That's besides the point. Corning's glass was non-existent in the market until Apple introduced it. Apple didn't feel the need to advertise their deal with Corning whereas everyone else did, trying to take credit for the work Apple did by advertising they were using top of the line glass. That's shameless.
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.
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's besides the point. Corning's glass was non-existent in the market until Apple introduced it. Apple didn't feel the need to advertise their deal with Corning whereas everyone else did, trying to take credit for the work Apple did by advertising they were using top of the line glass. That's shameless.
Eric Schmidt, being the smart political creature that he is, obviously had everything well scrutinised by legal, so a formal accusation of copying would be very hard. The first Android phones didn't even have multitouch activated, until Google figured out that Apple wouldn't be able to enforce it.
But there's at least a story out there that says
http://gawker.com/5497193/exclusive...s-his-partner-and-steve-jobs?skyline=true&s=i
Maybe Steve Jobs just realised it wasn't a wise strategy to personally and publically attack Eric Schmidt over it.
remember when the HP w2007 came out with a black bezel and then the Cinema Displays started doing the same after that?
Infamous auction? What was infamous about it? Google acted unprofessionally in a business situation and lost to all of the other players - of which Apple was only one. Was that the infamous part, that Google lost?
Samsung R&D did not come up with the ARM architecture, Gorilla Glass, Touch Screens, Wireless technology, Flash Memory, Buttons, or even Batteries in today's phones and tablets. Where did they contribute to the current devices aside from fabricating and marketing a product similar to what Apple pioneered? By pioneered I do not mean the first touch screens or the first smartphones - I mean the first combination of technologies that took a major leap into what you see today. Samsung has not even accomplished THAT yet they are in a far greater position to have.
You have no proof of this. And I'm sure Corning's doesn't consider it "copying" that they have more than 1 customer. Just like BestBuy doesn't mind you "copying" it's other customers when you buy things in their store.
I don't think Jobs ever said anything bad about Eric Schmidt and his time on the board. Links to sources showing otherwise ?
You realize this notion is ridiculous, right? If the court is mandating something then they will be overseeing the content. It's not like the judgement is passed and they are "free" to say/do whatever they want.
Plus I'm pretty sure that those kinds of statements are exactly WHY the judge ruled that Apple needed to "apologize" publicly. So it would defeat the purpose.
So just because Apple used Gorilla glass before Samsung, that means Samsung copied Apple?
In that logic, Samsung made phones with a touchscreen way before Apple, so Apple blatently copied Samsung. Gotcha!
if Schmidt stole info how come there is no lawsuit against him?
you would think with all the thermonuclear bs Jobs was on that would be the 1st lawsuit that was filed
you would think with all the thermonuclear bs Jobs was on that would be the 1st lawsuit that was filed
Well. When you slander a name with zero evidence to prove your point, there are consequences.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:GLW
Corning is NOT Apple, has nothing to do with who used first.
Have you read the link? Because it says NOTHING about Schmidt copying or stealing nothing.
And if you believe that Jobs didn't knew anything about Android when he INVITED Schmidt to the board is because you think Jobs and the entire Apple board are stupids. And they weren't stupids
Not quite but close. Apple did copy the mobile phone industry by introducing a mobile phone, that doesn't mean they copied Samsung specifically. They may have been influence by Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Samsung, etc.
By sharp contrast, no consumer product used Corning Glass until Apple introduced it to the market, meaning everyone copied Apple in that specific regard.
Remember that time on MR when people confused an OS with hardware. Oh yeah. ALL THE TIME.
A green phone does not have to look exactly like the iOS icon, which is pretty blatant when you go back to 2008 and look at the Omnia.
Apple never claimed Gorilla Glass as their own, how can you even make such a statement? However, it would still be sitting on a shelf if Apple hadn't pushed for it and been successful with the iPhone...which Apple also never claimed.
You've now tried to reduce the argument by eliminating items one at a time when the argument is presented as a package, it's the whole of its parts. You'll never see the forest through the trees.
So Samsung won the case because they didn't do a good enough job? Man, the spin from you fanboys is even more ridiculous than at Fox news.
"It's his opinion"!? Have you heard about the legal system or would you also go "the judge found me guilty of murder but I don't care, that's just his opinion"
He didn't say anything like that and pretty much the only thing I see on these forums is the opposite. When Apple loses people here are calling the judge very rude things and harshly questions his/her honesty and competence
Apple sources multiple components from Samsung, including screens, sometimes dram, sometimes battery and all its chipsets. I believe Samsung has manufactured all the Apple A5 chipsets for their phones and tablets.
So first, Samsung and Apple are both using ARM technology that they add additional features to. Samsung has designed a better chipset than then Apples A5, the Exynos 4412 quadcore, 32nm etc.. . It is currently the best chipset in a phone. So Samsung would be going backwards if they copied Apple.
Apple is not suing about this.
Apple was suing about the exterior table design, not the guts. But some guts do influence what the exterior looks like (for example the screen) or the need for battery space, heat management etc....
So what I'm saying is that a lot of the design has to do with the internal performance of what's possible with the internal technology (think batteries in cell phones today, vs. the briefcase motorola phones 20 years ago), and so that's why you see convergence around design.
It has everything to do with Apple and who used it first. You understand the definition of a copy right? Without an original, a first, there is no copy. Just like without a genuine bill, there is no counterfeit bill. That's some pretty straightforward logic.
Posted for 6 months?
I believe everyone, but Apple, will forget about this much sooner.
Wasn't the head designer of the iPad Knighted.
The judge may know what "is cool" but nothing of whats "not cool".
I bet Samsung may even decline this punishment to some degree.??
I believe everyone, but Apple, will forget about this much sooner.
Wasn't the head designer of the iPad Knighted.
The judge may know what "is cool" but nothing of whats "not cool".
I bet Samsung may even decline this punishment to some degree.??
Indeed. And Jobs never accused Schmidt of anything.
Further - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I believe Jobs' tirade "I'm going to destroy android" went deeper than Google and Android. I'm no shrink - but it HAD to have brought up every painful memory of his dealing with Bill Gates and Windows.
And damned if he was going to let someone else get away with it...
Which is why this order seems unnecessary.
Apple has never put the lawsuit on its website nor placed ads. Those who have heard of the allegations only did so by reading news reports in the media, and the media is currently giving Apple's loss heavy play (even before this order was given). So the judge is ordering these notices to be placed for those who did see media reports about the trial but somehow never heard the result. Which seems to be a vanishingly small group.
Yes, Apple sued and lost. In the UK, as I understand it, there is a policy of "loser pays" (something I believe the US should adopt) and Samsung should supply Apple with a hefty bill of their legal expenses for this trial (knowing that Apple will go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure it's only expenses for this trial). But this "creative" solution seems misplaced.
You should really try not to contradict yourself if you want to be taken seriously. On one hand, you say that board members don't know what is going on (which is complete BS) but then say Apple invited Schmidt on the board solely because of Android?
If Google really came up with the idea of an all-touch phone using only your fingers as you claim then why didn't they beat Apple and the iPhone to the market?
Maybe I meant to insult you.
What, so working for Microsoft gives you the privilege of seeing LG's early prototypes and an amazing propensity for defending Apple on MacRumors?