Samsung Executive Calls Apple vs. Samsung Ruling 'Worst Scenario for Us'

[Renzatic]

The problem is not with "obviousness", but with laziness. Samsung has gotten too used to freely copying others' designs to the point of blatant obviousness (remember the timing on S-cloud and S-voice, I am sure that was also coincidental /s) and now they are whining because they won't be able to rapid fire out clones and would instead have to put some effort in their designs. This is good for consumer. What's better, a few well designed, unique handsets or a whole bunch of crappy iPhone knockoffs? I'd say the former. You may disagree, but then again, that may be where we differ in opinion.

I was mostly aiming my argument towards people who claim the grid of icons as an innovation.

My opinions on the whole case in general are rather mixed. On one hand, I do think Samsung took a few liberties where they shouldn't have, and aped a little too much on Apple's design. Like many have said before, it's rather obvious. On the other, calling out these obvious similarities as blanket infringement on rather inane software patents is more likely to harm true innovation in the industry than it is to help protect it.

I rather like Apple products, and generally prefer their stuff over the competition. But I also believe Apple to be an overly litigious, insanely jealous bunch. I'm afraid now that they've been empowered by a victory in a jury trial, they're going to be taking even more companies to court over even more vaguely defined issues of copying and innovation.

 

[G51989]

Samsung chose to copy rather than licence what was clearly apple innovations. Pinch to zoom, scroll bounce all these things are apple ideas no one did them before them and others should pay for the right to use them. .

Translation: Samsung attempted to license, but apple set insane prices on everything.

It's not like samsung innovated their own methods or even tried to make something other than a dumb single point touchscreen.

My galaxy S3 says otherwise.

Without apple you would still be using a pretty crappy touchscreen or worse a qwerty.

Prove it.

With these technological advances making new input methods possible other manufacturers were just lazy.

Clearly you've never heard of the LG prada.

It's a shame that samsung will get an underdog reputation and probably sell more phones because of the ruling.

Apple is the one being a patent troll. Not Samsung.

It's sad but samsung is not the underdog in reality it's selling more phones than apple and is a real threat to well designed phones and innovation.

Well, my Galaxy S3 is better designed than an iPhone, so I'm not complaining.

Apple is still merely protecting their considerable effort to make exciting new hardware and software.

Well, if that were true, they should stop selling outdated phones for top dollar and bring out a new phone already!

I have a Samsung smart TV and it's real bad, nothing smart about it and i can only imagine the horror that is a samsung phone, my wifes google nexus is shockingly bad, she won't get another android now.

Well, my Galaxy S3 has a bigger and better screen than your iphone, it has faster hardware, better battery life, and a better OS. So, yeah, I can't imgaine going back to iOS, it has never been overhauled.

PS: For all the people that are gonna say ' you hate apple! ' I've probably spent well over 20,000 dollars in Macs in the past 12 years, and just because I like Macs, doesn't mean I have to love the iPhone, deal with it.

----------

If pinch and zoom does nothing Samsung simply shouldn't have implemented it. Think how many problem they would have avoided.

Ah ok! Then if Samsungs 3G tech doesn't do anything, then Apple shouldn't use it.

 

[jpmd]

Wrong lawsuit ?

Hi there

A lot of posts on specifics item attributed to Samsung... The real point is Androïd. What have been copied from Apple what Google Androïd had offered to different companies (like Samsung). The lawsuit should have been(or it will follow...) against Androïd.

 

[Taz Mangus]

There is no big deal here, it's just a news item for salivating Apple fans.

Yep. Just as you would have been salivating if Apple would have lost. I guess an Apple hater gots to hate.

Of course Samsung will appeal, and the saga will continue for months to come and might have a totally different outcome in the end.

Yep and good luck with that Samsung. In the meantime, it's Samsung device ban time next. The longer this drags out now the longer willfully infringed Samsung products stay off the shelfs unless Samsung managed to get a stay from the courts. Samsung had more then enough warning to stop this several years ago but then refused to listen. Even Google warned them. Imagine that Google warned them.

