Have you even read the Vanity Fair piece? The MacRumors title is a fair representation of the original article. MacRumors lived up to its obligation to report fairly 100%.
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
Have you even read the Vanity Fair piece? The MacRumors title is a fair representation of the original article. MacRumors lived up to its obligation to report fairly 100%.
Bit dramatic aren't we? All cooperations at some point have to sell their soul. If you are worried about integrity then make you own mobile phone and os. I can assue every big tech company has done some shady stuff before.
Samsung had every opportunity to provide evidence that the picture was misleading. Do you think Samsung's lawyers were incompetent boobs? Perhaps you should offer your services to Samsung then.
But that's different. Samsung is good when it makes superior components used in Apple products.
Interesting position, but unless you can provide me with something specific to back up your claim, it seems your post may be lacking in objectivity.
What a horrible company Samsung is. Thankfully I have no Samsung products in my possession and will make sure it never happens.
----------
To be fair, you should list examples after accusing.
----------
To be fair, you should list examples after accusing.
They are cheaters in general
Samsung, the story makes very clear, at least participated, and maybe led, the price-fixing in CRTs and LCDs, as well as RAM. That means they illegally conspired to hold prices high. Competition without competition.
And the knockout story was later in, when South Korea was investigating illegal practices. The police pull up at the gate and they wait there for an hour or so. Sure the company has held them up for a reason, they subpoena the security cameras to see what happened inside. Their jaws drop when they see files being shredded, new computers being installed to replace the ones they were using. They get a fine for obstruction of justice. A person doing that can do a lot of time.
That really seems to be their business model, the ripoff industries of the old Asia. "MADE IN JAPAN" used to mean it was junk. No more. "MADE IN KOREA BY SAMSUNG" means this is what they do.
Samsung, the story makes very clear, at least participated, and maybe led, the price-fixing in CRTs and LCDs, as well as RAM. That means they illegally conspired to hold prices high. Competition without competition.
And the knockout story was later in, when South Korea was investigating illegal practices. The police pull up at the gate and they wait there for an hour or so. Sure the company has held them up for a reason, they subpoena the security cameras to see what happened inside. Their jaws drop when they see files being shredded, new computers being installed to replace the ones they were using. They get a fine for obstruction of justice. A person doing that can do a lot of time.
That really seems to be their business model, the ripoff industries of the old Asia. "MADE IN JAPAN" used to mean it was junk. No more. "MADE IN KOREA BY SAMSUNG" means this is what they do.
Falsifying evidence is a felony in the USA. If Apple was falsifying evidence as you claim, then all Samsung had to do was demonstrate to the jury that Apple was lying. That would have damaged Apple's case severely. And if it was truly "falsifying evidence" as you say, Apple attorneys would likely have been severely reprimanded in front of the jury or possibly even disbarred. So either you are a lot smarter than Samsung's lawyers, or you have it wrong.
"Jailbreak communities" defiantly hate patents, I thought. If so, they don't have patents. So Apple is not ripping you off. The main way they find the jailbreakers useful is that they work as unpaid security exploit finders. And then they patch it.
I will never buy another SamSung end item product again (TV, Monitor, electronics, etc.). I realize that companies like Apple still use components from SamSung so I cannot stop ALL my money from going to SamSung, but I will avoid them whenever possible.
If you stop buying Apple products, you could cut it down even more. And that would send Apple a message too.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If Mr. Eichewald was assigned to write the article the other way- to frame it so that Apple was the bad guy- I'm sure he would have done an equally great job writing an impressive article that accomplished exactly that. That's the bias in it. Objective reporting doesn't take an end result target and seek out all of the support it can make for it. It just tells the story as "fair & balanced" as it can. This is just a pile of facts that supports the idea of Samsung as innovation thief.
