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.
Tim Cook Addresses Apple Employees After Lawsuit Victory
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
do you think that Apple lawsuit is over? NO. it's your home base winning. there several other similar cases through Europe and Asia. unlikely what you think, Apple won't win over there due to different understanding of patent and other cases. I am very sure. Apple thinks that they will do much much better, change IT world. NO. it will make it worst. Apple dig itself into suicidal. nobody will work with it if they will continue to argue with that stupid patents (some of them are really ridiculous. they don't make any sense). they forgot what they stole also. Apple, enjoy your winning right now, cry later.
And who's fault is that?
Just quickly because I don't want to spend too much time on this:
- The first image does not show an image of a Samsung store, it has been taken at en Expo and the background was prepared by the organizers, not Samsung
- The power adapter design has been used before
- The ~30 pin connector is nothing that Apple invented (i.e. their proprietary design is based on other similar designs of other ~30 pin connectors, and Samsung has in no way copied Apple)
----------
Sorry, what are you suggesting?
make no difference
To me, it makes no difference whether Samsung or anybody else copied Apple. It's a choice as to what I purchase or what I use and I choose Apple products based on design and functionality. If Samsung copies the design, and I like the functionality, I might try it, but I won't be fooled into thinking it's an Apple product. If a company makes a knockoff or a similar looking product, it makes no difference to me as long as I can find the original. There's similar products for everything on the market, usually made for people who can't afford or don't find value in the cost of the original. Choice is good. I find some of the patents ridiculous, but then, the government patent office chose to issue them to Apple which means in the end, it is what it is, they own them. I just feel that no matter who makes what and how similar something is to something else, I know what I want and I go with the company that gives it to me. Right now, that's Apple.
To me, it makes no difference whether Samsung or anybody else copied Apple. It's a choice as to what I purchase or what I use and I choose Apple products based on design and functionality. If Samsung copies the design, and I like the functionality, I might try it, but I won't be fooled into thinking it's an Apple product. If a company makes a knockoff or a similar looking product, it makes no difference to me as long as I can find the original. There's similar products for everything on the market, usually made for people who can't afford or don't find value in the cost of the original. Choice is good. I find some of the patents ridiculous, but then, the government patent office chose to issue them to Apple which means in the end, it is what it is, they own them. I just feel that no matter who makes what and how similar something is to something else, I know what I want and I go with the company that gives it to me. Right now, that's Apple.
sure there are similarities everywhere, that is sort of what innovation is. it's not invention, totally different thing. it's also not blatant copying. which apple specifically stated. they didn't say there designs were very close, they were blatantly copied. I still don't see where the arrogance is?
did steve jobs invent the mouse? Probably not the right words to use, did he innovate the use of the mouse and make it relevant, that is probably more correct. In the end history is littered with successful and rich innovators, inventors on the other hand tend to get the short end of the stick.
Probably the same way GM innovated with this seat vibration safety alert system.
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/cad...news/us/en/2012/Mar/0327_cadillac_safety.html
It's a minor detail, but something that has a major usability benefit.
So what's this detail then? Tell me. I've asked several times yet I haven't received an answer.
What's this tiny genius detail, this hidden gem in the patent that has been stolen by Samsung?
What is it?
----------
Are you another person stating that Apple "innovates" and Samsung "blatantly copies"?
Where's the difference here?
Uhm, nothing to do with generosity and everything to do with large corporations rolling over the Patent Office and getting patents which would never have been awarded three decades ago.
It's an incestuous relationship, not unlike the SEC, with public office employees currying favors while in office, in exchange for lucrative positions/consulting contracts when they leave. Apple is probably more guilty than most in promoting this, but so is our Congress of idiots.
All i Know is
WE WON!!!!
Next time,innovate and dont put sell cheap versions of our products
The been on this copycat stuff since nokia was on top and thanks to us, Nokia has been de-throned Damn!
WE WON!!!!
Next time,
innovate and dont put sell cheap versions of our productsThe been on this copycat stuff since nokia was on top and thanks to us, Nokia has been de-throned Damn!
Well, at least he used the word "flagrantly" and not "blatantly." But I can do without the sentimental "values" rhetoric. Maybe he should let the Ouija board make press statements and company addresses.
Controlling your products and services is only limiting for those that want something you don't offer. But it's not greedy. So you want Apple to allow people to do things with their phone or os or computer - whatever because it should be that way?
Can you go to a Ford dealership and buy a Ford Focus, spec'd with a Honda engine, Subaru awd system and Audi interior because that would be the best way to offer the Focus? You can't go to Wal-Mart to buy a Target private labeled product - even if you think you should be able to, because Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices.
i'm just stating what apple did and proved. some of the things i've seen are pretty hard to ignore.
Actually its the opposite. Tightly controlled closed products have always proven to be better.
agreed, android will have a hard time proving apple copied anything because most of the "cool" functionality is thru apps written by third parties.
Apples closed products allows them to control the technology much more closely
But Apple didn't sue over those kinds of things, at least not directly. That said, it does seem a bit odd that Samsung "coincidentally" started using a 30-pin proprietary connector and a rounded square power adapter when Apple started using them, particularly since the industry has largely been moving to micro-USB and similar small connectors. However, the jury didn't see that, and since only 4 had smartphones (none Samsung), I'm also guessing that they weren't previously aware of the similarities in the adapters.
On a side note, Apple also has long paid lots of attention to detail when it comes to packaging. Lately others have been doing the same, but I doubt we'll see lawsuits since I doubt concepts such as placing paper in between a laptop screen and keyboard, or using form-fitted packaging can be patented (although specific designs could be protected).
A large company wants to protect it's patents and ensure that it remains profitable.
Whilst I do think apple has become complacent with half-arsed designs there's nothing wrong with what Apple did in this instance.
You cannot buy apps from other places other than the App Store. You cannot use any other service for micro payments other than Apple's system. You cannot use another cloud storage system other than Apple's iCloud. You cannot develop an app that replaces functionality provided by Apple (even if your solution is a million times better).
This is a really bad analogy. You're not asking a company to sell products made by another company.
I believe it was the specific techniques that made the pinch-to-zoom measure smooth rather than jerky.
Exactly. This makes that image even more irrelevant.
----------
But that's not true, the patent describes no such thing.
----------
Do you have anything to support this statement?