----------

Hi there

A lot of posts on specifics item attributed to Samsung... The real point is Androïd. What have been copied from Apple what Google Androïd had offered to different companies (like Samsung). The lawsuit should have been(or it will follow...) against Androïd.

One step at a time grasshopper.

----------

Oh and we so definitely savoring this moment.

Savoring is right: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/after-hours

 

[SeattleMoose]

A Note For Samsung

Nobody forced you to copy the look, feel, and form factor of the iPhone.

SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RULING, NEXT TIME TRY INNOVATION INSTEAD OF IMITATION!!!

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Obviously the ruling is going to be thrown out. I assume you all caught the quotes from the jurors which came soon after...oh boy.

It doesn't quite work that way. A selected few jurors for the OJ Simpson trial made some moronic quotes after the verdict, including some stupid misunderstanding of key evidence. That changed nothing.

 

[mex4eric]

0. Samsung violates the hell out of their customer's (Apple) patents to compete with said customer. Not a nice thing to do.

1. Apple creams Samsung in court.

2. Apple gets triple damages because Samsung was willfully violating patents.

3. Samsung stock plunges.

4. Apple picks up 51% ownership of Samsung for pocket change out of petty cash.

5. Samsung is now a manufacturing division of Apple.

6. Things settle down.

7. Nobody else tries this move.

Ahh! Then we could have Apple refrigerators as well as Apple TVs.

 

[G51989]

Ahh! Then we could have Apple refrigerators as well as Apple TVs.

Apple making applicable? No way! You cant make 65% profit margin on them and people keep them more than a year! Samsung also makes *******s ( No really they do )

iFlush....i devices can't multi task...so that could get messy....

 

[MattInOz]

Clearly stealing from Apple, Must be sued.

I think you need one of these ;-) so we know you being ironic.

 

[jamojamo]

0. Samsung violates the hell out of their customer's (Apple) patents to compete with said customer. Not a nice thing to do.

1. Apple creams Samsung in court.

2. Apple gets triple damages because Samsung was willfully violating patents.

3. Samsung stock plunges.

4. Apple picks up 51% ownership of Samsung for pocket change out of petty cash.

5. Samsung is now a manufacturing division of Apple.

6. Things settle down.

7. Nobody else tries this move.

Do a little research or just Google "Samsung earnings" and you'll see how silly you scenario is.

 

[Uncle David]

The Fandroids insist on ignoring one salient point. Samsung internal documents, presented in court, proved that Samsung intentionally copied aspects of the iPhone rather than innovate. Now, the same Fandroids are saying that Samsung couldn't license the technology because it was too expensive so they 'took' it anyway. Seriously?!?

Well, Samsung, I can't afford a new 60" HD television. I'm sure you won't mind if I stop by your warehouse and pick one up for free.

 

[Michael Scrip]

See, I'll give the iPhone props. It was at least 2-3 years ahead of it's time. Apple is very good at predicting what's to come, and capitalizing on it with great products.

Apple didn't "predict" what's to come... they introduced a new category of smartphone and everyone else followed.

I already showed you the phone Palm announced in January 2007. Do you think they secretly had the plans for the next-generation Palm Pre all along?

Absolutely not. Palm was too entrenched in Windows Mobile at the time. It was a dead platform with nowhere to go.

They had to basically scrap EVERYTHING they've worked on up until that point... and start fresh with WebOS and the Palm Pre and Pixi.

But all this was AFTER Apple shocked the world with the iPhone.

And considering that it took 2 years after the iPhone for Palm to make this great transformation... I think that proves they were caught flatfooted by the iPhone.

So no... the "what's to come" for Palm wasn't what you'd think it would have been. I bet Palm would have kept making the Treo for many years to come. Hell... Palm had a few models of the Centro coming out in 2007-2008... running the ancient PalmOS. That further proves that their "what's to come" looked a little bleak.

