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.
The verdict is incredibly detailed and granular, and hats off to the jury for doing all this as quickly as they did. Several of Apple’s software patents were validated today – bounce back scrolling, pinch-to-zoom, and tap-to-zoom – and most of Samsung’s devices infringed upon them – wilfully. Apple’s iPhone 3G(S) trade dress/design patent (sorry, lost track) was also infringed upon my some of Samsung’s phones, but not all of them. The iPad’s design patent was not infringed upon. Samsung also asserted a number of its own patents, but the jury ruled that none of Apple’s devices infringed upon them.
The end result is that Samsung has to pay Apple $1,051,855,000 in damages (Apple wanted $2.4 billion). Apple has to pay nothing to Samsung.
It will come as no surprise that I am very disappointed in this ruling – not so much for Samsung (they’re a company, I don’t care what happens to them), but very much so for the industry. Frivolous, anti-developer nonsense like software patents got validated big time today, and the repercussions of this will be felt far and wide. Every software patent troll in the US just popped a bottle of champagne, because their business model just got a major boost. In addition, don’t expect any new, upstart company to start shaking up the industry any time soon – Apple, and by extension Microsoft, have that locked down pretty tight right about now.
A very rich company just got a little richer, but everybody else – developers, consumers, companies – lost. Yet, my Twitter feed is blowing up with people cheering. I do not want to live on this planet an… Wait. Why do I even care? I’m Dutch!
This is good.
This is good for innovation.
This is good for consumers, the industry and the whole tech market.
This probably even be good for Samsung, in the long run, as it is freed from it’s addiction to cloning and will be forced to start innovating,
Samsung has a long record of ruthlessly copying competitors products, not just in detail but blatantly and on a large scale. With Apple’s massively disruptive entry into the smart phone market followed closely by it’s spectacular remaking and domination of the tablet market Samsung’s copying of Apple entered a new and more intense phase. Samsung copied not just Apple’s products but also the ads, the packaging, the retail stores, the works.
This sort of shit needs to stop otherwise the development of the technology business and markets will slow to a snails pace as everyone produces tedious ‘me-too’ products and nobody bothers to innovate because all their efforts, investment and creativity would be simply and immediately copied.
Apple-haters and Android fans are backing the wrong horse. Your enemies enemy is not your friend
It’s true that the outcome of any complex legal case is to a degree uncertain but in this case the fundamental issue was actually very clear cut. Samsung did copy Apple. They did it systematically. And they did it deliberately. And there was plenty of evidence, plenty, showing what they did and why they did it.
Those whose judgement and vision is clouded by hatred of Apple or love of Googleroid try to not to see what is blindly obvious to any objective observers such as this jury. To the jury it seems to have been pretty clear, they cut through the bullshit and saw the unavoidable truth, Samsung copied and on an industrial scale.
Even when the jury saw the copying they could have argued, as some of the haters and the Googleroid fans try to, that it was no big deal, everyone does it and hey the world will come to an end if this sort of thing is stopped and anyway Apple has never invented anything and all they do is just copy. But again the jury saw that sort of mendacious bullshit for what it was, and the jury said what Samsung did is wrong.
When Samsung was asked by Apple to please stop copying they said ‘fuck off’. When Apple said we will sue you if you continue to copy us and if you copy us you should pay us a license fee, Samsung said ‘fuck off’. Now a US jury has said ‘fuck off’ to Samsung.
Well done and thank you.
No doubt this will be appealed but this is a big blow to poor old Samsung who will now have to come up with their own designs. Perhaps they can appeal on the basis that being forced to create their own original designs is a form of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
Apple is going to be banned forever in my home and if my work place gets apple products i will not touch them
the court was bought by apple
the one who gave me a -1 is an apple retard!
Edited 2012-08-25 00:27 UTC
Well, I don’t see Google or Samsung on Capital Hill demanding an end to software patents, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for either of them. When you are a willing participant in a fight and get the shit kicked out of you, well… sucks to be you.
This is simply a case of big companies doing what big companies do. Samsung is going to appeal this, and of course it will drag on for several more years, and tech blogs will continue to be polluted with this incessant bullshit.
Apple is a patent troll
LOL, Apple actually makes products. But speaking of being heavy-handed with patents, we all know that Microsoft makes a lot of money on Android sales for this very reason. So when I’ve seen Windows users/Xbox 360 owners screaming about ‘boycott Apple!’ today as a result of this verdict, the irony isn’t lost on me.
For the record, I do not own any Apple products.
Apple doesn’t make anything at all they do not own factories!
The one who voted my comment down prove me wrong!
Edited 2012-08-25 15:04 UTC
“Well, I don’t see Google or Samsung on Capital Hill demanding an end to software patents”
A valid point re: Samsung, not so with Google.
I was very surprised that Samsung didn’t follow Google’s lead (in the Java/Android case) and ask the patent office to invalidate Apple’s patents in advance of the trial. If they truly are invalid, as many people thing, then a re-examination would invalidate them. The tactic worked very well for Google – and happens outside the truly ludicrous time restriction on arguments in the court room.
The only reason I could come up with for Samsung not challenging the patents in that way is that they didn’t want the same to happen to theirs.
Bingo! Samsung lawyers were so preoccupied with all-or-nothing approach, that it bit them in the ass. They could have gone the “narrow down patent claims” route, but they only wanted invalidation.
1. Maybe finally, the justice system will realize that too much energy is spent on these patent trials. Maybe the pressure will build to lobby for more sensible laws, hopefully restricting patents in time, also depending on whether they are being used, and to deny “obvious” patent applications.
2. The whole situation was brought upon the world by Microsoft blatantly cashing in on (a) PCDOS, and marketing MSDOS instead; (b) “copying” (and getting almost everything wrong in doing so, but that’s a different story:) Apple’s user interface. Formally, they couldn’t be blamed, because neither PCDOS nor the MacOS GUI were properly protected at the time, and Microsoft cleverly negociated contracts that turned out to let them get away with the whole thing. In order not to fall in this trap again with the iPhone et al., Steve Jobs told the world: “and boy, have we patented this…”
You’re not really making a whole lot of sense there. PCDOS was bought and paid for. That deal was all above board.
And Microsoft didn’t get away with coping the WIMP paradigm, Apple took MS to court and won (and that’s ignoring the fact that the whole thing wasn’t even Apples invention to begin with)
Edited 2012-08-25 14:05 UTC
Won? Seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp…
Hmm weird. I’m sure I remember reading that Apple had won at the time. In any case it was still Xerox’s innovation to begin with so Apple’s claim to it is tenuous at best.
It’s funny how things have since done a U-turn now though – GUI designs were dismissed back then, where as now even more tediously obvious ideas like rounded corners are upheld. Like sharp corners on a device that you’re going to poke next to your head and stuff down the tight pockets of your jeans are a great idea….
Edited 2012-08-25 20:14 UTC
Not sure where you read that. Apple quite famously lost that case, though the ruling relied in part on Microsoft having a contract.
I agree it’s upsetting to see the same company in the same court bringing almost the same claims and seeing the law changing enough to let them win.
It was my recollection at the time. (I’m an old bastard – I was using computers even back then :p )
The ironic thing is, I can see more merit in Apple being granted a patent for their GUI back then, than I can for most of the things they patent now.
But as has been said already, Apple don’t want to see history repeat.
The law didn’t change that much.
First, as you said, Microsoft had a deal with Apple by which they licensed Apple’s GUI constructs (menus and icons), but didn’t license Apple’s “look and feel”, which is what Apple sued about. And lost because Windows, despite having icons, windows, and menus (all of which Microsoft had a license for), didn’t have the Mac “look and feel”, nor did Microsoft try to emulate the Mac “look and feel”.
Samsung, on the other hand, had no license deal with Apple, and they willfully and deliberately copied Apple’s look and feel, and practically pretended to be a rebranded iPhone. Deliberately. “Let’s make a device that looks as close to the iPhone as possible (maybe even close enough to fool a few low-information consumers!), and we’ll reel in the dough!” Microsoft never tried to make Windows a carbon copy of the Mac. Samsung did intentionally try to make a near-carbon copy of the iPhone. They lost, and rightfully so.
The technology patents are a different matter. The rulings there don’t bode well for Android.
Last thing I’ll say is that this trial revealed that Apple and Micrsoft have a long standing cross-licensing agreement where they cross-license all of each other’s tech, as long as neither tries to clone the other’s products. That kind of deal sounds like the ideal situation to me, good for Apple, Microsoft, and consumers. Google and Samsung are too immature to reach such deals. Particularly Google. Being relatively young, they are still brash and think that the rules don’t apply to them.
That’s completely wrong.
The court did not rule that Microsoft did not copy Mac’s “look and feel”. It did not rule on that question at all. The court rejected Apple’s argument that UI is copyrightable as a whole, and instead dissected it into elements. For every element they found that it’s either covered by Windows 1.0 license, unoriginal to Apple, or is the only way to express the idea, so isn’t protected by copyright. The court did not rule if “look and feel” can be protected at all, but noted that “Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor”. This is quite similar to the recent Oracle v. Google ruling, only weaker because it relies on the license.
So the big difference with Apple v. Samsung is that Apple was able to patent its “look and feel”, something it didn’t and couldn’t do in the 80s. Patents give much broader protection and don’t have “the only way to express the idea” restriction.
You make no sense whatsoever. PC-DOS was just a branding of MS-DOS, when used on PCs sold by IBM. PC-DOS was made by Microsoft.
And about that “desktop GUI look and feel” (which Apple took from Xerox) lawsuit against MS – notably, Xerox sued Apple on the same charges, too, at the time.
But it’s quite hypocritical to allege that MS stole the GUI from Apple, while poitning out it was quite different (logically, that’s what “getting almost everything wrong” would really imply)
Sorry for not having quotes right now but Google did say numerous times it was against software patents and also it never used them offensively.
I have not nor will I ever buy an Apple product. I was going to add or a Microsoft product, but then I remember I actually bought MSDOS 6.0 many years ago.
No Apple or MS operating systems in our household. My desktop runs Ubunttu, my wife has a Linux netbook and an Android tablet. We both have dumbphones. I was thinking of buying a Sumsung Android phone. This decision is encouraging me to do so.
Boycott Apple products! Death to Apple!
Edited 2012-08-25 02:37 UTC
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Android tablet manufacturer actually pays Microsoft because of Linux patent FUD.
The fact that Samsung fails to provide me with an Android 4.1.1 update for a Samsung Galaxy S (released March 2010 – slightly over 2 years old) has resulted me take their mobile phone products of my list of possible options in the future. See, unlike YOUR post, mine is actually based on something empirical, their crap software support and not like your basis which is nothing more than chucking a hissy fit like a 6 year old getting told that they’re not going to go to McDonalds for their birthday.
There is a lot of empirical evidence that Apple is not a company I want to give money to.
The one that bothers me, and has a personal impact, is that they got an EU wide ban via the German judicial system.
Actually the Galaxy S update fiasco is have apparently more with design fail than Samsung malice. Eventually even CM project have refused to maintain v9 port for the device after couple of unsuccessful attempts.
Hmm, I’m running CM9 release (not RC, a release) on my Galaxy S and I could run CM10 nightly if I wanted. Not sure what you mean by “refused to maintain” and “unsuccessful attempts”.
I was thinking about Nexus One. My bad
Melin said: Apple is going to be banned forever in my home and if my work place gets apple products i will not touch them…
I agree!
I will NEVER buy an Apple product. The company has stifled innovation.
However, the US Patent system is the real villain here. Patents for rectangles should never have been allowed.
Australia has both patents and registered designs, the rectangle boxes may have been a registered design (I don’t know how, but…) but NOT a patent.
What is ironical here is the fact that Apple got its post Apple ][ start by “stealing” Xerox patents when it developed the Lisa and then the Macintosh.
Regards,
Peter
Edited 2012-08-27 07:05 UTC
You may need to re-read your history (or I do, given fact checked sources).
