Samsung loses patent suit to Apple

[asiufy]

You don't need to tell us you're trying hard to drag Apple's name through the mud, we figured that out ourselves
See, the flip side is that nobody here is attempting to do the same with Samsung and/or Google. It's so patently obvious to me that Samsung copies Apple at every turn (have you seen their MacBook Air clone?) that this veredict is just natural to me. I don't need to go around telling people "see, see, Apple's bad, Apple's bad", while just the opposite has been found out.
Regarding the time the jurors took, again, the proof was so clear and concise, that it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's copying who.
Granted, Samsung tried to blame Apple for some patent infringement too, but their case was harder to prove, since it involved underlying technologies, not user-facing things. Samsung's legal defense is to blame here, for mixing the two cases together. Had they done a separate case altogether, Apple could (and if they really infringed, should) be found guilty of infringing Samsung's patents.

 

[Keith_W]

Alex, a response as to why you posted a link to an article that argues against your own position would be appreciated, thank you. Perhaps a withdrawal or a concession that I have made a point.

As for that jury, I think we established a few pages back that it was a miscarriage of justice. The jury foreman more or less indicted himself. What do you expect - an all-American company in front of a jingoistic all-American jury and a trial conducted a few miles from said company's headquarters

And in other news: Apple loses to Samsung in Japan. It seems Apple is obsessed with suing Samsung. They don't learn do they - in the 1980's and 90's they were trying to sue Microsoft for copying the Mac. They forgot to develop their own OS in the interim, and they nearly went bankrupt. Microsoft had to come sailing in to save them. Remember the boos when a giant Bill Gates appeared at an Apple keynote? I REMEMBER!! It was delicious!!

 

[amirm]

Regarding the time the jurors took, again, the proof was so clear and concise, that it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's copying who.

The law doesn't accept that standard however. It must be shown that:

1. The patent is valid and there was no prior art (i.e. same invention existing before).
2. The defendant did copy said invention.

These are standard barriers that must be crossed in every patent litigation. Unfortunately #1 is very hard. As you can imagine, there is no idiot sitting in patent office blindly approving patents. They do fair bit of due diligence to make sure you are not patenting something that is already out there. The first filing usually results in a ton of objections from PTO (patent office) that must be addressed. The solution is to then rewrite and narrow the claim as to make it patentable. This makes the language of a patent even more obscure. It is so bad that in companies we don't usually allow even technical people to assess what a patent is and isn't. Usually a law firm is hired which has lawyers with engineering degrees performing such analysis.

In my old job we used to get sued for patent infringement all the time. We would hire law firms such as above that would render an opinion. My job as the executive in charge was to review their finding and what I knew of our technology and agree or disagree with it. The typical amount of documentation would be more than 500 page and the meetings half a day just to get started on reviewing it! The claims were complex and would take incredible amount of work to review. I hated doing this work . And you are talking to someone who understands technology and spends a lot of time with lawyers .

What you say did happen however. Faced with inability to determined these two factors they went by the simple rule who is the thief and rendered their decision that way. The mistake they made is giving interviews. I am pretty sure those quotes will be used to ask the current judge to set aside the verdict.

I have not had the pleasure of serving on a jury but have come close. Unlike most people, I actually like to serve on one only to learn the law more. There is no way if I were in that jury I would then not obey the law as taught to me. Such decisions set legal precedence that will affect us all. If this case is not overturned, its impact will be far reaching into what others can do in similar situations in other industries. If it is the right call, so be it. But when one reads how the jury went about it for a $1B verdict, and how they did not see any issues the other way around, it gives one pause.

It matters not that we like the outcome. The law has to be followed or it will harm others.

Granted, Samsung tried to blame Apple for some patent infringement too, but their case was harder to prove, since it involved underlying technologies, not user-facing things. Samsung's legal defense is to blame here, for mixing the two cases together.

It is very common to counter sue the other side as to put fear in them and make them want to settle. Yes, there is a risk as in here that you lose both ends of this but odds are against it in such cases.

 

[amirm]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ent-lawsuit-against-samsung-over-devices.html

Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit Against Samsung in Japan
By Mariko Yasu and Naoko Fujimura - Aug 31, 2012

Apple Inc. lost a patent lawsuit in Japan as a Tokyo judge ruled that Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) smartphones and a tablet computer didn’t infringe on an Apple invention for synchronizing music and video data with servers.

