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 Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
S-Voice is NOT better than Siri. It's inferior in just about every way. Google Now is a better competitor to Siri.
The Accord is made in Ohio. The Camry in Kentucky. The VW Passat in Tennessee. The Chevy Impala: Ontario. Ford Fusion: Mexico. So which cars are the "American" ones?
Anyway, the Accord is a bit sportier than the Camry, which has a plusher suspension system.
Oh well, in the end, Apple is the true innovator of them all...
Well, Apple marketing got you, alright
.Apple was innovative with the iMac, maybe the MBA, but anything iOS isn't copied by anyone - it's just not good enough .
From CNET:
This actually sounds like a pretty qualified jury. They are educated, but not enamored by technology or gadgets. Likely they weren't following every latest development in the industry, and didn't really have a bias one way or the other. Remember, this is a case where one multinational company with billions in the bank is suing another multinational with billions in the bank. California is a pretty left-leaning state. Jurors wouldn't have necessarily favored the rich American corporation over the rich Korean one.
This actually sounds like a pretty qualified jury. They are educated, but not enamored by technology or gadgets. Likely they weren't following every latest development in the industry, and didn't really have a bias one way or the other. Remember, this is a case where one multinational company with billions in the bank is suing another multinational with billions in the bank. California is a pretty left-leaning state. Jurors wouldn't have necessarily favored the rich American corporation over the rich Korean one.
To some extent I agree with you, but that said, I think a smaller iPad will sell well among a certain 52% of the population that is, in general, a little bit smaller and weaker, but better looking than the other 48%.
Ok I know Apple doesn't have a patent on silver or aluminum and they didn't pioneer the chiclet keyboard but geez HP how about a little originality.
AGREED: Some people don't get it.
I think some people are missing the point. If I decided that the MONA LISA would look better as a BLONDE, and made her a BLONDE, everyone would look at my painting and say WTF, that guy just copied the MONA LISA, and made her BLONDE. I would receive millions of emails telling me that I was copy cat, talentless hack, and that if I wanted to call myself an artist, I should draw my own girl.
Bottom Line: SAMSUNG should draw their own girls.
A win all round?
I wasn't surprised by the verdict and neither was Samsung. If you look at their legal strategy over the past few weeks, they were basically saying, "Yes, we infringed, but we don't think the infringement was worth $2.75billion." The jury agreed.
Apple never expected (a wholly unreasonable) $ 2.75 billion, and the dollar amount didn't matter to them. They got the win and demonstrated that if you come anywhere near their designs they will spend their last cent to nail you to the wall.
And in the long term, Apple has now forced their competitors to produce their own unique designs, and Cupertino will be forced to compete with them. If Apple doesn't keep up then they've probably signed their own death warrant.
Kudos to the fella who posted the zebra doing the Running Man. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.
I wasn't surprised by the verdict and neither was Samsung. If you look at their legal strategy over the past few weeks, they were basically saying, "Yes, we infringed, but we don't think the infringement was worth $2.75billion." The jury agreed.
Apple never expected (a wholly unreasonable) $ 2.75 billion, and the dollar amount didn't matter to them. They got the win and demonstrated that if you come anywhere near their designs they will spend their last cent to nail you to the wall.
And in the long term, Apple has now forced their competitors to produce their own unique designs, and Cupertino will be forced to compete with them. If Apple doesn't keep up then they've probably signed their own death warrant.
Kudos to the fella who posted the zebra doing the Running Man. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.
Google picked the wrong battle
Google picked the wrong company to start an open source jihad with. There is more going on with Apple than just a company and business. Not prudent to go attack what Apple is doing in the world. That was Eric "beady eyes" Schmidt's mistake. He doesn't get it.
Google picked the wrong company to start an open source jihad with. There is more going on with Apple than just a company and business. Not prudent to go attack what Apple is doing in the world. That was Eric "beady eyes" Schmidt's mistake. He doesn't get it.
I think even Google knew what was going on was wrong judging by this.
http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/
Samsung got what was coming to them.
Well awesome is as awesome does! Good job Apple! Protecting ideas and innovations through patents - whether design or utility - is the exact way to do business. You come up with a great idea... you patent it... then you give others the option to lease your patent for a fee. If you decide that you don't want to pay the fee... don't use the idea or copy it.
I mean... it really is... THAT... simple.
I'd also like to give a big shout out to the Higgs Boson and to NASA for landing Curiosity safely and precisely on Mars!
May Steve Rest In Peace and... there is no god so no need to patent atoms.
What a wonderful 2012 so far huh?
I mean... it really is... THAT... simple.
I'd also like to give a big shout out to the Higgs Boson and to NASA for landing Curiosity safely and precisely on Mars!