Xerox gave Apple ( Steve Jobs + a team of engineers with notebooks.. to be specific) permission to tour the facilities, take notes and use ideas. Apple gave Xerox a lump of shares.
I have no love of Apple but the “Apple stole from Xerox” myth needs to die.
I agree with you, it should not come as a surprise for some of the commenters since I am an Apple user but if you analyze carefully it will in the future force companies to come to agreements like the Apple-Microsoft one and stop fighting each other. The law is clear, the companies that hold patents are forced to license it under a fair or competitive price.
As I pointed out even Apple has licensed and pay damages for things like one-click-buy, the click-wheel of the first iPods, and the column-view present in every product. It had to pay or came to an agreement with Apple Corp (The Beetles company).
On the other hand is a sad day for start-up development efforts but that is another subject.
I will never trust a Apple user they are brainwashed by the Apple sect
Edited 2012-08-25 00:17 UTC
You are the brainwashed one. The percentage of the millions of people who use Apple products who even read websites like these or are aware of software patents and the like is minimal. Most people don’t know about the smartphone wars or any of this litigation. Plenty of people use Apple products and are not “brainwashed”. The “brainwashed” are a vocal minority of fanbois.
It’s like calling every windows user brainwashed by microsoft. Saying that is insulting everyone who has ever used a computer. It’s a silly joke at best.
nope i was a apple user for many years and when steve jobs came back i switched to pcs
OMFG….case closed….the rocket scientist indeed.
fossils like you shouldn’t say anything
Nimrods like you should learn how to construct a coherent sentence before posting….effort that please.
Well, it so happens that most “rocket scientists” don’t use Apple – in one fairly visible project, there are ~100 consumer-grade PCs on the ISS …and zero Macs.
i do not believe that you are a linux lover you are a appletard
See the thing is patents on software itself is ridiculous.
Code is written, writing is protected by copyright.
Code in many ways is really just mathematics, and math is not patentable.
I am not a lawyer, but can’t you only patent methods and implementations? Not ideas? Correct me if I am wrong.
Edited 2012-08-25 00:33 UTC
I’ve been writing code for over 25 years. Code is not mathematics. Far from it. Suggesting that code should only be covered by copyright is stupid because there are limitless ways to express the very same concept in code and so the only thing that copyright protects is outright copying. I could take any piece of code, rewrite it and have it generate an identical result, and you’d never know I didn’t write the thing from scratch.
So that said, I’ve come to believe that software patents in some form should exist.
The issue with software patents, as with patents in general, is that the process by which they are reviewed and granted is fundamentally flawed. Many patents are obvious, have obvious prior art, and are over broad. Also all patent holders that are not implementing a patent (the patent trolls) need to be forced to license the patent under FRAND terms.
That madness needs to stop. If we can’t afford to effectively review patents then we should not be granting them.
And what do you think a patent does?
You shouldn’t have to license “bounce back” and “pinch to zoom”. It is like paying for the same work over and over because that one company was the first to patent it. These ideas didn’t come from a vacuum; they were around for years before Apple used them.
A patent also protects against others independently doing the same ‘invention’ and going to market with it.
That’s why you can only successfully uphold a patent when it is decided by the Proper Authorities that your invention is really novel.
Ok. 25 years. You may have heard of such a thing as mathematical logic? Thus, you are technically right, code is not mathematics. Code is mathematical logic and a bunch of other subdivisions of mathematics.
So yeah…. We are better off protecting general concepts, that don’t bother disclosing the actual algorithms.
Also, there is no such thing as a software patent. We call it a software patent, because it references a process that is performed by a program code. All “software patents” are in their essence vague process patents.
I would agree with 3 points:
A) Full disclosure – source code mandatory!
B) Either copyright or patent, not both. The two deal with different types of IP.
C) Software patents don’t need 10-20 years to recoup R&D costs, so 1.5 year protection term.(That was 2 years 9 months ago, that is how fast the industry changes)
B) perhaps copyright should also mandate (future) disclosure of source code: placing it in an escrow being a condition for copyright protection – so that PD can have any real meaning.
( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?528221 )
Of course, the way things are going, copyright might become essentially perpetual, hence it wouldn’t even matter…
Code == Logic. Math == Logic. Therefore, Code == Math.
*ALL* software is math.
Write some code that ain’t, and SOMEONE can make a mathematical formula to describe it.
–The loon
I’m not sure how you down-voted. Even as someone who does not agree with software patents, you present a perfectly rational point on why the USPTO is so broken in general let alone with regard to technology.
Patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software, or the function that the software is intended to serve, independent of the particular language or code that the software is written in. Copyright prevents the direct copying of some or all of a particular version of a given piece of software, but do not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies.
Software code is not “math”.
Take Excel, for example. How was it created? It was constructed. It wasn’t derived like a math formula. Nor is Excel some mathematical equation that existed in the abstract, just waiting to be discovered by a mathematical genius. Excel is a machine that was put together like any machine, only it’s made out of bytes rather than steel/wood/plastics/etc. And machines (that is, the ideas behind them) certainly ARE patentable.
P.S.
What is the “you can’t patent math” thing based on anyway? Why, for instance, would one be able to patent a chemical formula but not a mathematical one? Is it just because math is totally abstract and doesn’t exist in “nature”, but only exists in the minds of intelligent beings, and therefore nothing mathematical can be considered to be created/invented, but only discovered?
I ask because it seems that much the same could be said of chemical formulas. Chemistry, unlike math, does indeed concretely exist in nature, but I could see where one might argue that all chemical formulas already exist in the abstract, just waiting to be discovered, therefore chemical formlas can’t be patented since they’re discoverd rather than created/invented.
Seems arbitrary to say that math can’t be patented, and I’ve not heard anyone actually rigoursly argue that proposition; I’ve merely heard the proposition asserted as an axiom as if there’s no need to back it up at all.
Anyway, as I said above, I don’t think the “math can’t be patented” argument applies to software to begin with, since I don’t see software as “math”, but I do wonder about the whole “you can’t patent math” thing to begin with. Seems like begging questions to me.
I only care from a philisophical standpoint. I don’t really care in a real/practical sense.
However, if a company spent billions of dollars on math research and discovered some mathematical formula that solved the world’s energy problems, maybe that company would be justified in getting a time-limited patent to reap some return on their investment. Though it’s likely that the discovery would be more along the lines of physics rather than purely absctract math. Maybe applied math should be patentable, but not purely useless abstract math? Or maybe math can’t be patented, but the way one might apply it is patentable? :p
They’re not. You can build a total barrier to whatever market you got covered by patents.
The only exception is when you (or one of the former patent holders) signed away this right – for example in exchange for the patent to be added to some standard. That’s what “FRAND” is about.
I understand your wish for people to innovate, but are you saying that a case which validated software patents is going to spur innovation when all software patents have done so far is hurt innovation?
I tend to place more credence on people who are willing to risk money instead of shooting off their mouths. I doubt the venture capital firms in Silicon Valley agree that software patents deter innovation.
This might be a surprise to you, but venture capitalists don’t really care about overall progress – they care about capital, money, and only for them.
This is bad for innovation.
Not that Samsung was not copying Apple design (they obivously were heavily influenced by the iphone), it is bad because ludicrous software patents were validated. Any software developer knows that all software patents should be invalidated. But really? Pinch to zoom? Are you kidding me?
I’m a software developer and I don’t think all software patents should be invalidated.
Media compression codecs for example can take millions to create and are difficult to protect under copyright.
But slide to open? Hmmmm no. My glass door slides to open. You can probably find video games that used all of these Apple UI patents before smartphones existed.
I also think caps are a better answer than elimination. Part of the problem has been that Apple has purposely asked for unreasonable fees with the expectation that no one will pay them. Microsoft charges a buck in many cases and caps out at a million, at least for the ones I have seen.
But.. but.. Apple USE IT FIRST! Apple is THE INNOVATOR! Others just COPYING! /s
Copying a good idea helps everyone won’t you think?
Would the world be a better place if every device had a different way of zooming in?
so every time you develop software you need to be hot clicking the patent search database to make sure you aren’t infringing on some patent for any reason?
I’m not a friggin lawyer, I just develop software and I never intend to be a lawyer.
Edited 2012-08-25 07:32 UTC
You’re assuming that the case was based on each small copying – it wasn’t, it was the over all thrust of what they were trying to achieve. It wasn’t a situation of implementing a couple of gestures with the GUI looking entirely different or a couple of applications that have similar layout but it was the cumulative effect of when all this copying was combined you had what you saw. Again, it is one thing to take a couple of things and add it but it is entirely a different matter to create more or less a clone. Btw, notice that other Android vendors aren’t being sued? Why not sue ZTE or Huawei who pose a greater threat with their low cost Android devices that are popular with carriers? it seems people are ignoring what is happening in the Android world and some how believing that Samsung equals Android – it doesn’t equal Android nor is it some sort of ‘representative’ of Android either.
Thanks for this comment by the way – feels like a bit of balance that this site needs.
It’s a tough situation. Samsung is not the good guy here – they are just a big corporation that is making money on someone else’s creativity and hard work.
I’m okay with patents. I understand how they can be abused and am very wary of that. New developers and inventors need to be encouraged… but they need to be encouraged to develop something new. I think companies who create have a right to win and protect those new ideas. And yet, when you create something new, you got to expect that people are going to figure out a way to duplicate your stuff eventually… if it’s profitable.
At the end of the day, no one innovates by first thinking about patents – they think about ideas, solving problems, and enhancing people’s lives.
You can’t enhance people’s lives if you’re not allowed to distribute the product.
Hasn’t it been shown, time and time again that most of these patents are just plain obvious ?
There is no benefit for patents on obvious things, I’ll go so far to say there is a big disadvantage to the market to have those patents.
It does not encourage innovation, it actually slows down innovation.
I was going to spend time and energy to give a reasonable response, and then I realised there is no point.
How is taking a large sum of money away from Samsung and giving it to Apple “good for consumers”??? What benefit do consumers get out of this at all?
How does creating an environment where implementing obvious UI conventions could cost you a Billion dollars benefit the tech industry???
Addiction to cloning??? Are you f*cking serious? Half the silicon in an iPhone is made by Samsung… They make tons of stuff, most of it things that Apple doesn’t even think about making. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt due to this court decision, saying Samsung is “addicted to cloning” is extreme hyperbole.
Does Apple have patents on stylish Ads? What about having a gadget store – did they patent that too? What difference does it make if they copied things like that – everyone copies from successful businesses. The problem is you think that there is something wrong with it.
You see copying… I see progressive refinement. You can’t have the later without some of the former.
I suppose you think that we would all be better off if Apple had won their “Look and Feel” case against Microsoft? Do you think things like BeOS, Gnome, KDE, etc. would have ever existed in that alternate reality???
Hell, the entire PC industry was CREATED through willfull, blatant copying! You do realize that modern Macs are now decedents of IBM’s original PC platform don’t you? Apple didn’t seem to have an moral objections to willfully copying that…
You want to see things slow down to a snail pace??? Make doing patent clearances on software become a financial imperative. Slow down? More like stop dead.
Gloat all you want – I guess the verdict gives you the right. But I predict this shit is going to get a lot messier before its all said and done.
There is one ray of light in this decision: A lot of software companies who thought they could stay quietly on the fence concerning software patents are going to start rethinking their positions now…
Hmm, more like everybody loses including Apple. Apple more than anyone as will be clear in 5/10 years.
[q]Hmm, more like everybody loses including Apple. Apple more than anyone as will be clear in 5/10 years.
If you are correct you can make a lot of money by shorting the Apple stock.
Now, get out of that RDF and look at the business reality. No matter how Apple fans and clouded-judgement-Mueller spin it, the matter of fact is that it boils down to Apple Gets $1 Billion From Samsung —> Nothing Changes.
Samsung already moved on from their old designs, so it’s already irrelevant for them.
And an important and surprising part here, is that Galaxy Tab 10.1 is not infringing!
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-24/apple-gets-1-billio…
Just shut the fuck up
You were modded down just because you spoke the truth in a site where the truth is not welcomed, don’t fret.
