Samsung loses patent suit to Apple
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Microsoft, IBM, Google, Adobe, Xerox, and Sony.
And by the way, I can readI just don't agree with you that's all!!
As for being an Apple fan, I owned several iPods, an iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, and iPad. I also owned a Macbook Air. But the very moment Apple started these legal shenanigans, I sold all these Apple products. I rid myself of everything Apple, down to uninstalling Quicktime on my PC. What they are doing is very bad for the tech world, and very bad for you ... unless you are Amish or something. Imagine if someone patented a "rectangular box covered with wood veneer" and went around suing every speaker manufacturer trying to force them out of business. That is what Apple is doing.
Their "innovation" is to patent the bleeding obvious (see rounded rectangular box patent) and sue everyone else. Click through the link I provided to see their patent on the rounded rectangle (granted May 2005), then feast your eyes on this 2002 Hewlett-Packard TC1000 tablet. It even has a flat glass touch screen:
That is innovation, i'll give them that. Nobody else has had the gall to steal someone else's idea, patent it as if they invented it, and then go around suing everyone else for infringing on their "innovations".
-----Wow Keith, you are truly radical in your actions based on your beliefs!
...That type of life's alteration, is it part of scientology?
And I'm serious.
No Bob, I am an atheist In reality all those devices were nearing their replacement dates anyway ... I just made a decision to get rid of them early and not to replace them with Apple devices.
In reality all those devices were nearing their replacement dates anyway ... I just made a decision to get rid of them early and not to replace them with Apple devices.
Greg, I alluded to this earlier. When technology progresses to allow certain components to become available, new products will spring up to adopt this technology. Because these components are available to everyone - the market will converge to come up with similar looking products.
Suppose a revolutionary new display and battery technology was invented tomorrow. The display is transparent when turned off, opaque when turned on, and incredibly thin and energy efficient. The battery has incredibly high energy density, allowing it to be very small. But best of all, it is transparent.
You are sitting here reading this and i'll bet you are already thinking ... transparent display? Transparent battery? Why, we could make a tablet that looks like a pane of glass! You are thinking this? Well, so are designers in every major hardware company. It is obvious.
That is exactly what I mean when I say that new components allow new products to become available, and they will all be similar. Apple didn't invent the capacitative touchscreen, but they were one of the first to exploit the technology and bring a product to market. In reality, the very appearance of companies making capacitative touchscreen would inevitably lead to touchscreen devices.
Keith_W,
This HP "thing" you imply being similar to the iPad is actually this thing over here:
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11429_na/11429_na.html
It's a pen/stylus-based PC. Nothing whatsoever to do with the patent you linked to.
But then, the Windows-based smartphone you mentioned earlier was also stylus-based, and that didn't stop you from thinking it as a valid predecessor to the iPhone... I guess you must be the single individual on Earth's surface that wasn't surprised when the iPhone was announced and it had no keyboard and didn't need a stylus...
The fact that you mention Microsoft as a great innovator is quite interesting too. Before Samsung, there was Microsoft copying Apple's MacOS wholesale. If Apple is being more careful now with its patents, even agressive, it's simply because it has seen its IP being stolen in the past. Remember, Apple even put banners in one of their events (Macworld or WWDC, don't remember) that said "Redmond, start your copiers"!
Microsoft is a clear example of the company I described before, lots of engineers, tons of R&D money, lots of "invention", and not much in the way of finished products.
Anyway, Samsung was just the tip of the iceberg. Apple's real target is Google, who has already, preemptively, issued a "none of my business" note to the press. Samsung just went above and beyond Google's copying, and got their due first.
This HP "thing" you imply being similar to the iPad is actually this thing over here:
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11429_na/11429_na.html
It's a pen/stylus-based PC. Nothing whatsoever to do with the patent you linked to.
But then, the Windows-based smartphone you mentioned earlier was also stylus-based, and that didn't stop you from thinking it as a valid predecessor to the iPhone... I guess you must be the single individual on Earth's surface that wasn't surprised when the iPhone was announced and it had no keyboard and didn't need a stylus...
The fact that you mention Microsoft as a great innovator is quite interesting too. Before Samsung, there was Microsoft copying Apple's MacOS wholesale. If Apple is being more careful now with its patents, even agressive, it's simply because it has seen its IP being stolen in the past. Remember, Apple even put banners in one of their events (Macworld or WWDC, don't remember) that said "Redmond, start your copiers"!
