Perhaps, but all of Apples products are on eBay. oh and all of Apples products, except for the Mac Pro, are made in China.
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
Perhaps, but all of Apples products are on eBay. oh and all of Apples products, except for the Mac Pro, are made in China.
Facebook, Google and Samsung are scum of the earth.
The CEOs of Google and Samsung, in particular, should be thrashed in public and put in stocks to be humiliated for the despicable theft they have perpetrated and encouraged.
Anyone who defends these companies is defending wickedness.
The CEOs of Google and Samsung, in particular, should be thrashed in public and put in stocks to be humiliated for the despicable theft they have perpetrated and encouraged.
Anyone who defends these companies is defending wickedness.
I guess because they're all competitors with Apple.
Think about it: you can go to an Apple store and buy a laptop and a phone and everything is from one company. Buy a PC and a Samsung phone and you're buying from Dell, Microsoft, Samsung and Google. Apple manages to compete with all of them.
Think about it: you can go to an Apple store and buy a laptop and a phone and everything is from one company. Buy a PC and a Samsung phone and you're buying from Dell, Microsoft, Samsung and Google. Apple manages to compete with all of them.
It seems that those saying Apple are the ones whose work got copied by Samsung need to look a little deeper into design history and Jonathan Ive's well known influences.
If you truly are an Apple shareholder it still only means one thing. You purchased some Appl stock. It doesn't make you market savvy. Your comment about Chinese products, when Apple is a Chinese product demonstrates as much.
Reasons
Samsung:
Google:
HP:
Dell:
Facebook:
There aren't enough thumb ups in the world to give this comment is deserved level of approval.
Except it ignores Apple doing exactly the same with Braun for example.
The entire concept of "intellectual property" is questionable at best. Let's get a patent for basic mathematics - you can no longer say that 2+2=4, because I have patented it! Let's patent the idea of rounded corners (like road signs have had them long before any computer GUI or phone)! John Wyndham should get a patent on the word "triffid" (which actually made it into the British language), and George Orwell should get a patent for the word "doubleplusgood". Too bad we didn't have design patents thousands of years ago, then Germanic priests could have patented the swastika and could have sued Hitler for abusing that symbol for his purposes.
But on a more serious note, "intellectual property" simply is an absurd concept that stifles and hinders all forms of innovation, not just in the commercial world, but it's also in the way of science and cripples even humanitarian organizations and education.
Intellectual property laws should be abolished, because there simply is no such thing as intellectual property.
First, Apple didn't have billions back then. Also, I would argue that it forced Apple to differentiate themselves in hardware combined with the software they made. You probably wouldn't care about Apple right now if Microsoft didn't copy them. There are other forms of "innovation" besides UI. No one can argue that any Apple product works very well with any other Apple product. Microsoft still can not say that. Copying the UI perhaps pushed App,e to make that difference. Also probably why Microsoft got into the hardware business. They used to be just a software company.
If Apple bought every form of competition, what do you think you would have? Corporations are big enough. Apply the same logic to your stores, banks, services....
Steve Jobs direct quote - "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas"
Yeah, because Apple using slave labor to build their stuff and tax evasion are "honorable" tactics. Are you serious? Scum of the earth? Every one of these companies is partaking in scummy tactics. Stop acting like Apple is the Morher Theresa of corporations. They are out to squeeze labor, avoid taxes, and maximize profit like every other company. Oh yeah, let's not forget employee bag checks on the EMPLOYEES personal time as they leave their job for the day.
As for patents.... The whole idea of patenting certain things is absurd and should be eliminated immediately. You can't patent shapes, colors, or vague UI elements. Sorry, you just can't.
Effing unbelievable.
A trademark is totally different than a patent. It doesn't coincide. On a side note there are also trade secrets, like Coka Cola. If you can actually get your hands on the real recipie you can actually make and sell real Coka Cola, until they lobby enough to change the law. Though at that point, no one will be able to make and sell anything.
While I agree that Apple did implement some of Braun's designs, it didn't do it in a blatant way to gain market share; For once it didn't make a radio or a speaker to genuinely "copy" something with little other distinctions between the products. It just took a design language from a now long gone products, without knowing if this design will attract or please consumers, and incorporated it in a whole different manner/product. You can say they were inspired and used their own taste to bet on these designs.
While the other companies mentioned in this thread are blindly copying Apple's design 1:1 as in phone to phone and laptop to laptop so as to sell their own products, knowing it is what consumers want. Difference is they are doing it mindlessly, therefore showing you that they personally have no appreciation or taste for good design. It is one to bet on a design that already exists and and a whole different story to copy a product knowing the work has already been done for you.
Last edited:
Spoken like a true fanboi. It's OK when Apple do it, but not others.
Here's something that describe your and many other posts defending Apple's fairly identical behaviour to those it is suing.
"cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values"
That's the problem, if something is deemed too similar they do have to pay fees. If it's considered a "standard" they pay FRAND fees, if not then they don't have access to it at all. At this point it needs to be quite far flung to be considered dissimilar.
Imagine having a disclosure for every single thing you do. Imagine the disclosure every Apple product would need to have approve every time you install and app. And I believe Apple has the right but Jesus! the court cases are going to be endless.
... yet when the shoe is on the other foot, they kick up a fuss about it? Yes, very fair.
The whole point is that every design comes from what has been there before and modifying it. Every scientific paper cites sources. It builds on what was to make what is.
Patenting, at the current level, is tantamount to saying we can not use anything that has been thought of in the last 20 years and make something new. That would be nice, but yes even Apple uses ideas from recent to update its products. You would have to be blind to not see jailbreak functionality come to iOS on every new release. If jailbreakers patented all of that, the iPhone OS would become extremely stagnant.
So it will "stifle innovation"? Isn't the whole idea here that Samsung aren't innovating to begin with?
I understand that, I'm not arguing about the patent laws. What I'm saying is that however small, there is a difference between how Apple copies (having in mind mainly product designs) and how others do it. If this difference is significant enough is for the courts to decide, but in my eyes if Apple is bad then those other companies are worse.
No. It's about broadness of legality. Just imagine if C++ or Objective C were patented. Imagine all computer languages were patented. They were licensed, but computer languages in general were not as broadly patented as new UI designs.
I would urge that UI designs are thought of as just that, designs.
You don't have to fight a patent fee because you are building a Victorian designed house. OSX has a traffic light design built into its main operation of opening and closing windows. Software should not have to pay a fee for design of operation.