Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 11:27 UTC
Legal I'm guessing Apple is getting desperate, since its software patent lawsuits aren't doing particularly well. Moving on from software and design patents, the company is now suing Samsung over... Patents for mobile phone and tablet cases (more at The Verge). I think Apple has more offensive lawsuits than products now, so technically, "patent maker" is more accurate than "gadget maker" or "device maker". Fun times.
Order by: Score:
Apple is horrible
by andydread on Tue 20th Dec 2011 12:33 UTC
andydread
Member since:
2009-02-02

Thanks for this news Thom.
Apple filing all these trivial lawsuits against its competitors is a sad development. Ever since Apple has started suing people over trivial software-patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted We have started to convince our customers not to purchase Apple products. We are also now actively working to migrate our customers away from Apple products. We can no longer in good faith recommend products from a company that uses such egregious tactics to abuse the marketplace.

Reply Score: 18

'Tis the season
by orfanum on Tue 20th Dec 2011 12:38 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Of peace to all men, women, and sundry other creatures. Come on, kiss and make up now, or it's the Ghost of Christmas Future for both of you.

As an aside (call it 'Yuletide musings..'): I love being here on OSNews but increasingly find that tech is part of the problem overall, not part of the solution, and not simply because of warring device makers and the whims of fanboys. I have fiddled with configuration files like the best (or, rather, worst) of them but now I feel that we are fiddling while Rome burns. The global economy is in deep wotsit, and literally millions are in tumult over just that issue (not to mention wars, famine, etc., etc., etc.).

We have hacker types talking up drones to spy on police and security forces as part of the fighting back, and I kind of get their point; however, the ultimate binary here for me is technology versus consciousness; many appear to believe we may hit a critical mass of interconnected machine intelligence and human comprehension, aka the Singularity (I am being simplistic, OK, bear with me) in the near future but for me, technology has created a crass, almost 'asocial media' (tm), and we already have the mental tools to expand consciousness, have possessed them for thousands of years. They come free with birth for those lucky enough to be healthy.

Let's leave behind the technology that apparently serves to "get things done", and let's embrace the human mind, its soul, its imagination, which serve to know both your own and other beings. Nothing that we ourselves shall devise will ever touch the human complex in terms of subtlety and complexity, and you are surrounded by millions of examples. Chuck the code and speak to your neighbour.

Peace to all at this time of year.

I am bowing out for a while.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 'Tis the season
by Fergy on Tue 20th Dec 2011 19:15 UTC in reply to "'Tis the season"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Let's leave behind the technology that apparently serves to "get things done", and let's embrace the human mind, its soul, its imagination, which serve to know both your own and other beings.

I think you are on the wrong website. Here are some better places for you:
http://www.scientology.org/
http://mormon.org/
http://www.amish.net/
http://www.jaingyan.com/

Reply Score: 6

RE: 'Tis the season
by Neolander on Wed 21st Dec 2011 08:48 UTC in reply to "'Tis the season"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The only thing that allowed the human race to survive in spite of having a horrifically weak body is tools forged from its intelligence, what you call technology. This is why it is the big deal.

Global crises everywhere, so what ? We can do nothing about them crazy traders, and they are much more the expression of a financial system gone horribly wrong than any consequence of technological evolution. Meanwhile, at my scale, I am happy to have fun creating stuff that make my life and that of others a little easier, and contrary to what you seem to think it doesn't prevent me to have a social life.

Edited 2011-12-21 09:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 'Tis the season
by unclefester on Wed 21st Dec 2011 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE: 'Tis the season"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The only thing that allowed the human race to survive in spite of having a horrifically weak body is tools forged from its intelligence, what you call technology. This is why it is the big deal.


I suggest you watch a strongman competition, the Tour de France or the Hawaiian Triathlon before concluding that humans are horrifically weak.

Most modern humans are weak simply because we are don't do anywhere near enough vigorous physical activity to develop a healthy physique (hunter-gathers average 3-4 hours a day "exercise"). Humans are not naturally weak and feeble.

A well trained human can easily outrun virtually any other animal (except wolves and wild dogs) over a long distance. The traditional Khoisan hunters of the Kalahari desert hunted game by chasing it on foot for up to 80km. The animals would collapse or even die from exhaustion during the pursuit.

The best ultra-endurance runners can over 200km in a 24 hour period (the record is 303km).

An elite sprinter can beat race horses over 30-40 metres from a standing start.

We have greater visual acuity and better colour perception than virtually all other mammals.

Humans are far better swimmers than any other land mammals.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 20th Dec 2011 15:07 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Looks like they are going mad with greed. Way to go Apple. More people will hold you for a joke.

Reply Score: 6

two sides of the coin
by riha on Tue 20th Dec 2011 15:26 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

How can it be that people forgets there are two sides of the coin here?
Both samsung and Apple throws law suits against each others, so both are in the shit, not only apple.

I mean, if Samsung would not have anything to worry about, why throw other law suits back?