Microsoft is a clear example of the company I described before, lots of engineers, tons of R&D money, lots of "invention", and not much in the way of finished products.
Anyway, Samsung was just the tip of the iceberg. Apple's real target is Google, who has already, preemptively, issued a "none of my business" note to the press. Samsung just went above and beyond Google's copying, and got their due first.
Alex, the amount of facepalm I have right now defies comprehension. Read the god damned patent! Apple's patent is for a rectangle with rounded corners. In what way is the HP not a rectangle with rounded corners? If I wanted to, I could find another half dozen examples of devices that were rectangles with rounded corners as well.
As for Microsoft, I might remind you that they responsible for Surface, pinch to zoom, and various gestures. They displayed the technology on a coffee table sized display in the early 2000's. Kinect is also by Microsoft. Name a single Apple invention which compares to Kinect? Well don't bother - Apple hasn't actually invented anything.
Windows is NOT a copy of Mac OS. It is a descendent of Xerox PARC, same as Mac OS. If we want to cite some examples of Apple blatantly copying others ... well for a start there are drop down notifications in iOS. There is swipe to unlock. There is iOS itself, which looks suspiciously like Palm OS at times. There is universal search (a feature debuted in Windows years before it popped up in iOS). There is tethering (a feature that is standard on Android phones, and only available to iOS users if their phones were jailbroken. Apple only included this from iOS 4.0 and upwards). And we'll see if the rumours are correct and the iPhone 5 moves to a 4" screen (despite Jobs saying that the 3.5" screen was perfect), and the iPad moves to a 7" screen (despite Jobs saying that manufacturers should include sandpaper to sand the users fingers down to size). Both larger screens on phones, and smaller screens on tablets, were seen on Android devices first.
Oh, and guess what. Apple filed a patent for facial recognition as a method for unlocking phones ... several weeks after Ice Cream Sandwich was released on the market with this feature. Yet another example of Apple stealing the ideas of others and patenting them as their own.
Your attitude is typical. When someone copies Apple, it is a blatant rip-off and they need to be sued. When Apple copies someone else, they are "innovative". Like I said, healthy amount of confirmation bias.
As for Microsoft, I might remind you that they responsible for Surface, pinch to zoom, and various gestures. They displayed the technology on a coffee table sized display in the early 2000's. Kinect is also by Microsoft. Name a single Apple invention which compares to Kinect? Well don't bother - Apple hasn't actually invented anything.
Windows is NOT a copy of Mac OS. It is a descendent of Xerox PARC, same as Mac OS. If we want to cite some examples of Apple blatantly copying others ... well for a start there are drop down notifications in iOS. There is swipe to unlock. There is iOS itself, which looks suspiciously like Palm OS at times. There is universal search (a feature debuted in Windows years before it popped up in iOS). There is tethering (a feature that is standard on Android phones, and only available to iOS users if their phones were jailbroken. Apple only included this from iOS 4.0 and upwards). And we'll see if the rumours are correct and the iPhone 5 moves to a 4" screen (despite Jobs saying that the 3.5" screen was perfect), and the iPad moves to a 7" screen (despite Jobs saying that manufacturers should include sandpaper to sand the users fingers down to size). Both larger screens on phones, and smaller screens on tablets, were seen on Android devices first.
Oh, and guess what. Apple filed a patent for facial recognition as a method for unlocking phones ... several weeks after Ice Cream Sandwich was released on the market with this feature. Yet another example of Apple stealing the ideas of others and patenting them as their own.
Your attitude is typical. When someone copies Apple, it is a blatant rip-off and they need to be sued. When Apple copies someone else, they are "innovative". Like I said, healthy amount of confirmation bias.
Check out this view: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409010,00.asp. John Dvorak usually likes to take contrarian position...
While everyone is all crazy about Apple's billion-dollar patent victory over Samsung, the psychological effect on consumers has been ignored.
Several times throughout the case, the same point was driven home: the Android phone is identical to, and perhaps better than, the iPhone. This "revelation," which Android users have always known, will easily cost Apple more than a billion dollars in sales.
Much of this case revolved around the fact that Samsung obviously copied certain icons already used by Apple. The most blatant is the white phone on the green background that indicates that you want to bring up the keypad or initiate the actual call.
My Galaxy Nexus shows a blue phone on a transparent background.
Locking itself to the Apple icon was arbitrary but it was Apple's idea first. Nokia or Motorola should have patented the color green to indicate the dialer and red to indicate the disconnect button. Both companies would be in trouble, but why dwell on opportunities lost? Green and red stem from stop and go traffic signals, which are also arbitrary. Someone could have patented that and everyone would be in trouble.
