Haha hilarious. In an earlier post, i had mentioned that i was probably not giving the jury enough credit; it's clear that i wasn't.
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 and Samsung CEO to Discuss Patent Dispute One Last Time Today Ahead of Jury Deliberations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha hilarious. In an earlier post, i had mentioned that i was probably not giving the jury enough credit; it's clear that i wasn't.
New here? Nitpicking and semantics is the weapon of choice for some here
So are sweeping generalizations and hyperbole.
I think you sometimes mistake nitpicking and semantics as a "trick" people use in an argument rather than making sure what is being said is accurate/factual. I know you're a relatively smart guy and know this but still take on this mocking tone or feel the need to try and brush off the need for some people to say what they actual mean... and intelligently.
It's nitpicking and semantics when you know what the op meant but choose to correct them condescendingly rather then continue the discussion. There's a difference. I know you're intelligent too, yet your behavior sometimes doesn't reflect that.
On the other hand, if you truly couldn't discern what he meant when he compared Android to iPhone and ipad, maybe I'm wrong about my assumption that you're intelligent? Either one doesn't really help you.
Or maybe there are other scenarios. Point is - I don't think you are the arbiter either way.
You're entitled to your opinion of whether I'm intelligent or not just like my posts/behavior. I'm also entitled to not care
ETA: You'll also note that unlike you, I didn't resort to insulting your intelligence to prove my point.
Or maybe there are other scenarios. Point is - I don't think you are the arbiter either way.
You're entitled to your opinion of whether I'm intelligent or not just like my posts/behavior. I'm also entitled to not care
More vague posts from samcraig. I'm not trying to be an arbiter, especially when one side won't just admit that they were wrong (hint: you).Let's just stay on topic and yes I know you don't care. Remember i said you say that alot, and you asked me to show you how often you say it? Yeah.
ETA: i never insulted your intelligence. please don't try to pin things on me that were never said, thanks. Let's stay on topic, if you have a problem pm me.
Obviously I've been watching this case incredibly closely... and at times have felt much anger towards both sides, Apple and Samsung. In general I'm getting extremely tired of Apples constant lawsuits against everyone else in the game... however, I'm also rational enough to realize it's simply business.
That all in mind, my dream outcome to this case is both sides, Apple and Samsung are found not guilty of any infringement of any kind.
Neither side would win any settlements, neither side would win any patent disputes and neither side would walk away with a victory of any kind at all.
Get out of the court rooms and back into the research labs.
That all in mind, my dream outcome to this case is both sides, Apple and Samsung are found not guilty of any infringement of any kind.
Neither side would win any settlements, neither side would win any patent disputes and neither side would walk away with a victory of any kind at all.
Get out of the court rooms and back into the research labs.
I don't get the "anger" part. Businesses work hard and expend lots of money to develop brand identity and goodwill with consumers. They don't want competitors to undermine that effort and cost. That's just business. From Apple's perspective it's really a question of "did Samsung generate the sales that it did because it offered a product that consumers wanted or did they create associations with Apple's widely popular iPad that ended up driving the sales?"
Getting emotional about how a corporation decides to defend it's IP is pretty pointless, from either corporation's perspective.
Agreed, well, like I said from a rational perspective, I fully understand.
My opinion, which explains my sometimes frustrated anger is quite simple, I see Apple becoming the new Microsoft. They're the big dog now and part of their attempt to stay on top is to sue everyone who threatens their market share into the ground.
Apple goes as far as to suggest the Samsung Galaxy Nexus is a direct "rip off" of the Apple iPhone. Thats flat out ludicrous. If you can't tell those two phones apart you don't even deserve to be using a cell phone.
I miss the Apple of old, a company I could root for, a company I could be proud of. Thats where my anger comes from.
I'm not giving a pass to Samsung, by no means.
This is where we disagree. If a company (be it Apple or Samsung or Toshiba) works hard to generate an association with its product then it needs to protect itself from being undermined. It's not about suing anyone because you feel threatened, it's about not letting competitors ride on your coattails.
This forum is chock full of "competition is good" nonsense when what they really mean is "make it cheaper." One way to get it cheaper is to ride on another company's coattails - legally or otherwise. You let them take the risks and then duplicate their efforts without the added expense of R&D costs.
I would agree if not for one thing, Apple didn't invent the cell phone. Nor did they invent the smart phone. Nor touch screens. Nor rectangles. Nor glass. Nor metals. blah and blah and blah...
Thats the key, everything we use today is a stolen idea from someone else.
Thank you. And exactly!
But more than that, cell phones and tablets have entered a period where there is clearly a dominant design in smartphones. It has email, a web browser, 8meg camera, maps, access to angry birds apps, HD screen etc...
Dominant designs are called that because they have tremendously common features, and this is also where the most volume sells. From here on in, we should expect a transition in the devices to process improvements and cost reductions and rather than breakthrough and distinguishing technology.
And it's not my lack of imagination. It's that, for example, people wont pay $200 more for, just for example, a pureview camera using some random OS, when their 8megapixel plus some other bundle of features more or less good enough. Or they won't line up to upgrade their 4S and lose $300 on their contract just because the 5 has LTE (we hope!).
Last edited:
It hardly matters which company they rule in favor of, the truth is so complex, evasive and difficult for the layman to understand, they might as well flip a coin. Both companies are hugely successful, and can easily afford whatever damages are awarded.
Even if Apple is awarded everything it's demanding, the cost to Samsung is inconsequential. Just click on the link below, to view the diverse and vast number of very profitable Samsung businesses.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corporateprofile/affiliatedcompanies.html
Even if Apple is awarded everything it's demanding, the cost to Samsung is inconsequential. Just click on the link below, to view the diverse and vast number of very profitable Samsung businesses.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corporateprofile/affiliatedcompanies.html
I'm not saying I agree with this whole entry. But it is good reading and simplifies one aspect which is that Apple wishes to take away 100% of Samsung's profits (discounting Samsung's own R&D, features, etc) because of violations. Even if Samsung did copy some/a bunch of features - does that mean they should forfeit "everything" or is that extreme. Asking - not preaching. Personally - I think Apple asking for the whole nut (profit) is too much and that the jury won't award the high end of the damages.
What does Apple really want from Samsung
What does Apple really want from Samsung
Was announced after the iphone was announced, did not sell in any large numbers.
----------
And behaved and looked nothing like an iPhone.
Correct, the iPhone was announced Jan 9, 2007.
That was a later press release.
The Prada was originally announced by LG on December 12, 2006.
On December 15, 2006 Engadget ran a short article with a picture, saying "The big draw here, of course, is a ... touchscreen that takes the place of virtually every hard button you might find on a more traditional handset."
The Engadget info had originally come from the Hungarian website MobilPort, which noted that the Prada was about to get an International Forum Design award.
And then there's FIC's phone based on OpenMoko :
http://gizmodo.com/229243/openmoko-...a-time-machine-or-what?tag=gadgetssmartphones