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's 'Infringe First and Stall as Long as Possible' Strategies Are Nothing New
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You CAN go all day, because these are alleged, not proven. And most are really a far cry from IP. This is just my opinion. The one exception (that you mention) that Apple did pay for is the clock. They did steal, and they did end up paying.... as they should have. I am not going to defend Apple when they steal, but neither am I going to defend Samsung because I like or bought one of their products.
So you are not OK with someone stealing from you or from a small company, but it's OK to steal from a big company? Why? This would seem to be a double standard.
So glad someone wrote about this, because there was so much BS about "patent wars" going on and how lame of a business tactic that was.
But what's lamer than breaking the law and knowing you'll still end up ahead?
I mean, what could possibly make the law any more useless?
Its like if I was a drug dealer and they slapped me on the wrists for unloading bricks of cocaine... I'd just keep doing it, because who gives a crap!
But what's lamer than breaking the law and knowing you'll still end up ahead?
I mean, what could possibly make the law any more useless?
Its like if I was a drug dealer and they slapped me on the wrists for unloading bricks of cocaine... I'd just keep doing it, because who gives a crap!
As a measure of being fair toward Samsung, can you or anyone else here please list some of the innovations they have developed? Remember, Samsung and not Google/ Android.
Are you sure you're not thinking of how Nokia asked Samsung for more than Apple had paid? (Remember the leaked documents?)
From what we know, Nokia didn't try to force a specific rate on Apple. Quite the contrary:
In 2009, after two years of failed negotiations with Apple, Nokia asked for a jury trial to determine what the royalty rates should be. You can't get any fairer than that.
Just before the trial began, Apple settled and paid Nokia a lump sum, along with royalties going forward, plus licensing some of their patents to Nokia.
Their new strategy is to take all rumors about Apple and quickly make a product and release it so they can say they had it first. (see Gear/watch and heart-rate sensor)
Now look who is making accusations without knowing a person. I must say that I know quite a bit about the products that I purchase. It's actually a point of pride for me that stay in the loop as much as possible to make sure that I'm not buying from unethical companies. I was quite critical of Apple when the whole Foxconn issue was happening, and I feel quite satisfied with the steps that they have taken to monitor and audit their manufacturing partners, as well as newer initiatives to provide environmental reports, build green facilities, and more.
You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with what this guy purchased. I agree that many people are unaware of where their products come from, and that is a shame. As I said, I try my best to research everything that I purchase, but I'm not perfect. My hope is that the broader population would take interest in researching what these companies are doing. My comment about ethics was based on the fact that he doesn't seem to care as long as the end product is greatconsequences be damnedand I believe that pretty well qualifies him as lacking in the ethics department. One of my biggest pet peeves are people who willfully choose to be ignorantespecially when so much information is available freely online and only takes mere seconds to search for.
As for my signature, I see that you're fairly new to this site. That's ok, and welcome. We discuss technology here, among a variety of other topics. But mainly technology and specifically Apple technology. In my signature I have listed a sampling of the technology that I use in my daily life as a web, app, and print designer and photographer. I use said technology to provide income for my family. In my field it is important to stay aware of new technology or risk becoming irrelevant. What would you have me place there instead? Stats about how much money I've donated to charity, or how many people I've personally helped over the course of my life? That is a rather weak argument that my signature on a tech forum dictates my priorities in life. Lots of people on here list their gear, especially back in the old days when the primary discussion was Macs (I lurked here going back to 2003-04 before finally creating an account because I had some inside information to share about the original iPhone launch). Having a signature that contains the technology that I use provides context when I'm writing about certain issues on the forum, especially since I sometimes forget to list in my response what I have as it is often important to certain discussions. And honestly I only stuck the Xbox on there so that people wouldn't think I'm a total fanboy. I do enjoy other technology and I'm a little bit of a gamer. But if I'm following the logic of your response, I should list off everything I've accomplished in life instead to prove my worth or something? On an Apple website? That would be odd and frankly rather self-centered. I try to live a somewhat private life (I'm not on FB, for instance), especially when it comes to listing life accomplishments or good works. The whole "For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." mindset, you know? I'll keep my signature for now, thank you. Again, this is a technology site and I make a decent living using said technology. I don't define myself with my MacRumors account information.
Finally on to your last point. I know these big companies are out there to make money and don't care about my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's capitalism. But when I see a company openly being unethical, I vote with my dollars and share my opinion on the matter with those who aren't educated on the matter. I'm well known by friends, family and coworkers as the guy they come to for tech advice when they are looking to purchase. I have my own small sphere of influence, and in turn those people have their own spheres of influence. I call it like I see it. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic that people will educate themselvesand not just on what companies are doing. I'm far more worried about what governments are doing to stifle freedom and other social issues. I spend a fraction of the time on here compared to the time I spend on other forums ranging from a variety of topicspolitics, privacy issues, net neutrality, family, and others related to my trade such as photography and design.