Do you see how stupid the current patent system is? But I digress.
The white handset icon set against a green background is a critical part in fully understanding how similar the Samsung phone is to the iPhone. In fact, Apple designer Susan Kare actually testified that when she was playing with the Samsung phone, she swore it was an Apple iPhone! Her testimony was quite convincing. It convinced millions of people that for a lot less money, they can get an iPhone by buying Samsung's phone. Genius!
But it gets worse.
Apple made a big deal about its patents on the bezel, the angles of the corner curves, and other designs it apparently patented. People in general reacted with astonishment that anyone could get a patent for a curve or straight line or flat surface.
This sent two messages through the brains of consumers: First, this is an idiotic patent and Apple is grasping for straws. Second, the company is spending too much time on minutiae rather than actual functionality.
And now, go back and compare Samsung's calling icon with Apple's. The Samsung art for the handset is better than Apple's simplistic art. Samsung's just looks more modern. I'm sure this is one of the reasons Susan Kare confused the Android phone with the Apple phone as she assumed the slicker version of the exact same phone would be Apple, by default.
View SlideshowSee all (6) slides
More
This is a disaster for Apple no matter what Samsung does to its interface and its rounded corners. The case and its results, because of Apple testimonies, make it sound as if Apple was suing because a better product evolved.
Will the public stick with the iPhone just to be loyal to the creator of the modern smartphone concepts? In a down economy where every penny counts, it's doubtful. Samsung is not only a cheaper alternative but has many more models. Combine this with the scandals at Foxconn, Apple's manufacturer, and Apple is in trouble.
Keep in mind that Samsung makes many of the iPhone components, including the custom CPU, and Samsung has not even begun to leverage that sort of information.
I consider this situation to be dire for Apple. When the iPhone 5 arrives shortly, it will be crunch time for the company. If this is the end of the line for the iPhone, you can point to this lawsuit as the tipping point. It may be the last important iPhone.
I'm reminded of how the little-known MP3 gained popularity when the RIAA filed various lawsuits. Apple may have pulled a similar stunt by alerting the public that the Samsung phone is the exact same thing as an iPhone, or better.
A billion dollars well spent.
While everyone is all crazy about Apple's billion-dollar patent victory over Samsung, the psychological effect on consumers has been ignored.
Several times throughout the case, the same point was driven home: the Android phone is identical to, and perhaps better than, the iPhone. This "revelation," which Android users have always known, will easily cost Apple more than a billion dollars in sales.
Much of this case revolved around the fact that Samsung obviously copied certain icons already used by Apple. The most blatant is the white phone on the green background that indicates that you want to bring up the keypad or initiate the actual call.
My Galaxy Nexus shows a blue phone on a transparent background.
Locking itself to the Apple icon was arbitrary but it was Apple's idea first. Nokia or Motorola should have patented the color green to indicate the dialer and red to indicate the disconnect button. Both companies would be in trouble, but why dwell on opportunities lost? Green and red stem from stop and go traffic signals, which are also arbitrary. Someone could have patented that and everyone would be in trouble.
Do you see how stupid the current patent system is? But I digress.
The white handset icon set against a green background is a critical part in fully understanding how similar the Samsung phone is to the iPhone. In fact, Apple designer Susan Kare actually testified that when she was playing with the Samsung phone, she swore it was an Apple iPhone! Her testimony was quite convincing. It convinced millions of people that for a lot less money, they can get an iPhone by buying Samsung's phone. Genius!
But it gets worse.
Apple made a big deal about its patents on the bezel, the angles of the corner curves, and other designs it apparently patented. People in general reacted with astonishment that anyone could get a patent for a curve or straight line or flat surface.
This sent two messages through the brains of consumers: First, this is an idiotic patent and Apple is grasping for straws. Second, the company is spending too much time on minutiae rather than actual functionality.
And now, go back and compare Samsung's calling icon with Apple's. The Samsung art for the handset is better than Apple's simplistic art. Samsung's just looks more modern. I'm sure this is one of the reasons Susan Kare confused the Android phone with the Apple phone as she assumed the slicker version of the exact same phone would be Apple, by default.
View SlideshowSee all (6) slides
More
This is a disaster for Apple no matter what Samsung does to its interface and its rounded corners. The case and its results, because of Apple testimonies, make it sound as if Apple was suing because a better product evolved.