This reminds me of all other big companies fighting each others, it is no news now only because apple does it as well.


Nokia, apple, microsoft, novell, google, samsung, oracle and others are in the end the same shit, it´s all about making money.

Reply Score: 0

RE: two sides of the coin
by Earl C Pottinger on Tue 20th Dec 2011 16:00 UTC in reply to "two sides of the coin"
Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

I think part of the point that in the past Apple always claimed to have the best tech, and even anti-Apple people like me have to admit that they had the most polished software. I hate how their software limits my choices but know that if I hand an Apple Tablet to my Mom that she would not mess it up the way she does her Win7 machine.

But now instead of winning market share with the best hardware, or best polished software, or the best marketing campaign --- they use lawyers instead.

And once the lawyers get in they will suck up the money that would had gone into R&D to produce better products.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: two sides of the coin
by zima on Tue 27th Dec 2011 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE: two sides of the coin"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

in the past Apple always claimed to have the best tech, and even anti-Apple people like me have to admit that they had the most polished software

"Past" is a long stretch of time - I take it you forgot the dreadful OS7, 8, 9 days? (also two or three OSX releases; or iTunes, at least the Windows version, one that supposedly most of its users run) Apple had, for better part of a decade, products which were both substandard and more expensive ...they deserved to fold during the 2nd half of the 90s; very few companies get such 2nd chances (come on, it was insane, people were getting OS8 to "help Apple" / the pirate groups were even leaving it alone http://www.forbes.com/1997/08/08/column.html )
BTW, curiously, I was never on an Apple presentation of FCP on which it wouldn't crash at least once.

And yeah, "always claimed to have the best tech" ...like with PowerPC "supercomputer on a chip" G4 and hand-picked edge case Photoshop benchmarks.

Outside of PR drama directed at the masses, the messiah didn't quite claim the same thing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&feature=player_detailpag...
Apple had its head in the sand for the last many years [...] missed out [...] attitude of arrogance [...] the rest of the world passed us by [...] we need to bring the Mac up into the modern world [...] because we weren't first, because we didn't set the standards [...] this whole notion of being so proprietary in every facet what we do has really hurt us [...] reinvent the wheel our own way; and yeah it might be 10% better but usually it ended up being about 50% worse


Edited 2011-12-27 23:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: two sides of the coin
by ilovebeer on Tue 20th Dec 2011 16:39 UTC in reply to "two sides of the coin"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

How can it be that people forgets there are two sides of the coin here?
Both samsung and Apple throws law suits against each others, so both are in the shit, not only apple.

Quite simple. That would require people pull their heads out of the ground and admit that all the negative comments they've made about company X and be applied to the companies they seem to love so much too.

It amazes me why people choose to be so emotionally invested in what a company does. It reminds me of the nerds who piss themselves every time George Lucas does something to Star Wars. It doesn't actually affect them but I guess their lives are such that they have nothing better to do than whine about something.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: two sides of the coin
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE: two sides of the coin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Quite simple. That would require people pull their heads out of the ground and admit that all the negative comments they've made about company X and be applied to the companies they seem to love so much too.


Call me when Samsung files an offensive software patent lawsuit.

That's the difference. Apple's main source of income is threatened, and instead of competing, they litigate using software patents. Samsung, HTC, and so on are *defending* themselves.

This isn't rocket science.

Reply Score: 13

RE[3]: two sides of the coin
by shmerl on Tue 20th Dec 2011 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: two sides of the coin"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yes, self defense is different from aggression.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: two sides of the coin
by ilovebeer on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: two sides of the coin"
RE[4]: two sides of the coin
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: two sides of the coin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you under the impression that Samsung is a "model" company that operates only with the highest moral considerations? That's laughable at the least if so.


Why would I be under that impression?

But apparently that isn't stopping people from confusing themselves, posting misleading and/or uninformed content, and/or neglecting to do their homework before they come to silly conclusions.


God it must suck to be an Apple fanboy these days.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by testman on Tue 20th Dec 2011 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Why would I be under that impression?

Because you're well known for polarising conflicts into black & white, good versus "evil".

God it must suck to be an Apple fanboy these days.

Anyone that questions your histrionics is an Apple fanboy.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by ilovebeer on Wed 21st Dec 2011 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Why would I be under that impression?

You seem to attach yourself emotionally to certain companies, and put them on a pedestal as if they're to be the object of worship.

God it must suck to be an Apple fanboy these days.

It would guess the exact opposite. Apple as a company is in fantastic shape -- much better than most of the competitors. Therefore, any "Apple fanboy" should be quite pleased with Apple's current standing and position.

You reiterate in a later post that this isn't rocket science and you feel like you're teaching kindergarten. I agree that it isn't rocket science, but you certainly aren't teaching anyone anything here. It's blatantly obvious that you have a lot to learn about business and these types of subjects. Hopefully when/if you come back to reality, you'll do some actual homework instead of keeping on with the on-the-fly nonsense.