Nicely stated! The truth goes down hard around these parts.
Fuck you Apple fanboy.
An absolutely brilliant retort, bravo! Your brilliance has come shinning through.
Well it does have the advantage brevity. I routinely end up writing 300-500 words to say the same thing when replying to that guy…
The problem is that the jury just asserted a number of bogus patents despite obvious prior art in a very painful ways. The verdicts says much about US legal system and how it works as a protectionism engine.
The true damage is not the money Samsung has to pay now but indiscriminate amount of FUD that has spread over the industry.
How do you know you your shapes are and rectangles are enough not-apple like? The risk is to big and the result will be apple tax paid voluntarily by any touch phone manufacturer with resulting price rise definitely pushed down to the consumer. $1bil is peanuts compared to that. I personally feel ripped off by Apple and US now, as the prices abroad will definitely be affected by this.
I believe the right thing Samsung should do now is to go directly to ITC. Or simply withdraw from US market and focus on elsewhere. It’s no longer reasonable to expect fair competition rules in the country.
And no it’s not even remotely Android related (unless you take the line of thought that MS astroturfers spread), these patents may hit producer just any touch based communication device, be it MeeGo, BB or Tizen.
Maybe someone here can answer this for me.
People like John Gruber – rooting for Apple here, obviously – support App.net. However, App.net is a 1:1 Twitter clone. Zero changes. It’s literally a 1:1 copy.
Why is App.net okay, but Samsung’s clearly different devices are not? This has been bugging me for weeks.
What patents is App.net violating?
Unregistered trade dress.
I think a lot of people are very uneasy about the similarity of App.net (including the devs themselves). They are even using Bootstrap (open source, created by Twitter) to make this thing.
One reason many would give is that Twitter is changing from Twitter used to be to something else. App.net is then more of a clone of what Twitter-used to be, not what it is. (Weak argument, I know.)
The most important point however is that app.net is intentionally a “dumb pipe”. That is, the most important function is to hold data, and app.net is completely ok with you not using their website. Normally it’s horribly economically to be a dumb pipe, but since people pay for app.net it actually works out.
I also think you can look at app.net more as this data-pipe, and that the Twitter-like thing they are building now just happens to be an example that runs on it. The dream of the devs is to create this plattform people can build apps that use it for plumbing (sort of like Heroku, but on a much higher level). Being a plumb this way is very much opposite of what Twitter is today.
the UI? sure… the back end? absolutely not. It is a system that allows developers to build systems on the internet and their private networks that use an API for messaging….like Twitter used to do.
Listen to the App.net interview they had on TWIG a few weeks ago to understand what is going on with it.
The App.net API is different than the Twitter API, so no copying there.
The goal of App.net is pretty much the same, which I guess is what you are calling a copy. However Apple isn’t saying nobody else can make a phone, they just have to make it look different (the Trade Dress stuff). The software patents, I hate the idea of them, I hope that they go away, but sadly they have them and they were violated.
Pinch to zoom, for example, though, can you honestly not think of some other way for that to work? It is 100% impossible to do it any other way?
From that point of view Apple/Samsung is not the same as Twitter/App.net. App.net set out to provide the same sort of service as Twitter but do it in a different way. Samsung set out to provide a product that mimicked that of Apples. That is the difference.
Of course, there are other ways to do it, and it is being done in other ways very successfully.
However, that is not the point — the point is that Apple did not invent/originate that multi-touch gesture (nor any other gestures), so Apple has no valid claim to the feature. It does not matter whether or not Samsung tried to copy Apple — Apple did not originate the technology.
The non-Apple prior art is staggering in this instance (as it is in most Apple instances). I won’t bother to link the decades-earlier multi-touch items. Suffice it to say, pinching to scale items came about around 1983. For a more recent citing, in July of 2004, Nintendo applied for a patent for multi-touch on handheld devieces: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/26/patent-application-reveals-ninten…
Note that Nintendo was granted the patent in February 2006, over a year before the Iphone was released. “Multi-touch” certainly included pinch-to-zoom in 2004-2006, so, in keeping with Apple’s methods, Nintendo should sue Apple sh*tless for stealing “their” handheld technology.
Apple doesn’t validly own the rights to 99.95% of their technology (nor designs), so they cannot rightfully claim that someone is stealing “their” IP by “copying.”
No. The difference is that in the Twitter/App.net instance, Twitter might have originated protected features that Apple is using without rightfully compensating Twitter, but in the other instance, Samsung is using obvious and/or long established technology/art that Apple also uses — Apple did not originate any of the technology/designs.
Edited 2012-08-25 05:55 UTC
Oh… FFS! ‘915 Claim 8 is not pinch to zoom. Neither did they claim that they own pinch to zoom. They claim that they invented the idea that you can have gestures and scrolling on the same device.
Perhaps it would be best to direct this bit to the fellow fanboy OP who stated (as clearly quoted in my response):
Fanboys need to get their sh*t together.
Well… that is an “revolutionary” concept. Certainly, no prior art exists for such an earth-shattering Apple brainf@rt… er, I mean… brainstorm.
As the “fanboy” in question, I am not a fanboy. The only thing I am a fan of is logic… sorry to burst your bubble.
Please show where I claimed anything other than there is likely more than one way to do zooming.
There’s also more than one way to do steering in cars, but something like steering wheel is obviously most sensible, all besides the ~wheel are stupid (at least before the era of autonomously driving cars)
You know, that “logic” at work…
Android APIs are very different from iOS. The case was about look and feel of the UI.
That is an interesting question, unless the jury was blind there is no possibility of mistaking an S class device with an iPhone.
Funny thing is, they could even if they were blind. Simple check, does it have a wide Apple docking port? If yes, it’s an iPhone. If it’s a MicroUSB, it’s a samsung. Not too difficult, and there are other tests too. Is the back made entirely of glass? Is there a battery compartment? You get the idea. Even a blind person wouldn’t mix these up, speaking from experience.
Yep. I picked up an S3 after placing my iPhone 4s in my pocket. First impression was that the S3 was, relatively speaking, a large thin turd by comparison….imho of course.
Didn’t jaiku happen at the same time? Unless Twitter patented micro blogging, its doubtful they have any come back. Also, you need to differentiate between form and function. An Android phone can present a similar interface to an iOS device. That’s not the crux of the case. What the case proved is that Samsung went beyond that, into the realms of wilfully copying a specific design. If you need that explained, it’s obvious why you had such a biased outlook on this case. I’ve stood in a phone store and compared Samsung and Apple phones side by side. It didn’t take much effort to see how much influence Apple had had on SOME Samsung phones. I’d never claim all, but some were stupidly similar.
I say this typing on a Nexus 7. I’m no zealot. I use both iOS *AND* Android.
I don’t use either Twitter or App.net so I have no idea what the answer to your question is. I suggest that if Twitter thinks App.net infringed they should take legal action, it’s the best way to decide these matters. The last thing anybody should do is ask people like us.
If something that trivial has been bugging you for weeks, you definitely have a problem. Dude, it just doesn’t matter.
Not exactly.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/22/drance-apple-samsung
He thinks Apple is right, but he doesn’t like the idea of patents being validated in such a big way.
Not really.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/22/tent
He’s more apprehensive and questioning, though since every other post out of him is complaining about what Twitter’s turning into, I can see why he’d be hopeful about a replacement.
I don’t personally know anything about App.net, but if Twitter has any applicable patents, I affirm their right to sue. And if they do sue, I expect Gruber will take a side based on facts and reason, rather than shouting about idealism or engaging in the blind loyalty so many like to accuse him of.
As for Apple and Samsung, their devices are only “clearly different” if you’re already well versed with the particulars. There are people who can tell the year and model of a car from hearing the ignition across a parking lot, and there are people who would be at a loss to tell a Mazda from a Bentley when they’re looking right at the back where the badges are. If you know for sure at ten paces whether you see an iPhone 3GS or a Samsung Galaxy n, then you’re much closer to the former category.
The Apple-Samsung jury was made up of people specifically unlike you and me, because knowledgeable people have already made up their mind.* That’s why experts speak as witnesses rather than sitting on the jury. The jury was shown iPhones, Galaxies, Lumias, and HTCs, and, like any reasonable person without prejudice, they concluded two of the things were too much like each other, with a very long list of specific charges to affirm or reject.
There are (or were) smartphones out there that are (were) *really* different from the iPhone. Lumia is one. Any Android with a keyboard is plenty distinctive. The Pre was incredibly original and had so much potential, until Motorola and Verizon tag-teamed it and Apotheker put a bullet in it. Even HTCs, Motorolas, and LGs all have distinctive and varied bezel styles. Compared to any of these, Samsung’s stuff is a very close, meticulous copy. Combined with the fact that Apple managed to dredge up a document showing that Samsung’s engineering goals were based specifically on iPhone functionality, the conclusion was inevitable. Samsung’s stuff is not “clearly different” unless your clarity has had some very specific training.
* “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You
Let us remember some wise words from Donald Knuth on software patents:
http://eupat.ffii.org/gasnu/knuth/index.en.html
“There is the notion that mathematics is discovered rather than invented. If something was already there, how you patent it?”
That is what I think about DNA/gene patents.
The trial was a joke. Did anybody expect justice to emerge from a California court?
If the trial was held in South Korea, what would be the outcome?
For the fools that applaud this decision, I feel sorry that your shortsighted tunnel vision is impacting the knowledge and culture my children will have access to. If the current patent system had been in place when Apple or Microsoft were founded, they would not exist today.
And that is exactly what they are trying to do: use software patents to lock the market and make real choice an impossibility.
Edited 2012-08-25 00:52 UTC
Actually a trial was recently held in South Korea and it was perhaps actually even-handed compared to this one:
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/apple-samsung-found-guilty-s…
In fact, if the US trial had come out similarly, there might have been the occasion to review the patent mess that even some supporters of Apple say constrain and perforce drive how the company acts.
how would you feel if you made a game and someone cloned your game and it looked almost exactly the same, and people started buying it instead of your game.
thats what samsung did. they made their product look like a popular product to steal sales from apple. They didn’t have to make their stuff look so similar to apples stuff… they didn’t have to, but they did.
that being said 1 billion is probably too much of a penalty. i doubt apple lost that much money because of samsungs actions. but i do believe that some sales of samsungs phones is because they copied the look and feel that apple’s phone popularized.
“i doubt apple lost that much money because of samsungs actions”
That isn’t what fines are about, fines are meant to prevent you from doing it again (or at least I hope that is the point).
Going by the Final Jury Instruction No. 35, fines are exactly about that:
“The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.”
The jury obviously though “screw the instructions, we know better: let’s punish them”, as shown by the jury’s foreman declarations:
“We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist,” Hogan said. “We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”
Edited 2012-08-26 18:17 UTC
Maybe this is normal for patents ?
As in: maybe patents are the exception.
Edited 2012-08-26 22:59 UTC
Software patents are bad, but Samsung had it coming.
Notice how Google isn’t being sued? There is nothing wrong with Android itself and it is competing just fine.
Samsung got smacked with this because they did so much shameless copying. Maybe you don’t agree, but a jury just did. By the way, take a look at Samsung’s new style store and tell me with a straight face it’s not a blatant rip-off of the apple store. It’s pretty lame when a huge company like Samsung can’t even define their own style. http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-opens-apple-like-store-sydn…
Edited 2012-08-25 00:59 UTC
You must not go shopping often.
Yeah because there are so many stores that look exactly like that. Please, your bias is really showing.
Get your fact right! Apple is copying Linux for appstore (and none linux folks felt unhappy about that). Too green to comment, eh? Do you think all universe centered in Apple? Meh!
Are you new here or just trolling? …because, if you were a regular, you’d already know that Google isn’t being sued because Microsoft found it easier to buly Android hardware-makers into paying license fees and the Samsung v. Apple Jury was carefully chosen to make sure they know nothing about the technology they’re judging.
I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t trust a medical decision if the doctor was chosen for being the most ignorant one available.
Edited 2012-08-25 01:10 UTC
Blame Samsung for screwing up patent invalidity case.