May Steve Rest In Peace and... there is no god so no need to patent atoms.
What a wonderful 2012 so far huh?
Apple tends not to invent entire objects out of the blue, but refine and evolve existing ideas. And in order to do that, Apple's invents hordes of tiny little inventions that together make a newer and more evolved implementation of something existing.
Example 1:
While Apple didn't invent laptops in general, they invented laptops as we know of them now. It's subtle as it's a usability thing that most people never thought about. Prior to the Powerbook 100, most laptops had no pointing device (trackpad, trackball, trackpoint, trackbar) integrated, and those who did, hung it off the left or right side. The Powerbook 100 established the first design that places the keyboard near the hinge, and the pointing device near the user, with palm rests surrounding it. The result was a laptop where you could type and move the cursor without moving your hands away from the keyboard. Until you tried it, you didn't have a clue how brilliant it was.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bllaptop.htm
http://www.topdesignmag.com/laptop-history-in-photos/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laptops
Example 2:
You claim that Apple simply "copied from people that figured stuff out for a long long time ago" is definitely false. Apple may not have invented the GUI, but Apple was the "people that figured stuff out." The number of GUI elements Apple invented that we take for granted is pretty high up there, since many of the things we see in a GUI didn't exist in the Alto. To say PARC invented the GUI is correct. To say Apple invented the GUI as we know of it, is also correct.
According to wikipedia, Apple invented the idea of menu bars, pull down menus, the trash, the idea that windows should be able to be overlapped, and the idea that when you interact with a widget it responds immediately on-screen. (amongst other things)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
"Here is the first complicating fact about the Jobs visit. In the legend of Xerox PARC, Jobs stole the personal computer from Xerox. But the striking thing about Jobss instructions to Hovey is that he didnt want to reproduce what he saw at PARC. You know, there were disputes around the number of buttonsthree buttons, two buttons, one-button mouse, Hovey went on. The mouse at Xerox had three buttons. But we came around to the fact that learning to mouse is a feat in and of itself, and to make it as simple as possible, with just one button, was pretty important.
So was what Jobs took from Xerox the idea of the mouse? Not quite, because Xerox never owned the idea of the mouse. The PARC researchers got it from the computer scientist Douglas Engelbart, at Stanford Research Institute, fifteen minutes away on the other side of the university campus. Engelbart dreamed up the idea of moving the cursor around the screen with a stand-alone mechanical animal back in the mid- nineteen-sixties. His mouse was a bulky, rectangular affair, with what looked like steel roller-skate wheels. If you lined up Engelbarts mouse, Xeroxs mouse, and Apples mouse, you would not see the serial reproduction of an object. You would see the evolution of a concept.
The same is true of the graphical user interface that so captured Jobss imagination. Xerox PARCs innovation had been to replace the traditional computer command line with onscreen icons. But when you clicked on an icon you got a pop-up menu: this was the intermediary between the users intention and the computers response. Jobss software team took the graphical interface a giant step further. It emphasized direct manipulation. If you wanted to make a window bigger, you just pulled on its corner and made it bigger; if you wanted to move a window across the screen, you just grabbed it and moved it. The Apple designers also invented the menu bar, the pull-down menu, and the trash canall features that radically simplified the original Xerox PARC idea.
The difference between direct and indirect manipulationbetween three buttons and one button, three hundred dollars and fifteen dollars, and a roller ball supported by ball bearings and a free-rolling ballis not trivial. It is the difference between something intended for experts, which is what Xerox PARC had in mind, and something thats appropriate for a mass audience, which is what Apple had in mind. PARC was building a personal computer. Apple wanted to build a popular computer." -newyorker
The important thing to know is that in the grand scheme of things, inventing isn't enough. Evolving that invention to make the invention actually worth something to people is key.
Google didn't invent the web search engine. But their contribution to the field (PageRank) was significant enough to establish a whole new level of search engines.
Facebook didn't invent online social networks, but they evolved it to a point where it was usable by the common folk and not hideous (myspace).
Apple evolved the PDA, cell phone, and touchscreen technologies into a new level of smartphones. Samsung tried to loosely mimic the iPhone.
There's a difference between copying and evolving. Recognize it.
Great day for Apple!!!!!! Bad day for copycats worldwide.
Dr Evil would demand this amount from copycats samdung.....
One Million dollars ....Hope the spend the money on sharks with fricken laser beams ......
----------
Haha, butthurt much?
----------
Haha, butthurt much?
Well there's a shocker, an American jury finds in favour of an American company
no wonder the rest of the world hates America----------
Nope not at all.
You are acting no different than some religious fanatic trying to push their religion on some else, just saying. Keep your beliefs to yourself.