One last thing.. Constantly pointing your finger and crying "patent troll" doesn't help you in any way. Unless of course you goal is to look foolish.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: two sides of the coin
by kristoph on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: two sides of the coin"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Samsung has filed a number of offensive patents suits against Apple.

(Look up the last big debate we had about this where you started the article saying that Samsung was 'going on the offensive' against Apple.)

Generally I think Apple's suits are both lame and unnecessary. The iPad design suits are especially lame because, really, the physical design of the iPad is hardly so unique as to be patentable.

These suits on the cases have much more merit. If you look at the cases their basically a blatant ripoff. No rational person can argue that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: two sides of the coin
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: two sides of the coin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Samsung has filed a number of offensive patents suits against Apple.


Like which?

Apple started this lowlife software patent war. Samsung, HTC, etc. are defending themselves. You know this, yet as the Apple fanboy that you are, your brain simply can't process that your favourite pet company is engaging in patent troll behaviour. As such, your brain is in a state of cognitive dissonance. What you are doing now, with trying laughably to make a villain out of a company trying to defend itself, is your brain trying to cope with integrating the new information (Apple is a patent troll) into your existing beliefs (Apple is all that is good in the world).

This is all so incredibly entertaining.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by kristoph on Tue 20th Dec 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple started this lowlife software patent war. Samsung, HTC, etc. are defending themselves. You know this, yet as the Apple fanboy that you are, your brain simply can't process that your favourite pet company is engaging in patent troll behaviour.


Thom, 'Samsung is going on the offensive' are YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM months ago.

Your now arguing that what you meant by that was that they were going on an offensive defensive.

I know your not a journalist but surely even you must see how Orwellian that sounds.

What you are doing now, with trying laughably to make a villain out of a company trying to defend itself, is your brain trying to cope with integrating the new information (Apple is a patent troll) into your existing beliefs (Apple is all that is good in the world).


First, trying to insult people while making your point is not persuasive, it just makes you sound like a dick.

Second, it's the fiduciary duty of a company to make money for it's shareholders. The law facilitates the use of patents in this way. I think it's fine for either Apple or Samsung to use patents to make money. I don't hold that against any company.

I do think in many cases the patents are lame and laws need to be changed to correct them but I don't hold companies responsible for exploiting those laws (especially since I hold stock in many of these companies). On that vein I think Apple's design patent on the iPad is totally lame but they got the patent, courts have supported the patent (or not, depending on the court) and so it goes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom, 'Samsung is going on the offensive' are YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM months ago.

Your now arguing that what you meant by that was that they were going on an offensive defensive.


Oy vey.

Are you really going to make me spell it out? Really? *sigh*.

Derpistan invades Herpland > Derpistan is the aggressor, Herpland the victim.

Herpland goes on the offensive, and strikes back at Derpistan > In this war, Derpistan is still the aggressor, and Herpland is still the victim.

Like I said, this isn't rocket science. This is so basic I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten.

I know your not a journalist but surely even you must see how Orwellian that sounds.


We need an equivalent of Godwin's Law for George Orwell. Please use this adjective/adverb in the way it was meant to.

Edited 2011-12-20 23:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: two sides of the coin
by tupp on Tue 20th Dec 2011 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: two sides of the coin"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Derpistan invades Herpland > Derpistan is the aggressor, Herpland the victim.

If Derpese is the prevalent language in Derpistan, what is prevalent in Herpland?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: two sides of the coin
by Tony Swash on Wed 21st Dec 2011 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: two sides of the coin"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Thom, 'Samsung is going on the offensive' are YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM months ago.

Your now arguing that what you meant by that was that they were going on an offensive defensive.


Oy vey.

Are you really going to make me spell it out? Really? *sigh*.

Derpistan invades Herpland > Derpistan is the aggressor, Herpland the victim.

Herpland goes on the offensive, and strikes back at Derpistan > In this war, Derpistan is still the aggressor, and Herpland is still the victim.

Like I said, this isn't rocket science. This is so basic I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten.

I know your not a journalist but surely even you must see how Orwellian that sounds.


We need an equivalent of Godwin's Law for George Orwell. Please use this adjective/adverb in the way it was meant to.
"

All that presupposes that Samsung didn't explicitly and deliberately copy Apple's products and that that copying is not considered an offensive action.

If I grab hold of a burglar in my house in the middle of the night am I the aggressor? After all the burglar didn't grab hold of me first, all he did was break into my house and try to steal my stuff, I was the first one to make physical contact

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by Neolander on Wed 21st Dec 2011 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Second, it's the fiduciary duty of a company to make money for it's shareholders.

Philosophical break : discuss the affirmation "This is what's wrong with current capitalism."

Edited 2011-12-21 09:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by nej_simon on Wed 21st Dec 2011 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Thom, 'Samsung is going on the offensive' are YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM months ago.


