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 Executive Calls Apple vs. Samsung Ruling 'Worst Scenario for Us'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. If it was such an essential and obvious feature. Samsung had a huge head start in the phone industry. Why did they not such things years before the iPhone. I think people who think Apple is wrong need to think about how they would feel if their competitors were using their great ideas.
Yeah, and Lodsys bought the in app purchase patent, so Apple, Google, and all those developers should pay up, right?
And Apple invented it. No one before had found a way to bring that concept to the mass market, if they even had that concept (like Jeff Han). It's one of the technologies that made the iPhone so useable and so intuitive. Why shouldn't Apple want to protect something that helped make their product a success? And why couldn't Samsung find a different way to implement a zoom on a smartphone? What if there was a roller below the screen? What if you tapped on the screen and that brought up a slider? Perhaps those aren't as elegant as Apple's solution, but there are other methods; Samsung took the easy way out.
Welcome to the new uninformed message board troll - bury your head in the sand and cry about the patent system.
I agree regarding pinch zoom, but have another thought regarding grid layout and rounded icon corners. I could be wrong, but I thought the main argument against that was more like a trademark infringement: that samsung's products, including the grid, icons, and other features, looked too much like apple's products and were confusing customers.
Steve Jobs: "Picasso had a saying - `good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Maybe those companies Apple stole from will now sue Apple for billions.
Anyway, there could be a global settlement between Samsung and Apple. After all, that South Korean court declared that Apple had infringed Samsung patents the other day, and Apple won't be able to sell various iPhones and iPads there anymore.
Maybe those companies Apple stole from will now sue Apple for billions.
Anyway, there could be a global settlement between Samsung and Apple. After all, that South Korean court declared that Apple had infringed Samsung patents the other day, and Apple won't be able to sell various iPhones and iPads there anymore.
Apple didn't just buy the patent, they bought the company that continues to develop it. Lodsys is not a good example, they have nothing on the market that anyone would copy.
All this means is the CEO thought he could get away with it but didn't.
Now he is going to be forced to do a real actual deal with Apple instead of copying them so blatantly.
Now he is going to be forced to do a real actual deal with Apple instead of copying them so blatantly.
Why do people think pinch to zoom is the quintessential zooming method?
If everyone simply copies that method, what incentive is there for someone to innovate an even better method? Something that doesn't seem obvious now, but in retrospect it'll be silly why no one thought of it.
If everyone simply copies that method, what incentive is there for someone to innovate an even better method? Something that doesn't seem obvious now, but in retrospect it'll be silly why no one thought of it.
I own a Lumia 900, and yes it's outdated already. However, in about 3 weeks, all of the Android hardware will be "outdated". I really do wonder though, why do Fandroids even read this site?
----------
If it truly is essential, then maybe Apple should be approached to make it licensable? Samsung, in their arrogance, felt that they could copy it freely.
Like cheap Android phones that break all the time are a good thing? I don't understand how requiring innovation is a bad thing. I think you are confusing "worthless piece of junk I got for free" with "good for the consumer". I'd like to get what I pay for.
They probably wouldn't. My best case scenario for all this is everyone loses their case, and they go on doing what they do sans constant litigation.
The whole "I have to protect my IP otherwise what's the point of innovating" spiel is complete and total BS. Apple continued making great OSes long after the lost their case to MS, right? Did they stop innovating then? Did they just pack up, and close shop? Apple still has the single best selling phone, and practically owns the tablet market despite all the "copycat" products being sold. Are they being hurt now?
It's kinda hard to fall for their oh woe is me line while they're currently the most valuable and profitable company in the world, despite the competition.
Apple and samsung both lost that battle in Korea.
"The judgment stopped South Korean sales of Samsung's Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Galaxy Nexus smartphones and Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets. "
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Think how terrible music would be if it were governed by the world of software patents. I took a year-long course on music history dating back to the earliest known human-made music, and everything to this day is a product of evolutions in music. There were sudden changes in the 20th century, but they only seemed sudden to us because they were adopted from Eastern music and hadn't been heard in Western culture before.
Everyone knows it's a possibility that there could be something completely different than prior art that would be amazing. For example, maybe there's a mode of transportation no one has thought of before that would be amazing. In 2001, the Segway was one such product. But as it's turned out, the market prefers cars and various forms of public transit for the most part. I concede that Apple did something really different in the end product of the iPhone it created in 2007. I remember thinking after the keynote, "Wow that was even better than I was expecting."
