Well they're doing a fairly dubious job in their "breakout role" in mobile. This aint TVs and dishwashers.
So far they keep earning injunctions and court orders to hand their goods over to Apple. What a start to their Post-PC journey.
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.
Samsung Already Planning to Target iPhone 5 with Patent Lawsuits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well they're doing a fairly dubious job in their "breakout role" in mobile. This aint TVs and dishwashers.
So far they keep earning injunctions and court orders to hand their goods over to Apple. What a start to their Post-PC journey.
The OP said "for those arguing" - he didn't cite you specifically. So there's no strawman in the room...
What breakout in mobile? Samsung has been making mobile sets way before apple got in.
You can call samsung's current status in mobile business is breakout or not a breakout but they are making waves.
Where in my post did i even remotely imply that you made "that argument"? Way to not read.
http://www.cultofmac.com/99951/cydia-dev-apple-stole-both-my-idea-and-my-icon-for-wifi-sync/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe
"MagSafe is similar to the magnetic power connectors that many deep fryers and Japanese countertop cooking appliances have in order to avoid spilling their dangerously hot contents."
And yet apple was granted patent for this.
I wasnt. I merely provided you with a conditional claim, in no way positioning you in either corner. You reading stuff into my posts does not equate me building straw men.
It only started to really matter and take shape after June 2007. That was the big watershed moment. Then again in January 2010. Brand new market realities. Mobile looks completely different post-June 2007. I'm still amazed by it and we're over 4 years on.
Yes. In civil court.
In your world, cell phones didn't exist before 2007. Way to have your head stuck in the sand. And by sand - I mean in 2007.
Oh they existed. But everything changed with the iPhone. Ask RIM, Nokia, Microsoft, Motorola, HP, Palm, etc. They'll be happy to note the differences for your enjoyment and edification.
So, then what did it have to do with my post that you quoted then? I completely agree that Samsung's app drawer doesn't violate Apple's IP.
You picked an argument that practically no one has made (not even Apple) to refute the idea that Apple should not have to compensate Delicious Monster in exchange for nothing. How does that make any sense?
----------
I did. Please answer the question.
Just stop. First of all - Apple didn't have the market share they have now - or the market share you'd like to think they have until more recently. And newsflash - other phone manufacturers are making tons of money too. Whether they are making more or less than Apple doesn't matter as long as they are keeping their investors and customers happy. The world does not live and die by Apple, LTD. And only a fool would think that it did.
That's not to say that Apple hasn't changed the landscape.
Sorry - I can't help you with paranoia
Divonox admits to making antagonistic posts in order to "clarify the argument."I just can't see what point he was trying to making outside of the implication.
Well, Apple owes them nothing at all to begin with. Who is spreading around the crazy idea that they do?
Delicious Monster Visual Designer = Mike Matas
Sr Visual Designer at Apple = Mike Matas (left Apple July 2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_Monster
Apple effectively "owned" the designer of Delicious.
If you spend a few minutes thinking i am more than confident that you have the brain power to figure that one out yourself. (explicit: no sarcasm or anything implied).
I see that argument made over and over again. Both on these boards, and in court filings over generic designs. If one is to argue that Apple can "steal the bookshelf" (which i do), then one cannot simultaneously argue that (e.g.) Samsung (or Apple) cannot use a white handset on green background as the phone icon in their UI (or build on the desktop paradigm).
Unfortunately, such contradictions are commonplace around here. (explicit: No, im still not implying that you belong to any particular group here).
You clearly stated that property not protected is FFA. As protection is dependent on resources, what follows is that those without ability (e.g. due to a lack of resources) to protect themselves from "theft" (or copying if you wish), put simply, have only themselves to blame (or, deserve to be "stolen" from). .
theft and stolen put in quotation to distinguish from de jure definitions.
No, it just can't help but follow them in consumer tech. All the time. But not always successfully.
So is this the "live" part or the "die" part?
Effectively owning a designer does not mean per se that any design made by said designer is property of Apple.
----------
Why do you insist on posting those pictures when you know that they are not accurate representations of reality?
Then you'll need to ask Apple and Mike Matas about it before you make any allegations.
He clutches on to those because that's all he has. He knows they aren't the correct representations. But when you LIVE in the reality distortion field, everything is Apple, Apple, Apple.
It's like that tootsie roll commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayjR8Qbyfc
I just can't see what point he was trying to making outside of the implication.
No, that is a blunt misrepresentation of both my person and my posting. I have admitted to attempting to narrow in on others vague and abstruse points, by drawing boundaries. This has nothing to do with antagonism.
----------
And you need to ask Apple and Mike Matas about it before making any assumptions.
Again, there is a difference between legally copying an idea and stealing IP. You are picking and choosing parts of an argument. We've had the discussion over and over again.
Seems pretty obvious. If you don't have any rights to an idea, you can't be deprived of those non-existent rights.
For certain types of IP. Copyright does not require registration.
Yes, if you don't apply for a patent, you don't get protection under patent law. Seems obvious. Not sure why you choose to twist it around like you did. Patents are not prohibitively expensive.
But you are trying to twist my statement into a generality. I specifically asked about what was stolen in the Delicious Monster example that we were discussing.