I guess that means offensive as in counter-offensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: two sides of the coin
by JAlexoid on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: two sides of the coin"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Samsung has filed a number of offensive patents suits against Apple.

(Look up the last big debate we had about this where you started the article saying that Samsung was 'going on the offensive' against Apple.)


Yep, by that standard Russians were the aggressors in WW2, because they were "going on the offensive" for the whole second part of WW2.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by demosthenese on Tue 20th Dec 2011 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
demosthenese Member since:
2011-02-01

Bad analogy in that Russia invaded Poland at the start of WWII

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by JAlexoid on Wed 21st Dec 2011 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Off topic - But technically Poland was no longer a country(as in, already occupied by Germany) when Russia invaded. Not defending that decision, obviously.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: two sides of the coin
by zima on Tue 27th Dec 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: two sides of the coin"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Not quite, on 17th September the largest battle of the campaign was still ongoing. Also, Warsaw wasn't captured (likewise large cities on the east) & it held out under attack for over a week longer.
Armed forces were still coherent and fighting, one of the largest battles of the campaign was initiated on the day of Soviet invasion. The administration on areas which the Soviet Union would invade was functioning (heck, it largely sorta continued to do so while under occupation, a bit unlike few other countries); also transport, industry ...switched towards war effort, as far as it could be done on such rather short notice.

Come on, the joint German-Russian invasion was pre-arranged in Ribbentrop-Molotov pact! The Soviets were just delaying their invasion, the Germans urging them to act according to agreement.

Sure there was some chaos always inherent in war, but also a strategic retreat - and it was quite feasible that the 'bastion' in SE region would hold long enough for resupplies and reinforcements, in a strategically advantageous (opposite German forces) position (vs. what the Polish forces had to deal with earlier, essentially an encirclement of the whole western part of the country by the Third Reich); that was the plan. Soviet army attacking the region "in the back" was what shattered this possibility ...so, in light of that, the Polish government ordered an evacuation of the remaining forces, the orders were largely executed - how a non-existing administration could do that?

In part it was a propaganda / excuse the Soviets used to justify the invasion, to "protect" the population of 'failed' state.

IIRC you are from the general area, one of the Baltic states, which experienced the "care" of the Soviets... also annexed by the Soviet Union within a year, also on the basis of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Was it because it "was no longer a country"?

Edited 2011-12-28 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by zima on Mon 26th Dec 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Bad analogy in that Russia invaded Poland at the start of WWII

Hm, it might be not such a bad one precisely because of this... Samsung is not exactly an angel overall, after all.

The Soviet Union wouldn't be so quick to do that without the initiative from Nazi Germany ...and, in the end, proved that - while by no means angels themselves - they were still "better" (the simplest proof: East German people exist (and AFAIK there was never any talk of anything else, also while Western Allies seriously contemplated Morgenthau Plan for a few years) - that's something which would be granted only in a quite limited way to Slavic nations by Nazi Germany - and actually, DDR was one of more decent places in the Soviet Block, eventually it was very much seen as "the west" also figuratively, even in a place just a short hop across the Oder)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: two sides of the coin
by brichpmr on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: two sides of the coin"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"Quite simple. That would require people pull their heads out of the ground and admit that all the negative comments they've made about company X and be applied to the companies they seem to love so much too.


Call me when Samsung files an offensive software patent lawsuit.

That's the difference. Apple's main source of income is threatened, and instead of competing, they litigate using software patents. Samsung, HTC, and so on are *defending* themselves.

This isn't rocket science.
"


It must be 'rocket science' to you, because I think you have this arse backwards. Apple competes and continues to win millions of customers through near-flawless marketing execution, unrivaled customer satisfaction with their products and arguably the best integrated ecosystem available to the masses. They litigate when Samsung and their ilk attempt to ride Apple's successful coattails with apparent knockoffs that don't pass the giggle test.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: two sides of the coin
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: two sides of the coin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They litigate when Samsung and their ilk attempt to ride Apple's successful coattails with apparent knockoffs that don't pass the giggle test.


...and yet, Apple is bleeding market share, with Android continuing to grow. If Apple's products really are as good as you say, yet people choose similarly priced Android devices en masse, doesn't that mean Android really isn't as bad as you make it out to be (or, more accurately, iOS simply isn't as good as you make it out to be)?

But hey, don't let the facts stand in your way of your fanboyism.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by lustyd on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
lustyd Member since:
2008-06-19

...and yet, Apple is bleeding market share, with Android continuing to grow. If Apple's products really are as good as you say, yet people choose similarly priced Android devices en masse


I wouldn't call it en masse, look at the sales figures and the iPad is still doing considerably better than all of the others and market share has only fallen slightly - it had to since they started with 100% market share.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: two sides of the coin
by Beta on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: two sides of the coin"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

they started with 100% market share.