Apple was ordered by Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji today to pay costs of the lawsuit after his verdict, the latest decision in a global dispute between the technology giants over patents used in mobile devices. Samsung shares rose, erasing earlier losses.

“It’s hard to believe the products belong to the range of technologies of the claimant,” Shoji said in dismissing Apple’s case.

Apple and Samsung are battling over the smartphone market, estimated by Bloomberg Industries to be worth $219 billion last year, with patent disputes being litigated on four continents. Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict in the U.S. on Aug. 24, with a jury finding that Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung infringed six of seven patents for mobile devices. The two companies are also bound by commercial deals involving components supply.

Apple, the maker of iPhones, sued Samsung, the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones, in Tokyo last year, claiming the Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy S II infringed the patent on synchronization, and sought 100 million yen ($1.3 million) in damages, according to court documents. The Galaxy series of products in Japan is offered by NTT DoCoMo Inc. (9437), the country’s biggest mobile-phone company.

Samsung Shares

Samsung welcomed the decision, the company said in a statement. Carolyn Wu, a spokeswoman for Apple, declined to comment.

The Tokyo court also ruled out today an injunction request by Apple to bar Samsung from offering eight models of Galaxy products in Japan, said Kenichi Hasegawa, a Tokyo-based spokesman for Samsung.

Shares of the South Korean company rose as much as 1.6 percent after the ruling, reversing an earlier decline, and closed 1.5 percent higher at 1.233 million won in Seoul. Apple shares fell as much as 2.1 percent in German trading before changing hands at 528.9 euros.

Samsung doesn’t provide sales figures for Japan. The company generated about 12 percent of its revenue from Asia, excluding South Korea and China, in the quarter ended June 30, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cupertino, California-based Apple got 5.7 percent of its sales in Japan during the same period, according to the data.

IPad, IPhone Bans

“This will likely turn the tide in favor of Samsung,” said Kim Hyung Sik, Seoul-based analyst at Taurus Investment Securities Co. “Samsung had this win in a country that’s strong at intellectual property. The mood is turning positive for Samsung.”

Samsung’s method of synchronizing multimedia content between mobile devices and computers installed with its Kies software doesn’t infringe a patent held by Apple, the Japanese court said in a statement.

The software distinguishes a file by its name and size, contrary to Apple’s claim it uses other information such as the length of content to recognize which files need synchronizing, according to the statement.

NTT DoCoMo will keep making efforts to prevent patent disputes, Naoko Minobe, a spokeswoman for the Tokyo-based carrier, said by phone today.

U.S., Korea Rulings

Both companies were barred from selling some phones and tablet computers in South Korea on Aug. 24 when a Seoul Central District Court ruled they infringed each other’s patents.

Apple was ordered to stop selling the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 in South Korea, while Samsung must stop selling 12 products including the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Galaxy Tab. Apple was also ordered to pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,000) and the South Korean company must pay its U.S. rival 25 million won for the patent infringments.

In the U.S., where Samsung had been barred from selling the Galaxy 10.1 tablet, Apple sought to extend the ban to eight models of Samsung smartphones following the jury verdict. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, has scheduled a Dec. 6 hearing on Apple’s request.

In Australia, a preliminary ban on Galaxy 10.1 tablet sales was overturned by the highest court in December. A judge last month began hearing Samsung’s claim that Apple products infringe its patents on wireless transmission. That trial also includes Apple’s claim that Samsung phones and tablets infringe its patents on touch-screen technology.

Samsung retained its position as the world’s biggest seller of smartphones in the second quarter, holding about 35 percent of the market, Strategy Analytics said in July. Apple had the second slot with about 18 percent, according to the market researcher.

The Japan case is Apple Inc. (AAPL) v. Samsung Electronics Japan. Case No. Heisei 23 (WA)27941. Tokyo District Court.

