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 Demands Another Retrial, Says 'No Reasonable Jury' Could Have Sided With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was just poking fun at the Note battery problems. I wasn’t attempting to make wild statements about any of their other products.
I do stand by my point that it isn’t beyond the wit of man to get a product into the wild within a year. More so when you have unlimited resources. (Simple logic).
The iPhone X was out less than a year ago and there are already several carbon copies of it from other companies.
Apple sold ~40 million iPhones in 2010, Samsung sold ~9 million Galaxy phones globally. If Samsung convinced people it was actually an iPhone the impact for Apple was marginal. And certainly not worth 500+ million dollars. Also the design of most smartphone looks more or less the same.
The question is, can you proof that. I remember that Apple announced one record after another. Only now the growth of the iPhone business is declining, still growing though.
Also Apple has a big brand recognition, if people ask for an iPhone and they are given a Galaxy, people will notice it.
But seriously though, how many ways are there to align app icons on a screen except in a grid?
This whole debacle is more like, Samsung broke into Xerox PARCs home to steal the TV and found out Apple has already stolen it.
This whole debacle is more like, Samsung broke into Xerox PARCs home to steal the TV and found out Apple has already stolen it.
Yeah that's what you do when you don't have real arguments.
Is not impossible to make a flying car but that doesn't mean much as an argument.
You basically implied that a veteran screen manufacturer like Samsung just waits for Apple to file a patent and in less then a year launches a phone with a curved screen? And this while ignoring the Galaxy Round their first curved screen phone launched in 2013.
How does this sound plausible? Why would Samsung wait for anything screen tech related for Apple?
You are talking about the notch patented by LG and Samsung before Apple? LoL
I agree we are talking about a product that is years old and has little bearing on what is on offer today.
The fact is Apple have copied Samsung in the past but many are so brainwashed on here to recognise that.
I have used both the Galaxy S8 and iPhone 7 to decide on which one to purchase and went with the Galaxy S8. Better Display, Better Battery Life, Better Camera etc.
Although I am a more than satisfied Mac owner I do not purchase by brand.
I’m writing this on my beloved iPad Pro 10.5.
The Note 8 is superior to the iPhone. The sad fact is that Apple knows innovation is expensive and very risky. They have a fan base that will buy a ham sandwich if they slap the Apple logo on it.
With this appeal, Samsung is channelling Eminem and saying, “I’ll smile in the courtroom and buy you a wardrobe.” Apple doesn’t care about this, they want a PR victory because they know those “Upgrade” commercials are true. Now if you will excuse me, I’ve got a date with my Note 8. We’ve become very close over the past few months. I think it’s serious.
The Note 8 is superior to the iPhone. The sad fact is that Apple knows innovation is expensive and very risky. They have a fan base that will buy a ham sandwich if they slap the Apple logo on it.
With this appeal, Samsung is channelling Eminem and saying, “I’ll smile in the courtroom and buy you a wardrobe.” Apple doesn’t care about this, they want a PR victory because they know those “Upgrade” commercials are true. Now if you will excuse me, I’ve got a date with my Note 8. We’ve become very close over the past few months. I think it’s serious.
Making a joke doesn't invalidate the point I made.
Samsungs first curved screen phone was literally nothing like what Apple were applying for in their patent. The Edge, however, incidentally or not, seemed to mimic several aspects of the patent.
Even if they weren't even a little bit inspired by it, you're simply naive to think that a company can't design and make something in very little time. You yourself said that the are "one of the biggest conglomerates in the world". There isn't much point having that status and not using it to get products made quickly and efficiently.
This makes Samsungs adverts even more hilarious. They are making fun of their own idea. lol!
Litigation between large corporations is commonplace. It happens every day. It will never not be happening.
That doesn't imply that there is an opinion about who's right or wrong. That's not what litigation is about. It's about litigation.
It will have approximately no effect on your life whatsoever, except for the concept of choosing what you think is the right moral high ground to associate yourself with, which is pointless because in the end it's really only about [someone else's] litigation(s).
That doesn't imply that there is an opinion about who's right or wrong. That's not what litigation is about. It's about litigation.