But it's also possible Apple created a new category (which I think they themselves have claimed) that is the market thinks is the best way of going about things, whether it's with Apple or not. I am not familiar with patent law, but when you look at cars, they are remarkably similar. When you look at jets from AirBus and Boeing, they are remarkably similar. Many people if you asked them upon landing couldn't tell you if they had been on a Boeing or AirBus plane.
It would be a lot to ask, but perhaps Apple could be happy with having creating a new product category rather than keeping others out of it. In the past when Apple was copied by other companies for their computers, Apple would say the other company just didn't get it and couldn't copy Apple since Apple was not about looking flashy, colorful, etc. It was about integration of hardware and software. And that's still true today. I think the difference in this case is that Apple has had a big share of the market and so they are manic in wanting to keep that and they see other companies as copying them well, rather than poorly when it came to WinTel boxes. With the Mac marketshare, Apple had a sense of resignation already about marketshare to an extent. It's more comfortable to grow from 2-3% upward than it is to arrive to whatever massive marketshare Apple has had with the iPhone and try to keep it. That is a trickier position to be in and would cause stress. It would cause people to say things like "thermonuclear" whereas the Mac situation would cause someone to say "For Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose." I actually wish iPhones were the Macs of the 90s and early 00s. Apple might innovate more with iTunes and iOS if they weren't so afraid of losing what they've amassed. Instead they're becoming like AOL of the 90s and trying to win on inertia.
Everyone knows it's a possibility that there could be something completely different than prior art that would be amazing. For example, maybe there's a mode of transportation no one has thought of before that would be amazing. In 2001, the Segway was one such product. But as it's turned out, the market prefers cars and various forms of public transit for the most part. I concede that Apple did something really different in the end product of the iPhone it created in 2007. I remember thinking after the keynote, "Wow that was even better than I was expecting."
But it's also possible Apple created a new category (which I think they themselves have claimed) that is the market thinks is the best way of going about things, whether it's with Apple or not. I am not familiar with patent law, but when you look at cars, they are remarkably similar. When you look at jets from AirBus and Boeing, they are remarkably similar. Many people if you asked them upon landing couldn't tell you if they had been on a Boeing or AirBus plane.
It would be a lot to ask, but perhaps Apple could be happy with having creating a new product category rather than keeping others out of it. In the past when Apple was copied by other companies for their computers, Apple would say the other company just didn't get it and couldn't copy Apple since Apple was not about looking flashy, colorful, etc. It was about integration of hardware and software. And that's still true today. I think the difference in this case is that Apple has had a big share of the market and so they are manic in wanting to keep that and they see other companies as copying them well, rather than poorly when it came to WinTel boxes. With the Mac marketshare, Apple had a sense of resignation already about marketshare to an extent. It's more comfortable to grow from 2-3% upward than it is to arrive to whatever massive marketshare Apple has had with the iPhone and try to keep it. That is a trickier position to be in and would cause stress. It would cause people to say things like "thermonuclear" whereas the Mac situation would cause someone to say "For Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose." I actually wish iPhones were the Macs of the 90s and early 00s. Apple might innovate more with iTunes and iOS if they weren't so afraid of losing what they've amassed. Instead they're becoming like AOL of the 90s and trying to win on inertia.
Considering Apple's position in the PC OS market and their near bankruptcy, you're defeating your own argument with this example. There is no "oh woe is me" line here, it's about what is right, and Samsung is a dirty player in the industry.
Bad for Samsung, worse for Android
While this verdict was the worst possible outcome for Samsung, they can pick up the pieces rather quickly and switch to Windows 8 where there aren't these patent issues.
This of course spells bad news for Android and Google. If Apple's mounting case against HTC goes ahead -- or if HTC isn't spooked by the Samsung case -- then you all of a sudden see a run for the hills by Android OEMs and a huge loss of marketshare from Android.
While Apple has vindicated itself, I think that in the end, Microsoft and Windows 8 are going to be the big winners.
While this verdict was the worst possible outcome for Samsung, they can pick up the pieces rather quickly and switch to Windows 8 where there aren't these patent issues.
This of course spells bad news for Android and Google. If Apple's mounting case against HTC goes ahead -- or if HTC isn't spooked by the Samsung case -- then you all of a sudden see a run for the hills by Android OEMs and a huge loss of marketshare from Android.
While Apple has vindicated itself, I think that in the end, Microsoft and Windows 8 are going to be the big winners.
Why ? Apple introduced it and patented it.
People don't realize the iPhone started this whole smartphone craze. Without Apple i'd hate to see what smartphones looked like.
enter crappy pics of outdated useless comments.