Sidebar Sidebar
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

pedromcm.pm said:
And what does that have to do with the fact that it is a corrupt corporation that makes companies like Lockheed Martin envy?
Click to expand...

I dunno. What does any of this have to do with BENGHAZI?

All I was doing was replying to your "good enough" quip. I never said I liked the company or not (I do, because they give me food for saying good stuff about them around here, and you should buy a Galaxy S5). I was simply pointing out that they are, in fact, quite a bit better than merely decent when it comes to manufacturing.
 
pedromcm.pm said:
What are you talking about? Samsung is great at good enough manufacturing for dirty cheap, but they have no talent at all for design SoC.

But what does that have to do with the fact that it is perhaps the most corrupt corporation on the planet? We are talking about their responsability on deaths, illegal behavior, stealing money, their CEO needing multiple presidential forgiveness, etc.

What is your goal? Troll? Pathetic...
Click to expand...

The most corrupt corporation? hahahaha what a ridiculous comment. I think you'll find banks are FAR FAR FAR more corrupt than Samsung are. You've read one article in select snippets on an Apple forum and instantly made your mind up Samsung is the most corrupt corporation on the planet. Yet Apple is more than happy to have it's components supplied by them

As for deaths, go and read my previous post about Foconn and deaths and Apples investigation into it, its there with links to prove it.

And if you want to talk president, how about when Apple went to Obama to get let off the hook from having it's products banned under a ruling by the US ITC for patent infringment?

http://news.sky.com/story/1124254/apple-ban-overturned-by-obama-administration

Everything you accuse Samsung off, Apple or others have done also, don't try to pretend anything that you accuse Samsung of as being new because it is not.

Oh, and if you continue to use the wording 'troll' and 'pathetic' then I SERIOUSLY suggest you go and read this sites rules!
 
Last edited:
lilo777 said:
There are plenty of examples of other companies doing the same things. Take Apple for example. They infringed a heap of Nokia patents, dragged the litigation then settled. In the mean time Nokia went down. Apple dragged and settled other law suites too. Very few companies settle on the first day they get sued :p

On the other hand, if one were to take the Vanity Fair article seriously then the conclusion would be that Apple is in deep trouble. Sharp, Pioneer... now Apple.
Click to expand...

Not really. The conclusion here is that Samsung messed with the wrong company, this time.

It will hit them hard, this time . Samsung electronics makes less money than Apple and is already experience YoY decline in profits.

Losing Apple as a costumer, plus the bad reputation will only make things worse. This is just the beginning.

Other companies must be desperate to leave Samsung manufacturing, because they know what might happen.

Samsung Mobile is a pathetic, disgusting, talentless part of the company. And the company as an whole, starting from the top, is known to be corrupt.
 
Trapezoid said:
I think that was their goal all along. I don't know that they ever intended to bring Moto back from the brink. It was all about procuring IP.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to make Google out to be a genius for the Motorola deal, I'm afraid I disagree. If Google was really after just the patents, why not buy just the patents?

apolloa said:
As a large customer it is Apples responsibility to help ensure the safety of the people making its products:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...-scrutinized-after-foxconn-pegatron-reviewed/

Because YOU and Apple pay for those workers killing themselves. You all seem to have forgotten how Apple has investigated these suppliers themselves also, rather convenient for your arguments I must say:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8287fed0-68cd-11df-96f1-00144feab49a.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-shop-factories-following-suicide-threat.html

Wow, look at that, people have now said I should be ashamed of myself, broken the sites rules by calling me a troll (go and read the rules!), and yet here I am posting factual news story link after link proving and backing up everything I say. You lot should try Google sometime.
Click to expand...

Apple is one of dozens of Foxconn customers who are just as responsible as Apple for the labor conditions that go on there. It's just that pinning it all on Apple sells far better than pinning it on HTC.

And did you know that Samsung was said to have pressured a newspaper to not publish information about a film that describes how a worker at a Samsung factory died of exposure.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/20/5...wspaper-to-kill-article-about-another-promise

Say what you want about Samsung products. You're entitled to your opinion. But to claim that Samsung as a company is any better than Apple is utterly asinine.

kas23 said:
I'm fine with widespread patent infringement between large corporations. It's how progress is made and only leads to more innovation in order to get ahead. If it wasn't for Android, we'd still be without MMS (a "dying" technology, remember that argument 5 years ago?) or copy/paste. In the end, the consumer is the one who benefits.
Click to expand...