Apple stores are a rip-off of Sony stores.
But like most Apple fans you probably think the tech world started in 2006.
Silly Jerkface, Apple invented brightly lit stores with laptops on display. Before Apple people bought laptops in dimly lit alleys. Sony’s Tokyo stores never existed and Tokyo probably isn’t real either. Stop making stuff up.
Did you just reply to yourself? Looks like you forgot to switch accounts, there. Now get out.
No it was on purpose, I had been modded below zero by Apple fans.
I’m not defending Apple here; I certainly had hoped the trial would go the other way. But I have to admit I’ve seen a trend in the Korean market towards copying Western design. Take Kia and Hyundai cars, for example. Every time Honda makes a change to the Accord’s headlights and tail lights, the following year’s Hyundai sedans take on a similar look. There is a Kia car that is a cartoonish mashup of Jaguar and Mercedes sedans as well. In fact, I’d say the only Kia/Hyundai vehicle that isn’t a blatant copy of a Western design is their minivan.
That’s not to say that I think Samsung copied the various iDevices with all of their products. In fact, I’d say that there are several HTC phones that would be easier to confuse for an iPhone. The fact is, it’s difficult to get away from the rectangular, black-bordered touch screen design when it comes to something you’re going to stick up to your ear and talk into. Until Google improves the Project Glass hardware to the point that a phone is integrated into the frame, we’re going to be stuck with slabs of plastic, glass and metal for a while yet.
Paper. Moveable metal typeface. Gunpowder. Porcelain. Pasta.
The West has spent hundreds of years since the Early Modern Period ransacking the world for substance as well as style.
Time to give back a little, cut a little slack?
Do we have Brevik supporters in da house; history a little difficult to take?
The serious point being that ideas and intellectual goods flow, move, evolve, become hybrid, adapt and become therefore resilient due to figurative intercourse between cultures. Without such dynamic interplay there’s stagnation.
The same goes for biology; just try keeping that Herrenrasse corralled for a few generations – you’ll soon have physiological weaknesses and a marked falling off of adaptability.
There is only ONE optimal solution to any real world engineering problem. There is only ONE practical design for any sub-type of car (small hatchback, large sedan, SUV etc). That is why all the vehicles in any segment look similar.
Kia cars are designed in the USA. They are not copies of anything western.
Please reread my post. I’m not talking about general shapes or functional designs, I’m talking about those little touches that normally make it easy to distinguish one make from another. You’re not going to look at a Ford Fusion and a Honda Accord and confuse the two; there are distinctive flourishes that make each car stand out and speak its designer’s language. Now, take a 2008 Accord and a 2009 Hyundai Elantra. They have nearly indistinguishable front fascias. The 2009 Hyundai Sonata goes even further back; its tail light shape, size and angles are almost exactly the same as the 2005 Accord, to the point that you have to be close enough to see the swooping “H” symbol to know it’s a Hyundai.
Not quite true. From Wikipedia: “The Namyang Design Center, located in Hwaseong, South Korea, serves as Kia’s primary design facility. The facility, which is shared with parent company Hyundai, is located on over 3.3 million square meters of land and serves as the central hub for engineering work encompassing the entire design process, from pre-design studies, prototyping and extensive track testing, full-scale wind tunnel aerodynamic testing, to crash testing.” (emphasis mine).
Anyway, I have nothing against Kia/Hyundai; indeed, ever since Hyundai re-released the Accent I’ve been interested in driving one, as well as the 2012 Elantra redesign, but my current needs and financial situation dictate that I stick with my older, paid-for truck and SUV.
Carmakers very rarely copy each other. The common styling cues are usually because manufacturers frequently hire outside designers. These designers then recycle their own designs for different models.
A well known example of “copying” is the Puegeot 404 and Austin Cambridge A60 from the early 1960s. They look almost identical because both were designed by Farina.
While I say – Screw Samsung for copying iOS in their horrible TouchWiz.
The jury just validated two really, really, broad claims that Nexus S(vanilla Android) infringes. But based on the speed of their deliberations, I doubt that they even bothered checking the patents.
‘381 Claim 19:
Which is document bounceback/end of document, that vanilla Android on Nexus S does not IMPLEMENT!!!
‘915 Claim 8
A patent to allow scrolling with one finger and “magically” detect(not disclosed how, thus any implementation infringes) that it’s more then one finger to identify gestures.
The Apple stores are based on Bauhaus principles dating from the 1920s. Bauhaus is in turn heavily based on much earlier styles.
If you bothered to learn any design or architectural history you would realise that ALL of Apples products are highly derivative or even blatant copies of existing designs.
Nonetheless they could make their phones look modern without copying apple directly. Apple design comes from the history books, and from their designers own sensibilities, and from research and development.. samsung’s designs appear to have come from apple. And that’s why they lost this big time.
samsung’s designs appear to have come from apple
Up close they are nothing alike. Samsung phones have a micro usb connector, unsealed cases, removable batteries, removable storage cards etc. No Samsung phone has a glass back.
Try to come up with at different way of doing touch scroll gesture. Good luck.
Clearly you don’t have eyes. Hard to judge these things when you’re blind.
Looks more like a Telstra store.
I suspect the jurors saw that it was Friday afternoon, and delivered a classic “We want to get the hell out of here” verdict.
It’s quite obvious that they were in a hurry. Why? They found Nexus S to infringe on a claim that it does not implement…
I have a close personal friend who is an admitted “Apple whore” (his words) and loathes Android. He is obviously cheering for Apple with this outcome, but once he’s come down off of his high I’m going to ask him what he thinks about the impact this will have on innovation and the further abuse of the patent system. He doesn’t work in the IT industry so his take will be interesting.
I say with no shame that I buy and enjoy Apple products – I own an iPhone, a Macbook Pro and have purchased iPods in the past. I guess I’m a dirty “whore” as well. 🙂
Still, I had really hoped that both Apple and Samsung had not come out of this unscathed. I feel this patent warfare is turning into a situation of mutually-assured destruction where all but the wealthiest businesses in the world will be able to release anything, and when they do they’ll be watered down and neutered in order to avoid infringing the patent minefield.
It’s telling that Gruber hasn’t commented on this yet. I suspect even he sees a grey-cloud behind the silver lining.
Oh there’s no question that this decision sucks balls for the industry as a whole, and especially for the consumer (though they won’t notice for a while).
The intellectual side of me wants to crawl into a 3D-printed hole with an old AMD laptop running GNU/Hurd and a picture of RMS hanging on the wall, connected to the local AMPRNet via my home-built TNC and 2-meter radio.
The practical side just kicked the hell out of the intellectual side and will continue to use Windows 7, a Samsung Nexus S and an HTC Arrive, an Xbox 360 and an iPod shuffle.
I am with you there; having only signalled my disgruntlement with certain aspects of Linux this week, what with this debacle and also having come into some adandoned SSF desktop tech, I feel a bit of an anti-consumerist, anti-commercial wave coming on…
I think the real problem is, even if all people who understand the industry a bit and think the same would stop buying from these manufacturers the impact for the manufacturers would be hardly significant.
But, I do think it would be a significant amount of buying power which could be used to fund other companies/project which do want to do the right thing.
Just look at what the FreedomBox Foundation adchieved:
“The fundraising drive was set up on February 17, with the goal of getting $60,000 in donations in 30 days, but it has exceeded that—and quickly. As of this writing, there are more than 650 supporters who have donated over $64,000 in just five or six days.”
Won’t purchase another Apple product. Will no longer recommend Apple products to anyone. This is a sad day in tech. And to think that there are people out there that read tech media and are still cheering for Apple in this case makes me want to throw up. THe fact that you can write code that is completely different from Apples code and still get sued by apple is ridiculous. Software programming just got a LOT more expensive for the small guy. Will do every thing I can to recommend alternative products. NO MORE Apple products.
What actually bothers me about this is that Apple has 70 billion dollars in the bank from iPhone sales and they don’t even know what to spend it on. It’s not like they’re a small struggling company that got their ideas ripped off by a bigger one.
This is all the work of Jobs from beyond the grave.
I don’t think eliminating software patents is the answer but there needs to be reform for anything UI related.
Even if you eliminated software patents Apple would still be a twisted company that has 70 billion in the bank and did their best to keep horrid factory conditions a secret. They’re definitely a lawyer heavy company and if they didn’t have patents they would attack Samsung at another level other than through fair competition. California jury…….what a joke.
So only small struggling companies should be allowed to protect their IP?
Apples factories are some of the best in the tech industry…
Apple doesn’t own any factories now, do they?
Oh you mean the Chinese factories that everyone is using? Sure, they’re good but there’s just one problem; they’re used by everyone and not owned by Apple.
Apple checks on the status of the factories where their products are made. They don’t have the ability to check on the factories that others use. This probably means some of the factories used by others and Apple have improved because of Apple’s due diligence.
What kind of fairy tale have you read this in?
WSJ, Business Week, WIred, CNET… But don’t take my word for it, look it up yourself!
Apple only did it after pressure from the public, these factories are used by all the other phone manufacturers too.
The public is the one that is wrong here, they should have said it to all producers of phones and probably anything coming out of China.
This boils down to one thing in my mind. Cross licensing. Samsung has reached cross licensing deals with almost every other company for its FRAND patents. Thats the way the world is suppose to work. Apple though, doesn’t want cross licensing because it wants exclusivity. So Apple won on the look alike argument, no surprise there. But Apple still has yet to license the FRAND licenses from Samsung. That leaves the aces still in Samsung’s pocket IMHO. Why? Gui stuff, software patents, those are notoriously easy to overturn or work around. Hardware patents like Samsung owns, are incredibly difficult. Especially when they are standards as that gives them even more legitimacy. In fact, FRAND rules acknowledge this by virtue of the fact that you risk losing you right to FRAND licensing if you try to overturn the patents. So at the end of the day, Samsung owes Apple $1 Billion. But I can easily see them getting that and more back for the FRAND licenses. The real object though is to force Apple into a cross license deal.
FRAND licences have nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the suppliers providing hardware for their phone – Qualcomm being that supplier of mobile phone chips. Sorry, but to claim that Apple has to licence AGAIN after paying indirectly through Qualcomm would be akin to Fraunhofer IIS coming to consumers demanding payment after Microsoft had already paid royalties to Fraunhofer IIS to licence the software in the first place. Sorry but Samsung is nothing more than double dipping on the patent system and quite frankly for you to bring up this as an example of Apple having to licence its own technology shows a complete lack on how the patent system actually works.
Tonight Apple wins, everyone else losses…
In a long run this will force all the other companies to spend more money to be different than Apple. And I think that this will seriously hurt Apple’s position as a market leader. Apple shot its own foot with a shotgun with this one.
If Samsung had win then Apple would have been able to advertise that “they are the real thing” among all the impostors which try to imitate Apple’s user experience.
Standards patents aren’t difficult to be designed around. They HAVE to be granted!
(This was supposed to be in reply to TechGeek above.)
Edited 2012-08-25 02:02 UTC
Seriously…. Apple didn’t create those software designs. In the end, a person, or a team of people. That is the source of the patent and if it’s a good enough design then it deserves a patent and it deserves protection.
This means other people, and companies will now have to think of something different. Msomething original. I can’t for the life of me imagine how that could be a bad thing for consumers or the industry as a whole.
If some likes the design and wants to make billions from it too, then you license it. Simple logic, IMO.
Edited 2012-08-25 01:25 UTC
Meaning, literally, ‘American brat, Korean Daruma doll’ a toy that rights itself if pushed.
Apple may have won this battle but for me it has lost the war; it has in the moment of its market triumph, being counted as the most valuable company ever, demonstrated that it does not believe in the market, or give credence to customers, who ultimately make Apple what it is. Apple has given itself an indelible reputation.
The irony is that, since Apple depends on Samsung for much of its component supply, the latter cannot really lose, and there might even be the possibility that Samsung could use its supply-side advantage to favour other companies; after all, Apple once had to make a major break with PPC on account of supply bottlenecks.
