Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Legal And just like that, within a matter of days, the jury has reached a verdict in Apple vs. Samsung. The basic gist is simple: Apple's software patents are valid, and many Samsung devices infringe upon them. Apple's iPhone 3G trade dress is valid, and Samsung's Galaxy S line infringes, but other devices did not. Samsung did not infringe Apple's iPad design patent. Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Apple is awarded a little over $1 billion in damages. Competition lost today, and developers in the United States should really start to get worried - software patents got validated big time today.
Thread beginning with comment 532206
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kyousefi
Member since:
2012-07-28

You dismissed all these great products which many of them were pioneers of new markets (not primarily technologies) and defined new categories. Very good.

I've totally forgotten about the new markets and innovative product categories that samsung built in the fields of microwave oven, refrigerator, flat screen TV, dvd player and even wristwatch and oh, who can forget those "magically" 30$ digital frames?

The problem is -and I'm doing my best to be very respectful to you Thom and be fair-, with all due respect, there is a lack of understanding the distinction between product/market innovation and technological innovation on your side. And that's why you fail to understand why Apple (and designers like me) are angry and why samsung is guilty (And playing like a spoiled brat and pretending that it doesn't understand what it's done either)

Samsung pattern of business has been always like this: piggy backing on other pioneered markets, SONY in TV, American manufacturers in home appliances and now apple in Smartphones and tablets.

There is a difference between "standing on giant's shoulders" and "Piggy backing by copying the trade dress".

It's OK that they like to enter new markets to gain more profit, but they could do it like what Microsoft did with windows mobile. Nobody is angry of Microsoft because it's getting into multitouch Smartphone market because, a) they were trying to do these things on the phone and tablet since windows 3.0, b) they are doing it with Nokia, a market and technological pioneer in this field and c) they went their own way in defining every aspect of their product.

Imagine, if microsoft+nokia were first to introduce to the market instead of iPhone. Now, guess how would Samsung phones look like? Of course, they would look like exactly like a lumia. And Microsoft and samsung were in court instead of apple. And Samsung would say :"Microsoft can't assert the right to monopolize square tiles, they are at war with innovation". Come on.

Reply Parent Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

pioneers of new markets

Since this is the internet, I will happily fact check for you:
- Tablets - not a new market, thus Apple isn't a pioneer by a long shot
- Smartphones - not a new market(they didn't even expand it that much), thus Apple is not a pioneer by a long shot

Or do you have your own definition of "pioneer"?

Reply Parent Score: 2

kyousefi Member since:
2012-07-28

I was born in 1975 and used most of those pre apple devices first hand to solve my problems, including apple failed products themselves.iPad and iPhone are pioneering devices and totally different from what used to be before them in terms of usability, technology and UI concepts, to the point that they can be considered a new category of products. If they were not, we would all using palm treos or Windows tablets with styluses in millions which is not the case. In the business world, it doesn't matter who got the idea first. It's important who implements something successfully it in the market first. The massive integrated ecosystem of itunes+iPhone+iOS+Mac OS, etc created two new market categories that didn't exist before. The sales figures are my proof, the popularity is my proof, the iPhone being a cultural icon is my proof. Let's not play with words. Apple created two new categories and others joined it later which is fine, but samsung copied the trade dress. And that's why they lost in court. It's business. You won't like that I publish a site with a white logo on gray background and name it mOSnews, with a very tiny letter M and publish news similar to yours. Anybody who owns an ice cream cart understand this it's an unfair business practice.

Reply Parent Score: -1