the case is won for the 4S, that would set precedent for justifying patent infringements concerning the 4 and 3GS without having to go into the detail of each model...
1. Tell me how many times an Apple product had it's sales suspended in USA/Europe because of a petition from Android's manufacturer's.
2. Tell me how much you believe that those features in iOS aren't copied from Android.
3. Tell me how much you think some value, like 10 million dollars, would hurt Apple.
4. Now tell me how much you think that money wouldn't change a corrupt judge's life.
Dude. When I saw iOS 5 keynote, last year, i thought with myself: what the **** is that Notification Menu? I mean, really?! Apple keeps saying that they're the most innovative company in the world and does something like this?
Well, now Google just needs to sue Apple for that rip-off, I think. Guess what? That didn't happen, but I can assure you that Notification Menu idea didn't come from a brilliant Apple employee.
What you've described is refining. Apple are refiners, not inventors. And for refinement, they should get credit. But they don't have the moral high ground to be this sue happy. They have it within their means to be this sue happy. Their actions reflect a vendetta.
For more than a decade I've used Apple products, and support the company as much as any one here. However, this Samsung battle (and many of Apple's other current suits) gives me great pause. I cannot state I know the details as I haven't had the time to read up on everything nor am I trained in I.P. law. I do not like the overall sense that Apple is strong-arming competition, whether copied or not, and using their billions of cash to block competition (which is a direct byproduct of these suits, whether intended or not). If Samsung did do wrong, allowing them to rectify the issue would be acceptable. This amounts to stifling competition. Apple is/should be better than this as they design and produce great products, and shouldn't resort to domination through bullying.
Competition fosters growth, monopolies stifle. I believe it is rather perplexing that not long ago many on MacRumors defended the free market in many threads. Now it seems many are defending Apple's actions, which is [essentially] anti-freemarket. If Apple was smart, they'd simply innovate more. If Samsung does copy more, than I'd have their back 100%. Until then, this is strong arming and it should be below Apple.
Competition fosters growth, monopolies stifle. I believe it is rather perplexing that not long ago many on MacRumors defended the free market in many threads. Now it seems many are defending Apple's actions, which is [essentially] anti-freemarket. If Apple was smart, they'd simply innovate more. If Samsung does copy more, than I'd have their back 100%. Until then, this is strong arming and it should be below Apple.
the iPhone
Uh oh !
Touch Screen, Menu's and buttons that you TOUCH.
HOLY ****ING SHITBALLS. ROUNDED EDGES TO!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?
OH MY GOD.
THEY COPIED APPLE.
In 2002...
your absolutely correct- copy is a bad choice of words..likeness as in preponderance of the evidence..
Actually, I know it's annoying, but, no. Patents are written so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can understand them. If they are not, that is a basis to invalidate the patent.
If you want to understand the infringement case, though, you need to read the claim construction order together with the patents. On many patents, it's very nearly impossible to understand whether something infringes without a claim construction order and perhaps even reading the file wrapper.
God man read. I did say "Correct me if I am wrong"? That I remember hearing of such thing. But, it could be wrong. COULD BE!!!
Google bought the software from which the Droid came. They "Google" made it for a phone they wished to build. But before hand (before Google) what was its use to be???? However, 3G wasn't fully implemented in the US. I'm based in the US, so sue me.
Apple made the phone for the most common denominator (and tech at the time remember battery life!). So 2G/EDGE it was. They gave you wifi for faster net access (since that was in more places then 3G USA). I never said ONLY had EDGE. But, even the phones with 3G speed, there web browsing SUCKED. Compared to Safari on the iPhone. There was a pretty big revolution that took place after the iPhone came out on the web. Its called PEOPLE USED THE HECK OUT OF IT ON THE IPHONE!. It was the dominate mobile browser on the web. So how could EDGE have changed that fact? How am I wrong here?
----------
Thank goodness that looks nothing like the iPhone. At the time though I did want one of these.
Anyone else remember what happened last time we saw one of these injunctions?
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/11/samsung-wins-appeal-against-apple-injunction-overturned/
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/11/samsung-wins-appeal-against-apple-injunction-overturned/
Question; explain claims construction order ;would equate to each parties certification of all claims that constitute the whole of an infringement upon a patent?
What you say only half way works. If you want Apple to continue making great products, you have to have them protect what they sell. You can't have others copy (potentially) what they make and resell it as their own. Apple loses sales that way, and hence they don't make more products. As they come out with something new, someone else freely copies, and sells at a cheaper price and is Apple out of business. That's bad! And to further that, what do the new companies that copied the Apple product come out with next? They copied to make one product, now they have no one to copy from? So they make something totally new and its great all on there own. Someone else comes along, copies that idea, sells it cheaper, now that company is dead. Rinse, wash, repeat.
