Ridiculous.
What really does stifle innovation? You create something amazing, and anyone else can carbon copy it.
What really does stifle innovation? You create something amazing, and anyone else can carbon copy 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.
Facebook, Google and Other Silicon Valley Companies Side with Samsung in Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do think Apple should take the punishment as well. And I also think they should stop checking employee bags off the clock.
Precisely.
"Apple is innovating and creating great things, stifling
our innovation, so we have to attempt carbon copies."
- Friend of the Court
our innovation, so we have to attempt carbon copies."
- Friend of the Court
The simple fact is, if you want to knock these other companies down, just don't buy their consumer products. We can't do anything about Apple paying Samsung to make chips. We *can* simply stop buying anything made by Samsung, such as toasters and fridges and such. Don't buy HP anythings. Switch to DDG instead of Google, even if only for some of your searches. The courts won't fix this problem.
What stifles innovation is someone creating something amazing, then patenting so many vagaries that no one else can make anything that even looks similar from a sidelong glance, let alone improve upon it, without being sued for millions of dollars.
Apple makes good stuff, but they also know how to game the patent system to their own advantage. They're not using it to protect their assets, so much as wield it as an extension of their marketing and accounting arm.
I've had (older) family members picking up an S6 at a best buy store and thought it was the new iPhone 6. So, immediately there's some confusion there.
They need their eyes checked then. They looking nothing alike, including the HUGE SAMSUNG on the front of the device.
Was it that they JUST picked up an S6? What about HTC or LG? I'm not sure you're older family member's confusion was a S6 vs 6S "issue" as much as it was that many phones these days look similar. People confused my LG G smart watch (and still do) well before the Apple Watch was launched.
Smartphones, much like TVs, are going to look more similar than they are dissimilar, considering they're basically screens in a rectangular package. If there's any confusion to be had, it's purely the fault of the buyer.
Indeed. But you never confuse a hot pocket from a Tony's pouch. Or a Pop Tart from a Toaster Strudel. You have a keen eye, Renzie
Oh, indeed. It takes a keen eye and a sharp intellect to discern the difference among the different pastries in the industry. It's the subtle differences in texture, flaking patterns due to differing baking methods, and being able to discern the HUGE DAMN LOGOS ON THE FRONT OF THE BOXES!
...though what the hell is a Tony's Pouch?
I am just as disgusted as you are. This is outrageous. The moment I learned iphones and macbooks had Shamesung' components, I stopped using both.
Apple has only initiated two significant patent lawsuits in 40 years (HTC and Samsung). I think you overstating how much they "wield" and "game" the patent system. Obviously, they aren't doing what you imply in the first paragraph.
Just picture a hot pocket with some steam vents in the top of the crust. Makes them gourmet I think.
My grandma called my Nokia 930 an iPhone.... I suspect every phone is an iPhone to her, excellent marketing one would say and brand awareness
True, but it is a game that everyone including Apple needs to play. They have no choice or anyone else will take advantage of the ones not playing. It is not the players that need to change, it is the rules. The patent law system.
I totally disagree. C++ is basically open source, and regarding your house example, thats only true because there was limited copyright in the Victorian era, if you copied an architects design today you would have to pay a fee (or be sued). The exact same thing is happening here, it's no different to ripping off a song you heard. Someone created something, you copied it, and now you're being sued.
Whether you think Samsung really did copy or not is a separate matter, the fact that Apple are trying to protect what they consider their intellectual property is perfectly normal.
This is true. When you get right down to it, Apple is ultimately no better and certainly no worse than anyone else playing the patent game. It's all nothing but a bunch of multibillion dollar businesses finding ways to trip up their competition while padding their bottom lines, with the occasional patent troll showing up to make things interesting.
If there's any one thing I really take exception to, it's the usual fan responses. That more than anything is what usually makes me reply to one of these threads.
This has come up in the past, but in regards to Samsung (allegedly) paying Verizon employees more to sell their device.
If anyone, including older relatives you cite, wants an iPhone specifically, wouldn't they go in and ask for one? Certainly they will need assistance to check out due to how buying a carrier-tied phone process works. At no point, at all, did they say "am I buying an iPhone?" If the phone itself they thought was an iPhone, then maybe when the sales rep brought the box out and it said "Samsung Galaxy S6" they didn't think "maybe this isn't the phone I thought it was?"
If all of these scenarios did not prompt them to ask if what they were buying was an iPhone, then really, did they want an iPhone? (Or is iPhone just synonymous with a certain segment of the population to mean smartphone?)
Leaving patent law aside, wouldn't more distinct products be more innovative and lead to greater consumer choice? I mean if you look at a company like Lenovo, then they have their own distinct design language that they inherented from IBM, you imediatelly recognize one of their laptops from a distance. Compare this to the handful of aluminum and chicklet MacBook look alikes out there, they apparently think it is better looking than anything they could possibly come up with themselves. I think they would do better by standing out on their own merits, and it would lead to more options. I don't know what causes this but a lack of imagination and being overly risk averse.
Last edited:
To point #1 - I'm not sure it's "alleged" as I do think there were incentives to sell Android phones. However that's one model - profit margin/higher commissions on selling Phone A. Conversely, Apple has agreements with carriers (for example) where they either sell X amount of iPhones, or are financially responsible for the "balance." If you read about the Sprint deal, it spells it out pretty well. Two different motivators. Do you push for the bigger profit margin and "positive" incentive for your team - or do you push for the other phone - because if you don't, the company is still financially responsible for them. Of course I am simplifying... but that's the gist.
ETA: To your second point, I agree and said something similar. "iPhone" for many has become "Kleenex"
Your family members obviously forgot to do their annual vision checkup because S6 looks nothing like an iPhone, much less the iPhone 6.