Did the Apple vs Samsung trial made you feel differently about Apple?

[viewfly]

Nothing more fanboyish than a FanDroid that can't accept 9-0 validation of Apples US patents in US court.

That is the system. The US patent office tries not to grant obvious or prior art patents. They can grant patents for improvements of prior art.

And the US courts decide if the patents are legit in the US. Such was the result of the recent Apple-Samsung case.

 

[decafjava]

No, they all play dirty and I choose the products based on my needs/wants not to make a moral statement.

 

[Abstract]

The phones after the iPhone also look quite different, and it would take someone equally as blind to disagree with that. Both companies provided a sample of Samsungs phones in the court case, and both painted a very different picture (Apple showed all the similar ones, Samsung showed the differentiated ones). It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be.

EDIT: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...msung-copied-the-iphone-and-ipad-in-pictures/
Look at picture 3 and 4 in particular.

And besides, the iPhone looks too much like the LG Prada phone, which came out before the iPhone.

Let's face it, design always changes, and was progressing in the direction that all smartphones are at today. How else would you design a touchscreen phone? Yes, lots and lots of different designs are possible, but a touchscreen phone with curved corners isn't an Apple invention.

 

[viewfly]

Let's face it, design always changes, and was progressing in the direction that all smartphones are at today. How else would you design a touchscreen phone? Yes, lots and lots of different designs are possible, but a touchscreen phone with curved corners isn't an Apple invention.

The ONE patent that the recent US jury said that Samsung did NOT infringe (with phones or tablets) was the 'rectangle with rounded corners'.

That decision only confirms the jury solid validation of the other Apple patents, and possible infringement. BTW, each infringement has to be decided by a 9-0 vote. An 8-1 would not have won. That is a solid 'conviction' towards Samsung.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The ONE patent that the recent US jury said that Samsung did NOT infringe (with phones or tablets) was the 'rectangle with rounded corners'.

That decision only confirms the jury solid validation of the other Apple patents, and possible infringement. BTW, each infringement has to be decided by a 9-0 vote. An 8-1 would not have won. That is a solid 'conviction' towards Samsung.

Minus the fact that it has several things to get it appealed handed to Samsung on a silver platter. Does not change the fact that Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

 

[treatment]

So far they only have it in 15", although I wouldn't be surprised to see it come to the 13" size. Look, if Apple stops making product you want, there are tons of competitors out there and you already stated you have no problems using Windows. So what's the big problem?

Clearly, you didn't bother to read what I wrote, and yet, you formed an opinion, so you're an idiot.
THE END.

 

[SprSynJn]

Minus the fact that it has several things to get it appealed handed to Samsung on a silver platter. Does not change the fact that Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

What exactly do you think patents are for? Bragging rights?

 

[viewfly]

What exactly do you think patents are for? Bragging rights?

Excellent comment! Companies spend millions of dollars on legal fees to acquire and maintain patents. It provides protection for their innovations. And for the secure employment of it staff, it would be ridiculous for them not to defend, trade and sue others for infringement. Anything else is corporate negligence.

Minus the fact that it has several things to get it appealed handed to Samsung on a silver platter. Does not change the fact that Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

Patent troll? Do you even know the definition? From Wiki:

Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

That hardly describes Apple's case in court. Apple is already using their patents in their products.

Your posts are nonsense.

Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

Further, a patent troll is a person, group of lawyers or company that:

1) Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent.

2) Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;

3) Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;

4) Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;
or
5) Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers. (which means giving the threat of a lawsuit only to gain fees...hoping that the company would decide not to got to court, for fear that the patent would be invalidated...clearly Apple felt it patents could withstand that court test...and they did...!!!)

 

[smoledman]

The problem is Samsung shamelessly copied and their memos proved it. Honestly the only way to truly punish IP thieves like this is to fine them their annual revenue.

 

[smoledman]

I didn't know Apple made Android phones
See, depending on where you arbitrarily draw the line, it's easy to vilify a company's actions.

From your point of view it is a "**** up". That doesn't make Samsung the bad guy. They have every right to defend their actions, and IMO they presented a pretty strong case. Not everything they said was equally strong, but a lot made sense, just as not everything Apple said made sense, but some did. Look at that Ars Technica link I posted earlier and see if you can spot the similarities to iOS in the other OSs on show, and work out why they got left alone but Samsung didn't.

Android was completely redesigned after the iPhone hit the market to look like iOS.

 

[LorenK]

Why should it change my mind about Apple? If anything, it has set back both Samsung and Korea. I am sure that most readers have no sense of history for electronics, so they may not be aware that Korea built its electronics industry in the same way that Japan did, by copying and stealing. Their industry eventually became innovators, but Samsung's activity with their phones reflects the old ways (and China's as well), so it reflects poorly on Samsung.

As for Apple suing Samsung, c'mon, the copying was so blatant, Apple had to do something, and it's just wrong on Samsung's part that it was so obvious that it forced Apple to do so.