To contact the reporters on this story: Mariko Yasu in Tokyo at myasu@bloomberg.net; Naoko Fujimura in Tokyo at nfujimura@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Tighe at mtighe4@bloomberg.net

 

[asiufy]

Oh, so Apple lost on an entirely different legal matter? Leave it to confessed Apple hater to mix things up...
Anyway, on to the issue at hand. Amir, I didn't follow every single day of the trial, so I'm not in a position to affirm this, but from what I saw, #1 and #2 was precisely what was done during the trial. As I said, it was all easy to do and to have the jurors understand, simply because the copying was all above the surface, even a blind man could see. Samsung's counter argument basically something along the lines of "yeah sure we copied, but Apple copied us too, look at this, that and that other". The problem was that Samsung's allegations of Apple's infringements were all below the surface, in a very intricate technical level, that the jurors would take much longer to fully grasp. That's why I understand Keith's frustration. Yes, the jurors could've looked into it in much more detail, and maybe even find Apple guilty of some violation here and there. But my point is, Samsung's violation, IN THIS MATTER, was so blatantly obvious, that everything else fell by the wayside.
Now Keith is arguing that the jury is biased as they're american and Samsung is Korean. If that was really the case, Samsung should've just paid up whatever Apple wanted, as they knew beforehand they would never win against an american jury. Of course, I don't agree with Keith's view. I am not american, don't live in the US anymore, so before you accuse ME of americanism, think again.
What I find relevant, and Apple used it on their case, is the fact that NOT A SINGLE EXECUTIVE from Samsung dared to come and stand up for their company, while Apple did just the opposite, and that included divulging confidential information, which, of course, made the day of the press. Can you think of a reason for a huge conglomerate like Samsung to do that? Ineptitude of their lawyers? Or perhaps they know they went too far, Apple called them on their bluff, and now they need to pay up, but they'd rather do it only if convicted...
Ah, one last thing, Microsoft didn't save Apple, Steve Jobs did. If Amelio had cut the same deal with Microsoft, Apple would've flopped all the same.


alexandre

 

[audioguy]

Keith: would it be fair to summarize your position of Apple that their success comes from great marketing of stolen or copied concepts? If not, tell us how Apple became the company they have become.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I would also say that Apple must be doing something right. No one is forcing the public to buy their wares .. Marketing is good but cannot account for the runaway success of their products.. It must have to do with the products themselves... that people throughout the world use with glee ..Lemming-like thinking ? Mass Hysteria? Don't know but as a company whose ultimate goal is to make their shareholders richer.. They are succeeding by doing things in a way others aren't or haven't. Isn't that the definition of "innovation"? Which in my humble opinion is different from "invention"...

 

[audioguy]

Hi

I would also say that they must be doing something right. No one is forcing the public to buy their wares .. Marketing is good but cannot account for the run-away success of their products.. It must have to do with the products themselves... that people throughout the world use these products ..Lemming-like thinking Mass Hysteria? Don't know but as a company whose ultimate goal is to make his shareholders richer.. They are succeeding by doing things in a way other haven't. Isn't that the definition of "innovation". Wouldn't you think? Which in my humble opinion is different from "invention"...

Frantz: As usual, you and I agree. I'm just trying to understand what Keith thinks is the cause of Apple's success since he claims (I think) they either stole or copied much (or all) of their technology and they are neither innovators or inventors. (And in my opinion, is one of the most bizarre positions I have ever heard !)

 

[Keith_W]

Keith: would it be fair to summarize your position of Apple that their success comes from great marketing of stolen or copied concepts? If not, tell us how Apple became the company they have become.

That would be a fair summation of my position, but it would also be fair to add that they are very good at polishing existing concepts and integrating them.

As someone else has said, Apple are a recipe company. They don't grow any of their ingredients, neither do they do any of the cooking, but they do own the restaurant. In this sense their business model is a bit like McDonalds and KFC. Neither restaurant chain invented the burger or Fried Chicken, nor do they grow any produce, nor do they actually do the cooking. But they do come up with the recipes and control their franchises to ensure consistent quality. The difference is, McDonalds doesn't go around trying to sue other burger chains out of existence or pretend that they invented the burger.

Look guys, I would have absolutely no problem with Apple beyond bemusement if they didn't act like such bullies.

 

[amirm]

Oh, so Apple lost on an entirely different legal matter? Leave it to confessed Apple hater to mix things up...

Who me???

Anyway, on to the issue at hand. Amir, I didn't follow every single day of the trial, so I'm not in a position to affirm this, but from what I saw, #1 and #2 was precisely what was done during the trial.

I am sure that was what went on *during* the trial. What seems to be at issue what happened when the trial was over and Jury's work started. As I noted, when I used to review cases just a single patent claim would take me a long time to review. It seems odd that this jury arrived at such fast conclusion.

As I said, it was all easy to do and to have the jurors understand, simply because the copying was all above the surface, even a blind man could see.

But that only covers #2. It has to first be established that there was no prior art. Note also that the patent needs to be copied, not the look of the product as the latter many embody things that are not covered by the patent. That distinction is buried in the patent language which needed to be carefully reviewed.