And I personally don't care what it shows. I'm in the camp that Samsung built upon Apple's innovations. I even think they were wrong for doing some of what they did. I can consider them idea thief just like anyone in this thread that wants to say so. I'm just not blind to the rest- such as the very same court finding fault with Apple for doing the same with one of Samsung's patents. How many times are "we" referencing that? How about Mr Eichewald?
Here's another Apple-related Article by Vanity Fair: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/02/apple-maybe-we-should-be-afraid Let me guess, that author is a loon… an idiot… an abomination of journalism unlike Mr Eichewald who is well respected and superior in every way. I don't know either but apparently both are engaged by the same wonderful or not editors at Vanity Fair.
How about this one: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/da...vance-Google-Maps-Is-Here-Sayonara-Apple-Maps Let me guess, the same.
Neither of those I offer were nearly as pounding as the one referenced in this thread post #1 but their missions may not have been as broad, their authors not charged with creating 5 pages but just a few hundred words. Nevertheless, there's Vanity Fair saying some negative things about Apple, Jobs and Apple creations. So would that be "stupid", "abhorrent", "I'm never reading Vanity Fair again", etc Vanity Fair or were they just bad back when those articles were written but they're great right now with this "Samsung is the Devil" article? Objective, fair & balanced or biased and in search of controversy & clicks? Or does "our" opinion of them flip with their opinion of Apple or what "we" view as Apple's enemies?
But that's different. Samsung is good when it makes superior components used in Apple products.
Yes, Samsung Semiconductor is very good at making large quantities of processors/components for Apple. But Samsung Semiconductor is not Samsung Mobile.
Samsung Semi is in love with Apple for the billions they spend. Samsung Semi is probably pissed at Samsung Mobile for rocking the boat so much.
This is a nonsensical argument because there's no evidence to suggest that Apple has ever done anything even remotely close to the kinds of things the report shows Samsung to have done.
Your post essentially boils down to two claims: 1) "That article is biased" and 2) "Apple would do the same things". You have provided absolutely no evidence of any kind to support those assertions in any way, so there's simply no merit to what you're saying. You're trying brush aside the report without reason, and you're trying to create a false equivalency between Apple and Samsung, which is completely baseless.
P.S. Did you even read the articles you posted? One is about how Apple has strict rules against adult content on the App Store and the other is about how Google Maps arrived on iOS. Those have absolutely nothing to do with anything, so I have no idea why you even posted them.
Can we please disallow Samsung to submit patents in the US?
Its not like they've innovated anything to deserve a patent.
I'm guessing their chip technology was once stolen from Intel?
Its not like they've innovated anything to deserve a patent.
I'm guessing their chip technology was once stolen from Intel?
Remember the Swiss Clock Fiasco
Apple paid after it was threatened with litigation? Just like Samsung in the article?
Apple paid after it was threatened with litigation? Just like Samsung in the article?
Last edited:
Long before Apple became popular with their Mobile devices Samsung concentrated on copying the likes of Nokia, Blackberry and in general electronics the Japanese brands, like Canon, Sony, etc, offering cheaper, but mostly crappier alternatives to the higher quality originals.
Then a few years ago came into the spotlight and Samsung realized where the money is: mobile personal devices and they copied Apple in the beginning. I am sorry, but if someone thinks otherwise, they live in complete denial or just post counter arguments because of some dislike of Apple. I still had to laugh when I saw a Samsung Webpage of a mobile music player, which looked like a Apple Web rip off and completely out of place, because the rest of their company websites had a complete different feel.
Their tactics worked. Copy Apple initially and then slowly gain momentum and become successful and popular. Ironically I would say, that Apple provided Samsung with some free marketing, too. By putting Samsung into the spotlight, users not so familiar with present mobile market would probably get the impression, that if one doesn't chose Apple, then Samsung is the way to go in to Android World, because they copied "the best" productsapple.
However it seems Samsung is still trying to find its own mobile phone identity with packing every feature (mostly useless) into their blandly designed mobile products.