Foolish comment of the year awarded to you. Tablets existed before Apple, and will exist after Apple.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: two sides of the coin
by lustyd on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: two sides of the coin"
lustyd Member since:
2008-06-19

The tablets you're thinking of sold in the hundreds or maybe thousands, the iPad has sold in the tens of millions - they had 100% market share because the ones you're thinking of were so insignificant they don't even count towards the stats. It was the same with the iPod before, a bunch of geeks did buy MP3 players (me included) but then apple launched the iPod and expanded the market to the point that previous sales were insignificant. This is similar to the way that nobody talks about Desktop Linux market share, there just isn't a large enough number to bother representing it overall.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by brichpmr on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

" They litigate when Samsung and their ilk attempt to ride Apple's successful coattails with apparent knockoffs that don't pass the giggle test.


...and yet, Apple is bleeding market share, with Android continuing to grow. If Apple's products really are as good as you say, yet people choose similarly priced Android devices en masse, doesn't that mean Android really isn't as bad as you make it out to be (or, more accurately, iOS simply isn't as good as you make it out to be)?

But hey, don't let the facts stand in your way of your fanboyism.
"


And yet, I'm correct ..plus Apple makes most of the profit in the mobile space because their millions of customers, most of whom are not Mac users, are willing to pay those prices.....nothing to do with your fanboy mantra, which is a weak response on its face.

Reply Score: 1

RE: two sides of the coin
by Fergy on Tue 20th Dec 2011 19:18 UTC in reply to "two sides of the coin"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

How can it be that people forgets there are two sides of the coin here?
Both samsung and Apple throws law suits against each others, so both are in the shit, not only apple.

If MS Apple and Oracle wouldn't abuse software patents I would bet there wouldn't be any lawsuits. Samsung HTC and Google don't care for software patents but they aren't going to sit still for Apple with a baseball bat.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: two sides of the coin
by Alfman on Tue 20th Dec 2011 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: two sides of the coin"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Fergy,

"If MS Apple and Oracle wouldn't abuse software patents I would bet there wouldn't be any lawsuits."

I highly doubt it. The patent system encourages the patent troll business model by rewarding them. If it wasn't these guys, it'd just be someone else.


Those who have the power to rewrite patent law, are those who created the mess in the first place. They have no incentive to change status quo, no matter how broken it may be for software developers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: two sides of the coin
by shmerl on Wed 21st Dec 2011 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: two sides of the coin"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Rewarding troll/unethical behavior doesn't mean Samsung is going to engage in it. It was Samsung discussed above, not random "someone else".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: two sides of the coin
by Alfman on Wed 21st Dec 2011 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: two sides of the coin"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shmerl,

I really didn't mean to suggest that samsung would be the aggressor, only that there would still be one. Not all companies find the patent troll business model appealing, though it can be hard to predict through the smoke and mirrors.

Ideally patent trolling wouldn't be viable, and money would be diverted back from all the wasteful lawsuits into productive R&D jobs and higher quality products.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: two sides of the coin
by shmerl on Wed 21st Dec 2011 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: two sides of the coin"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I agree, that the flawed legal system leaves more space for trolls. That can be expected. But using patents for defense (even active defense, like filing law suits back) is totally justifiable.

Reply Score: 2

Tablets and Patents
by BeOSJim on Tue 20th Dec 2011 22:38 UTC
BeOSJim
Member since:
2010-01-20

Does any here remember the pre iPad tablets?

Typically a Windows interface, stylus needed, large tablet with handles, grips, controls, buttons all over them. Basically a stylus controlled version of (typically) Windows. My Doctors office has used them for years.

In comes the iPad. A new icon based tablet interface, touch screen, a single button at one end of the device, etc. Now they all look like that - or VERY VERY similar. Units that are either 4x3 or 16x9 screen ratios are setup the same way.

Samsung, in this case, copied the iPad design, USB cables, boxes, etc., look like Apples. I am sure we've all seen the Samsung store photo with Apple App Store and Safari icons in it.

Should these patents have been issued, no.
Did Samsung and others violate some patents, yes.
Has Apple violated some patents, yes.
It is a big mess. Reform the patent system! Please!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tablets and Patents
by tupp on Tue 20th Dec 2011 23:43 UTC in reply to "Tablets and Patents"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Does any here remember the pre iPad tablets?

Yep.

Here's just one of several: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

You were saying?...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Tablets and Patents
by smashIt on Tue 20th Dec 2011 23:50 UTC in reply to "Tablets and Patents"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Typically a Windows interface, stylus needed, large tablet with handles, grips, controls, buttons all over them. Basically a stylus controlled version of (typically) Windows. My Doctors office has used them for years.


those devices were designed for content-creation, not consumption

In comes the iPad. A new icon based tablet interface, touch screen, a single button at one end of the device, etc. Now they all look like that - or VERY VERY similar. Units that are either 4x3 or 16x9 screen ratios are setup the same way.


actually they all look like crunch-pads
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

and the crunchpad wasn't even the first device with this design

Edited 2011-12-20 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Does anybody here actually think Samsung did not copy Apple?