Samsung's counter argument basically something along the lines of "yeah sure we copied, but Apple copied us too, look at this, that and that other". The problem was that Samsung's allegations of Apple's infringements were all below the surface, in a very intricate technical level, that the jurors would take much longer to fully grasp. That's why I understand Keith's frustration. Yes, the jurors could've looked into it in much more detail, and maybe even find Apple guilty of some violation here and there. But my point is, Samsung's violation, IN THIS MATTER, was so blatantly obvious, that everything else fell by the wayside.

As a matter of law, this distinction is not material. An infringement is an infringement. The jury cannot apply one standard to one claim and another to some other. If they have then it is not a fair trial.

Let me give you an example. Let's say I have invented fuel injection and you have invented the remote control mirror in a car. We both build cars and use each other's invention and are now facing each other in the court. One cannot sanction a jury finding infringement because a remote control mirror was an easier thing to decide than understanding what fuel injection is. I think we could both agree that fuel injection is more vital to the functions of the car than a remote mirror.

As I noted, the precedence here is worrisome. The result of this case will be the basis of defenses or claims of many future trials. If the law was not followed, then it has to be set right. It matters not how guilty or not guilty Samsung was. The impact will be felt in cases involving other claimants.

What I find relevant, and Apple used it on their case, is the fact that NOT A SINGLE EXECUTIVE from Samsung dared to come and stand up for their company, while Apple did just the opposite, and that included divulging confidential information, which, of course, made the day of the press. Can you think of a reason for a huge conglomerate like Samsung to do that?

Sure. You don't want this to look like US vs Korea. Put a Samsung exec on stand and this becomes just that. Also, I find that Samsung execs speak far less English than other major companies. With some rare exceptions we always had to have translators when I had meetings with their execs.

Or perhaps they know they went too far, Apple called them on their bluff, and now they need to pay up, but they'd rather do it only if convicted...
Ah, one last thing, Microsoft didn't save Apple, Steve Jobs did. If Amelio had cut the same deal with Microsoft, Apple would've flopped all the same.

Well, Microsoft did bail out Apple with a massive cash infusion to the tune of $150M . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.

And no, I don't believe they should just pay off. I was once the exec in charge of a patent claim. As in this case, we were asked to go to arbitration. I flew down to San Diego and the other side did not even want to meet with us! That infuriated the arbitrator but there was nothing to do and the case went to trial. I then left the company. Microsoft lost the case and the Jury handed down a $1.5 *billion* dollar verdict. I had reviewed the claims and they simply had nothing to stand on. Yet here they were, with a verdict similar to this case. Well, Microsoft claimed foul and the jury verdict was set aside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft

"Subsequently, on August 6, 2007 the federal judge in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence. The Judge's Order [10] found that there was insufficient evidence both for Microsoft's liability and for the damages model used by Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent appealed the judge's decision,[11] and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in July 2007. The Court of Appeals published its decision [12] on September 25, 2008, upholding the dismissal of the case by Judge Brewster on two grounds. The court held that Fraunhofer was a joint developer and thus co-owner of one patent, which meant that Lucent lacked standing to sue. The other patent was not infringed because Lucent failed to show that the patented algorithm was ever used by Microsoft's products."

The claim was over MP3 by the way. Also interesting is that Apple was also sued for the same thing. As were a bunch of our PC OEMs such as Dell and Gateway. We defended the case on their behalf. If Microsoft had lost, the impact to the *industry* would have been huge because up to that time, all you had to do to get a license to MP3 was to go to Thomson who would give you one. Imagine every MP3 licenses all of a sudden have this exposure.

I could tell you a lot more stories like this . But please take in that these things have to be decided on merit. The impact of this decision will not be limited to Samsung. We can't allow bad law to stand. If Apple's design is not unique, it cannot stand. Their patent needs to be invalidated and others free to build devices as such. If it is valid, then great. Right now, it does not seem that the right analysis was done by the jury.

 

[FrantzM]

That $150 Millions injection (though it was more like $225) and the Office for Mac saved Apple no doubt ... Had it not been for those ..No iPhone, and whatever Apple "i" one would want to think of ...

 

[asiufy]

Guys, the $250 million Microsoft "help" would be nothing without Jobs. Amelio would still have run the company to the ground, and there is no Microsoft Office that would've saved the company, specially since it's such a POS anyway...