They have to protect them else. Whether we like it or not. You want a great, product, I want a great product, we all want great products. They have to do this. They spent the time, and money to create it. EVERYONE else that wants to enter the market needs to do the same. Coping hurts EVERYONE. Makes us just wait for someone else to do something, then we do it ourselves like we invited it.
This process only sounds bad. In reality it is not. Your not that effected by waiting for Samsung to make something "new" or HTC or Motorola or whomever. THe world still spins, gravity still works, and we all can still breath air and drink water. You should be demanding that every company strive to create something new and not copy someone else. Or to make something someone else did, and make it better, way better. And not copy to do it, and if they do copy, PAY FOR IT! That's a license, that how you get permission to do so legally. That's fair!
Question; explain claims construction order ;would equate to each parties certification of all claims that constitute the whole of an infringement upon a patent? Seems a difficult process to prove all claims made on a construction order to win an infringement case.
yes. although i have to admit I am biased against samsung at this point, whatever talk about patents etc, it is clear they are emulating apple. I would prefer to see them do their own thing. shrugs.
but right, who cares, just buy what you want.
They can choose to or not. Its up to them. Your not forced to file a lawsuit. But, they can if they so wish, OR and this is a big one. They worked that out with Nokia before ever being an issue. Or not, they could just not care.
God man read. I did say "Correct me if I am wrong"? That I remember hearing of such thing. But, it could be wrong. COULD BE!!!
However, 3G wasn't fully implemented in the US. I'm based in the US, so sue me.
Apple made the phone for the most common denominator (and tech at the time remember battery life!). So 2G/EDGE it was. They gave you wifi for faster net access (since that was in more places then 3G USA). I never said ONLY had EDGE. But, even the phones with 3G speed, there web browsing SUCKED. Compared to Safari on the iPhone. There was a pretty big revolution that took place after the iPhone came out on the web. Its called PEOPLE USED THE HECK OUT OF IT ON THE IPHONE!. It was the dominate mobile browser on the web. So how could EDGE have changed that fact? How am I wrong here?
Lol, you're making an unfounded statement and basically say "that's what I will believe until you prove me wrong" then you link to a Wikipedia article that does nothing to support your claim and I point out to you how it actually suggest the opposite to what you claimed and you still go on about "correct me if I'm wrong"...
Web browsing on phones before the iPhone did not suck, ESPECIALLY NOT compared to EDGE browsing on Safari on the iPhone, that's my opinion.
Thank goodness that looks nothing like the iPhone. At the time though I did want one of these.
That looks nothing like iOS just as much as Android looks nothing like iOS, so you saying that iOS isn't similar enough to Windows Phone on the iPAQ to be considered a copy imo means that Android can't be considered a copy of iOS either.
This isn't in a Dutch court, it's in an American court. The findings of a Dutch judge have no bearing. Different countries have different patent laws.
For anyone saying that Android "blatantly copied" Apple, you are delusional. Android doesn't look, act, or feel anything like iOS (well except for the notification shade in iOS that Apple truly did BLATANTLY ripped off Android).
Further, this litigation has NOTHING to do with the physical design of these products (which, by the way, look nothing alike either).
I am not against companies "protecting technologies" and "true innovation" but the patents in question are very small pieces of the software that were clearly put together to ban a product that is competing against them. (As opposed to one that rips them off).
Anyway, hopefully Apple is prepared for Google to get involved. Especially when Google gets this patent granted:
Further, this litigation has NOTHING to do with the physical design of these products (which, by the way, look nothing alike either).
I am not against companies "protecting technologies" and "true innovation" but the patents in question are very small pieces of the software that were clearly put together to ban a product that is competing against them. (As opposed to one that rips them off).
Anyway, hopefully Apple is prepared for Google to get involved. Especially when Google gets this patent granted:
Attachments
That's an opinion. Samsung is a pretty big company too. They make things other then phones and it sells world wide. Even in things not branded by them.
If Apple believes there software or hardware design or whatever they make that's patented is being infringed upon. They can "choose" to go after them.
Apple has $100 billion +, and its still a growing company. When it comes to lawsuits, they can knuckle up with anyone they want. And again, that's if Microsoft is infringing.
This is the sort of thing that Apple should be very concerned about. They are sue-happy now, but once Google has had enough and strikes back, it's gonna get real ugly real fast.
But then again, Apple's Magical legal team is smarter than me, so whatever.