I'm not sure you see the irony of claiming copied concepts on things with standardized components. Both of those connectors by definition have to match.
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.
Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure you see the irony of claiming copied concepts on things with standardized components. Both of those connectors by definition have to match.
They already sold so called smart phones too. When Apple designs blew them out of the water they couldn't compete with what they were releasing so they just copied Apple hoping they would be able to get away with it. I guess it worked.
The amount Samsung owes is based on the amount of revenue lost by Apple, not how much it cost Apple to create the iPhone.
Android as a whole is a stolen product. Apple would sue them to kingdom come if Google didn't take necessary steps with every iteration of Android to differentiate themselves.
Apple was found to infringe on a patent Samsung bought the time FaceTime was released to solely counter sue. That's more a definition of patent troll than what Apple is doing.
Last edited:
Its funny but the big screens were not an innovation, it was required to have decent battery life and other features because their designs didn't allow for smaller designs. Its clearly not the hottest feature because those make up the smallest portion of their shipments and dropping. Their theft could make Apple limit their innovations because the return on investment is compromised by a lack of protection. I hope this doesn't recreate the Apple of the late 80s early 90s that was timid about spending lots of money on R&D after Microsoft was given free reign to steal the Mac interface. This also tells companies its cheap to steal so why not take what you want now and the profits you make will far out way any penalties. Our only hope is that Apple continues to bring more and more of its production in house and to the states where they can control leaks and create tech that will take years to duplicate if they don't see it coming.
First off, patent infringement isn't theft.
Secondly, according to some people around here, the entire computer industry has been ripping off Apple's hard work since day one. Yet despite this, they're net worth is, what, around $115 billion now? Even assuming everyone were stealing from them, it doesn't seem like they've suffered all that much.
So.....
Apple wins a damage compensation, albeit nor in the amount expected....
I think this verdict is more a "moral victory" than a sounding financial gain. And would help Apple to stregthen more their brands and as a deterrent to companies/people wanting to gain advantage of Apple IP.
But maybe I am overreaching, but seems to me the battle of the mobile OSes is like the ancient normal OSes battle, but with reversal of fortunes: Apple now makes the Windows of the mobile OSes and Android is the Mac OS X.....
Dont get me killed for the heresy, tough.....
Apple wins a damage compensation, albeit nor in the amount expected....
I think this verdict is more a "moral victory" than a sounding financial gain. And would help Apple to stregthen more their brands and as a deterrent to companies/people wanting to gain advantage of Apple IP.
But maybe I am overreaching, but seems to me the battle of the mobile OSes is like the ancient normal OSes battle, but with reversal of fortunes: Apple now makes the Windows of the mobile OSes and Android is the Mac OS X.....
Dont get me killed for the heresy, tough.....
Apple wins a damage compensation, albeit nor in the amount expected....
I think this verdict is more a "moral victory" than a sounding financial gain. And would help Apple to stregthen more their brands and as a deterrent to companies/people wanting to gain advantage of Apple IP.
It's really not. Everyone involved just about got sour grapes. This hearing all but states that, yup, Apple and Samsung can successfully sue over their patents. And for their trouble, they might just get enough to cover the costs required to take the infringing party to court.
Both parties were found guilty of infringing a competitors IP, and both left the court with a judgement considerably less than what they asked for. It's a win that probably feels more like a loss to them.
And what's really strange is that, from the sound of things, no one's gonna try to appeal it.
But maybe I am overreaching, but seems to me the battle of the mobile OSes is like the ancient normal OSes battle, but with reversal of fortunes: Apple now makes the Windows of the mobile OSes and Android is the Mac OS X.....
Dont get me killed for the heresy, tough.....
:throws rock:
Other way around IMO. Android runs on multiple vendors and Apple uses their own hardware. Just like Mac.
What you seem to forget is that the whole card metaphor they used in webOS was originally from the iPhone to begin with. WebOS was just a web browser based on the Webkit (Safari) engine running on Linux. Do you remember how the open windows in Safari used the same cards. Web Apps ran the same way. It was not new at all. The added a one additional gesture the swipe up.
And customisation ..... That's was my initial reason to change. My first android had a small screensize. Went bigger with phone #2 and even bigger with phone #4 or so.
There are quite a few differences between Safari's new tab page, and the way WebOS handled multitasking. Superficially they were similar, but you could say the same thing about Safari aping Opera's Speed Dial.
Apple is clearly sincere in their values, they uphold their values not for their own sake but because it means a lot to them both as designers/engineers/misc and as people. They'd gladly see this philosophy in the other things that they use such as cameras and lamps, and it shows.
Samsung is their mortal enemy for this reason, because Samsung's business model is predicated on throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks rather than rationalizing every single product decision they make.
Apple does that too, but only when it comes to patents. To see Samsung penalized by their own business model is truly poetic.
Samsung is their mortal enemy for this reason, because Samsung's business model is predicated on throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks rather than rationalizing every single product decision they make.
Apple does that too, but only when it comes to patents. To see Samsung penalized by their own business model is truly poetic.
Well, one ex-CEO who was convicted for tax evasion probably had
Do CEOs have taxes deducted out of their checks like the 99% do? Or are the funds just wired to some island where the client's privacy is well protected?
Her message obviously criticizes the legal system. There's nothing wrong about it.
So then Apple also being convicted copycat is a loss, I presume?
----------
You sort of proved why it's not a big deal in your statement. It's a huge deal for any one person. For a company, it's peanuts. Samsung made back many times what they are paying in damages already. The point is, this isn't much of a penalty at all. It turned out to be an investment that paid big.
----------
Apple wins a damage compensation, albeit nor in the amount expected....
I think this verdict is more a "moral victory" than a sounding financial gain. And would help Apple to stregthen more their brands and as a deterrent to companies/people wanting to gain advantage of Apple IP.
But maybe I am overreaching, but seems to me the battle of the mobile OSes is like the ancient normal OSes battle, but with reversal of fortunes: Apple now makes the Windows of the mobile OSes and Android is the Mac OS X.....
Dont get me killed for the heresy, tough.....
I rally don't follow your statement.
Android is on multiple hardwares. iOS is on one.
Android vastly outsells iOS.
How is Android analogous to OSX at all?
Not a swiss watch company, but a swiss railway clock manufacturer that had a copyright on the design - and IMHO a huge misstep by Apple. I still can't believe that this happened to a company that supposedly pays attention to detail - and they definitely exposed themselves to a certain irony when it comes to design standards - when it is copying, when is it being "inspired"...?!
Argumentum ab auctoritate. What effect does their opinion have on mine? None, I need to hear the facts. That was honestly your question?
Your quote is about lawyers patenting things Apple employees made. Should I be horrified by that?
It's more an opinion from an informed source, rather than an appeal to authority. They're stating that their hands are tied on what they can do because certain concepts are already owned by other companies. And they have a point. Software patents can have a chilling effect on innovation if they're applied and granted too liberally, which is what we're seeing here.
Look at the patents in this particular case. Are any of them truly unique? Have they never been seen elsewhere?