And Samsung will be known about much more now in its own right thanks to this case; and even Apple consumers may now seek out an SIII or a Galaxy Tab just to see what the fuss has been about; yes, in the medium term some Samsung products may get banned, but new models will come that will not fall under that category, and many, shall we say ‘casual’ Apple users will do their own compare and contrast. The result may backfire on Apple in more ways than one.
On the other hand, the ‘slap’ for Samsung may sting now but like any corporal punishment, as it were, it’s soon over. And the Koreans are nothing if not used to taking hard knocks, and bouncing back, ready for more.
I think you make some good points but I don’t see this backfiring at all.
To most consumers this is all background noise. Corporation A wins money in court from Corporation B. Whatever.
In a few months it will be:
The new iPads are here! The new iPads are here! I am somebody!
No one gave a shit about Apple factory workers killing themselves. People would rather read about a pig that likes to drink root beer.
I am not so sure; at one time here in the UK, the ‘Murdoch Empire’ seemed to be unassailable. Now the very family is apparently tearing itself apart and disagreeing vehemently in public.
I would not understimate a similar tipping point here.
The Murdoch Empire doesn’t have software inertia.
Even if Apple becomes uncool to the hipster crowd that still leaves a massive swath of tech company apatheic consumers that have already bought tons of stuff on iTunes and have no interest in switching. Then there is all the iTunes exclusive business software that was written while Microsoft was asleep at the wheel. This Christmas we will see the iPad mini which will cut a hole into the $200 Android tablet market. Android tablets still don’t offer as smooth of an experience so without a strong price advantage I don’t see much changing.
Apple isn’t going anywhere and will actually seem like a safe bet to Wall St. once the POS known as Windows 8 fails on the market.
Oh and I’m a .NET dev with a Samsung phone, not an Apple fan at all.
Phones and tablets have a two year lifespan. The software inertia is essentially worthless.
The API lasts longer than two years. The Android game selection is still quite inferior compared to the iPhone. I wish this wasn’t the case but it is.
The Murdoch children are the products of three different mothers. That is why they are fighting.
Now that I hadn’t grasped! Thanks for the enlightenment.
I think then I should not have used the illustration as the basis for the argument itself that I was trying to make: i.e., that at one point Murdoch seemed to have politicians in his pocket, and that the ‘dumb’ public would continue to buy his newspapers.
Then along came the Milly Dowler (RIP) hacking case, and the ‘dumb’ public suddenly have enough, and Murdoch, instead of playing the putative puppeteer of politicians, is hauled up in front of Parliament and ends up closing down titles, etc.
My argument: nobody before that hacking incident would have predicted this downfall.
I think something similar may well hapen here.
The Murdoch family have been tearing itself apart for years – the daughters don’t want to have anything to do with the father, the son I have a feeling just hangs around in the hope that the old geiser dies and leaves him with the crown jewels. The cold hard reality is that no one actually likes him – people only hang around in a hope of getting any of the scraps left over when he dies.
Yes, as said, I inadvertently gave misdirection to my own argument :-s
Whether or not the children have been squabbling for years prior to Murdoch’s debacle, there have been two essential Murdoch periods in the UK
1) Untouchable
2) Disgraced
Moving from 1) to 2) didn’t take that long.
Personally if I was a politician I would take over all their businesses, deport him and his whole family from the country and ban any media created by organisations linked to him from being broadcasted in the United Kingdom. People like him have served no beneficial purpose to the good of society and thus his removal would only help but to improve the discourse, especially around politics where it seems sensationalism and conspiracies have replaced rational discourse.
Tend to agree in spirit. Influence hasn’t been exactly salubrious.
Be careful what you wish for …large portion of that lovely bunch would likely move back to Australia; dangerously close to NZ
Though generally, it’s a bit of a shame that he took down with him one long-published newspaper, IIRC (even if it was rotten in its present state – still, it could be certainly salvaged, keeping the tradition alive)
Perhaps it is not representative but look at the comments regarding his story on the BBC News site, highest rated first:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261
I doubt all these are tech enthusiasts of the sort that would delve much but they seem to have understood the gist, and Apple isn’t coming off well at all.
From the beggining of the conflict between apple and google, you framed the disagreement around the concept of trademark war.Â
However, the truth -as it’s evident in the claims and verdict – was a lot about trade dress;Â
My job is related to branding and let me tell the story from the view point of a branding professional:
Samsung did what sweat house,no name product manufacturers does in a large scale: created something similar to iPhone not to fool people, but to persuade them that they have also an offering that matches the market leader (apple) in their portfolio, so the people who trust Samsung brand and love apple design become motivated to buy from Samsung. It’s so simple. It has nothing to do with patents.It’s advertising, branding, industrial design and packaging.  It’s like a shoe company create a sport shoe brand and name it “mike” with a swoosh like curve below it, slightly different than nike. And when Nike begin to sue them responds that there were no other ways to make a running shoe. Come on!
I don’t know why this simple concept that every graphic designer understand is so difficult to digest for OSnews editors.Â
And why they created a battle of evil agains good of this petty , and failed  marketing strategy.
Perhaps if the jury ruled other way around, it was the justest judgment in history. That “magically” brought justice to the world and defended creativity.
Sorry guys. I used to value your site as an impartial defender of open source, alternative software and hardware that mainstream media fails to follow.
But instead these days I’m just seeing this site is getting a cult like mentality…..
Now that YOU failed in your judgement big time and apple won, Â please don’t spread FUD about the development world being in danger because of this ruling.
Er, you might find it informative to actually read a little past the ‘branding puffery’, important though it is, part of the judgement.
Sorry it seems I have to assert some obvious things:
Branding is an important part of a business. It’s not puffery. It’s integral to the identity of the product and its experience.
Branding is very difficult to get right, it’s very expensive to make and protect and easy to counterfeit.
Brands have equity and their values happen to be billions of dollars.
Trade dress as an important part of branding is important and when someone creates a product that resembles your product, while they had millions of choices to create it in a different way, it’s illegal and immoral.
With all due respect, dismissing and belittling branding as puffery, just shows how shallow is your understanding of business,product positioning, markets and commercial innovation.
Except that’s not what happened. It would be more like if Nike hadn’t gotten any trademarks and this mike company went and registered some and then sued Nike and won.
So, you think the refrigerator maker company is the company with original ideas, and the company that has newton, PowerBook, Macintosh, quick take, mac OS, iPod and iPhone is the copy cat?
Not the first graphical, touchscreen PDA (Palm’s Zoomer was the first), and by far not the most successful – it was a major flop.
A laptop.
Overpriced (compare to the Amiga) less capable version of Xerox’ work. Game changer for sure, but hardly innovative.
Invented and built by Kodak and Fujifilm. Digital photography is older than Apple itself.
See Macintosh. The only successful homegrown operating system Apple has ever built, which they completely neglected for years until they became the laughing stock of the industry.
Fantastic device, but in the end, just a music player.
Fantastic device, but as a heavy former PDA user, kind of ‘meh’.
Apple in a nutshell: great devices, made possible because of industry progress and copying others. I actually applaud that – it’s just that Apple believes it should be the only one allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants.
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.
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”?
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.
Being born in 1975 does not give you a right to move goalposts.
Edited 2012-08-25 15:51 UTC
Does my rationale has any shortcomings if you ignore the fact that I worked with those machines first hand?
Will it reduce the iPhone sales volume, or popularity? Does it make palm pilot treo the most successful 360 degree solution for mobile computing? What goal posts I’ve changed ?
You redefined verb “pioneer” to suit your narrative.
Please re-check my comments. I said: “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.”
It doesn’t have anything to do with my own experience and has everything to do with the statistics and market capitalization.
I completely agree with that statement. Do you not understand that it completely invalidates everything else your wrote…
Apple DID achieve market success first with this “class” of product (ie. multi-touch tablet/smart phone). It certainly matters because their headstart paid off in spades, their sales show it… That first to market advantage paid off enormously for them.
Seriously, I respect their ability to make good products. I have some of them. Good for Apple! I’m glad they made a fortune – they deserve it.
Now why the f*ck should that preclude other companies from making similar products and trying to compete with them??? Apple already got the benefits of their advantage – and then some. How does giving them an unfettered monopoly on an entire category of product benefit anyone other than Apple?
They are not claiming on the entire category. The proof is they don’t have and didn’t have the same problem with windows phone, touch screen black berries and palm’s web OS. They have the problem with the samsung copying their trade dress. Trade dress has nothing to do with technology or freedom of innovation. Trade dress is Casio makes some watch similar to Rolex submariner. In any other trade the winner in court is obvious. OS news is muddying the water by framing this legal battle as a battle of copying technology. It’s a war on copying the looks. And looks are important, profitable, and can be stolen.
I don’t see what them making refrigerators has anything to do with this.
None of these are original ideas. Good products perhaps but not original ideas.
My reference to refrigerator making of samsung was to indicate that they have no product philosophy and are just after profit in every field other companies pioneered. They create mediocre products in every field under the sun from microwave ovens to DVD players, digital cameras and even wrist watches.
So it’s very funny of them to warn us of apple smothering “innovation”.
Apple products were not technically original of course, but many of them are commercially innovative (i.e. they created new markets and product categories, by putting together existing technologies)
The misunderstanding is Samsung pretends it’s about technological innovation (which it’s hard to justify apple is technologically different or innovative), but the real debate is about stealing ideas not in the field of pure technology, but in market innovation, product positioning, trade dress and design.
The instant you bring a typical American jury in on a matter like this, it becomes a public recognition war as opposed to an unbiased legal judgement. In this country, no matter how much one rails against it, Apple are a very strong brand if not the strongest at the moment. Apple didn’t buy any of the courts, for the simple reason that they didn’t need to. The thing to remember about most of our jurors is this: They were so stupid they couldn’t even figure out a way to get out of jury duty. Bring people like that in, actively remove those with any tech knowledge, and the only thing surprising about this verdict is how quickly it was reached. Even I, a cynic if ever there was one, expected to take at least a week.
Of course, it’s far from over. I doubt Samsung is just going to walk away. The pointless saga continues. Excuse me while I go get myself some popcorn and an ice cold beer.
It looks like Apple just made their money back that they probably lost in stock value after the massive Mat Honan hack.
Edited 2012-08-25 02:20 UTC
FYI in addition to $1.05b from Samsung, the afterhours trading has pushed $AAPL’s market cap up by about another $10b.
Apple won some cash yeah… but now, Samsung is the official Apple nemesis!!
This trial was the best marketing campaign ever.
In addition to $1.05b from Samsung, the afterhours trading has pushed $AAPL’s market cap up by about another $10b. You’re betting on the wrong horse.
Competition needs to innovate. The industry can’t prosper when all they do is imitate. They’ll have to reinvent themselves like Apple did back in the 90’s. If they lack vision they lack future. Vendors will be forced to innovate, if only to avoid an Apple lawsuit. This is good for the consumer.
Yep. That is why they threw out their old OS and took the “immitator” as their base for OS’es.
Also, it would be really nice if software patents that Apple refuses to license aren’t ridiculously broad. (see the two out of three claims posted above)
<sarcasm>
So in general, I agree that giving Apple a 17 year monopoly on any touchscreen device that can perform single finger scrolling and multi-touch gesture detection is an absolutely positive thing for the tech industry. Oh, did I mention that the actual method of detecting multiple touches and determining that it’s not a scroll is not relevant and not disclosed?
</sarcasm>
In the 90s Apple realised they couldn’t compete on technology. They switched to being little more than a design company selling generic PC hardware (in pretty cases) with a BSD-based operating system.
Compared to Microsoft that has been shipping the same broken operating system for 30 years and not fixing a single fucking thing in it worth noting; when are we going to see them finally introduce a consistent replacement for win32? actually utilise some of the technology they introduced in Windows 7 such as Direct2D/DirectWrite so that there is a consistent way of doing things? when are we going to see Microsoft actually deliver on a desktop GUI that properly scales up with resolution? Oh that’s right Apple is for morons who can’t use computers and only buy shiny things with Apple never actually creating anything useful – same shit, different day and same bullshit ignoramus horse shit being spewed by the same peanut gallery nitwits.