I know lots of people thinks it's OK to copy Apple, that Apple wasn't being original, that copying and imitation are what makes the tech world progress, etc,etc. That's does answer the question I posed.

The question I am interested is if anyone really thinks Samsung did not copy Apple?

What do these look like, exactly like?

http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/samsung-smart-c...

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What do these look like, exactly like?


They look like InCase's cover Apple ripped off.

Reply Score: 5

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The question I am interested is if anyone really thinks Samsung did not copy Apple?


Apparently the way Apple shapes its products, designs its icons & GUI, puts in boxes, advertises them and makes accessories for them has become the only logical, practical and even only way to do it. Therefor nobody did copy Apple, but it's the only possible way to do it.

Besides tablet computers colored black and shaped rectangular have been around for a very long time as people have come up with examples like a children's slate, an embedded monitor in a table in 2001 A Space Odyssey and a piece of wood in Star Trek.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Besides tablet computers colored black and shaped rectangular have been around for a very long time as people have come up with examples like a children's slate, an embedded monitor in a table in 2001 A Space Odyssey and a piece of wood in Star Trek.


...and you're conveniently forgetting the Knight Ridder and CrunchPad.

But hey, the CrunchPad didn't sell very well, so it doesn't count. Only ideas stolen from products successful products count, right?

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

So you deny Samsung copied Apple and don't even blink?

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So you deny Samsung copied Apple and don't even blink?


I deny that Samsung/HTC/etc. copied Apple in the way that people like you make it out to be. I also deny that copying is somehow bad - this entire goddamn industry is built on stealing, copying, and thieving. I deny this idea that Apple is somehow the inventor of everything and all, even though Apple has not invented any new idea or technology in its entire existence.

In other words, I despise the hypocrisy where Samsung copies = bad, and Apple copies = okay.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's a shame Steve's no longer with us, you two could do a great RDF battle on stage.

Reply Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"So you deny Samsung copied Apple and don't even blink?


I deny that Samsung/HTC/etc. copied Apple in the way that people like you make it out to be. I also deny that copying is somehow bad - this entire goddamn industry is built on stealing, copying, and thieving. I deny this idea that Apple is somehow the inventor of everything and all, even though Apple has not invented any new idea or technology in its entire existence.

In other words, I despise the hypocrisy where Samsung copies = bad, and Apple copies = okay.
"

So I interpret what you are saying is:

a) Samsung did not copy Apple

b) Copying is OK

c) Apple never made anything original so copying them is OK

Leaving aside the ethics of copying patented or copyrighted features what Apple does not do and which the likes of Samsung do do is copy entire products. All Apple's products are distinctly Apple's, as a company they take great care to make their products look and function in as original and distinctive Apple way as possible. Samsung do not. They try to make their products look as much like Apple's as is possible.

It may be successfully argued that what Samsung does, copying entire products right down to the packaging and accessories, is legal but do you think that that is OK and somehow laudable? That doing such a thing has merit?

Reply Score: 0

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

c) Apple never made anything original so copying them is OK

This is the important line. If they never made anything original, how is it copying from them?

Reply Score: 3

tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Well, I'll make it more easy for you (my interpretation):
a) everybody copying each other. Not just Samsung that copying Apple. Apple too have been copying from somebody else.
b) Can be bad, can be good. depend on the case. On this case, you can't say its bad.
c) Apple made something original, yes. But they too, copying something original from someone else, no? Doesn't that count?

Read carefully, everyone..

Reply Score: 1

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

In other words, I despise the hypocrisy where Samsung copies = bad, and Apple copies = okay.


The only person spouting that hypocrisy (in reverse) is you. How many articles have you posted about mobile technologies lately? All of them contain some sort of jab at Apple, whether the story is about them or not.

It's funny, you're part of the anti-fanboys. Hate without logic, because you're too cool to like something that the masses like. Thom likes things that came before the cool popular thing or are less popular now.

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"The question I am interested is if anyone really thinks Samsung did not copy Apple?


Apparently the way Apple shapes its products, designs its icons & GUI, puts in boxes, advertises them and makes accessories for them has become the only logical, practical and even only way to do it. Therefor nobody did copy Apple, but it's the only possible way to do it.

Besides tablet computers colored black and shaped rectangular have been around for a very long time as people have come up with examples like a children's slate, an embedded monitor in a table in 2001 A Space Odyssey and a piece of wood in Star Trek.
"

So I infer that you are saying yes you think Samsung copied Apple - correct?

Reply Score: 0

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

In my mind there is no doubt they copied Apple.

It's not just one thing, or two, it's well, almost everything.

People cite prior art, but this involves things that have been around for years and years, yet Samsung came with their stuff after the iPad turned out to be a success. So there is no doubt who they got their inspiration from and it wasn't Star Trek or the JooJoo (RIP).