But looking at the profits of Samsung which haven't been super stellar lately, I would't concentrate on fighting Samsung anymore. Their momentum is dwindling. Android users don't have to be so brand loyal. They can move their apps, etc, to another branded phone, if they find a better alternative (I certainly have. My Galaxy Note really disappointed me)
Personally i wished Apple would now move on and concentrate on making their mobile products better. Especially iOS needs some serious overhaul under the hood.
Then a few years ago came into the spotlight and Samsung realized where the money is: mobile personal devices and they copied Apple in the beginning. I am sorry, but if someone thinks otherwise, they live in complete denial or just post counter arguments because of some dislike of Apple. I still had to laugh when I saw a Samsung Webpage of a mobile music player, which looked like a Apple Web rip off and completely out of place, because the rest of their company websites had a complete different feel.
Their tactics worked. Copy Apple initially and then slowly gain momentum and become successful and popular. Ironically I would say, that Apple provided Samsung with some free marketing, too. By putting Samsung into the spotlight, users not so familiar with present mobile market would probably get the impression, that if one doesn't chose Apple, then Samsung is the way to go in to Android World, because they copied "the best" products
apple. However it seems Samsung is still trying to find its own mobile phone identity with packing every feature (mostly useless) into their blandly designed mobile products.
But looking at the profits of Samsung which haven't been super stellar lately, I would't concentrate on fighting Samsung anymore. Their momentum is dwindling. Android users don't have to be so brand loyal. They can move their apps, etc, to another branded phone, if they find a better alternative (I certainly have. My Galaxy Note really disappointed me)
Personally i wished Apple would now move on and concentrate on making their mobile products better. Especially iOS needs some serious overhaul under the hood.
Last edited:
In more recent news, Samsung is also using the countersue tactic with Dyson:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418616/samsung-sues-dyson-following-intolerable-copycat-claims
(that's the Samsung copycat vaccum, not a Dyson)
Samsung wants $9.43M because Dyson tarnished their reputation for calling them copycats...
Dyson's statement:
"Dyson pioneered cyclonic vacuum cleaners and digital motors – and has been developing them ever since. We patent our technology, and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection, but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified."
The whole thing sounds like some kind of joke. In the end I bet Dyson will give up and settle, not make a single dollar out of this and still have to pay lawyers. They'll have effectively spent money to get their design ripped off. Nice way to valorize IP and innovation...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/17/5418616/samsung-sues-dyson-following-intolerable-copycat-claims
(that's the Samsung copycat vaccum, not a Dyson)
Samsung wants $9.43M because Dyson tarnished their reputation for calling them copycats...
Dyson's statement:
"Dyson pioneered cyclonic vacuum cleaners and digital motors – and has been developing them ever since. We patent our technology, and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection, but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified."
The whole thing sounds like some kind of joke. In the end I bet Dyson will give up and settle, not make a single dollar out of this and still have to pay lawyers. They'll have effectively spent money to get their design ripped off. Nice way to valorize IP and innovation...
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't say that. As usual, someone reads into comments to frame the counterpoint as over the top. I just wrote moments ago that I can talk to the idea of Samsung as idea thief too. Did you miss that? I'm talking more about not being blindly biased one way- that Apple is angelic in all of this and Samsung is the devil, that Apple only innovates and Samsung can't innovate, etc.
I stand by #1. I never said #2.
Would you care to supply evidence that support your own assertions? I love how the call for evidence is so readily requested but not offered. It would be very difficult to irrefutably prove bias without working at Vanity Fair. Similarly, it would be hard for you to prove the lack of bias without you working at Vanity Fair. Only those insiders associated with it would know for certain.