Same for RIM... the king of the QWERTY smartphone.

Do you think RIM planned on make the abortion that was the Blackberry Storm? That was absolutely a response to the iPhone. I don't know how you can think otherwise.

The Blackberry Storm was SO outside their comfort zone... why did RIM make it? Answer: iPhone.

In other words... the "what's to come" for those two companies wasn't heading into the same direction that Apple took.

So what about everyone else? Was Motorola planning on scrapping the MotoQ for something else? How about HTC? What was their exit strategy from Windows Mobile?

Maybe it was just bad timing. Maybe EVERY company had planned on making capacitive touchscreen phones... with pinch-to-zoom... rubberbanding inertial scrolling... and all that jazz.

I mean... that's the direction smartphones were headed, right?

Not bloody likely... I've seen NO indication that smartphones would have made a radical transformation without the iPhone.

So the notion that "Apple predicted this" and "it was gonna happen anyway" is absurd.

...but even then, they used available technologies to produce the iPhone. Apple didn't invent multitouch, high capacity batteries, LCD screens, or any of the other things that make the iPhone the iPhone. Even the UI is an extension of what's come before. Most of the work Apple did was combining these technologies into a device that worked well for the tech available at the time.

So Apple's current implementation of the touchscreen phone is theirs. But a grid of icons, or the idea of a capacitive touchscreen phone itself? No. It's anyone's to use. There was already proof that the industry was headed in that direction. Why should Apple have exclusivity on the concept of the modern smartphone just because they leapfrogged everyone by a couple of three years?

I agree... yet the patent office is who issued the patents.

And can we please stop saying this case was about a "grid of icons"? That's ridiculous.

As for pinch-to-zoom, rubberband effect and all the other little things Apple has patents on... I think Apple SHOULD defend those.

.

 

[plasticparadox]

Well, my Galaxy S3 is better designed than an iPhone, so I'm not complaining.

Prove it.

Well, my Galaxy S3 has a bigger and better screen than your iphone, it has faster hardware, better battery life, and a better OS. So, yeah, I can't imgaine going back to iOS, it has never been overhauled.

My Galaxy S3 has maybe half the battery life of my iPhone 4. Anecdotally speaking, if I leave the fully-charged S3 overnight without any apps running, the battery will have dropped about 20% or so by morning (7 or 8 hours later).

The hardware is technically faster and the extra RAM is there as well. But Android isn't as efficient with its resources as iOS is. Simply put, Android phones need better specs to maintain the same UI performance as its less well-specced iOS competitor.

I do notice that when I load up my home screen with widgets and icons, touchwiz gets pretty laggy, even on this powerful hardware.

G51989, I think it's fine to state your preference but I think saying that the S3 gets better battery life, for example, is untrue. Unless you use Juicedefender, you're not getting anywhere near the battery performance that iOS has. And Juicedefender has a lot of drawbacks, which makes it an unfair comparison with iOS.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

"Apple is likely to seek a tripling of the damage award based on rulings that Samsung's infringement was willful."

Ha! That is a pretty bold move on Apple's part, given that they were just awarded over a billion dollars. But Apple has always been a bold company. I don't see much chance of them succeeding in this motion, though, but then again Apple has a pretty damn good legal team.

In california, any ruling can be Tripled if the party willingly knew.

 

[G51989]

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.

So my Galaxy S3 is a cheap phone that breaks all the time? Right....

 

[Swift]

"Apple is likely to seek a tripling of the damage award based on rulings that Samsung's infringement was willful."

Ha! That is a pretty bold move on Apple's part, given that they were just awarded over a billion dollars. But Apple has always been a bold company. I don't see much chance of them succeeding in this motion, though, but then again Apple has a pretty damn good legal team.

