Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The interesting thing about sharing is, as a rule, the less you have the more you benefit from it. The more you have the less you benefit from it. Reminds me of the "study groups" in college. The strong students spent the entire time teaching the weaker students and did not have any time to study what they were weak at. It was great for the weak students and sucked for the strong ones.

BTW Doesn't matter which one I was, its still true! :p
 
And the purpose of patents is to give a temporary monopoly! If it wasn't for patent law, companies would innovate too little, because it would be too easy to copy each others inventions.
-----------------------------------------
Exactly. It's this protection that ENCOURAGES innovation. Why would anyone spend a great deal of time, money, and effort to innovate if they knew that anyone could come along and simply copy what they did to make a profit?

I see the innovation argument as a bit like the tax argument. If taxes are lowered revenue from taxes will increase. If you lessen the time period for patents innovation will increase. The result can go either way and it is very dependent on the situation.
 
One of the primary goals of patent law is to create innovation. People saying that it does the opposite are the same that thing Samsung didn't copy the Iphone, or at least say it. Hard to know whats in the mind of the irrational. I mean some people don't believe dinosaurs ever existed, and some that the earth is flat so....
 
Last edited:
if samsung is so up in arms with apple. just stop providing products to them so they can not make there phones and computers. basicly all they need to do is wait for apple to make a huge order. tell them there is a delay and provide them with a limit number so they think they are still ok and when the new product launches then boom, no more chips, or what ever samsung provides to them.

this will cause them to loose alot of money on both sides but it could be a hit for samsung.

I like apple computers not so much the ipods or iphones ( I did support for them for years and learned to hate them)

I agree with samsung when it comes to the curved design and the fact that apple drives the price up. apple products are way over priced for what they are, but people will buy them and thats why they have over 100 billion in cash, Myself I will take my intel PC and install osx on it. nothing like having the same specs as a imac for less then half the price.
 
Google should bring Apple to court over that.

That is... if Google has a patent on the notifications bar.

Google will be paying iOS fees. Google will become a financial supporter of APPL. They will be paying Apple to "give away Android". Unless, they remove all the upheld patents from the trial.

Apple will slowly chip away, year, after year, after year until Google is what it is good at. Being a search engine with a Maps Service. Period.

You'll see HTC start to move to WIN8 next. Then down the road, you know who.

All the Android users bitch about Apple. Wait till WIN8 Mobile hit's you from the other side. It's solid, innovative, unique, and not a stolen product. :)
 
Of course. Again, self evident. One of the primary goals of patent law is to create innovation. People saying that it does the opposite are the same that thing Samsung didn't copy the Iphone, or at least say it. Hard to know whats in the mind of the irrational. I mean some people don't believe dinosaurs ever existed, and some that the earth is flat so....

Those aren't actually my words. The quote markup got messed up somehow. My post compares the innovation argument to the tax argument.
 
Creating a phone is not like a multiple choice question. It's not a case of choosing to be a rectangle or not. There are too many variables – too much aesthetic reasoning and brand imposition that goes into the design. If we do use a black rectangle, then do we round the edges? What is the radius of our rounding? How much do we chamfer the edges? Why that amount? Do we need a bezel? What material should that be made of? What shape should our speaker hole be? Where should it be? What is the primary goal of the OS? How do we achieve that? Etc. No... Designing a phone is not a multiple choice, but an essay question. You figure out all the ideals and then, through design, you try and create something that achieves every nuance of your love letter to a smart phone. I'm willing to accept that after the release of Apple's iPhone, Samsung's soul searching led them to the same goals (maybe), but they didn't write their own essay; they looked at Apple's essay and stole Apple's exact wording – Apple's grammar. Two people can agree on the highest level outline of an essay, but they won't independently write the same one word for word.*

Look at the Samsung Fascinate and tell me, without copying Apple, that they independently came up with that design, the 4x4 grid of icons, plus a four icon dock at the bottom, a side profile white silhouette of an old phone receiver on a green rounded square, a yellow flower for their photos app (because that's a standard, right?!), the same SIRI implementation, the same speech bubbles metaphor for their chat client, the same dotted pagination, the same dock connector, the same wall plug, the same box art..... So no... It's not Apple trying to stop black rectangles... This is Apple getting mad when someone is turning in stolen homework as their own.*

Well say. Thank you. I need to save this reasoning...:)
 
"National IP court?" No offense, but you don't get a say in our legal system. We won that in our War of Independence with England. Patent and copyright law is embedded in our Constitution, as is the right to a jury trial.

If you still don't think these jurors were competent to decide the facts of the case, go back and read the CNET article.

I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. Did they even have patents in 1776 or whenever your precious constitution dates from?

Re the CNet article thanks that was very illuminating. They decided 700 complex patent questions in 21 hours. C'mon that's ridiculous. These people had made their made up from the start. "The Koreans were evasive". Oh yes I can see the penetrating and forensic detail was applied to their decision making. Give me a break.
 
