Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (5)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 5 hrs ago -
Handbook (2)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 5 days, 4 hrs ago - more...
|
2012-08-08
, 11:14
|
|
Posts: 48 |
Thanked: 39 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Netherlands
|
#2
|
Why do people even bother to report anything about this case? It's about as ridiculous as court cases can be.
 |
|
2012-08-08
, 11:22
|
|
Posts: 308 |
Thanked: 299 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
@ Graveyard
|
#3
|
Let me quote something which I read there 
Okay, So What! every company has competition. and Samsung here actually is trying to improve their products as you can see they are comparing other challenging products to make even a better one. Not all of the features are 100% ported to their UI but only the ones that actually make more sense and what is more customer oriented. Also where did you guys get these evidence and why are all addressed against Samsung? And why is it starting to appear as of this month. Do you guys actually see any resemblance in Galaxy S3? or we should wait until the iPhone5 comes out, where you will start posting that Samsung imitated apple? Also before all of this patent wars. I Remember that i had a blackberry where it's main feature was Local searching(OS6). I cannot deny that the Galaxy S has some resemblance is a kind of ways to the iPhone, but as i see it now, Samsung is moving on by offering much better products now and it started to get ahead of competition.
What's frustrating is that Apple also imitates some features but always get off with it. Such as Local Searching, Drop-Down Notification and the list goes on.
Now I Actually Love Apple products, They master them by providing perfect, and very well thought products but one thing i hate about them is how they treat their competition.
__________________
 |
|
2012-08-08
, 14:13
|
|
Posts: 1,789 |
Thanked: 1,699 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#4
|
If anything, I'd say it puts Apple in a worse position.
The supposedly "hidden" evidence Apple is using is "a 132-page document written in 2010 by Sammy engineers that directly compares the iPhone against the Galaxy S".
Firstly, this is an internal comparison against the competition for R&D purposes.
Secondly, this was drafted after the i9000 (SGS) was revealed/retailed.
Thirdly, this is not an illegal or improper action, in fact many companies in different markets do the same practices.
Finally, the document (plainly) describes Samsung should "remove a feeling that the iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design"
Conclusion, what the Samsung's internal R&D engineers are actually arguing (in the slides) is to make design changes to the SGS i9000 to achieve a "luxurious" feel and try to make the icons look LESS like Apple's.
On the other hand, Apple has been caught doing the same thing, using design references from SONY and saying those similarities were never intended to make their way into the iPhone design. And when Samsung does it, "its blatant copying" and when they do it "its research".
I'm not saying they don't have a case, I'm saying its beginning to get fishy real-quick. I mean, imagine if Hyundai was banned from selling cars because their cars (Example, i45) have inspirations from Mercedes-Benz?
The supposedly "hidden" evidence Apple is using is "a 132-page document written in 2010 by Sammy engineers that directly compares the iPhone against the Galaxy S".
Firstly, this is an internal comparison against the competition for R&D purposes.
Secondly, this was drafted after the i9000 (SGS) was revealed/retailed.
Thirdly, this is not an illegal or improper action, in fact many companies in different markets do the same practices.
Finally, the document (plainly) describes Samsung should "remove a feeling that the iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design"
Conclusion, what the Samsung's internal R&D engineers are actually arguing (in the slides) is to make design changes to the SGS i9000 to achieve a "luxurious" feel and try to make the icons look LESS like Apple's.
On the other hand, Apple has been caught doing the same thing, using design references from SONY and saying those similarities were never intended to make their way into the iPhone design. And when Samsung does it, "its blatant copying" and when they do it "its research".
I'm not saying they don't have a case, I'm saying its beginning to get fishy real-quick. I mean, imagine if Hyundai was banned from selling cars because their cars (Example, i45) have inspirations from Mercedes-Benz?
__________________
I'm flattered
Originally Posted by mscion
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mscion For This Useful Post
I vote that Kangal replace Elop!
I'm flattered
|
|
2012-08-09
, 07:19
|
|
Posts: 207 |
Thanked: 552 times |
Joined on Jul 2011
|
#5
|
This is Apple's true motivation, Android's global market share is now 68% (with Samsung being by far the biggest) and iOS only 16%. Apple are struggling to compete with Samsung.