And Amir, that first line wasn't directed at you! The resident Apple-hater in this thread is, very obviously I thought, Keith_W

There were attempts by Samsung to establish prior art, Amir. It just didn't hold sway with the jurors. Samsung demonstrated a video of a massive "tablet" they designed apparently in 2002 or 2003, with touch-based UI, running Windows. Never became a product, but they tried to use that to establish prior art.

Your example with fuel injection/mirror is perfect, and we're in full agreement here. Samsung should've just responded to Apple's allegations, leaving their ammunition for a different process.

I think the damage of not bringing a single executive is far greater than bringing someone over and using a translator. Again, lawyers are to blame here, as I'm sure there's someone within Samsung that's capable of delivering their vision in front of the jury, just like Schiller & co. did.

Amir, I don't know US law. But the little law I know, Apple has patents, and Samsung is challenging them. And all I can remember from the trial is Samsung showing that monster tablet I described above. That's all. Nothing else. How are you supposed to challenge someone else's patents without providing proof, prior art, etc.? As I said, Samsung's lawyers were more interested in attacking Apple, and didn't bother attacking their patents.

Apple, OTOH, showed proof that Samsung KNEW they were infringing Apple's patents, having been tipped off by Google themselves. Samsung folk even did a dossier comparing the iPhone to their then current Android phones, and, on Samsung's own words, their products were always much worse.

So, I think that while this trial is important, it's only the start of something much bigger. There's been a lot of discussion about the US patent system, but no concrete action, so perhaps this is the case that will lead to some reform of the whole system.


alexandre

 

[amirm]

You knew this was coming. A shame really as this is a pretty nice device from my brief play at the store today. It is on my upgrade list.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57504756-37/apple-goes-after-galaxy-s3-note-in-new-court-filing/

Apple goes after Galaxy S3, Note in new court filing
Fresh off its recent patent triumph over Samsung in a Northern California court, Apple files an amended complaint with the same court in a separate case, adding Samsung's flagship Galaxy S3 smartphone to the mix.

Coming off its big victory in its patent suit against Samsung in a Northern California court, Apple has filed an amended complaint with the same court in a separate case -- adding the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note to the list of Samsung devices it says infringe its intellectual property.

As reported by Apple Insider, the filing was made earlier today and involves a complaint first made in February that charged 17 Samsung devices with violating utility patents owned by Apple.

In relation to that complaint -- again, it's separate from the headline-grabbing case that began in April 2011 and wound up last Friday with an overwhelming win for Apple -- the iPhone and iPad maker sought a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone. The San Jose, Calif., court where the complaint was filed granted the ban, but it has been temporarily lifted while it's on appeal before a court in Washington, D.C.

Apple also sought a ban on the Galaxy S3 back in June, but that effort was put on hold owing to a packed court schedule.

In the amended complaint filed today, Apple says "infringing Samsung products include the at least 21 new smartphones, media players, and tablets that Samsung has released beginning in August 2011 and continuing through August 2012" and it lists the Galaxy S3, the Galaxy S3 -- Verizon, and the Galaxy Note smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet, among the other products.

Apple would no doubt like to put the kibosh on the Galaxy S3, which has enjoyed brisk sales and has, according to analysts, helped increase Samsung's lead over Apple in the two companies' smartphone sales competition. The Note seems to be doing OK too, if numbers released by Samsung are any indicat

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Someone at Apple knows something , we, mere mortals don't. That slew of lawsuits will not be good PR. We have all sen the result of corporate myopia or echo-chamber type of behavior... This seems to be one of them... People are flicker, consumers in these days a and ages are far from loyal, even in High End Audio
I think Apple is transiting from "Cool" and "must have" to corporate bullies in people mindsets ... This can't be good.

 

[Steve Williams]