Will the public stick with the iPhone just to be loyal to the creator of the modern smartphone concepts? In a down economy where every penny counts, it's doubtful. Samsung is not only a cheaper alternative but has many more models. Combine this with the scandals at Foxconn, Apple's manufacturer, and Apple is in trouble.
Keep in mind that Samsung makes many of the iPhone components, including the custom CPU, and Samsung has not even begun to leverage that sort of information.
I consider this situation to be dire for Apple. When the iPhone 5 arrives shortly, it will be crunch time for the company. If this is the end of the line for the iPhone, you can point to this lawsuit as the tipping point. It may be the last important iPhone.
I'm reminded of how the little-known MP3 gained popularity when the RIAA filed various lawsuits. Apple may have pulled a similar stunt by alerting the public that the Samsung phone is the exact same thing as an iPhone, or better.
A billion dollars well spent.
More heavy handed stuff by Apple. TSMC is a Taiwan semiconductor facility that is world-class, able to compete with the best in the business. Locking them up for captive production would disadvantage many companies relying on them for their advance silicon production.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...reportedly-tried-to-buy-exclusive-tsmc-favor/
Apple and Qualcomm reportedly tried to secure exclusive access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. smartphone chips by making separate investment offers in the custom chip maker in excess of $1 billion.
The cash would have assured the investors that production would have been reserved for their products, but both bids were rejected, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The two companies were trying secure manufacturing resources to satisfy increasing demand for smartphones, a market Bloomberg Industries estimates to be worth $219 billion.
CNET contacted Apple and Qualcomm for comment and will update this report when we learn more.
TSMC, which supplies chips to Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, and other companies, is willing to devote one or even two factories to a single customer but wants to remain flexible enough to switch production among customers and products, Bloomberg said. However, TSMC says it is not in need of investment capital and is unwilling to sell part of itself.
Such an arrangement would help Apple reduce its dependence on courtroom foe Samsung for mobile device components. Despite rumors early last year that Apple was courting TSMC to produce the A6 processor expected to power the next generation iPad and iPhone, manufacturing issues reportedly kept the chip production contract with Apple.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...reportedly-tried-to-buy-exclusive-tsmc-favor/
Apple and Qualcomm reportedly tried to secure exclusive access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. smartphone chips by making separate investment offers in the custom chip maker in excess of $1 billion.
The cash would have assured the investors that production would have been reserved for their products, but both bids were rejected, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The two companies were trying secure manufacturing resources to satisfy increasing demand for smartphones, a market Bloomberg Industries estimates to be worth $219 billion.
CNET contacted Apple and Qualcomm for comment and will update this report when we learn more.
TSMC, which supplies chips to Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, and other companies, is willing to devote one or even two factories to a single customer but wants to remain flexible enough to switch production among customers and products, Bloomberg said. However, TSMC says it is not in need of investment capital and is unwilling to sell part of itself.
Such an arrangement would help Apple reduce its dependence on courtroom foe Samsung for mobile device components. Despite rumors early last year that Apple was courting TSMC to produce the A6 processor expected to power the next generation iPad and iPhone, manufacturing issues reportedly kept the chip production contract with Apple.
Dvorak has been a mindless Apple basher for years, predicting utter failure for the iPhone, iPad etc. Now here's another dire prediction. Bottom line: the public could care less about the lawsuit. Only anecdotal data I've seen is that Gazelle reports an increase in Samsung used sales, enough so that they lowered their offer price 10%. But that's just minor, temporary heat I'd guess.
That he's consistently beyond wrong and he still has a column is probably indicative of his apparent goal -- generate as much web traffic as possible. He's what my Dad would've thought of as D&L -- dumb and loud.
Agreed that patented things like rounded corners on a rectangle is a mess, but the two phones look a whole lot more alike than that -- hard to see it ( and some other designs) as coincidence.
Lesson to Apple should be that back in the days f computing there was company that could do no wrong.. Its name was IBM. While it has not fallen at all. It is no longer a force in PC despite having been at one time the very first serious PC for Home or Business use... The originator if you wil of the name PC.
As for myself I am no longer in the "Apple is automatically the best" mode. My phones are Blackberry, my e-reader is a Kindle and my music source is a PC based system running foobar although controlled remotely by an iPad, I am thinking about using a really cheap Android based tablet . I had a macbook Pro for the purpose but could not see any advantage in it so the PC does the job ... at a deep discount ... So far the Apple user interface on the personal computers remain much better and more stable than Windows however So for general computing I would again acquire a Mac ...
