Android beating Apple, BlackBerry in smartphone war

Third Blue From the Sun said:
Ironically, these figures don't help Apple one bit- it actually weakens their claim that Samsung products are causing them to lose out on sales.
Click to expand...

Yea so that's some...good news for Samsung, I suppose.... Also turns out that customers were not returning tabs because they thought they were iPads, but just because they were frequently defective. Quite a win for Samsung again hey.
 
cerebus said:
They aren't trying to crush them, just stop them infringing on their designs. They've been fairly generous in giving them alternatives for avoiding the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when VW start suing Toyota for stealing the concept of a car with four wheels, a bootlid and four doors then you may have a point... Stopping someone else from using technology and ideas that are not your own to begin with is wrong, no matter how much you pay spin it to be protection of one's IP.

This is the crux of why people do not appreciate or respect the path that Apple has gone down. It doesn't come across as defence of their rights, it is blatantly preventing competition.
 
Third Blue From the Sun said:
Yeah, when VW start suing Toyota for stealing the concept of a car with four wheels, a bootlid and four doors then you may have a point... Stopping someone else from using technology and ideas that are not your own to begin with is wrong, no matter how much you pay spin it to be protection of one's IP.

This is the crux of why people do not appreciate or respect the path that Apple has gone down. It doesn't come across as defence of their rights, it is blatantly preventing competition.
Click to expand...

It is hard to believe that you can still be so ignorant.

This has nothing to do with competition but to do with Samsung practically cloning Apple's devices. Other manufacturers and even other phones Samsung has made since are not attracting the same response from Apple.

At this stage there has been so much info released in regards to this trial that to keep trying to claim that Apple wants to stop Samsung from competing with then is beyond idiotic.
 
icyrus said:
Samsung's patents are FRAND encumbered. If you don't know what that means read up on it, then you will understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Not the point and you know it.

FRAND licensing is to protect ones IP. That Apple's offers were not FRAND encumbered despite their "patents", well, I leave that to your interpretation of their view of the actual purpose of FRAND licensing.
 
icyrus said:
It is hard to believe that you can still be so ignorant.

This has nothing to do with competition but to do with Samsung practically cloning Apple's devices. Other manufacturers and even other phones Samsung has made since are not attracting the same response from Apple.

At this stage there has been so much info released in regards to this trial that to keep trying to claim that Apple wants to stop Samsung from competing with then is beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...

Being so prone to ad hominem attacks because you are disagreed with is reflective of your ignorance.

That Samsung have made other phones not attracting their attention shows that Samsung are correct in what they initially said- that they are not copying Apple.

That their sales of said phones are so low- again shows that even the consumer did not see it as copying.

If you want to hold onto Apple's claims that their patents are enforcable- then good for you. Most others might not agree.

If Apple didn't own the patents that they did- would this court case have even gone ahead? Probably not. It's like the Microsoft case all over again...
 
Third Blue From the Sun said:
Being so prone to ad hominem attacks because you are disagreed with is reflective of your ignorance.

That Samsung have made other phones not attracting their attention shows that Samsung are correct in what they initially said- that they are not copying Apple.
Click to expand...

No, it shows that apples lawsuit is specific and not generic as you're claiming. Samsung has such a massive suite of phones that obviously some will not infringe apples design,

That their sales of said phones are so low- again shows that even the consumer did not see it as copying.
Click to expand...
Eh what? The two points are disconnected. Just because the phones didn't sell as many doesn't mean they weren't clones.

If you want to hold onto Apple's claims that their patents are enforcable- then good for you. Most others might not agree.
Click to expand...
At this point we hardly need patents, so blatant has the evidence become. 132 pages of how can we be more like the iPhone.

If Apple didn't own the patents that they did- would this court case have even gone ahead? Probably not. It's like the Microsoft case all over again...
Click to expand...
But they do have patents. It was one feature they highlighted back in 2007 when the iPhone was introduced...mountains of patents.
 
cerebus said:
No, it shows that apples lawsuit is specific and not generic as you're claiming. Samsung has such a massive suite of phones that obviously some will not infringe apples design,
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. Specificity in what they are suing over yet arbitrary in the actual detail. Look at the whole icon trademark comparison they did. Hardly specific. Either way- in the scope of Apple's claim, Samsung didn't copy them as per the arguments and evidence they presented (wholesale as I was last told). Using a non-unique idea is not and should not be something you can go around clubbing your competition over the head with.

Eh what? The two points are disconnected. Just because the phones didn't sell as many doesn't mean they weren't clones.
Click to expand...