As a longtime Mac OS X and Windows user (not just them, but that’s what is relevant now, as the post I’m replying to is about Apple innovation) I can’t agree with this statement.
Until the Retina MBP was released, Apple had not offered its users a usable way to scale the GUI independently from the screen resolution, apart from tinkering with AppleDisplayScaleFactor, which was unsupported and resulted in visually breaking the UI of every single application you used.
Even now on the RMBP it is just doubling^2 the pixels for every element or scaling old resolutions to fit a panel on which you cannot distinguish individual pixels anymore. A sort of workaround if you speak about scaling the GUI.
On every other Mac you had a hell of a bad time trying to change font dimensions with third party applications, only to find that most of the font-related settings are hardcoded and cannot be changed.
The Windows way was far easier and more effective – as in Gnome and KDE – even if it is not proper interface scaling.
There was no freaking working way to scale the GUI on Mac OS X and I’ve been hating this for years, so please, don’t tell false tales.
No big deal, no lower court can ever overturn a Supreme Court ruling. and SCOTUS has said that software as an abstract cannot be patented.
Not only that the judge unlawfully suppressed evidence that would have destroyed Apple’s entire case, no one, not even an Apple fanboy with their limited grasp of logic could ever believe that a company only building a phone for 5 years could hold patents on work other companies have been doing for more than 20 years.
But hey, Apple killed itself in the China market, people here don’t accept dirty dealing like the kind Apple has displayed, I see empty Apple stores with most people crowded around the Samsung product displays.
Sadly they have not said that. If, on the off chance I am wrong, please point out where they said that. I am hoping I am wrong 🙂
The unlawful suppression part, assuming you are talking about how Samsungs lawyers tried to introduce evidence too late in the trial, that is not unlawful suppression, that is following the rules.
The reality (that several here refuse to admit) is that software patents are legal, well precedented, and here to stay. This case has little significance. It’s certainly no Bilski. It’s impact does not ripple out to whether or not software patents are legal at all or not… It has great significance for other U.S. Apple v. Samsung battles, but it does little to alter the general landscapes of IP law, software patents, iOS v. Android, or the consumer handing over $100 to $1000 to some business.
The histrionics are quite depressing and delusional.
When Samsung says they will appeal to the highest court in the land or a fanboy holds out for a significant legal precedent being handed down by the Supreme Court, they are deluding themselves. Let’s see how for an Appellate appeal gets first. I’d easily wager a fortune this never gets to the Supremes.
This is a seemingly iron-clad jury decision presided over by an extremely cautious, equitable, and no-bullshit judge (not biased despite the propaganda some corners want believed).
Edited 2012-08-25 03:50 UTC
Wow, dude, read and then think about what you read before you speak. Otherwise you wind up sounding pretty dumb …
No, it didn’t. SCOTUS said that abstract ideas that are not otherwise patentable don’t become patentable just because their expressed in software. None of the Apple patents in question represent abstract ideas; their all very utilitarian in nature.
Moreover none of the trade dress patents are in any way ‘abstract ideas’.
No it didn’t. The only thing the ‘suppression of evidence’ that you are talking about would have impacted would be the trade dress part of the suit of which Apple only won for the 3GS.
Even if that whole trade dress piece gets tossed it would have only limited impact on either company (what’s a few hundred million to these guys).
Did you even bother to read which patents Apple is asserting here? Because if you did you would understand how totally stupid that statement is.
Apple is ‘killing itself’ with a 48% y-o-y growth. I am sure Tim Cook cries every time he looks at that number.
]{
Apple is ‘killing itself’ with a 48% y-o-y growth. I am sure Tim Cook cries every time he looks at that number.
Apple is getting absolutely slaughtered outside North America. The iPhone market can’t exist without massive carrier subsidies. Hence the frivolous lawsuits.
Apple did much better than anyone else in the picture last time they were “dominated” internationally (’81-’84, Microsoft rose to dominance under DOS, not Windows) and weathered the storm for 15 years to lead the next wave.
Would you really wager that there is any other player in the game (particularly any that are not Google) more likely to outlast a 15-20 year storm of dominance by another platform than Apple?
Are you like trying to convince yourself or someone else here?
1) Apple earns almost 60% of it’s IPhone revenue from international sales.
2) International iPhone sales are the growth driver, while NA sales are slowing as the market saturates.
3) Apple’s primary lawsuits are all in US. Software patents and trade dress patents are much weaker outside the US and so – other that the circus in Germany – really have no tangible impact on international sales.
But feel free to believe whatever helps you sleep at night.
]{
Sounds impressive, until you do the actual math:
40% of iPhone revenue comes from the US, so 4.5% of the world’s population is responsible for 40% of iPhone revenue. This means that the remaining 60% comes from 95.5% of the world’s population. This is an incredibly skewed division – it means that a small sales drop in the US can easily have harsh repercussions for bottom line. No spreading of risks here – all eggs in one basket.
Now do the actual math based on the actual population size of the smartphone and/or tablet markets for US v. international rather than raw population.
Now do the actual math based on the wealth of actual population size of the smartphone and/or tablet markets for US v. international.
Oops, not so skewed at all.
You do understand that Europe alone is more populous and has a more even wealth distribution than the US right? Europe alone is a larger smartphone market than the US – add in South America, India, Japan, China, Russia, and Australia, and the US is *peanuts*.
Typical US-centric view of the world.
I am certainly aware of the size of the European market. I’m also fully aware that you are counting about 2.5 Billion non-participants (conservatively) and another 1.5 Billion low-value, economically-speaking, consumers (again, conservatively) to generate some funny math.
The veiled threat of “a small sales drop in the US can easily have harsh repercussions for bottom line” paired with the funny math is nonsense. Apple just experienced a “small sales drop” (greater than 20% growth) and is at its strongest. Economically, all of the other players are in far more precarious situations: Samsung least so (because of other manufacturing), HTC (very real risk of disappearing), RIM (do I have to say it?), Nokia (?), Motorola (no one could ever save Moto)…
To further expand on my points about the addressable market and value from its participants.
“40% of iPhone revenue comes from the US, so 4.5% of the world’s population is responsible for 40% of iPhone revenue. This means that the remaining 60% comes from 95.5% of the world’s population. ”
Yes. Apple gets 40% of its iPhone wealth from 4.5% of the world’s population by having 30% market share (greater share than any other competitor in the market, with far higher profits too) of the most important mobile market and it gets 60% of its iPhone wealth from the 60% of world that is currently addressable.
Also, and this is the funniest:
Take away America. Go ahead! Chop 40% of the iPhone out, and Apple’s market value is still greater than Samsung’s TOTAL mobile phone market value… profits are still 2x, or even 3x, those of Samsung’s, its nearest most profitable competitor, TOTAL profits.
Sounds like an awfully fragile basket of eggs!
Edited 2012-08-25 19:38 UTC
It also means that Apple’s iPhone growth potential outside of the US market is substantial, and places them in a stronger position to weather downward fluctuations in revenue from the home market. Of course, Apple has been walking on the high wire for decades as endless naysayers predicted their demise. My, how the worm turns.
Edited 2012-08-26 12:00 UTC
I love how the rhetoric shifts “submission” of evidence to “suppression.” When Samsung was denied, it was often because Samsung was pursuing a new theory/narrative several months late, without notice. When they avoided “suppression” of evidence, the fanboys thought it shifted the case to a slam dunk — when in reality it was weak sauce.
I view this as a win for Apple, a win for consumers, a not-loss for Samsung and a loss for Google. The lawyers of course, they won on all sides!.
Apple’s IP has been protected. They spend a lot on R&D and deserve to profit from that expenditure without Samsung or anyone else copying it! Companies will stop spending money on R&D if they can’t protect their investment. Yes some of the patents maybe questionable but they work within the (possibly broken) system. Instead of bitching about Apple, change the system! Google, Samsung, Microsoft all play within the system.
Consumers will have a larger selection to chose from because companies will produce more diverse products. This will take several years for the new designs to hit the shelf but they will. And a couple may even be revolutionary! You don’t think Samsung will stop making phones do you? I didn’t think so. More diversity in the market and more competition for Apple are very good things for all involved.
Samsung will be forced to differentiate their products from Apples products, increasing the variety and type of phones on the market. This will be good for Samsung in the long run. Even if they pay the $1B Samsung won’t feel it! … much! After all that profit was made on the back of Apple IP.
Google will have to differentiate Android from iOS. They will need to spend a lot of money on a product they make very little from. Common! Google stole a number of things right off the iOS desktop. That part is obvious to anyone that takes a critical comparison of the two devices. If you don’t see it you are blind or just a troll!
Krreagan
PS. Oh ya! My retirement just moved up by about 3years because I own lots of AAPL stock
The ramifications of this decision will be driving the stock up for many months to come. Wahooo!!!
Android will look different in USA due to shit patent and idiot courts
Then it’s a great day for innovation!
Apple doesn’t innovate they litigate
Your right… Apple II, Mac, iMac, ipod, iphone, os1..9 & X… Apple is one of the most innovative large corporations. While Apple did not invent these they innovated them and made them marketable where others failed. They vastly changed to consumer electronics landscape on many different occasions.
PS. Apple is one of the most sued companies in the US! Much more then they sue others!
Edited 2012-08-26 01:53 UTC
…who now owns and loves his Nexus 7…
Having said that, this is a loss to the industry, as has been stated before.
Please know that not all Apple fans love or wanted this outcome.
The patent system is rubbish and I was hoping a case like this would be the catalyst for change, maybe it is.
I hope Apple keeps creating new and wonderful products, just as I hope other companies do.
Imagine is Apple had patented the GUI (or Xerox for that matter).
In the very old days, Apple did sue Microsoft over the use of the trashcan on the desktop. Or threaten to sue, I am no longer sure how it went.
This is the reason why the 16versions of windows did not have a trashcan application.
Apple was always like this.
Back in the day, a good number of us users who were running Win 95/98/ME alongside Mac OS 7 and 8, found it fairly obvious that Microsoft’s ‘Recycle Bin’ was a blatant rip-off of the Mac’s ‘Trash.’ It was a running joke.
One of the sad things about patents is that they validate the idea that copying is a good strategy because doing your own innovation will probably not yield good enough results. Patents overestimate the value of ideas, and underestimate the value of working on products. I want to see Samsung create interesting products (like the Google Nexus) not because I don’t think they should copy others, but because I really think if they act on their own they can come up with great stuff.
As for the claims themselves, I only ever thought the trade dress stuff ought to hold up in court. It should not be possibly to protect ideas, but it should be possible (to an extent) protect brands.
Edited 2012-08-25 05:53 UTC
Samsung have been producing interesting products for years. There’s a reason that millions of consumers consciously chose top end Galaxy devices instead of Apples despite similar price. You don’t suggest they wanted Iphone and were mislead, do you?
I was as you would say an Apple fanboy, but because of this ruling, I will never buy another Apple product again.
Apple, you are sick at the core. How dare you define the word ‘choice’.
Someone should just claim that their dead relative invented the western letters. Show some bogus evidents that no one can verify. The sue every corporatio that has produced even a line of code.
Or
Mayde Edison’s realatives should claim that modern led components infringes their idea of an lightbulb, because they emit visible light.
*sigh*
Maybe, if were lucky enough some alien race comes and infects human race with some deadly plague like disease and that will be end of this farse. ^^
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/31/pre-iphone-design-concepts-add-weig…
It really is tiresome with this highly biased “reporting” throughout the trial.
There are rules. Courts test them. Apple won. Samsung lost. That means Samsung was in the wrong (and Apple may be on other counts once the details are out).
Scream all you want from your soapbox, Thom. You won’t change reality. At best you will cost OSNews some of its readership.
No great loss, thanks for all the fish and bye.
You guys simply don’t get it on many fronts.
This case was never going to end any other way. The average American believes that only Americans have original ideas and everyone else copies.