In closing, Samsung doesn't hold a candle to the human rights abuses that go on around the world, but this isn't the proper forum to discuss such matters. The only reason I'm even bothering with this response is that it amazes me that people see an entity being openly unethical and think it's somehow OK. I'm of the mindset that if you give these guys (governments, corporations, etc) an inch they'll take a yard. Or sometimes a mile! Best to put our foot down once we see the offense happen so that we can remain a free, peaceful and respectable society. This applies to all ethics violations. Nobody caring is how things get out of control.
This article seems like stating the blindingly obvious. However, it needed to be stated "out loud", so to speak.
With a little luck, the internet buzz over the Vanity Fair article might spur an investigation into Samsung and their bad faith lawsuits. They may well be marked as vexatious litigants (or something similar/equivalent; I'm not a legal expert), which could curb their activities.
With a little luck, the internet buzz over the Vanity Fair article might spur an investigation into Samsung and their bad faith lawsuits. They may well be marked as vexatious litigants (or something similar/equivalent; I'm not a legal expert), which could curb their activities.
LOL, that made me laugh!
You are delusional or just straight out lying as No Korean ever claimed those things are from Korea.
I find it astonishing that neither of these phones have any name on them and the one mentioned F 700, was released moths after iPhone. But "yeah, we have been working on it behind the scene's" blah blah blah typical Samsung BS. Concept's!! lol
Attachments
Still trying to grasp what has to do the SoC being an Exynos with not having Kitkat for now
----------
Perhaps you do't know that the Dyson case was dropped because that design was not new and not from Dyson. So, both of them are "copycats" copying an older design
After looking some comments and articles I still have the same question, people like the ones commenting there or in AI are for real? Do exist such disconnecting from reality or they are just acting?
The AI forums are absolutely insane bc they're like a gathering for people politically to the right of Louis XIV. Nearly every thread gets hijacked into a right-of-Tea Party circle jerk.
Big.Little is from ARM. The concept itself isn't new; I'm pretty sure it predates even ARM as a company, much less Samsung Electronics and nVidia.
The Exynos implementation of it isn't pathetic nor is it exciting. It's just a basic A15/A7 implementation using stock ARM cores. The reason why nobody cares about the Exynos Galaxy S5 is because Snapdragon is better than A15/A7 in general.
And while it was argued that Samsung's a talentless ARM SoC vendor is pretty much entirely true, it has nothing to do with Big.Little. It has to do with the entire Exynos series all being paint-by-numbers SoC designs licensed from ARM.
Those who do have talent, use a completely different ARM license and design their own cores.
M7 is nothing like Big.Little, btw. That's just a coprocessor. Also another idea that's ancient.
I've already posted the evidence that Apple were caught manipulating. You've already shown that you didn't follow the trials at all because Samsung very quickly showed that their phones and tablet were indeed a completely different aspect ratio and size than the comparisons presented, and showed the actual comparison.
The judge demanded Apple explain what happened, Apple withdrew the evidence and resubmitted an unaltered comparison, they claimed an intern prepared the comparison photos, and that they had no idea that it had happened.
----------
I thought the "Big Little" approach was first done by Nvidia with their Tegra 4's 5th "companion core"?
If anyone read the article, probably my favorite part was when the company nicknamed "NYer" was going to expose Samsung's LCD price fixing. It turned out "NYer" was Apple.
Also, look at Pioneer and their TV business. They sued Samsung because they infringed on Pioneer's patents. They ended up settling because Pioneer was (unfortuently) going broke. By the end of it all, Samsung had some 30% of the TV market and Pioneer had slipped and stopped making TVs a year later.
Also, look at Pioneer and their TV business. They sued Samsung because they infringed on Pioneer's patents. They ended up settling because Pioneer was (unfortuently) going broke. By the end of it all, Samsung had some 30% of the TV market and Pioneer had slipped and stopped making TVs a year later.
Big.Little is simply ARM's marketing term for asymmetric multiprocessing done specifically for power saving as opposed to something else like cost savings.
Asymmetric multiprocessing is simply the idea that a computer could be multiprocessor, but using processors which are not entirely identical. This dates back to mainframes where cost of adding extra CPUs made it not practical to have them all be identical.
Heck, I recall reading a fun review where somebody took two different AMD chips (Athlon-era?) and tried to see if they could work on a dual socket board.
With regards to ARM, you're right that Tegra's companion core was probably the earliest. I think it's Tegra 3, not Tegra 4 though.
I do, they have develop the art of copying and getting away with it in such way that no one has done it before, without any regret or remorse, like a bratty child who things he can do what he wants because he deserves it.
And he doesn't understand this fact: "Nothing lasts forever".
I remember the first Samsung product I ever met was a 13" CRT Color TV, and it was a piece of crap that sold cheap and got returned very often due to defects.
Does that include Apple products that contain Samsung components?
I think he said Samsung products and not Apple products that have one or 2 components designed by Apple and manufactured by Samsung. But then you already know that.
The whole site is terrible and bigoted comments go unchecked. Hope this site never gets that bad.
----------
They are truly the bottom of the barrel for Apple related websites. There are truly disturbed people posting there , including some of the moderators.