A lot of what you get are people whose religion is the "community". Anything that they perceive to hurt the "community" is blasphemy. The shame is that their understanding of what actually helps, or hurts, the "community" sucks and they mostly have their wires crossed.
 
I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. Did they even have patents in 1776 or whenever your precious constitution dates from?

Re the CNet article thanks that was very illuminating. They decided 700 complex patent questions in 21 hours. C'mon that's ridiculous. These people had made their made up from the start. "The Koreans were evasive". Oh yes I can see the penetrating and forensic detail was applied to their decision making. Give me a break.

Shaun, if I may politely answer your question, the concept of intellectual property originated in your country. The United States Constitution was ratified eleven years after the United States declared its independence.
 
if samsung is so up in arms with apple. just stop providing products to them so they can not make there phones and computers. basicly all they need to do is wait for apple to make a huge order. tell them there is a delay and provide them with a limit number so they think they are still ok and when the new product launches then boom, no more chips, or what ever samsung provides to them.

this will cause them to loose alot of money on both sides but it could be a hit for samsung.

I like apple computers not so much the ipods or iphones ( I did support for them for years and learned to hate them)

I agree with samsung when it comes to the curved design and the fact that apple drives the price up. apple products are way over priced for what they are, but people will buy them and thats why they have over 100 billion in cash, Myself I will take my intel PC and install osx on it. nothing like having the same specs as a imac for less then half the price.

And Apple will go to another supplier of components and say "Hey, how'd you like to make some money".

Oh, and your hackintosh - you do know that the license for OS X is only to run on a computer made by Apple, that in fact the biggest part of the cost for the operating system is built into the hardware, right? So even assuming you bought a copy of OS X somewhere, you're ripping off Apple. But hey, that's all right, stealing is fun.
 
Samsung is the one that needs to learn to play well with others - this has been going on for years and years with them.

You probably didnt say that when Samsung sold NAND memory to Apple at a large discount and at high volumes thereby eliminating the competition from getting any left at a reasonable price.

Do you only support Apple and Samsung when it favors the Apple brand?
 
The cell carriers are the ones that truly lost yesterday.

Some ways the iPhone has disrupted the cellphone space are by:

1) restricting carriers from loading their phones with crapware that can't be deleted;

2) denying an obtrusive carrier logo adorn their customer's phones;

3) denied carriers like Verizon from dictating such GUI elements as predominant color scheme (Yes, Verizon actually dictates/dictated to cellphone OEMs that the prevailing color schemes be red and black like their corporate logo);

4) direct updates.

Google's Android was like manna from heaven for the carriers. Besides the return to the above, updates (including those regarding security) releases can be stalled and boot loaders can be blocked, thus providing pushing customers to upgrade. It also weakens Apple's ability to negotiate things like Facetime over cellular.

This ruling should provide Android-based cellphone OEMs (and, by proxy, possibly Google) more motivation to differentiate themselves from the iPhone and, thus, providing more real choices when we shop. I'm so tired of hearing crooked salespeople tell naive shoppers that "Android phones are basically iPhones." *facepalm*

The consumer won yesterday.
 
There is no halo. Its self evident. Murder is wrong. I don't need to know what others think. Stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. If you can't clearly see that then nothing anyone says will help you to see it. If every court sided with Apple you would still not believe it. If Samsung came out and said "guys, lmfao, we copied the **** out of it, we had to, we had nothing and had to catch up" You would still probably not believe it, but have to admit it out loud to your friends. :p

I don't have to admit anything. The UK courts found in favour of Samsung so I'm free to buy whatever I want. This court case in the US has no affect on me.

I don't agree with the ruling and I'm simply expressing that opinion. I seem to remember that there was a lot of anti-British rhetoric on here when our courts made their decision so I don't have any hesitation about commenting on the US court case.
 
I don't have to admit anything. The UK courts found in favour of Samsung so I'm free to buy whatever I want. This court case in the US has no affect on me.

I don't agree with the ruling and I'm simply expressing that opinion. I seem to remember that there was a lot of anti-British rhetoric on here when our courts made their decision so I don't have any hesitation about commenting on the US court case.

Comment all you want :). So answer this for the record. Forget about fines, patent law, courts and rulings. Just rule on this.

Are you saying that Samsung did not copy the Iphone?
 
That wasn't a serious offer for licensing, it would've been impossible to make any money if they agreed to that. Maybe it was an opening gambit, expecting Samsung to come back with "well, how about..." but if your opening gambit is too high, hard to claim you wanted a deal.

As I've said elsewhere, I am hoping for some sort of deal coming out of this. Samsung is highly motivated to strike a deal, particularly since Judge Koh already granted an injunction on a phone before the trial started so she's probably going to grant a bunch now there's a jury verdict. If Tim Cook is smart, he'll grab the opportunity and make a deal that gives Apple some unique space but also comes off as a fair competitor.

The problem was that Samsung went beyond infringing on Apple's patents, it essentially tried to create clone devices. It copied the overall look and feel of the iPhone and iPad, down to the peripherals and packaging.