I don't know about treble damages, but willful infringement is a serious matter, and the cash award will likely increase. And there's the possibility of injunctions, and since Apple voluntarily trimmed its list of patents for this case, they can now go after the rest of them.

I don't think you could honestly read accounts of the trial without thinking the Apple legal team was top-flight, and the Samsung team sounded like a bunch of fandroids going "yuck, Apple" on a blog comments section.

There's no doubt that the villain here is Google. No, seriously. Before the iPhone, they were writing an OS for a Blackberry-like ripoff. Hey, one business develops its value, from Blackberry and Apple to the book authors violated by Google Books to the broadcasters they wanted to end-around with Google TV -- and they were "shocked" to discover they were asked to pay and ask permission. Look, they make the best search engine out there. They sell a lot of ads, but I think their hardware model is non-existent; it's all over the place, actually. They buy Moto, just for the patents? No sign that they're running it better than that very disorganized company has ever done. Because having a hardware platform is in conflict with their other business model, making free software that manufacturers get for free, underselling Microsoft and Apple because they're not ad companies. There's the social network world, which Facebook is kind of creepy about, but Google is using it to change their search results, the one irreplaceable thing they do for us: search the Internet. Once the search algorithm knows the person, it might be able to guess what this or that person wants to find, but that would also sell him advertising. I think you don't monkey around with the search algorithm that way. The Google strategy seems to be an old market strategy which used to be against all kinds of trade rules: selling at below cost to eliminate competition. To be fair, Microsoft and Apple are demanding that Google put its costs in the product. There's a lot of engineering time they put into that, but they give it away free to Apple's competitors. Next big round: Apple v. Google.

 

[Mark Booth]

The "worst scenario" is exactly what cheaters and liars deserve!

BTW, as I stated in the other thread, I fully expect the judge to reduce the jury's award to $500 million or so, and THEN triple it. Apple is most definitely entitled to treble damages based on the jury's findings. The only way the judge can keep the award within the stratosphere is to reduce it first. I'd love to see Apple awarded $3.15 billion but I don't expect that to happen.

Mark

 

[Swift]

So my Galaxy S3 is a cheap phone that breaks all the time? Right....

Samsung is good at stuff. But they should have paid a license.

 

[bdkennedy1]

By licensing it like any other company would have to.

The fact pinch and zoom as well as a grid payout with rounded icons can be patented this is completely nuts.

Excuse me while I patent the rear view mirror and sue any car maker that dare use it.

I dont see how samsung is supposed to get around pinch and zoom, its an essential component to a touch screen.

 

[Swift]

Do a little research or just Google "Samsung earnings" and you'll see how silly you scenario is.

They are a giant manufacturing company with dozens of products. They make very good stuff. They should license their software. Copying is unfair competition.

 

[freedevil]

I don't know much about dresses but all I can say is that Apple just tore Samsung's panties!

 

[TomMcIn]

What does that have to do with anything? The fact a basic essential navigation tool can be patent is silly how does the iphone's popularity relate to ANYTHING I said?

If it is so obvious, why didn't Same Song and Google and Android get it developed and patented before Apple? They simply lacked the ability to get out of their nice, save money making haven of the time and innovate.

 

[SgtPepper12]

The Free Peoples of earth Support you Sammy dont give up the Fight!

I think Apple need a little Lulsec/ Anonymous Love

The Summer is over. Please go back to school.

 

[linux2mac]

Of course it's the worst scenario for them - they are no longer allowed to flagrantly copy Apple. Even if they manage to come up with their own designs, I still won't buy their garbage.

 

[ellsworth]

Aside from all the legal terms flying around in this thread... I always try to put myself in both party's shoes to see how I would feel:
I have a business and spend a lot of money developing a unique piece of technology. I patent my technology and begin to implement it into my electronic devices. If I see another company using my technology but covering it up within their devices, sure enough, I'm pointing fingers at that company and demanding damages. Seems like a simple scenario.