Yes, I have lots of Apple products, Pro, iMac, mini, iPhone, iPods, but only because the alternatives are so bad. I have been using computers since the early eighties (in the early seventies, I did basic programs on punch cards), and I have hated Windows since. For all the complaints about Apple's prices, the fact of the matter is that they just work, and the money I save from that is well worth the extra I pay up front.

 

[smoledman]

Why should it change my mind about Apple? If anything, it has set back both Samsung and Korea. I am sure that most readers have no sense of history for electronics, so they may not be aware that Korea built its electronics industry in the same way that Japan did, by copying and stealing. Their industry eventually became innovators, but Samsung's activity with their phones reflects the old ways (and China's as well), so it reflects poorly on Samsung.

As for Apple suing Samsung, c'mon, the copying was so blatant, Apple had to do something, and it's just wrong on Samsung's part that it was so obvious that it forced Apple to do so.

Yes, I have lots of Apple products, Pro, iMac, mini, iPhone, iPods, but only because the alternatives are so bad. I have been using computers since the early eighties (in the early seventies, I did basic programs on punch cards), and I have hated Windows since. For all the complaints about Apple's prices, the fact of the matter is that they just work, and the money I save from that is well worth the extra I pay up front.

Isn't that the way it always is? Other countries imitate the original mover until the next generation designers come along and are innovative in their own right? Eventually Japan became a design powerhouse.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Except that all phones before the iPhone looked VERY different than now. But that isn't even the point. Only someone very disingenuous or totally blind wouldn't see how those Samsung products were copying Apple at so many levels: Hardware, Software, UI, Packaging... Even Korean courts agree that Samsung copied Apple (but also that Apple infringed on Samsung's IP).

What everyone always misses when they cite this sort of reference is that the technology to make a fully touchscreen phone didn't exist before 2006. Then, about a month before the original iPhone came out, there was the LG Prada which was the first touchscreen device. It looks remarkably like the iPhone.

But the point is, no one could have done it previously because the technology didn't exist. And then when the technology did exist, Apple patented the most basic things.

It's like someone invented the wheel, and then everyone decided to build cars. But Apple patented the concept of a motor attached to a wheel, so now the only car anyone can make is one that uses a fan to blow the car around, like those boats for shallow water.

Apple should have never gotten the patent, but the fact that they're enforcing it so vigourously is just obnoxious.

 

[smoledman]

What everyone always misses when they cite this sort of reference is that the technology to make a fully touchscreen phone didn't exist before 2006. Then, about a month before the original iPhone came out, there was the LG Prada which was the first touchscreen device. It looks remarkably like the iPhone.

But the point is, no one could have done it previously because the technology didn't exist. And then when the technology did exist, Apple patented the most basic things.

It's like someone invented the wheel, and then everyone decided to build cars. But Apple patented the concept of a motor attached to a wheel, so now the only car anyone can make is one that uses a fan to blow the car around, like those boats for shallow water.

Apple should have never gotten the patent, but the fact that they're enforcing it so vigourously is just obnoxious.

I'm pretty sure 100 years ago the basic technologies behind the automobile were quite revolutionary and deserving of IP protection. It's so easy in 2012 to make that comparison, but for smartphones it's 1912 and Apple deserves a 25 year monopoly on it.

 

[ixodes]

For many years I had a terrific opinion of Apple.

Filled with respect, admiration for their focus and fine accomplishments.

Now, they've shaken the tech sector hard with their combative ways.

After reading the mainstream news today, seeing how this is playing out in the public's perception, I am very concerned.

I'm also very angry with Apple, for pulling a stunt like this. Being the bully.

If they were teetering on the brink of oblivion, that would be one thing.

But Apple is a success of massive proportions.

Apple did not need to take this approach, there are other ways...

 

[ucfgrad93]

I have avoided purchasing an iPhone for years now. For smartphones, I have no loyalty whatsoever to Apple. Also, I have owned 8 ipods, and 2 shuffles, and they are all dead now, useless space junk.

Same goes with the iPad...I look at all the cool apps, and I feel this intense resistance to it all. Mistrust, actually now that I really think about it. I believe that there is a level of built-in-obsolescence that happens with Apple, and you are EXPECTED to grab the latest version of the same product. Sell your iPhone 4, because you just know the Iphone 5 is going to be so much better.
It kind of like you already own a 2 slice toaster, but then you find a 4 slice toaster, and so you end up buying another toaster!!

Every year, you have to keep buying ultimately the same thing over and over again, just because they added some features.

I'm really old fashioned in the sense that when I pay this kind of cash for a product of ANY kind, I expect it to last for YEARS.

No one forces you to buy a new product every year. It is your choice to do so. I have an iMac that I use on a daily basis that was purchased in August 2007. I have a MacBook Pro that is my only laptop that was purchased in January 2008. And my iPhone was purchased in 2010. All of these things still do everything that I need them to. Do they lack some of the newer features, yes. However, they still work great.

I read today that there are more 13" retina MBPros being sold than 15".

You should be more careful about what you read and believe on the internet. Currently there is no such thing as a 13" MacBook Pro with a retina display.