Now look at the economics involved. This is not about companies; it’s about nations and foreign exchange. America is BROKE. America NEEDS MONEY any way it can get it and, since America PRODUCES NOTHING ANYBODY WANTS, then MONEY FOR NOTHING is the only transaction possible. America needs a cut of the production of everyone else’s sweat; it is the only way out of the economic hole it has dug for itself. If you think the US State department does not have a fist in this pie, you are delusional.
The whole purpose of patents has been completely subverted in the last few decades. From a lecture by Eben Moglen, the original US patents were for three years during which time the inventor had exclusive rights to develop and monetize the idea for his own betterment. After that, everyone could develop the idea into bigger and better things and expand industry for the country as a whole. The founding fathers were not stupid; they were not going to allow an individual to lock up some idea to the detriment of the growing nation. How times have changed.
Software patents are a joke and an insult to any developer worth their salt. For a start, there is no discovery involved; no new insight into natural phenomena to be exploited. The average Joe (developers included) simply does not have the ability to decompose a problem space to the point where a solution is obvious. To the majority of people, this process is magic and they are right in thinking it should be rewarded. The only problem is it is not the people with the required skills who ever get the rewards. Has been so for centuries and is unlikely to change any time ever.
The biggest problem I see with patents over UI elements is that it breaks Common User Access which is the one thing that has made computing accessible to the masses and allowed the consumer electronics industry to flourish. Anyone old enough to remember computers of the early ’80s will remember that every word processor and every spread sheet had a unique look and feel and specific training was required for each and every one. The training industry loved it and worked very hard at perpetuating the mith well into the ’90s. I really don’t know what would be the result of every device manufacturer developing a UI exclusive to it’s own products. I don’t think it would happen. While they were able to make sales, manufacturers would just pay the protection money to the patent mafia and get on with business.
So, now patents on universally established UI and design conventions like pinch and zoom or rounded rects are enforceable in the US ?
Guess I just have to buy the patent for patent abuse, then
Edited 2012-08-25 09:24 UTC
Everything is obvious in hindsight. I’m sure Samsung saw it as obvious when they blatantly lifted them off of the iPhone, but not a minute before.
Rather than arguing about how ridiculous Apple’s patents are, I’ll just point out that there should be a clause in patent laws that specifies that a year or so after competitors have started to widely use the patented invention in commercial products, if the patent holder has done nothing about it, the patent must be invalidated.
Otherwise, what you get is people silently patenting random stuff, waiting until it has fallen in widespread use, and only then asserting their patent holder rights. This does nothing more for innovation than immediate litigation, and only help companies that want to engage in downright anticompetitive behaviours such as patent trolling or achieving monopolies on de facto standards.
If companies have to litigate immediately instead, such legal backstabbing becomes impossible. They must show immediately what kind of crap they have patented, and competitors can smoothly reinvent the wheel before people have become used to the original one.
Edited 2012-08-25 20:54 UTC
I believe such a clause exists, but the period is to long for how fast everything now changes.
I was anticipating a farcical verdict from the beginning…right from the incident when the Judge asked the Samsung lawyer to identify/differentiate Apple’s and Samsung’s tablets (in switched-off mode) from a distance (instead of a usable distance). It was a ridiculous test to be used by a judge. My belief of a partisan result consolidated when I read that the judge was not allowing the admission of various “prior art” against the claims of Apple’s patents. Further, the manner in which jury instructions were framed and the way in which the jury decided to give it all to Apple, it seems the verdict was pre-programmed. I do not own an Apple product. After this, I will never buy one and, as far as possible, I will ensure that my kin buy from any company but not from Apple.
I do not own an Apple product. After this, I will never buy one and, as far as possible, I will ensure that my kin buy from any company but not from Apple.
Interesting… I’ve made a similar comment about Samsung and Android.
BTW: I’ve been buying Apple products since the early 80’s and currently have about 15 working Apple products in my house. and several hundred shares of AAPL (since ~2002, $12.22 per share when purchased
.
Apple is a great American success story! If you don’t like the patent system then change the patent system, don’t bitch about companies that play by the same rules as every other company out there. Don’t think for a minute that Samsung or Google would not have done exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed!
Undoubtedly some jury members use at least one or more Apple product.Furthermore Apple is an American Company allthough increasinly more jobs are migrated to third world countries.Cases such as these where patents are involved aren´t suitable for jury “justice”.
This case exposes an unpalatable truth for some.
It is this.
Within the rather odd sub-culture that consists of Apple haters, Google /Android fans and extreme proponents of open source anti-IP ideology it is possible to create all sorts of imagined scenarios where one company stealing the product designs and IP of another company is a good thing, especially if the victim is Apple and the perpetrator is part of the Android community. Or even madder in the case of Samsung and Apple, that the stealing never happened. These imaginings can be worked up into such a self reinforcing culture that it becomes simply incomprehensible that anyone can believe otherwise. The cultural totems of this subculture become to be seen not as fictions or at best half truths, but as unassailable truths.
But the verdict in this trial punctures those balloons of self delusional constructs.
This verdict is so shocking and awful in this sub-culture because it is a horrible reminder of an unavoidable truth which many are desperate to avoid.
The truth that if you were to select a representative cross section of the uncommitted population and, in a scrupulously balanced forum, give them access to a representative cross section of background documentation from both Samsung and Apple, and let them listen to the best witnesses each side could bring, and let them listen to the arguments of both Samsung and Apple presented by the best advocates each could find, most ordinary citizens would clearly and quickly see the obvious truth. Samsung copied Apple, it did it deliberately, it did it in breach of patents, it did even after it was asked to stop and it did it wilfully.
Now of course the sub-culture will explode with indignation. The trial was fixed, the system is broken, it’s all so unfair, boycott Apple, etc etc. But the community has to deal with this watershed event because it doesn’t stop the wheels of justice turning. Apple voluntarily withdrew at the behest of the court many other of it’s patents in order to simplify this case but it did so with out prejudice. Apple can, and almost certainly will, now assert those patents and will probably win more victories and the pain for Samsung and the other Android OEMs will increase.
So the challenge for those who love Android in particular is what to do next. What should Google do now? What should the community of Android fans now be campaigning for Google to do? Up until now Google has taken the weasel way out, it distributes Android within a very tight legal framework that prevents any legal cascade of responsibility back to Google, it has supported through logistical and political support the fight by many of it’s OEMs to defend their copying, it has disgracefully used it’s wholly owned subsidiary Motorola to pursue FRAND abuse as a strategy of counterattack. But none of that is working.
Interestingly in the evidence in the Apple Samsung case it was revealed that Google had asked Samsung to tone down it’s copying and expressed concerns about the cloning approach that Samsung was pursuing. And that was the correct thing to do. But it was too little and too late. Now Google needs to step up and take on true responsibility of being the leader of the Android community instead of hiding behind disingenuous and hypocritical PR puff about ‘openness’. Google needs to say it will not tolerate copying in the Android community, it needs to enforce a new and better ethical model in the community it leads.
If Android, and it’s business and technological model, is as good as it’s supporters and Google claim it is there will be a flowering of innovation, a stream of great products and everybody will benefit. It’s time Google and the Android community started doing things the right way rather than the easy unethical way.
It’s time to prove your mettle.
No big deal. Here nobody buys iPhone anyway. iPhone was not able to complete with android wrt spec and prices.
Where is ‘here?’…..your mom’s basement?
No problem for Apple, for now on if you buy a touch phone you will pay them whether you like it or not.
Say good bye to $100 smartphone, not in this life.
If long time ago some religion believe in earth is the center of the universe, then now, some ‘religion followers’ believe that Apple corps is the center of the universe.
Shut up! Don’t type again. Or I’ll make you can’t type. I’ll persuade ‘that’ country to patent alphabet, and ‘that’ country to patent using ‘digit’. If rectangular can be patented, why not alphabet and/or digit.
Oh, I’ll make sure you CANNOT use your vehicle, too. I’ll persuade ‘that dead person’ to patent his rounded wheel method.
..Ever think why google persuade Samsung for the design? Cause they know in-out what ‘Apple-insider’ brain works. Use ur brain, pretty please?
Wise man said, ‘Ignorance know no bounds’, Mhm..
What a bunch of horseshit…
The irony is this is coming from an Apple supporter.
He believed this when he said it. It isn’t taken out of context.
Copying (to a point) is a good thing. It is the engine of innovation – you cannot innovate in isolation. Everything is derived from something that existed before it. Innovation is coming up with ingenious ways to make things better, do things better. Jobs knew this, he practiced this, he did it better than most in fact.
Innovative != Original…
There is admittedly a line where you can go too far, I concede that, but I personally don’t believe that Samsung crossed it. Im not taking about the technicalities of whether they violated patents or not – Im just talking about general principle. Of course the jury did what they did, so that is that.
But it doesn’t really change the argument. Im not upset that Samsung lost the case. I personally don’t care about Samsung, or Google for that matter. Im not a fanboy – I don’t post here to defend companies. All of your comments are directed at some “subculture” – I don’t belong to a subculture.
Copying is not wrong – it is not “unethical”. Being able to monopolize a sofware method for 20 years in the technology industry, where product life cycles last maybe 10 years at best, is what is wrong. That is a fricken enternity! That is unethical!
I don’t care that Apple won. I don’t care that Samsung lost. But I do care that this case upheld (decidedly) Apple’s 915 and 381 patents…
It doesn’t matter whether or not Apple ‘invented” these. It is not fair to the industry. Virtually every single multi-touch device in existence with a browser on it can be argued to violate one or both of these patents… Sure, they can be worked around with a bit of work – but that would not satisfy your argument. Subtly changing something to avoid violating a patent is certainly copying, is it not?
So what is your solution? That Apple have a monopoly on multi-touch devices until about 2025? That is fair to you? You have a device – the interface is a screen, and the only input is your fingers… There are only so many ways you can implement things, and the obvious and optimal ways are now the exclusive property of Apple, Inc. – and they don’t license to anyone.
Apple certainly didn’t invent multi-touch technology, Jeff Han and even Microsoft were doing things with it prior to Apple. Are you saying that just because Apple holds these patents it is fair to give them a 20 year monopoly on the entire product segment?
You think it is good for consumers for Apple to have no real competitors? If everyone else is doing something completely different… they are not competitors. You think lack of competition is good for a free market? For consumers?
The reality is that other companies are going to keep building multi-touch devices. All this verdict means (if upheld for the long haul) is that they have no choice but to work around these patents. They will suck just a little bit more than they would have had to otherwise. They will still be, for all intents and purposes, iphone and ipad “copies” in your eyes – but they will all be legal.
How does this help Apple? How does this help consumers? Apple is a billion dollars richer. I don’t even think they would notice at this point…
All this does is create pain for an entire industry – one that Apple did not create and has no right to hold hostage. Everyone suffers.
Do you have a dog in this fight Tony?
Google have been vary of Apple infringements from the start. Initially G1 had even multi-tough disabled.
They also have removed over-scroll from Android. (edit: more on the subject: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3268609/how-google-has-avoided-ap…)
But the number of design and interaction patents that were validated in this trial(despite obvious prior art) is just staggering.
There’s only a limited number of ways one can do zooming and scrolling on a touch device as there’s only a limited number of ways you can open door or press a button. This is just a common sense, Apple can claim ownership on a common sense. Nobody in his sane minds could declare this patentable, this just madness.
There’s nothing reasonable Google could do to counter madness, you know that.
I’m wondering how come in the absurdly obvious patent cases before US courts it’s always the US based companies that are given the leg.
Edited 2012-08-27 12:37 UTC
The tragic part is that the only reasonable response Google could to is to fry Apple on e.g. notification centre to force it into licensing deals with its oems.
They could also see exploit some obvious search and mapping related patents against solutions Apple plans to do on their own. The problem is that this would be as damaging to the consumer as Apple actions.
This only displays how sick the whole system is.
