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
love how we all forgetting that Apple was also found guilty in the same trial
Can we please stop calling the parties guilty? It's a civil trial. Parties are found liable. Guilt is a criminal determination.
You should provide a little history about MacDailyNews. During the very, very dark times at Apple when just about every news media, bloggers, sites were ready to call it quits on Apple, MacDailyNews was one of the rare sights that believed in Apple and aggregated articles on the web that offered a glimmer of hope for Apple users. They also were very active in helping bringing about disingenuous articles on the web for Mac users to debunk and provide factual information or at least another side of the story via comments and direct message to the authors.
Apple has been moving away from Samsung components for some time. This has been hard to do since Samsung is admittedly ahead in some hardware areas compared to competing companies but eventually those companies will catch up, Apple will use Samsung's competitors' components at increasing frequencies, and Samsung will be left with a ever decreasing smartphone component business. And given the recent data showing extremely poor sales of the S5, it doesn't look like it will be able to find a home for them in future Galaxy phones...
Have you guys read the full Vanity Fair article?
It really is incredible how low Samsung will go. For example:
and
Read the whole article. That Kurt Eichenwald investigative report is easily the most comprehensive overview of the Apple-Samsung feud that has ever been written. It's really fascinating.
It really is incredible how low Samsung will go. For example:
and
Read the whole article. That Kurt Eichenwald investigative report is easily the most comprehensive overview of the Apple-Samsung feud that has ever been written. It's really fascinating.
Samsung does this as part of their business practice because it makes them billions of dollars.
While the practice may be unseemly, I'm sure that the first billion takes care of any feelings of remorse. The next few billion makes everyone feel better too. After a while, you don't even notice.
While the practice may be unseemly, I'm sure that the first billion takes care of any feelings of remorse. The next few billion makes everyone feel better too. After a while, you don't even notice.
Why not actually read the article? This is from Vanity Fair and the author is Kurt Eichenwald, hardly some hack keyboard jockey. I have read his Conspiracy of Fools and it was a superb read.
Companies will copy if they believe it would be cheaper to fight a legal battle versus licensing the technology from the IP holder. It is a business strategy. That being said some companies are more egregious than others. In this particular case the jury decided that Samsung engaged in this type of behavior more so than Apple and thus they penalized Samsung accordingly.
I did read it and look at the title Vanity Fair used then look at the title in here.
Then why would Apple feel the need to present falsified evidence to the Judges? Why would they feel the need to manipulate the rival products to make them appear more like the iPhone/iPad? Why did they need to choose the app drawer? A place that you have to manually go to to look at all your apps? Why are they comparing separate parts of Android and iOS, trying to give off the impression that it's the homescreen on both? Why did they completely change the aspect ratio? Why did they decrease the screen size?
If Apple felt their case was justified, why did they need to falsify the evidence to that extent, to present it to non-tech savvy judges on the grounds of "their products look like ours!"
I'm confused. What phone is the iPhone and what phone is the Galaxy S?
It's understandable, the Galaxy S is a different size in reality, and thats not the Android homesceen.
How about this Foreword to the article: I quote: "Kurt Eichenwald explores the Korean companys record of patent infringement, among other ruthless business tactics ...". The Macrumors title seems relatively benign.
Good artists copy but great artists steal -- Steve Jobs who quoted Pablo Picasso.
Take back that useless ignorant remark, just because Samsung does, does not mean all Koreans do.
Let's take your logic and say all Americans are fraudsters, look at what Enron did in 2001.
----------
Who did Samsung copy to make the Galaxy Note series?
I agree, the title of the article here has been worded carefully as not to rub anyone the wrong way. The quoted article though tells it as it is. " ruthless business tactics" is the 100% truth. And needs to be said.
Samsung litigate. That's where their expertise. They don't understand the word innovate.
Yap, I'm looking and even the comments are more insane than the ones on the AI forum
$1.1 billion (and counting) isn't really all that much for either Apple or Samsung.
But what about companies like HTC that are already losing money in mobile?
For them, even a $120 million penalty would be disastrous.
So yes, Samsung is consolidating their control over the Android handset market.
And Google doesn't like it one bit. Especially with that horrendous TouchWiz UI bloatlayer.
Hence Google's "Android Silver" initiative. It's like Nexus for everyone else.
Everyone but Samsung, that is.
So yeah, maybe the next courtroom war will be Samsung vs. Google.
Now *that* would be fun.
Apple did not falsify any evidence, do you honestly think that the judges only looked at photos that Apple provided for them? They obviously had the physical units to play around with and they had advisors (probably tech savvy ones).