 

[smoledman]

For many years I had a terrific opinion of Apple.

Filled with respect, admiration for their focus and fine accomplishments.

Now, they've shaken the tech sector hard with their combative ways.

After reading the mainstream news today, seeing how this is playing out in the public's perception, I am very concerned.

I'm also very angry with Apple, for pulling a stunt like this. Being the bully.

If they were teetering on the brink of oblivion, that would be one thing.

But Apple is a success of massive proportions.

Apple did not need to take this approach, there are other ways...

Apple's massive success has nothing to do with the validity of patent law. IP theft is theft and deserves the harshest of punishments. I think Samsung should be fined $100 billion.

 

[shinji]

Nope.

Apple has made some decisions I don't like- the lack of updates to the Mac Pro, the soldered-in RAM on new laptops, sweatshop labor, etc.- but this lawsuit is not one of them.

I have used some of Samsung's Android phones before and do consider them blatant ripoffs. I don't agree that the well-polished look and feel of an iPhone is just the natural evolution of smartphone technology. I think a lot of thought and effort on Apple's part went into it, others saw it's popularity with consumers, and then they chose to imitate it rather than innovate with something radically better.

 

[boss.king]

Android was completely redesigned after the iPhone hit the market to look like iOS.

Umm... Ok? Not sure what that had to do with the what I said. All the OSs mentioned came after iOS. Also, Android was in early development and was always planned to be implemented in touch phones.

 

[BaldiMac]

Also, Android was in early development and was always planned to be implemented in touch phones.

Source?

 

[boss.king]

Source?

I'm on my phone, I'll find it later.

 

[vrDrew]

The Apple that sued (and won) a Patent Infringement case against Samsung is a very different company than the one that sued Microsoft over "look and feel" - and lost.

Much as I admired the "old" Apple of circa 1985 - I think the new Apple (the most valuable company in the world) is a much better company. Not just bigger and immensely more profitable. But much more influential, and much more in tune with what consumers really want (even if they - the consumers - don't really know it yet.)

That fact of the matter is that we are living in a "post-industrial" society. And to that end the economies of North America and Europe are going to rely more and more on intellectual property. Not just iPhone patents, but also recorded music, films, books, and engineering. And so for that reason, I generally applaud when a company (any company) that has devoted thousands of hours and millions of dollars in developing its designs is prepared to defend those rights in Court. Few - if any - companies have the resources to take on a behemoth like Samsung. Apple does - and I think this case will serve as a shot across the bows to copycat firms, large and small, that think they can rip-off other people's work without fear of retribution.

Has Apple been aggressive patenting, and defending, its innovations? Absolutely. But that ought to serve as reminder to the rest of us, toiling away over word processors and guitar stands, video-editing decks and CAD workstations, that we too need to be vigilant about protecting our work from the shameless villains who would happily steal our work.

 

[Scrub175]

On the surface one would think why all the fuss? the flip side is, like Microsoft Samsung was entrusted with sensitive information about the inner workings of iPhone at the component level. Then after design, proof of concept and manufacture Samsung uses what they learned from a supplier side and applied it to the design side to manufacture a phone borrowing key engieering trade secrets learned through their supply deals to build a similar device that was a radical departure from Samsungs previous art and design. That part is what keeps me grounded and I feel Apple should have every right to defend fraud from a supplier with key inside trade secret info.

Now some of the trial seemed as simple as getting and iPhone, extracting all technical and usability features, and implementing similar design. That is a stretch but as long as there were minor feature and implementation differences Samsung would have been cool. I think they went with a mix of reverse engineer and supply side design for their new lines of devices omitting the minor differences part to some degree.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm on my phone, I'll find it later.

It's been posted many times and BaldiMac sure has read it since he's even argued with me over it before I ignored him. Basically, don't waste your time. No matter how much you prove to them "Android didn't change directions, it always was an OS made to run on many form factors", they won't believe you.

They have a hard enough time distinguishing hardware (iPhone) from software (Android) as it is. Heck, none of them can name what "changed" in Android as a software platform. I think one of them mentionned "multi-touch!" as the only thing once.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's been posted many times and BaldiMac sure has read it since he's even argued with me over it before I ignored him. Basically, don't waste your time. No matter how much you prove to them "Android didn't change directions, it always was an OS made to run on many form factors", they won't believe you.

They have a hard enough time distinguishing hardware (iPhone) from software (Android) as it is. Heck, none of them can name what "changed" in Android as a software platform. I think one of them mentionned "multi-touch!" as the only thing once.

Way to just make up an argument based on your stereotype. As usual, you simply change the argument of the other person to make it easy for you to contradict. I have no doubt that the core Android OS was made to be adaptable to a variety of form factors. I'm not one of those posters that posted the "Android before iPhone..." pictures, nor do I think that they prove anything.

I simply asked for evidence that Android was developing a multitouch UI before the iPhone was announced. If you have posted it before as you claim, a simple link would be nice instead of posting once again how proud you are of your ignore list.