Innovation is not about invention and while I am not sure I am an Apple fanboy, they make things in a way other company haven't been able to. The irony is how much of a closed system they are and how staunchly they defend it. We will see but it doesn't look good for them in the long run to attack so vehemently those who actually manufacture most of their parts... Samsung and many other have the wherewithal and they can begin to focus on their own ways of doing things... Let's see how the public reacts to the iPhone 5. I would add that Apple, the company looks more and more as a bully and this will eventually hurt them
As for myself I am no longer in the "Apple is automatically the best" mode. My phones are Blackberry, my e-reader is a Kindle and my music source is a PC based system running foobar although controlled remotely by an iPad, I am thinking about using a really cheap Android based tablet . I had a macbook Pro for the purpose but could not see any advantage in it so the PC does the job ... at a deep discount ... So far the Apple user interface on the personal computers remain much better and more stable than Windows however So for general computing I would again acquire a Mac ...
Innovation is not about invention and while I am not sure I am an Apple fanboy, they make things in a way other company haven't been able to. The irony is how much of a closed system they are and how staunchly they defend it. We will see but it doesn't look good for them in the long run to attack so vehemently those who actually manufacture most of their parts... Samsung and many other have the wherewithal and they can begin to focus on their own ways of doing things... Let's see how the public reacts to the iPhone 5. I would add that Apple, the company looks more and more as a bully and this will eventually hurt them
I think IBMs exit from PCs was by choice as MS had won the software war -- they saw that the boxes were on the road to becoming utter commodities -- not a market they wanted to play in.
This in contrast, to say, Dell, who's only market for the longest time was PCs and now is struggling, belatedly perhaps, to redefine itself.
This in contrast, to say, Dell, who's only market for the longest time was PCs and now is struggling, belatedly perhaps, to redefine itself.
Well my point was that IBM was computing in the 70 and 80's. They are no more. Apple is strong but competition is numerous and their attitude may eventually not play well with the consumer. I think Microsoft does have that problem with consumers. They accept Windows but are not enamored of it. As for Apple I personally perceive them as an arrogant , bullying company with admittedly great products and when I can find alternatives I go for them . Call this a sample of one
As for PC if someone needs them and many do, there is a market.. Maybe not the great margins of yore but substantial and steady revenues ...
As for PC if someone needs them and many do, there is a market.. Maybe not the great margins of yore but substantial and steady revenues ...
Keith_W, I am a bit curious.
Since you apparently did not like the definition of innovation that I posted from a business dictionary, I would be interested in your definition. Of innovation, not invention And, tell us names of some companies who you believe are true innovators (not necessarily inventors) and why.
Since you apparently did not like the definition of innovation that I posted from a business dictionary, I would be interested in your definition. Of innovation, not invention And, tell us names of some companies who you believe are true innovators (not necessarily inventors) and why.
audioguy, I have already responded earlier in the thread to your question.
By the way, I have already mentioned one example of Apple stealing someone else's idea and patenting it as if they invented it. There was their ridiculous patent on the rounded rectangle, there was face unlock, and of course ... there is swipe to unlock. Click here to read how Neonode filed a patent for swipe to unlock 3 years before Apple did. Apple subsequently filed another patent and used this to allege that Samsung copied Apple. Like I said - when others copy Apple, they are rip-off artists who must be sued to oblivion. But when Apple copies, it is "innovation".
Most of the tech blogs and tech writers are firmly of the belief that Apple are being ridiculous and need to stop this stupid litigation. The whole thing is turning into a PR disaster for Apple.
By the way, I have already mentioned one example of Apple stealing someone else's idea and patenting it as if they invented it. There was their ridiculous patent on the rounded rectangle, there was face unlock, and of course ... there is swipe to unlock. Click here to read how Neonode filed a patent for swipe to unlock 3 years before Apple did. Apple subsequently filed another patent and used this to allege that Samsung copied Apple. Like I said - when others copy Apple, they are rip-off artists who must be sued to oblivion. But when Apple copies, it is "innovation".
Most of the tech blogs and tech writers are firmly of the belief that Apple are being ridiculous and need to stop this stupid litigation. The whole thing is turning into a PR disaster for Apple.
I give up. We could not be any further apart but that is OK. I will bow out of this discussion.
Don't think this is true at all about the writers, and as for a PR disaster, don't think the public gives a flying F about it.
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |