Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces

[smoledman]

I mean, I've been with Apple the whole way through this trial, and yet I still wasnt expecting something quite this bad. Wow.

So how bad should Sammy be punished?

 

[lilo777]

This will cost Samsung billions in cash, probably en entire quarter's worth of EBITA. Not devastating in the long run in itself, but a massive hit to their image and with the new iPhone coming might be the death blow to the Galaxy S line.

They will recover this money easily by charging higher prices for components they sell to Apple. Litigation increases cost of business and the customer (and litigator) - Apple - will have to pay.

 

[twosee]

Not everything is black and white, you proclaim (i.e. there are no absolutes) - which is itself an absolute statement. You see axioms (existence exists, absolutes exist), have a funny property whereby trying to deny one results in a contradiction - you end up using it in your attempt to disprove it.

1. Businesses are groups of people collaborating towards a common purpose. The ethics of a business's actions are the result of the ethics of the people who constitute it.
2. Correct, there is grey area. When does "inspiration" become so over the top that it constitutes outright copying? Or when is it so pervasive that it constitutes a clear pattern or mode of operation?
3. Not one company is innocent? In this one sentence you have a) accepted the premise of innocence existing as a concept and b) said no entity has achieved this concept and c) made an absolute, black and white statement that nobody is innocent.

Let's establish our premises, and where the grey area is:

1. Private property is a right. This is the "good".
2. The courts are here to protect our rights. They defend the "good".
3. Apple has design patents it claims Samsung infringed.
4. If Samsung infringed Apple's rights, they did something "bad".

The court is the objective arbiter that will evaluate (3). If the court concurs, (4) is the case.

1, 2, and 4 are black and white. 3 is not - that is why we need a court to make an objective judgement.

If Apple infringed a trade-dress/design patent, they too would be "bad". Samsung has not claimed Apple has infringed on any trade-dress/design. Their patent suits are FRAND suits. It is not the same. In FRAND cases, if both parties cannot agree on "fair" fees, the court is in fact the proper venue to determine them. This is because FRAND has a built-in grey area - i.e. what is "fair".

This is why your claim that "there are no innocents" falls flat - saying that everybody is guilty because there are lawsuits in both directions is an equivocation.

eh... my point exactly! (not sure what you meant, but it sounded good).

 

[smoledman]

They will recover this money easily by charging higher prices for components they sell to Apple. Litigation increases cost of business and the customer (and litigator) - Apple - will have to pay.

Apple is already divesting themselves of Samsung as a supplier. By 2015, the last contracts will run out and Apple will be 100% with other suppliers like Sharp, Toshiba, LG.

 

[dermeister]

Agreed. There was absolutely zero effort put forth by Samsung. Seriously what possible defense could they possibly present other then nitpicking the definition of "copy"? (which is what their defenders are doing here...)

I can't think of one. Can you?

They are equivocating copying with competing.

But of course just like beating someone over the head doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "convincing", copying someone's design doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "competing".

In both cases, the words convincing and competing are essentially turned into euphemisms.

Samsung has basically stated, competition is good, we can't compete without copying Apple, and therefore copying Apple constitutes competition and is good (not wrong).

Their entire defense rests on the art of false comparison.

 

[smoledman]

They are equivocating copying with competing.

But of course just like beating someone over the head doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "convincing", copying someone's design doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "competing".

In both cases, the words convincing and competing are essentially turned into euphemisms.

Samsung has basically stated, competition is good, we can't compete without copying Apple, and therefore copying Apple constitutes competition and is good (not wrong).

Their entire defense rests on the art of false comparison.

Of course Samsung will never get convicted in a Korean court.

 

[samcraig]

Apple is already divesting themselves of Samsung as a supplier. By 2015, the last contracts will run out and Apple will be 100% with other suppliers like Sharp, Toshiba, LG.

Interestingly enough - Foxconn is the one coming to Apple's aid here.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/06/Foxconn-hon-hai-investment-in-sharp/

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/06/why-foxconn-must-ensure-survival-of-cash-strapped-sharp/

 

[Sora]

They are equivocating copying with competing.

But of course just like beating someone over the head doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "convincing", copying someone's design doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "competing".

In both cases, the words convincing and competing are essentially turned into euphemisms.

Samsung has basically stated, competition is good, we can't compete without copying Apple, and therefore copying Apple constitutes competition and is good (not wrong).

Their entire defense rests on the art of false comparison.

Ooooo...I see what you did there.

1. You must be in the legal field
or
2. You are a demigod

What say you?

 

[smoledman]

Interestingly enough - Foxconn is the one coming to Apple's aid here.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/06/Foxconn-hon-hai-investment-in-sharp/

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/06/why-foxconn-must-ensure-survival-of-cash-strapped-sharp/

Even if Sharp goes under there are more fish in the sea, I'm sure Apple could use some of that cash to jut buy Sharp.

 

[bawbac]

Apple is already divesting themselves of Samsung as a supplier. By 2015, the last contracts will run out and Apple will be 100% with other suppliers like Sharp, Toshiba, LG.

Does this mean Sharp, Toshiba, LG will have to copy what Samsung supplied?

Also, 1st attempts to replicate a component never goes without flaws.
Does this mean new products from apple with these other manufacturers will cause component issues & make apple look bad if there is a high failure rate.

 

[samcraig]

Of course Samsung will never get convicted in a Korean court.

Since when is California in Korea? What does your post have to do with anything?

----------

Does this mean Sharp, Toshiba, LG will have to copy what Samsung supplied?

Also, 1st attempts to replicate a component never goes without flaws.
Does this mean new products from apple with these other manufacturers will cause component issues & make apple look bad if there is a high failure rate.

No because Apple never/rarely admits there are ever any issues. They just offer replacements as part of their amazing customer service.

 

[twosee]

They are equivocating copying with competing.

But of course just like beating someone over the head doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "convincing", copying someone's design doesn't constitute a legitimate form of "competing".

In both cases, the words convincing and competing are essentially turned into euphemisms.

Samsung has basically stated, competition is good, we can't compete without copying Apple, and therefore copying Apple constitutes competition and is good (not wrong).

Their entire defense rests on the art of false comparison.

This is true, but just because THEY cannot compete with Apple, does it make the copying "right"? And why couldn't they compete with Apple? Was it due to lack of innovation? Lack of possibilities? Or was it just laziness on their part? At the time the first iPhone was introduced, Apple could not compete with any other handset maker. The product was met with skepticism. Same with the iPad... it was laughed at. yet instead of copying other handset makers (copying to make them competitive), they introduced a different product... and succeeded.

So in my opinion, unless Samsung can prove that the only way to be competitive was to copy, then I don't see how they can convince the jury that they were fairly competing. Don't you think?

 

[dethmaShine]

And still waiting those "all the arguments"

I'm not your servant to repeat those arguments every ****ing time I refer to the act.

Stop your idiotic rhetoric of asking What? Why? How? every time people say something about some goddamn thing.

 

[djphat2000]

They will recover this money easily by charging higher prices for components they sell to Apple. Litigation increases cost of business and the customer (and litigator) - Apple - will have to pay.

Which is most likely why Apple is moving to other suppliers for there components.

 

[rjohnstone]

Even if Sharp goes under there are more fish in the sea, I'm sure Apple could use some of that cash to jut buy Sharp.

That would be a stupid business move.
You don't buy a company as diverse as Sharp just so you can have access to one or two components.
I doubt Apple wants to be in the microwave oven business.

 

[hot spare]

The way patent, trademark, community design is being handled in US and Germany specially will seriously prevent innovation and drive litigation among the companies. This will affect small businesses badly as they don't have the resources for such lengthy legal battles or any lobby power. Samsung started aggressively on applying for new patents over last 2/3 years. Past 2 years, their patent applications crossed even IBM. They have started patenting even the smilies! This happens when patent war gets beyond control. Samsung will be able to survive any penalty in US because their major markets are EU and Asia. What would happen to Apple if there is even a single frivolous infringement from Apple? It maybe something very silly or basic, and could happen unintentionally. Apple are not diversified like Samsung. They could be a fatal blow for them.

It's ok till now as nobody is going against Apple with full force. What would happen tomorrow when (and if) the Notification patent is given:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Also others like opening camera lock-screen patent?

I would like to read a study about how much Samsung "gained" by using icons "similar" to that of iOS? Question is if they used red colour instead of green, would their sales decrease? Did apple actually lose any customer to samsung because of this? answers to these questions are more important (IMO) than angle and gradient of shadows.

And BTW, Apple is trying to patent auto-save documents. I am not sure what would I say to this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...5762.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120185762RS=DN/20120185762

 

[nanotlj]

Samsu** must be someone's daddy! It can not live w/o and the earth will stop turning.

Does this mean Sharp, Toshiba, LG will have to copy what Samsung supplied?

Also, 1st attempts to replicate a component never goes without flaws.
Does this mean new products from apple with these other manufacturers will cause component issues & make apple look bad if there is a high failure rate.

 

[dermeister]

Well played. However..

Thank you sir!

I didn't proclaim what you say I proclaimed. And saying not everything means that some things can be and some things aren't. So it's not really an absolute statement. It's acknowledging that there are variables. If I had said everything is grey - well then - that would be absolute.

I absolutely agree.

Further - someone or some entity (company) can do something bad. That doesn't make them a bad company. It makes their action bad. The OP said "good guys and the bad guys will each get what they deserve." That's simplistic, don't you think?

Yes, but then it should be. Your character is determined most objectively by your actions. If a company regularly engages in "bad" behaviour, one can reasonably conclude that the company is "bad".

And I say no one is an innocent because whether they have been caught or not, every company engages in behavior which would put them in a court on the side of the defense. To think otherwise would be naive.

Well if it's a commentary on how confusing and un-objective the law has become to the point where one cannot help but infringe it, I'm with you.

eh... my point exactly! (not sure what you meant, but it sounded good).

I aim to please!

 

[Sora]

Also, 1st attempts to replicate a component never goes without flaws.
Does this mean new products from apple with these other manufacturers will cause component issues & make apple look bad if there is a high failure rate.

Yawn....insert coins and try again bawbac

 

[dermeister]

This is true, but just because THEY cannot compete with Apple, does it make the copying "right"? And why couldn't they compete with Apple? Was it due to lack of innovation? Lack of possibilities? Or was it just laziness on their part? At the time the first iPhone was introduced, Apple could not compete with any other handset maker. The product was met with skepticism. Same with the iPad... it was laughed at. yet instead of copying other handset makers (copying to make them competitive), they introduced a different product... and succeeded.

So in my opinion, unless Samsung can prove that the only way to be competitive was to copy, then I don't see how they can convince the jury that they were fairly competing. Don't you think?

No, my point was precisely that saying "we can only compete by copying" is not a defense because it's not a legitimate form of competition. The jury should take that for what it's worth - zero.

 

[Renzatic]

And BTW, Apple is trying to patent auto-save documents. I am not sure what would I say to this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...5762.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120185762RS=DN/20120185762

How about OH GOD NO! This is proof positive that Apple will attempt to patent ANYTHING to get ahead in the game. Autosaves have been around since who knows how long, and Apple's implementation with iCloud isn't vastly different than what's come before.

See people? This isn't Apple protecting their innovations, or the right to innovate in general. This is them gaming the patent system for their own advantage, and it'll do nothing but harm the industry as a whole.

...and I wish Apple was the only one that was doing it. The future of hardware and software looks bleaker every time a company gets away with something like this.

 

[dermeister]

Ooooo...I see what you did there.

1. You must be in the legal field
or
2. You are a demigod

What say you?

I am not in the legal field.

 

[euphlyusUNO]

The way patent, trademark, community design is being handled in US and Germany specially will seriously prevent innovation and drive litigation among the companies. This will affect small businesses badly as they don't have the resources for such lengthy legal battles or any lobby power. Samsung started aggressively on applying for new patents over last 2/3 years. Past 2 years, their patent applications crossed even IBM. They have started patenting even the smilies! This happens when patent war gets beyond control. Samsung will be able to survive any penalty in US because their major markets are EU and Asia. What would happen to Apple if there is even a single frivolous infringement from Apple? It maybe something very silly or basic, and could happen unintentionally. Apple are not diversified like Samsung. They could be a fatal blow for them.

It's ok till now as nobody is going against Apple with full force. What would happen tomorrow when (and if) the Notification patent is given:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Also others like opening camera lock-screen patent?

I would like to read a study about how much Samsung "gained" by using icons "similar" to that of iOS? Question is if they used red colour instead of green, would their sales decrease? Did apple actually lose any customer to samsung because of this? answers to these questions are more important (IMO) than angle and gradient of shadows.

And BTW, Apple is trying to patent auto-save documents. I am not sure what would I say to this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...5762.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120185762RS=DN/20120185762

Read it carefully. Not only read, try to understand. They're not trying to patent "auto-save". They're trying to patent a document which you don't need to save. Auto-save is just one of the things they're using. No one has ever done this (in the mainstream market)

But I'm sure you'll not understand the difference between Saveless and Autosave...... it's about the experience and changing the very way in which we do things, it's about how "features" when put together, add up to "experience"

Edit: Just imagine if they implement it properly and you don't have to click "Save" or Ctr/Comm + S again?

 

[BaldiMac]

What would happen tomorrow when (and if) the Notification patent is given:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247

Why is this patent brought up so often as something that Apple potentially violates? Which claims do people think Apple violates?

 

[Renzatic]

Read it carefully. Not only read, try to understand. They're not trying to patent "auto-save". They're trying to patent a document which you don't need to save. Auto-save is just one of the things they're using. No one has ever done this (in the mainstream market)

But I'm sure you'll not understand the difference between Saveless and Autosave...... it's about the experience and changing the very way in which we do things, it's about how "features" when put together, add up to "experience"

How is the "experience" unlike anything that's come before? Both of them save your documents without any user based manipulation. The only difference is one gives you the option to save manually if you want, the other doesn't.

And it sure as hell doesn't deserve a patent.