The iPhone looks old and dull now anyway. Rather than being a copy of the LG Prada like the current one I suspect the next iPhone will be much more like the Galaxy S3 or the HTC Sensation.
The iPhone looks old and dull now anyway. Rather than being a copy of the LG Prada like the current one I suspect the next iPhone will be much more like the Galaxy S3 or the HTC Sensation.
|
|
2012-08-09
, 18:18
|
|
Posts: 362 |
Thanked: 143 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by Lumiaman
check out http://www.groklaw.net if you so incline. The analysis of this case(and other infamous cases) has been outstanding and refreshing.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_want...-news-4624.php
Looks like they copied iPhones as much as they could. Looks to me like apple will win here. But what is few billion here or there for the south Korean giant?
Last edited by cheve; 2012-08-09 at 18:23.
|
|
2012-08-25
, 14:15
|
|
Posts: 1,341 |
Thanked: 708 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#7
|
So pinch zooming is now Apple's property, tested and proven legally?
Has Nokia cross licensing with Apple which includes Apple's multitouch gesture patents?
Nice protectionism. Interesting to see how Google reacts.
Has Nokia cross licensing with Apple which includes Apple's multitouch gesture patents?
Nice protectionism. Interesting to see how Google reacts.
|
|
2012-08-25
, 14:38
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#8
|
i told ya all that Samsung is on the ropes
|
|
2012-08-26
, 01:37
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#9
|
Samsung isn't on the ropes. The $1.05 Billion fine doesn't even equate to the $3.8 Billion Apple paid Samsung for components last year. It doesn't equate to 1/4th of what Samsung made in the last quarter of 2011.
Simply stated, this judgement is more about limiting innovation around prior art and other arguable things.
So be it. Samsung got caught copying some things. Let's see how badly this spills over to other lawsuits. This is a license to sue, if you ask me.
But on the ropes? Look above. Not hardly.
Simply stated, this judgement is more about limiting innovation around prior art and other arguable things.
So be it. Samsung got caught copying some things. Let's see how badly this spills over to other lawsuits. This is a license to sue, if you ask me.
But on the ropes? Look above. Not hardly.
|
|
2012-08-26
, 03:37
|
|
Posts: 1,789 |
Thanked: 1,699 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#10
|
Here's what should've happened with the jury:
1) Apple is found infringing on all of Samsung's utility patents. They are awarded something "measly" like $20 Million to cover for all iOS device sales that were infringing on FRAND patents.
2) Samsung is found NOT infringing on all of Apple's design patents. They are scrapped as invalid and copied from prior-arts and etc.
3) Samsung is found NOT infringing for all claims on their tablets.
4) Samsung is found infringing on Apple's "trade dress" and "dilution" claims only for phones that share close resemblance (eg Fascinate etc). Total is $2.5 Bil (or maybe less).
There fixed.
Now Samsung is scorched with this ruling. Apple is awarded a large sum which should "more than" compensate for its market share loss. Apple has become susceptible to FRAND royalties it neglects from other OEMs. Apple has been de-clawed from suing other OEMs with design patents. The battleground is neutral again.
1) Apple is found infringing on all of Samsung's utility patents. They are awarded something "measly" like $20 Million to cover for all iOS device sales that were infringing on FRAND patents.
2) Samsung is found NOT infringing on all of Apple's design patents. They are scrapped as invalid and copied from prior-arts and etc.
3) Samsung is found NOT infringing for all claims on their tablets.
4) Samsung is found infringing on Apple's "trade dress" and "dilution" claims only for phones that share close resemblance (eg Fascinate etc). Total is $2.5 Bil (or maybe less).
There fixed.
Now Samsung is scorched with this ruling. Apple is awarded a large sum which should "more than" compensate for its market share loss. Apple has become susceptible to FRAND royalties it neglects from other OEMs. Apple has been de-clawed from suing other OEMs with design patents. The battleground is neutral again.
__________________
I'm flattered
Originally Posted by mscion
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mscion For This Useful Post
I vote that Kangal replace Elop!
I'm flattered
 |
| Tags |
| big brother, desperate fud, protectionism, samsung |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:28.
Looks like they copied iPhones as much as they could. Looks to me like apple will win here. But what is few billion here or there for the south Korean giant?