It will have approximately no effect on your life whatsoever, except for the concept of choosing what you think is the right moral high ground to associate yourself with, which is pointless because in the end it's really only about [someone else's] litigation(s).
What's funny is that as Apple under Timmy Cook transforms from a hardware company to a services company...this type of thing will be their only source of revenue.
The problem isn't that Apple paid Xerox. I don't think most people outright care or think that Xerox has a case against Apple in any way.
The problem is, Apple took what Xerox did (prior art), then turned around and sued, ongoing, for years any competition who tried doing what xerox did.
Apple was not in a position to sue based of Xerox's work. There's a reason why in over a decade of suing microsoft Apple never won a single case against them.
Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got tours of Xerox's work and both implemented and tried to do their own take on a WIMP based GUI. And yet Only Apple attempted to patent stuff that had prior art, and then sue anyone else for doing what they themselves did.
LoL You were making jokes trying to validate them.
Irrelevant, the first curved screen phone was a demo for the second one which was a demo for the third one(The Galaxy S6) which started the trend we see today with Samsung phones.
All Apple had were drawings on a piece of paper while Samsung was designing and producing actual flexible displays.
So why do you think it's reasonable to claim that Samsung "copied" Apple's screen patents?
They probably can to some degree but in this case all Samsung had were a few drawings not a real product they could study under a microscope. So I don't see how your theory that Samsung Note Edge is just a copy of Apple's screen patent could be plausible.
Samsung is a screen manufacturer and designer, of course they thought of the notch idea before a lot of other phone OEM's. They first applied for the notch patent in 2015.
A One Plus rep confirmed that they were presented with road-maps from screen manufactures showing display's with a notch before we started seeing rumors about the iphone x.
What's really hilarious is that Samsung can make fun of the notch while they make money after it. The iphone x, OP6 and P20 Pro use Samsung OLED screens and they all have notches.
Last edited:
Hard to take such claims seriously though. Something like curved AMOLED Displays under curved glass isn't something Samsung saw in a patent then whipped up in 2 months. The lead time for such a development in all liklihood took several years. Samsung, and LG have been showcasing curved displays at a bunch of different trade shows for years before it was ready for phones.
For example: Samsung demoing it in 2013; with several prototypes of the displays themselves having been showcased for a few years before.
https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/9/3855638/samsung-shows-off-curved-oled-phone-prototype
if Anything, the Patents Apple filed were pre-emptive strikes against Samsung in order to try and prohibit Samsung from using their own technologies within the US market.
Yeah this is similar with the Notch patent Apple registered in South Korea at the end of 2017. They probably didn't know Samsung had already patented the notch.
it would likely cost nearly a Trillion dollars to purchase Samsung outright. Their current Assets alone are approximately 560 Billion in worth. Their owners Equity is also roughtly 250billion.
Apple might be big, and might have a lot of cash available. But they're not in the realm of buying someone like a Samsung.
The comments read like this involves "real" people arguing over money. That is funny. There are likely dozens, if not hundreds of people involved with the litigation. This isn't about the money ethically belonging in the pocket of either company as recompense for damages. It is about attorney's and judges, and a sham legal system extracting as much as they can from the perceived loss revolving around patent infringement by large corporations who are "patent trolls". This has nothing to do with "right" vs "wrong" or justice. It is about the money, a small sum in scope of these giants, and it isn't like there are "feelings" involved. It is a side issue in the scope of the intertwined business relations of two giant multinational corporations. You are welcome....
Last edited:
The difference between Samsung high end phones and iPhones is less about hardware and more about the system software and applications. Most iPhone users (and Mac users) are mainly attracted to iOS and MacOS. I think this is more the case now than it was a decade ago, when there was a much clearer hardware superiority of Apple products. Android and PC offerings are greatly improved the last several years, while Apple hardware has somewhat stagnated (especially the Macs). The case for hardware patent infringement was a lot stronger ten years ago than now.
That's the risk they took in ripping off the iPhone, and they knew that risk. They need to pay up.
[doublepost=1528811861][/doublepost]
Payment plus interest, it should be!