Who else is mad about the apology?

[shinji]

I don't see what the big deal is about the apology. They released an app that wasn't as functional or polished as it should have been. Cook et al did the right thing.

The fact that Google Maps wasn't as good out of the gate as it is now is irrelevant. Users expect software to compare to today's competition, not yesterday's.

 

[Michael Goff]

Ha hahaha ha. Tell the truth, you ripped off that reply from a samsung fanboy, right?

Eh?

So when Apple copies features off the competition, it's "pretty basic, an inspiration no-more", but when the competition takes an Apple feature it's "IP Theft on a grand scale, and should be punished by having all their assets seized and given to Apple!"

Gotcha.

No, when a company gets confused and accidentally points at their competition when they meant to point at their own (ala part of the Galaxy Tab trial), then you know that something has been copied.

All assets? PLEASE, that's too much. I think that the 1 billion was too much. Just make Samsung change their product to look less like an iDevice. If they refuse to come up with some sort of fix within X months, then fine them.

How many months? Not sure. 6 sound good to everyone?

 

[KnightWRX]

No, when a company gets confused and accidentally points at their competition when they meant to point at their own (ala part of the Galaxy Tab trial), then you know that something has been copied.

A la "The non infringing on design patents" Galaxy Tab ? That trial ? What was copied if it was found non-infringing ?

(Hint, patent infringement has nothing to do with copying!).

 

[Michael Goff]

A la "The non infringing on design patents" Galaxy Tab ? That trial ? What was copied if it was found non-infringing ?

(Hint, patent infringement has nothing to do with copying!).

Look and feel?

I just found it funny that Samsung argued that they didn't try to blatantly copy the iPad and then they couldn't distinguish their own device.

 

[KnightWRX]

Look and feel?

Which again, was a non-infringement verdict for the Galaxy Tab.

I just found it funny that Samsung argued that they didn't try to blatantly copy the iPad and then they couldn't distinguish their own device.

And then were found non-infringing for the Galaxy Tab. So they didn't copy the iPad or the D'889 patent.

And frankly, that misquoted event of the "Samsung can't distinguish their product" is appalling. Did you read the entire transcript of that session ? One of Samsung's lawyer was given all of 2 seconds to distinguish both tablets from about 20 yards held up by the Apple lawyer, with only the front face showing. When she was confused, another lawyer on Samsung's team correctly identified the Samsung tablet for her.

So really, a bigger tempest in a teapot I have never seen, yet some people cling to it. And then the Galaxy Tab was found non-infringing of all verdicts, making the entire situation quite moot.

Anything else you want to add ?

 

[Michael Goff]

Yes.

Stop taking my laughs away.

I don't come to your house and stop you from having laughs, do I?

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes.

Stop taking my laughs away.

I don't come to your house and stop you from having laughs, do I?

If they are based on lies or distorted facts, I sure would hope you to. I'd rather face the cold hard truth.

 

[Michael Goff]

If they are based on lies or distorted facts, I sure would hope you to. I'd rather face the cold hard truth.

I don't care about the truth.

I just want to laugh at Samsung for this, Apple for their maps, Google for... something, Microsoft for something else, and so forth.

 

[Oracle1729]

No, when a company gets confused and accidentally points at their competition when they meant to point at their own (ala part of the Galaxy Tab trial), then you know that something has been copied.

So stealing key engineering designs and innovations and putting them in your own box is fine. Copying someone else's box with innovative hardware inside is not fine? Wow.

How many months? Not sure. 6 sound good to everyone?

Perfect. So Apple owes so much to samsung, google, microsoft, intel, xerox, ... they won't see a cent of revenue for 40 years. I love your plan.

 

[Michael Goff]

So stealing key engineering designs and innovations and putting them in your own box is fine. Copying someone else's box with innovative hardware inside is not fine? Wow.



Perfect. So Apple owes so much to samsung, google, microsoft, intel, xerox, ... they won't see a cent of revenue for 40 years. I love your plan.

I can't win.

If I say Samsung is wrong, I'm apparently an iFan.

If I don't, I'm still wrong.

If I think they should have all the money, I'm wrong.

If I don't, I'm somehow still wrong.

 

[Thegolem]

I for one am extremely disappointed with Cook issuing the apology. Jobs would never have bent over to the competition and let them take turns on him. Apple has severely disappointed me, and supporting them through this is making me look like a fool. I have loved all apple products prior to this, and even love the IP5, but this move makes Cook look like an extremely meek CEO. If there is anything good that can come from this it is that the stakeholders will form an uprising to get his ass outed. Who is with me here?

It was a bit excessive but apart from that I think it was good PR. There's no point trying to pretend it wasn't a massively flawed product. It's not made me angry but I hope Apple can get the ruling that they have to apologise to Samsung overturned. That does make me angry.