Imagine that you invest resources into developing something only to have others copy it with impunity. Would you have an incentive to invest those resources again into developing something else? I don't think I would.

In fact, patent infringement hurts innovation. Say Company A has a patent on a particular technology and refused to license it to Company B. Company B can innovate around that technology and may very well end up making Company A's patent worthless because the workaround that Company B came up with turns out to be that impressive. In the process, a new innovation has come to the marketplace. If Company B simply uses Company A's patented technology, there is less potential to bring something substantially different to the table.
 
MrX8503 said:
That's the whole point of big little. The cores were so inefficient they had to stick smaller cores onto it. A messy design.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? From what I've read about it, Big Little is a brilliant design. Why have your big cores processing tasks that don't require much overhead, when you can have a lower clocked, lower voltage core handing all the menial work instead?
 
So the recent amount of $120 million, is that separate from the $800 million or whatever awarded to Apple previously or was the $800 million reduced to $120?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

"It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done, and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying, he said 'good artists copy, great artists steal', and we have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas".

Steve Jobs - Hypocrite, 1996 interview.
 
vvswarup said:
Apple is one of dozens of Foxconn customers who are just as responsible as Apple for the labor conditions that go on there. It's just that pinning it all on Apple sells far better than pinning it on HTC.

And did you know that Samsung was said to have pressured a newspaper to not publish information about a film that describes how a worker at a Samsung factory died of exposure.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/20/5...wspaper-to-kill-article-about-another-promise

Say what you want about Samsung products. You're entitled to your opinion. But to claim that Samsung as a company is any better than Apple is utterly asinine.
Click to expand...

You sir have missed my whole point, my aim is to project EXACTLY that, that Apple is in NO way better than Samsung just as much as Samsung is in NO way better than Apple.

It is a fact lost on many on here, who ignore what Apple has done, and focus on one company as though it's trendy. I see some posters on here now who I remember used to defend Apple just as much, now try to balance the argument by posting the facts of how Apple is just as bad.
 
Renzatic said:
What are you talking about? From what I've read about it, Big Little is a brilliant design. Why have your big cores processing tasks that don't require much overhead, when you can have a lower clocked, lower voltage core handing all the menial work instead?
Click to expand...

Of course. But Samsung's implementation is pathetic to the point that no one even loses time reviewing the exynos version of the S5.
 
JesperA said:
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....
Click to expand...

Apple did falsify evidence, they deliberately altered the size AND aspect ratio of the phone they claimed copied theirs. They altered the phone to look more similar, and then cried "It looks similar to ours!"

If truly the size and aspect ratio "didn't matter", why did Apple alter them? Why not simply show the comparison how it really was? Apple made a conscious effort to manipulate the evidence in their favour.
 
Korean has a long history of stealing others and pretend to its own. Not just patterns but historic figures, festivale, locations, orgin of certain things. Here's a few:

Confucius was from Korea.
DuanWu festivale is from Korea.
FengShui is from Korea.
Panda is orginally from Korea.
 
pedromcm.pm said:
Of course. But Samsung's implementation is pathetic to the point that no one even loses time reviewing the exynos version of the S5.
Click to expand...

I can't say anything pro or con about the Exynos, since I've never played with one, nor do I know that much about it.

But from what I know, they weren't the first to implement the Big Little design. I think Nvidia did it first with the Tegras. And there at least, it works quite well.
 
Oh boy, does that iPhone look an awful lot like the Galaxy.... or is it the other way around............................. That is all.
 
Renzatic said:
Yeah, and nevermind the fact Apple did about the same thing with the M7. It's a more specialized chip, but the idea behind it is the same.
Click to expand...

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Samsung used the same idea but on a pathetic way, resulting on an inefficient, unsupported chip and plataform that is totally irrelevant as of today.

The Qualcomm version of the s3 will get kitkat. Exynos Octa version? No. How pathetic is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back