Samsung: Apple trying to limit consumer choice

By YOUKYUNG LEE | Associated Press

I have high lighted two words in the report for KeithW

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Samsung on Saturday accused Apple of resorting to litigation in an effort to limit consumer choice after the iPhone maker said it was seeking to stop the sale of Galaxy S III smartphones in the United States.
Fresh from its $1 billion court victory over Samsung Electronics Co, Apple Inc., in a separate case, asked a federal district court in San Jose, California, on Friday to add four more products to a list of Samsung goods that Apple says infringe its patents.
The new list of 21 products includes Samsung's flagship smartphone Galaxy S III as well as the Galaxy Note, another popular Android phone. If the court finds those devices are infringing Apple's patents and irreparably harming the U.S. company, it could temporarily halt sales in the U.S. market even before the trial begins.
The latest accusation is part of a larger, epic struggle over patents and innovation in one of the most lucrative consumer electronics sectors that is unfolding in 10 countries.
The biggest stakes are in the U.S., the world's largest smartphone market in 2011. Last month, a jury in the San Jose court found that Samsung had copied Apple's design innovations and Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion. Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
On Saturday, Samsung denounced Apple's attempt to halt sales of the S III, which hit the 10 million global sales mark in July, less than three months after its release.
"Apple continues to resort to litigation over market competition in an effort to limit consumer choice," Samsung said in a statement. "We will continue to take the necessary legal measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products in the United States."
The strong sales of the S III were crucial in driving Samsung's quarterly profit to a record high in the last quarter and helped it stay ahead in the worldwide smartphone market.
In documents filed with San Jose federal district court on Friday, Apple said 21 Samsung smartphones, media players and tablets released after August 2011 were "copycat products."
"Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smartphone and tablet computer products, Samsung has chosen to copy Apple's technology, user interface, and innovative style," Apple said in one document.
The Cupertino, California-based company claimed that Samsung is illegally using its eight patents. One patent is related to the way the device retrieves information in a computer system and another is about gestures on a touchscreen display to unlock a device.
Apple and Samsung are the world's two largest smartphone makers and together they control over half of the global market. They are embroiled in similar legal tussles in Asia, Europe and the United States.
In April 2011, Apple first accused Samsung of illegally copying Apple's design and technology in the smartphones powered by Google Inc.'s Android technology. Samsung countersued, arguing Apple's iPhone and iPad used its wireless technology without permission.

 

[amirm]

Well, one thing is for sure: I will be super upset if they grant the injunction. The SIII is the best phone on Verizon right now and I am waiting for the price to drop to get it. Verizon has changed its data plans. I currently have unlimited data for my entire family. As soon as you upgrade with a 2 year contract, you lose that and fall down to 2 Gig. The only way around it is to pay full price which for the SIII is $550. I am hoping that when the iPhone 5 is announced the price will drop and I can buy it and keep my unlimited plan. If by then then phone goes away, I will be very grumpy. My droidx is starting to look aging compared to latest rigs.

 

[NorthStar]

---So, what is Best; Apple iPad (iPhone) latest iteration (4, 5?) or Samsung Galaxy latest (SIII, SIV?) and coolest communication/application technological gadget (device)? :b

And this is an honest, serious, and legitimate question; just in case.

 

[amirm]

It is pretty close race. Here is Cnet with 4 stars for each: http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/. PC Mag gives SIII 4.5 stars and iPhone 4S 4 stars.

I like the Android ecosystem because it gives me so many choices. A couple years ago Motorola made the best phone so I got that. This time Samsung is there. It is a bit like shopping for audio where you have a lot of choices. I also do a lot of browsing on my phone so like larger displays.

 

[asiufy]

NorthStar,

Just as in audio, "best" depends on a number of things... What are you going to use the device for? Are you tech savvy at all? Do you like games? How about carrying music and/or photographs with you on the device?


alexandre

 

[NorthStar]

NorthStar,

Just as in audio, "best" depends on a number of things... What are you going to use the device for? Are you tech savvy at all? Do you like games? How about carrying music and/or photographs with you on the device?


alexandre

---Hi Alexandre,

You can call me by my real name, Bob. :b

I see, but my question was more for each individual as their 'own' personal preferences according to their 'own' set of particular applications. ..Just like Amir did in his reply just above yours. :b

* Me, I'm not much of a time-spending-gaming-playing type of person on a small screen (iPad, iPhone, Galaxy, Universe, etc.), looking, reading, viewing, listening, typing, while I'm active in participating with the nature outside, in my lovely environment.
See, if I'm travelling, I want to live with my real surroundings, the people, the decor, the wildlife, etc. I am a communicator first, with the reality. ...Life's just too short to miss a track; I think, I believe, and I feel deeply in my soul.

Inside, I'm fine with my PC. ...And my r.a.d.i.o. ...And my big screen HDTV. ...And my full blast surround sound system. And my separate stereo rig.

>>> But from what I've been reading, at home, on my PC, the Samsung Galaxy SIII seems to be a heck of a nice little machine. I'm kind of the same school of thought as Amir here.

About you Alexandre?