My argument for the bias in #1 is that someone decided to write an article that would show Samsung as recurring innovation thief. The author did a great job gathering a pile of examples in that direction. I once read some "journalism" claiming Paul (McCartney) is Dead. The author of that article did a great job gathering a pile of examples for that story too. I doubt Paul is dead just as I doubt that Samsung is as bad as this particular article would imply. I simply suggest that there was a mission to make a point in both of those articles and both authors did a great job making their points. Furthermore, if the authors were charged with painting Samsung as angelic or Paul is alive, I bet they could have found a pile of examples to support those missions too.
Yes I did. Did you? Perhaps you missed these quotes from those articles:
- Apple is a strange and dastardly company which, sooner rather than later, we’re going to regret pledging our allegiance to.
- The latest bit of no-good business is its arbitrary censoring of iPhone apps.
- And Steve Jobs himself, the ever-weirder figure...
- Personally, we rather cared for it (Apple Maps), as we consistently run about 20 minutes late and “stupid Apple Maps” is always a plausible excuse.
Those are just some of what Vanity Fair has published negatively about Apple, Jobs & Apple products. Go to their site and do a search. The point in sharing those articles is to show the magazine is not pro-Apple or pro-Samsung; they just write about topics to woo customers. Are they right when they put down Apple or are they only right when they put down Apple's competitors? Are they biased when they describe Apple as "a strange and dastardly company" or unbiased & objective? (rhetorical)
As was mentioned before, Nokia was asking more money from Apple then what they charged from competitors. Nokia is suppose to license its patents fairly.
Last edited:
Yes, read the frickin' article.
Your entire argument boils down to yelling "It's biased!" Sorry, but that's not an argument. That's called trying to brush something under the rug because you don't like what it shows. You have provided no evidence of any kind. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest here.
Are you actually trying to compare those meaningless statements to what was present in the Kurt Eichenwald piece? Those are subjective opinions about products. The Eichenwald piece is an investigative report about widespread corporate behaviour. Do you really not understand the difference?
Well macduke, what kind of man are you? Are you the type of person who questions someone's ethics without knowing anything about the person? I mean, you wouldn't make snap judgements about a person based on their purchase of consumer goods would you? So basically you're saying unless he is concerned about the companies that make his shoes, builds his car, manufacturers his furniture, or tech products he should be pitied. That makes no sense. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how the majority of your possessions came to be created.
Bolded from your quote: Look at your signature. Look at the two sentences I bolded from your quote. You seem to be defining yourself in this forum by what you own. So does that make your ethics as questionable as you say MG's are?
Let's be real. People are up in arms about 2 gigantic companies, neither gives a crap about how you feel about them. The both want what's in your wallet. Full stop.
I think it should be obvious. Like dumping toxic waste in the ocean, the fines simply aren't sufficient to deter the crime. Where's the cease and desist order? Paying Apple a few million is supposed to make up for the loss in many dozens of BILLIONS in sales over the life of these imitation products? Samsung is making billions by stealing other companies product designs, copying them and selling them for less. China does this all the time with look-alike products that actually try to pretend they're the real thing (knockoffs). These companies can't innovate, so they just STEAL the ideas of those that can. Japan basically took the ideas of the assembly lines of Ford and others, improved the concept a bit in quality terms and tore us a new one for several decades. Samsung will do the same to Apple BECAUSE THEY CAN. Microsoft got away with every kind of foul business practice and basically ripped off CPM and this made Bill Gates the richest person in the world. He's a glorified thief, IMO.
What amazes me is these onerous laws destroy all competition on the small business level (they simply can't compete and can't defend themselves in court when the lawsuits run into the hundreds of millions in fees) and yet as we see on the macro corporate level, it's nothing BUT patent and copyright violations all day long and they play these little court games and what not, but it's all fair game in the end. You or I try to so much as skirt the speed limit on a deserted road and we get our arses handed to us sooner or later.
The world is "more fair" for the rich and powerful than everyone else. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Its a good strategy...from a business standpoint. Doesn't make Samsung any less of a thief, but a company's goal is to make money and Samsung is definitely doing that hand over fist!