So it beats me why people here ignore reality and claim Samsung didn't copy Apple or even call copying progress, even though Samsung isn't progressing anything.

Reply Score: 1

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, Apple haters tend to be very flexible and agile when twisting reality and facts to prove their case. It seems they have copied Steve's RDF, although less convincing.

BTW an interesting piece about Steve aired on BBC recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1CU3-Ms5Q

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

[q]It is painfully obvious to more objective observers that:

a) Apple try to make their products have original and distinctive designs and functionality


So, what is new/original about, say, the iPhone? I dare you to name 3 concrete features, ideas, or technologies about the iPhone that were new. Just three.

Reply Score: 1

lustyd Member since:
2008-06-19

So, what is new/original about, say, the iPhone? I dare you to name 3 concrete features, ideas, or technologies about the iPhone that were new. Just three.

Usable (i.e. pleasant to use) mobile browser? Opera didn't even compare.

The whole touch interface? Yes there were touchscreens, but they simply were not up to the iPhone standard in usability.

capacitive touch screen? OK I'm not certain but I don't remember other touchscreens using this before iPhone.

App store? you have to admit, they got this right!

iPod functionality in a phone? I have a Samsung D900 and trust me, Samsung were FAR behind on this front.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"So, what is new/original about, say, the iPhone? I dare you to name 3 concrete features, ideas, or technologies about the iPhone that were new. Just three.

Usable (i.e. pleasant to use) mobile browser? Opera didn't even compare.

The whole touch interface? Yes there were touchscreens, but they simply were not up to the iPhone standard in usability.

capacitive touch screen? OK I'm not certain but I don't remember other touchscreens using this before iPhone.

App store? you have to admit, they got this right!

iPod functionality in a phone? I have a Samsung D900 and trust me, Samsung were FAR behind on this front.
"


You just proved my point. None of these were new. None of these were invented by Apple (some were even bought, like multitouch). App Store? Nothing new, something like that already existed for mobile Java applications or the Sidekick. Apple didn't invent the capacitive touch screen. It was created in the academic world, built by LG. In fact, LG was the first to ship a phone with a capacitive touch screen (the Prada, I have one).

See my point? Apple doesn't invent. Apple takes other people's ideas, and makes them better. That's a great skill, and they're definitely market leader there in mobile. However, that's not inventing.

Edited 2011-12-21 16:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

It's because of Apple phobia plain and simple.
[...]
That's the sort of intellectual collapse that a phobia can precipitate.


Bryan Singer's lawyers for you on line 1. Sorry, but after the X-Men films, he patented the concept of painfully-obviously comparisons to homophobia.

Edited 2011-12-24 02:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

In my mind there is no doubt they copied Apple.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.


It's not just one thing, or two, it's well, almost everything.

Such vagueness does not convince.


People cite prior art, but this involves things that have been around for years and years, yet Samsung came with their stuff after the iPad turned out to be a success.

Actually, Samsung was selling its digital picture frame several years before the Ipad "turned out to be a success." So, Samsung was "coming with their stuff" years before the Ipad.

Furthermore, Samsung cited a lot of prior art in its defense against Apple's litigation, so there is no reason to believe that Samsung did not get inspiration from the prior art that it cited.

Additionally, it's further damning to the pro-Apple arguments that a fanboy would admit that prior art to the Ipad has "been around for years and years." Such an admission means that a tablet with rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel was invented outside of Apple much earlier than most fanboys would care to contemplate.

Finally, we must also consider the obviousness factor of such a simple tablet design. The design was so obvious that a newspaper publisher made a mock-up with a demo video 16 years before the Ipad was introduced!


So it beats me why people here ignore reality and claim Samsung didn't copy Apple or even call copying progress, even though Samsung isn't progressing anything.

Samsung cited solid prior art to the Ipad in their defense against Apple's litigation. One of the prior art items is Samsung's own digital picture frame, which the Ipad design resembles almost exactly. So, Samsung probably got their inspiration from those decidedly non-Apple sources.

Who is saying that Samsung is "progressing" anything technologically? It may or may not be, but that is not the point. A product can be obvious, and, thus, it is not "progressing" technology, while it is also not "copying" -- such is the case with the Ipad.

Edited 2011-12-21 19:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

A picture frame is not a tablet computer, nor were props used in classic movies/series, mock-ups or children's slates and even the JooJoo is doubtful as it could only do one thing.

Apple was the first to build a working compelling succesful tablet computer. The way Samsung copied it is not vague at all, it is so pretty obvious that only Google fanboys would deny this.

Reply Score: 0

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

A picture frame is not a tablet computer,

Nobody is suggesting that a picture frame is a tablet computer.

The point in contention in this thread is tablet enclosure design. The Ipad enclosure is almost an exact copy of the Samsung digital picture frame, which was selling several years prior to the Ipad's introduction. Furthermore, there are several examples of earlier prior art.

So, Apple cannot claim that it originated the Ipad enclosure design. Due to earlier prior art, likewise, Samsung cannot claim that it invented its picture frame design.