If it was merely a matter of licensing, I'm sure Apple would've worked something out with Samsung. And frankly, if the patent isn't an essential standards patent (FRAND), then Apple can charge a higher fee if they choose.
 
if samsung is so up in arms with apple. just stop providing products to them so they can not make there phones and computers. basicly all they need to do is wait for apple to make a huge order. .

The reason why Samsung doesnt do that is because it would open them up to a lawsuit sounding in antitrust, a lawsuit they would lose in a heartbeat.
 
I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. Did they even have patents in 1776 or whenever your precious constitution dates from?

Back in 1787, patents and copyrights were written into Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the core Constitution, before even the Bill of Rights.

And, yes, my Constitution is precious to me. And I'm not about to stand by and allow the the rights that it protects taken away by anyone. You'd do well to understand that if you're going to pick political fights with Americans.
 
No doubt. The Europeans are socialists. They mostly believe everything should belong to the government to be handed out to the "community" to make sure everything is equal. You can't be surprised they are against the idea of profit and protecting "individual" companies property. Profits and the word "individual" are considered profane over there, and becoming that way here too. Mores the pity.

Interestingly, the Scandinavian countries that conform to the Nordic model have some attributes that run counter to socialism. Their product markets have little regulation, low barriers to free trade, and strong property rights.
 
And Apple will go to another supplier of components and say "Hey, how'd you like to make some money".

Oh, and your hackintosh - you do know that the license for OS X is only to run on a computer made by Apple, that in fact the biggest part of the cost for the operating system is built into the hardware, right? So even assuming you bought a copy of OS X somewhere, you're ripping off Apple. But hey, that's all right, stealing is fun.

apple would go somewhere else but they would not have enough product to sell and would loose money and the stocks would go down in the time it took to find someone else. also the " license" as you say. yes I know that thats a large part of the cost. but apple overprices everything. they are just insane. I askes about a harddrive and was told to buy a hard drive it would be over 300. the same drive was only 80 at NCIX.com. and my original point was apple just overprices things because people will buy them. they have the largest mark up for any computer company out there. I know because i use to work for them. 4 years ago an ipod would only cost apple like 30 bucks to make and they would sell it for 199-250. and really what good have they done with the cash they have. not saying microsoft is anybetter.

----------

And Apple will go to another supplier of components and say "Hey, how'd you like to make some money".

Oh, and your hackintosh - you do know that the license for OS X is only to run on a computer made by Apple, that in fact the biggest part of the cost for the operating system is built into the hardware, right? So even assuming you bought a copy of OS X somewhere, you're ripping off Apple. But hey, that's all right, stealing is fun.

and i would not say i am stealing i an not abiding by apples insane rules about how the software should be used. I purchased my copy of osx.. that like saying people who jailbreak there ipod are stealing because they dont want to deal with all of apples restrictions
 
Shaun, if I may politely answer your question, the concept of intellectual property originated in your country. The United States Constitution was ratified eleven years after the United States declared its independence.

Well there you go I didn't know that. Thanks. I thought the ancient Greeks just about invented everything like that. You learn something new everyday.

I've never quite understood the US constitution. Do all your laws date back to a document written over 200 years ago? Didn't the founding fathers envisage that things might change in the future? What's wrong with changing the constitution? Was it meant to be set in stone?

You can't change the gun laws because it was written in the constitution 200 years ago. I just don't understand that. We just make things up as we go along here in the UK as we don't have anything like your constitution.
 
Interestingly, the Scandinavian countries that conform to the Nordic model have some attributes that run counter to socialism. Their product markets have little regulation, low barriers to free trade, and strong property rights.

Good point. Hard to keep up with all the flavors that are available out there. I have heard that the Scandinavian countries are well run, and that the citizens are very happy there. I have not had a chance to visit yet, look forward to it.
 
apple would go somewhere else but they would not have enough product to sell and would loose money and the stocks would go down in the time it took to find someone else. also the " license" as you say. yes I know that thats a large part of the cost. but apple overprices everything. they are just insane. I askes about a harddrive and was told to buy a hard drive it would be over 300. the same drive was only 80 at NCIX.com. and my original point was apple just overprices things because people will buy them. they have the largest mark up for any computer company out there. I know because i use to work for them. 4 years ago an ipod would only cost apple like 30 bucks to make and they would sell it for 199-250. and really what good have they done with the cash they have. not saying microsoft is anybetter.

what good have they done with the cash they have?

Well, they completely changed the game in terms of MP3 players, changed it from a toy for geeks into a new way to listen to music for everyone (oh and along the way completely revamped the way music is sold).

Then they completely changed the concept of what a smartphone should be, to something attractive, easy to use, and fun.

And then turned the tablet from a concept that had completely failed time and time again outside of a few narrow niches into a highly desirable and usable product.

If you want to challenge any of those, look at what was sold before and after Apple's announcements. Whatever you think of the markets, it's impossible to say that Apple didn't completely upend everything in those three markets. (four if you include digital music sales).

And yes (to answer your other reply) you are stealing because you aren't paying the part of the price of the OS that was baked into the hardware. At best you're freeloading.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.