But that is one of the bases of Apple's argument, and why they want the 2.5 billion in damages. That these "clones" stole sales from them. Yes, I am oversimplifying this statement, but it is the basis after all.

At this point we hardly need patents, so blatant has the evidence become. 132 pages of how can we be more like the iPhone.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree on this. I see the document as 132 pages of how what Samsung needed to do to match the iPhone. Match, not copy. I would think this is standard fare across all manufacturers, including Apple.

But they do have patents. It was one feature they highlighted back in 2007 when the iPhone was introduced...mountains of patents.
Click to expand...

Mountains of patents which one cannot fault them for. The patent board needs to be taken to task for this, and while on one hand you can understand Apple exploiting this loophole, it is fundamentally wrong.

However- if Apple win, maybe it will prompt Samsung to drop the garbage that is Touchwiz :)
 
Interesting article...

Why the Report Doesn’t Prove Patent Infringement

As damning as the “Relative Evaluation Report” appears to be, it does not by itself constitute proof that Samsung infringed on Apple’s patents, and for three reasons:

1. Ideas would need to originate with Apple and be patented

Even if Samsung copies Apple, or is influenced by Apple, it’s got to be Apple’s original idea or it’s not patent infringement.

For example, in one case, the “Relative Evaluation Report” points out that on the call screen, where users are presented with option buttons to do things like “mute” the call, use the speakerphone feature, add a caller, and so on, the iPhone’s “End Call” button is big, red and clearly separate from the other buttons.

The report likes this feature on the iPhone, and complains that the Samsung phone groups the “End Call” button together with the other buttons. The report says of the Samsung design: “Another button nearby could accidentally be pressed because it is a small button next to other in-call option menus.”

The “Directions for improvement” are that Samsung needs to “modify the call end button on the call screen so that it is a separate large button.”

Basically it says, and I’m paraphrasing, that Apple does its “End Call” button better than we do, so we should do it the way Apple does it.

This is a clear recommendation to copy Apple, right?

The answer is yes. But did Apple invent the idea of an end-call button separate from other buttons? And, if so, did they patent it?

Sure, Samsung used Apple’s design to show the superiority of a separate and large button. But that doesn’t mean Apple invented or patented that idea.

2. “Directions for improvement” are vague

In most cases, the recommended action is vague or general, suggesting improvement without specifically copying Apple. The most common recommendation for action is: “Need to develop [user interface] that can deliver not only functional operations but also fun factor.”

Apple can’t patent “functional operations” or “fun factor.”

Let’s get real. The “Relative Evaluation Report” is a standard competitive analysis of the kind that most businesses develop and share internally. In fact, any responsible public company has to do this. It’s simply a way to organize group thinking about the competitive marketplace.

Even Apple probably does this.

Samsung submitted into evidence an internal email from an Apple designer named Christopher Stringer in which he requested from a co-worker what he called “your latest summary of our enemies for an ID brainstorm,” and requested that if the person had “any more data beyond this, please could you update the chart?”

The email suggests that there is a “chart” passed around internally at Apple that can be described as a “summary of our enemies.” Because these are two designers talking to each other, it’s likely that the summary in question is about design, and may include design elements that Apple’s “enemies” are getting right.

In any event, the Samsung “Relative Evaluation Report” never says “copy this iPhone feature” or anything like that. Nearly all the recommendations involve doing something unspecified that will make Samsung’s interface design element work better or look better so it will be as good as Apple’s.

3. Recommendations to copy aren’t infringement if they’re rejected

Although it’s true that many of the report’s “Directions for improvement” are vague, it’s also true that some of them specify the Apple approach.

For example, one slide says that on the Samsung Galaxy S phone “it is difficult to move cursor when inputting text.” It points out that on the iPhone it’s “easy to move the cursor with a magnifying glass appearing over the area touched.”

The recommended action is that Samsung needs “a function like a magnifying glass for fine controls.”

That sounds like direct copying, doesn’t it?
In fact, Samsung did not implement a magnifying glass. Instead, they invented their own function for “fine controls,” which is a blue pointer that appears below the cursor when text is selected, or on either side of text that is selected.

So even in some cases where the report appears to recommend copying Apple, Samsung doesn’t follow the recommendation in shipping products.

In summary, patent infringement exists only where an idea originated with Apple, Apple was granted a patent for that idea, and Samsung used the patented Apple idea in actual products.

As far as I can tell, very few of the items in the “Relative Evaluation Report” pass this test
Click to expand...

The article also says how this can be damaging to Samsung, so not too bad a read.
 
I really hope they dont start patenting the tv...ffs. then im gonna personally go set apple inc on fire.
 
You've been warned since childhood:

gm-apple-1.jpg


LOL!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X