However, herein lies one of the big differences between Apple and Samsung -- Samsung is not deluded enough to claim that it originated the design -- it acknowledges other prior art going back decades.


... nor were props used in classic movies/series, mock-ups or children's slates and even the JooJoo is doubtful as it could only do one thing.

No.

A prop, mock-up or an under-powered production model of touch tablets are certainly the invention of the touch tablet, if such an item is the first to be documented or made.

A conceptual movie prop is a valid invention -- although it might be obvious and the underlying technology might not be ready, it is, nontheless, a documented concept.

A video mock-up is most defintely a valid demonstration of an invention/design -- its sole purpose is to demostrate an invention.

Without question, an under-powered production version of a product is a valid, solid, working invention.

Of course, the enclosure design of an invention is valid as prior art, even if the function of the prior art is not the same as the subsequent art.


Apple was the first to build a working compelling succesful tablet computer.

Nope. Sorry. There were a lot of "compelling" tablet computers in widespread use, long before the Ipad.

Of course, "compelling" is a highly subjective trait, and it's one of those vague "add-on" conditions that fanboys use to support a feeble assertion.

First of all, there were (and are) about a zillion field based tablets in use in many industries. In such conditions and circumstances, an Ipad is probably not very "compelling" by most standards: the Ipad is not rugged enough; it does not offer enough needed features; and a company cannot easily use its own field software on an Ipad.

Secondly, after years and years, I still see people posting glowing comments about their hybrid tablet/laptops. It sounds a lot more "compelling" and useful to me to have a built-in, hideaway hardware keyboard, than to have to rely on a slower on-screen keyboard. I'd much rather have one of those.

Thirdly, as the moderator of this site has recently reminded us (and as I and others on this forum have maintaned for years), the touch PDAs of the late 1990s were merely tablets in a smaller format. They had icon arrays, various applications and some even had rounded corners. You could even use your fingers. And they were "compelling" enough to sell millions of units.

We could certainly include the Apple Newton and its many predecessors in this argument, but, again, the Newton was defintely not the first of its kind, and we have to "draw the line" somewhere.



The way Samsung copied it is not vague at all, it is so pretty obvious that only Google fanboys would deny this.

LOL! Google fanboys!

It seems that Google fanboys can only be seen by those within the RDF, because, out here, nobody has ever detected a single Google fanboy.

However, those of us on the outside are painfully aware of one group of fanboys. This group of corporate followers constantly get in our faces about how "compelling" their company is... continually declaring how "genre-defining" their corporation's products are. Such are the members of the Apple monoculture... those self-deluded victims of Apple's "tyranny of taste."

Reply Score: 4

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

LOL! Google fanboys!


Of course. Tons of people have an irrational hatred of all things Apple and think Android is the be all end-all of operating systems.

You think there are no Android/Google fanboys? Just look at some comments here or Android news sites. Just a couple articles ago I said something about how the unique strengths of Android appeal to some people, and the unique strengths of iOS appeal to others. Some guy said that doesn't make sense, because iOS has no unique strengths.
That's the kind of irrational argument you get from fanboys. Not an objective assessment of facts, but simplistic black and white reasoning. Just like Thom and his "Apple has never invented anything" blather.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The question posed was "Does anybody here think Samsung did not copy Apple?".

This has nothing to do with prior art. And I don't consider non-tablets, mock-ups and props as prior art, because that would mean warp speed starships wouldn't be innovations/inventions. I don't see the makers of Back to the Future sue the first person to market a time traveling car.

Like I stated many times it's not just one thing Samsung copied, it's multiple things. I have seen cheap Android tablets that also took a large dose of iPad inspiration, but their creators don't seem to get sued.

It doesn't matter is stuff has been done before or is obvious (with hindsight), it's Samsung making a product after the iPad that took a lot of hints from it.

If Samsung made a black rectangular shaped bezel bearing tablet I don't think Apple would have sued them. But they added an iOS clone as its operating system, made adjustments to make it look even more like iOS and put it in a box that looks like an iPad box. At tech fairs they even used the Apple app store logo (amongst others) and now a (family) related company even made covers that look like Apple's iPad 2 ones.

So it beats me why some people deny Samsung copying Apple. It's an obvious way to lift on Apple's marketing and success, like a lot of companies do in either small ways or slightly bigger ones.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Does Apple have any substantial evidence that something non trivial and unique was copied? No. The vast majority of these cases are about trivial, obvious and natural things in design, or altogether software patents, which aren't working as intended at all as known. When Apple does produce a reasonable hardware patent infringement case - that's a different story.

Reply Score: 4

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

If you are unaware - just repeat a few times - this kind of patents litigation is protection racket game, unless some company doesn't want to play by "rules" of indecent crooks.

Reply Score: 3

Easy defense
by Lorin on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 00:44 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

"CrunchPad"

Reply Score: 1