And the app drawer example is laughable (and the other examples to), are you suggesting that the people that sue a company for infringement should present evidence of the infringing product where the product IS NOT infringing on the patent? So if someone had a patent for a wheel, and sued a company, they should present the judges with images on cd-player instead?
Also, scale had nothing to do with the infringement so why are you so extremely fixated with that? Then we should only use true scales all over the internet, but then i dread the day i need to put a mobile phone infront of milky way in an ad, 1px phone, a couple of billion pixel milky way.......
I hope none ever sues someone over a LED patent, imaging a giving the judges a picture of a 5mm LED and then have to print a same scale version of the TV at EverBank field, they better have a huge courtroom if your insistence on true representative scale law must apply....
Speaking of 'Infringe First and Stall as Long as Possible'
How much has Apple paid Motorola for using their essential patents for the past seven years, while stalling license deals via court cases? Zero?
Why did Apple have to be sued by Nokia for using their patents?
People forget that Apple used the iPhone name before getting permission from its rightful owner.
Apple also tried to grab a trademark on the word "multi-touch". Fortunately, Jeff Han shot down that attempt.
Instead of competing on a level playing field, Apple often buys up companies or licenses for products that others had used and shared for years (e.g. AuthenTec sensors, LiquidMetal) before Apple got interested. It's like a rich kid buying the neighborhood ballfield and sitting on it.
Obviously they did it to bias any viewer. Here's an actual comparison of size and homescreens:
One could ask the same thing about the trials here in the US.
If Apple truly felt their case was justified, then why did they fight so hard to keep evidence of prior art away from the Koh jury, such as the Korean designed Pidion. (Ironically, one reporter back in 2005 predicted that if Apple were ever going to make a touch device, it would look like this.)
Why did they keep Samsung's pre-iPhone R&D suppressed from being shown:
And not allow the jury to know about Samsung's prototypes, even as they showed off their own?
The reason is obvious: Apple knows that they cannot prevail in a fair court fight.
When this evidence was shown in trials in the EU, Apple lost. When US Appellate Court judges looked at the evidence, they commented that an injunction against Samsung was not possible on the grounds of design infringement.
How much has Apple paid Motorola for using their essential patents for the past seven years, while stalling license deals via court cases? Zero?
Why did Apple have to be sued by Nokia for using their patents?
People forget that Apple used the iPhone name before getting permission from its rightful owner.
Apple also tried to grab a trademark on the word "multi-touch". Fortunately, Jeff Han shot down that attempt.
Instead of competing on a level playing field, Apple often buys up companies or licenses for products that others had used and shared for years (e.g. AuthenTec sensors, LiquidMetal) before Apple got interested. It's like a rich kid buying the neighborhood ballfield and sitting on it.
Obviously they did it to bias any viewer. Here's an actual comparison of size and homescreens:
One could ask the same thing about the trials here in the US.
If Apple truly felt their case was justified, then why did they fight so hard to keep evidence of prior art away from the Koh jury, such as the Korean designed Pidion. (Ironically, one reporter back in 2005 predicted that if Apple were ever going to make a touch device, it would look like this.)
Why did they keep Samsung's pre-iPhone R&D suppressed from being shown:
And not allow the jury to know about Samsung's prototypes, even as they showed off their own?
The reason is obvious: Apple knows that they cannot prevail in a fair court fight.
When this evidence was shown in trials in the EU, Apple lost. When US Appellate Court judges looked at the evidence, they commented that an injunction against Samsung was not possible on the grounds of design infringement.
Last edited:
How does that saying go? Karma is a female dog. Something like that.
Watch your back Samsung. Good always triumphs over evil. Your entire business model is predicated on stealing from others. That is evil. Rot in hell.
What I don't really understand are the U.S. citizens in here who support a foreign company which is stealing a U.S. company's intellectual property and profiting from it illegally and willfully. That's sick. You should be ashamed. I'm not saying you have to buy an iPhone but I am saying you shouldn't buy a Samsung phone. To the rest of the world: I just hope you follow your conscience. Innovation and products will improve globally if you do not support these disgusting leeches.
Watch your back Samsung. Good always triumphs over evil. Your entire business model is predicated on stealing from others. That is evil. Rot in hell.
What I don't really understand are the U.S. citizens in here who support a foreign company which is stealing a U.S. company's intellectual property and profiting from it illegally and willfully. That's sick. You should be ashamed. I'm not saying you have to buy an iPhone but I am saying you shouldn't buy a Samsung phone. To the rest of the world: I just hope you follow your conscience. Innovation and products will improve globally if you do not support these disgusting leeches.
When all else fails, vote with your wallet. Samsung isn't allowed in my house anymore, regardless of what the product is. That's one less person giving them money, anyway.