So now they can sue companies like HTC and others as well. O wait a minute, didn’t I have smartphones before the 1st iphone came out? OK, they were controlled with a stylus, but they weren’t that much different. Can somebody sue apple now, for stealing the whole smartphone concept?…
This verdict means the same as saying an expensive car will own the car market for the foreseeable future.
“Sorry if you can’t afford our expensive car. That means your not driving.”
The jurors sided with a US company, and thought that this case was “foreigners” against the US. Samsung didn’t have chance to win. I wonder how much of the evidence they even understood – they made a decision very quickly probably they couldn’t care, they just wanted it to be over and sided with the US company.
Edited 2012-08-25 12:04 UTC
Apple didn’t invent the phone that’s obvious nor did they invent touch screens ,but asside from blackberry business smart phone no one else put all necessary components to work together like Apple did as soon as iPhone came out the so called phone manufacturers felt like they just went back to school on how to make a phone all the flip phone that flooded the market got pushed to the curve and scrambleing to play catch ,coincidence that the company that Apple hired to make components for them all of the sudden has a competitive product in smart phones world we only know what we have been told we were not in the court room to really hear Wat was or not stolen ideas ,every one want to hold on to Wat they belive is there property this is only the beginning ,I belive if I fart to the right at a 35 degree angle just might get sued cause someone has a patent in angle farting
This decision made by American bigwigs is a great justification for Samsung to restructure. It’s not a bad thing,is it?
I like apple. Glad they won.
Justice has been served. It was blatantly obvious anyway, only a diehard fan would claim otherwise.
I have no idea what world some of you live in. All of your jobs are protected by some method or means. If I were a creator of any sort of media or design or play or art or any such creation, I’d expect to be protected. Every civilized country understands that the world needs to protect owners.
The lack of control is not freedom it is theft and crime and chaos.
You’re Dutch and they don’t make anything worth defending anyway. Lol.
70% of the world’s computer chips is made using chip making machines from a Dutch company called ASML. In other words, without us, you’d have no computers in the first place. On top of that, we happen to be the second or third largest investor in the United States, so I wouldn’t strike such a haughty tone with me, kid.
ASML likes to sue also. Ask Nikon how they feel about that. But I guess ASML is special and it’s ok if they defend their patents but Apple can’t defend their patents that they got legally. And we appreciate you all investing in the US, more money for us. Thanks. 🙂
LOL yeah no computers without the dutch…lol Thank god the dutch invented computers and chip making. What else do you want to take credit for?
To para-phrase homer simpson
“Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Thom. 40% of all people know that.”
Edited 2012-08-25 20:32 UTC
And most of all, we wouldn’t have the Royal Concertgebouw….one of the world’s greatest classical orchestras….the Netherlands is a cool place!
Though how much of that is because of Shell? (and if large part: not sure anything-oil-industry is a reason to gloat about, especially in the context of the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_welfare_and_ecological_foot… – fossil fuels is from where we mostly take the “surplus”, for now – & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries …or Sheel in general, WRT to Niger Delta for example)
Interesting about ASML (and… curious HQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ASML_headquarters_Veldhoven.jpg )
Apple is happy, Sammy is sad, but in time this will be almost irrelevant. Android will keep being a huge success, I think this will even boost android sales, if samsung is low, others are up. I believe other android phones are the biggest winners…. we will see…..
I thought OSNews arm chair patent lawyers were infallible and that prior art would prevail?
Would vs. should.
Its more like, people use the term prior art without knowing what it means, or what it takes to prove it in court.
Its beyond offensive and downright delirious to suggest that 12 jurors were Xenophobic and they only ruled for Apple because they’re American.
However, everything is “balanced” when Samsung (who is a double digit contributor to the GDP of South Korea) has a favorable ruling wrt Standard Essential Patents in their home country.
What are you referring to? Haven’t seen that posted here.
The US is the only place with a decidedly victorious outcome for Apple. Germany, The Netherlands, the UK, South Korea al ended up positive for Samsung. Make of that what you will.
Actually the Neatherlands is the only place Samsung has won. They have lost 3 cases in Germany. One in France, one in Italy and they split in their own home country.
Samsung is on a losing streak, this is just the largest.
I don’t know why anyone would upload their files to a service like iCloud when there are so many other hosting services like http://www.linode.com or http://www.vpsnodebox.com
maybe now Samsung will learn how to create good products instead of just make inferior copies. Good lesson for Samsung!
they make really good products that are better than iphone and ipad and apple knows that so they litigate
not my experience with their products, but each to his own opinion. It takes courage and risk to make something unique that is not a copy of something else. Its courage and risk that the world deeply lacks. Apple created this clone market by not opening their iphone to other providers and the international market in the beginning. When the clones appeared they changed their strategy, a little late.
they are not clones they do not look like iphone/ipad and android doesn’t look like ios only a apple sect member would have that problem with their eyes
Really disgusting. One only has to hope that one day people will be able to abolish software patents altogether, as they managed to abolish slavery.
Yes because patenting code is exactly like owning a human being.</sarcasm>
This sort of comment actually sickens me when there is still real world slavery in existence and you liken some f–king computer code to someone’s life.
You are a f–king idiot.
Edited 2012-08-26 10:28 UTC
Really disgusting. One only has to hope that one day people will be able to abolish software patents altogether, as they managed to abolish slavery
I don’t think the OP was really intending any equivalence by saying the above but maybe simply hinting that both are simply completely unnecessary; ‘owning’ another human -barbaric and completely unnecessary.
it’s also completely unnecessary having legislation in a supposedly free and civilised world allowing ‘ownership’ of formulae or pretty simple code that could can and will be repeatedly ‘reinvented’ within the minds of many successive coders but are ‘enslaved’ for want of a better phrase by the software patent holder.
I think shmerl’s analogy was fair enough really(without over thinking it!) and that it is you over reacting or over analysing really -maybe trolling for a further reaction like mine perhaps. apologies if I’ve just fed you
OMG.
One is computer code and while it is fine we care about it, in the bigger picture comparing to something like slavery is moronic.
I’m sure slave masters were also pretty upset, and were screaming about “rights” and “property”.
Comparing the two is just retarded sorry.
Let me spell it out for you. Computer are less important than real people.
Edited 2012-08-27 08:46 UTC
Comparing the two makes sense, since both serve someone’s greed, and abolishing both goes against someone’s strong monetary interests. The point is, those interests are against society in general.
This BS, let’s see I didn’t invent the wheel but let’s get a patent and sue everyone …
I say Google needs to take of the gloves and get nasty with Moto’s patent portfolio. Here’s some filings against Apple by Moto
“On Friday, wholly-owned Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility announced the filing of a new (second) ITC complaint against Apple”
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/these-are-seven-patents-googles….
Code = math? There wouldn’t be computer chips if it weren’t for Holland? People quoting wikipedia like it’s scripture. Apple copied the app store from Linux.
I was expecting to read some stupid comments in this thread but come on man… I’m surprised I didn’t see someone claiming Apple is secretly owned by the Illuminati. But then again, I didn’t read every post.
I heard this news story first on the news summary on the Today program on BBC Radio 4 (an early morning news/current affairs programme). Here is what they said:
“Samsung, the South Korean IT giant, has been found guilt of stealing technology from Apple and fined a million dollars.”
To be fair to them, they did get it all correct in the main story – they did quite a fair story, for mainstream media. Here’s the iPlayer link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m47d9/Today_25_08_2012/
Is it me? who only understands “computer” constructs visavi hardware and software.
Samsung will win effortlessly as Apple are easily hoodwinked. All their efforts will be incarcerated by lawyers financial institutions and politics whereas the Asian countries will easily trounce them because,
unlike the high level codes that are all too easily over hyped and sold to the unwary today (ie source algorithms) they can instantly think processor data work around, and build appropriate compilers to go with chips they make, Leaving all political posturing behind. forget Samsung v Apple it’s a diversion. Leave it to lawyers and politicians and we’ll all be fucked.
But Hey! Reading “The Dream of Computing for Everyone” by Howard Fosdick makes everything said above irrelevant because Raspberry (or other back to basic plagiarist) will develop another system and organically its own tree (think Torvalds and how he created a society that would improve on how software was built)
Someone asked me a few weeks ago if I was following the Samsung v. Apple case. I replied with surprise and a mild tone of disgust, “of coarse not”. The reply, I realize now, was sourced by naivety; it never occurred to me that a group would unanimously and confidently agree to these absurdities. This was, of coarse, one more attempt to use legal technicalities as a way to make money easier than producing products that could compete on their own merit. It’s hard to make a great product so lets take down companies (and the individuals that make up those great R&D departments) producing those superior products because that’s easier than improving our products. Who would see this any other way?
Now lets fly back to the real word. A world where a group of people award pseudo validation to “creations” that aren’t creations. Creations such as rounded edges, tap to zoom, etc.
Lets ask a few questions here. Is the award for creation due to those who create or those who popularize? Is credit due to those that enhance society or those that say they enhance society? Is it unreasonable to think that two groups of people could come to the same conclusion regarding design or even product direction regardless of whether that direction is “good” or “bad”?
That last question is an interesting one. Lets take an example. Almost every laptop computer has a monitor with a hinge system behind the keyboard and opens in the same way to reveal a keyboard in front of the display. Does this mean that all of the laptop companies except one is copying each other or, is it more likely that it is simply a logical design even if not the best design?
Lets brake this down:
A.) Unbiased Jury: Can we really think that it is likely to put together an unbiased group of people all of which have not been effected by the fabulous marketing efforts of a company who’s business is marketing? Is the jury making decisions based on logical analysis of information or emotional response to well structured marketing efforts conducted year after year before this case. Is this a scenario that is sourcing such realizations as the current art exhibit “More Real? Art in the Age of Truthiness” which depicts the current trend of society to be content to create fact from easily available information regardless of it’s truth as apposed to taking the effort to find the truth?
B.) Continuing on the example mentioned earlier: if a company releases a car with four wheels instead of three wheels, then goes out of business to be followed by another company that releases a car with four wheels that becomes successful via an incredible marketing effort to then feel the obstacle of healthy competition by a company that releases a much better car with four wheels, could the argument be made that the third company was copying the second? Or were they both inspired by the first obscure company? Or, did all three independently come to the same logical conclusion that it would be worth trying a vehicle with four wheels? Can anyone say with a straight face that four instead of three requires specialized design skills? In this Apple v. Samsung scenario, the jury made the error of conflating association with correlation.
Will this get recognized by vocal people? Will developers continue to support companies like Apple that restrict creativity and compete via legal tactics instead of attempting to produce a superior product?
We live in an interesting time; future anthropologists will have a delight studying this period.
Asking these questions is perfectly fine, but it’s important to understand that there are plenty of people in the world who don’t give a damn about Apple, Samsung, or the propaganda and spin produced by either company. If you ask the question, ‘is it possible to select a totally unbias jury for this case?’, I believe the answer to be yes absolutely, no question.
Remember, things not going the way `you` think they should is no indication anything is wrong with the jury. Many of us have our opinions, which we’re entitled to, on how this should turn out. However, nobody is `right` or `wrong` in their opinion. You’re either in agreement or disagreement with the decision of the jury.
Apple hasn’t and can’t restrict or stop anyone from being creative. Implying otherwise is simply absurd. Apple doesn’t control anyone’s creativity and they aren’t to blame for others inability to be creative and/or original.
To suggest that Apple doesn’t compete with its products is ignorant at best. Products like the iphone and ipad are wildly popular, sell like hotcakes, and it’s not because people think they’re inferior. Obviously vast millions of people don’t. No company enjoys the type of success Apple has without providing people with what they perceive as great products. You don’t have to agree with those people but disregarding their opinions doesn’t make yours somehow more valid.
Additionally, you can’t simply sue your way to the top. While some people believe Apple has done nothing more than cheat & steal their way to success, reality tells a different story.
Lastly, using the law to help maximize their potential is only one tool of many Apple uses, and it’s not exclusive. Chances are your favorite and beloved companies have probably done it as well. Maybe some day people will wake up and realize all these companies have the same goal & same bottom line. None of them are in business `for the good of the people` and none of them should be put on a pedestal.