• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

OMG, so Samsung was "hell-bent" on beating Apple in 2012?!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
To the original OP: Why not buy a Nokia or Motorola since they were the ones which made the first mobile phones. Apple didn't start until 2007, Samsung was spewing out phones before that with thin sliders.
 
There are only so many diffrent ways to design a rectangle or square. With Apples way of thinking IBM has the right to sue them over design infringement of there model 5150. Its obvious Apple copied IBM's design by making the I Pad white.

Just to add with all the pointless lawsuits going around by Apple lately. Makes me wonder if there design team is struggling to keep up with the competition.

Seriously who needs common since when we have lawyers =)
 
Looks like the Patent Trolls sent out their forum trolls in an attempt to wreak havoc. Doesn't appear to have the desired effect. lol

Apple is successful because they put it in front of your face. Seems every show has a computer or iPhone proudly displaying that Apple sticker (but they have to generically ask for a beer every time they're at the bar). Commercials tell you to check out the app for the iPad or iPhone, despite having the same app for Android. Imagine how much money they spend on mass marketing, and court fees. But since they've put out the same product 3 years in a row, they didn't have to spend any money on R&D. :smokingsomb:
 
I'm remembering the first Palm Treo Phone. Maybe it wasn't as slick, but it wasn't a totally dumb phone, either. I loved my UX-50. It did have wifi. Had they put a phone in it, I would have really enjoyed it.

I think Apple has been having a hissy since 1996 or so. Adobe put out Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker for Windows. Quark followed suit. A lot of companies found that the Windows boxes could do page layout, photo editing and design very well - they didn't have to spend big buck to get Apple computers. (I've seen this first hand)

Apple is having problems with the fact that some of us don't bother with groupthink.
Looking at Siri, the trend seems to be having the phone do our thinking. Looks like Android's trying that, too. I suppose MS will, too. Only condition people more to obey machines. I'll opt out, thank you. I'm the human that can feel true compassion, etc. and make judgments in crazy situations.
 
YankeeDudeL said:
Looks like the Patent Trolls sent out their forum trolls in an attempt to wreak havoc. Doesn't appear to have the desired effect. lol

Apple is successful because they put it in front of your face. Seems every show has a computer or iPhone proudly displaying that Apple sticker (but they have to generically ask for a beer every time they're at the bar). Commercials tell you to check out the app for the iPad or iPhone, despite having the same app for Android. Imagine how much money they spend on mass marketing, and court fees. But since they've put out the same product 3 years in a row, they didn't have to spend any money on R&D. :smokingsomb:
Click to expand...

Yup. Apple was very smart years ago (not sure if this still goes on) when they would unload trucks of Apple computers to schools at no cost. They knew if they indoctrinated the kids at an early age, they'd have a great shot of a loyal Apple buyer for life. Kids can get hooked on the Kool Aid really early in life. ;)
 
Manse said:
The only thing i can conclude from this, is that most apple users are morons, if you confuse a box labeled samsung with one plastered with apples, the only conclusion must be that you infact are a moron.

Im no fanboy of anything, i have owned an iphone for many years, a 3g wich became absolutely useless when ios 4 came out, now ive got an android phone and so far im loving the freedom.
Click to expand...

This always gets me too. Every time I go to Best Buy, the Apple products are basically partitioned off in their own little area. The Macs and Macbooks are on a table away from the PCs, the iPads are at the end caps with demo models to play with while the other tablets are randomly dispersed throughout their own isle, and the iPod and iPhone have their own little section. How someone could possibly get these confused leads me to believe either they're stupid (best case scenario) or the sales reps were being intentionally misleading (worst case).
 
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-31/samsung-can-use-some-evidence-from-former-apple-designer

Judge seems biased as ****. I mean really? That phone concept throws out half the lawsuit.
 
I always wondered if Apple could have ever pulled itself of its 1990s malaise if Uncle Bill hadn’t let them release MS Office for Mac. And now I’m getting to wish he hadn’t...
 
maverick777 said:
Groklaw - Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj Updated

Very good article covering the case and the trial briefs from both companies.
Click to expand...

After sitting through and reading this article, I now realize Apple is more insidious than ever. They aren't just trying to extort money from the competition or ban their products, they are trying to completely alter the entire industry and the way they view and utilize patents. They are essentially trying to monopolize the entire market with their system of patents where the grunt work of creating all these technologies are worth nothing and aesthetic value is praised more highly than the actual functionally of the phone.

However, one comment from an anonymous poster rang truer than anything legal experts have said:

"One thing confused me about Bressler's deposition. On page 7, paragraphs 29 and 30, he seems to offer up some very contradictory logic.
In paragraph 29 he states:

"Thus, each design patent at issue reflects but one of many potential minimalist designs"

While in paragraph 30 he states: "... these Apple products are based upon the simplest possible use of a visually uninterrupted and continuous surface of glass-like materials that creates a reflective surface covering the product face."

If it is the simplest, it means that there is no other design which could be simpler. If it is simple, then surely it is obvious. Also, by virtue of it being the simplest - does that not invalidate the claim that there are many potential minimalist designs? Surely nothing could be more minimal than "the simplest". Therefore there is only one truly minimalist design, and it is one that all tablet manufacturers/designers would naturally gravitate to given enough time.

Surely Fidler's tablet mock-ups are evidence that more than one person could think of "the simplest" design - thus the idea is not worthy of being patented.

Sign me, a sad Apple user."

In one fell swoop, an anonymous poster has decimated the entire line of logic that Apple is attempting. Brilliant.
 
I continually question why anyone would "copy" an inferior CrApple product... That's pointless.

I don't need to name all the things non-CrApple products do that CrApple products can't.

Can we end this stupid Patent trial already... ?
 
Vipfreak said:
I continually question why anyone would "copy" an inferior CrApple product... That's pointless.

I don't need to name all the things non-CrApple products do that CrApple products can't.

Can we end this stupid Patent trial already... ?
Click to expand...

Apple's entire business model was doomed to begin with, which is likely why they are attempting this mass litigation. The iPhone is essentially a brand name rather than any real innovation. Sure, there are some unique things in iOS, but the same can be said of Android. Apple apparently didn't realize that you just couldn't trickle out minor features indefinitely and remain on top. iOS itself is stagnant and while everyone around them is attempting new ideas, iOS is either playing catch-up or outright copying. The fact that things have reached this point isn't surprising, but my hope is the judicial system will eventually grow fed up with it and begin throwing out patents and lawsuits left and right.
 
Samsung has been making cell phones since the mid-eighties. Samsung can provide it's self with most if not all the necessary components it needs. Apple knows this and if anyone can lead the mobile industry,it's Samsung. Apple providing one phone annually is not going to cut it against Samsung plain and simple.
 
Drhyde said:
Apple apparently didn't realize that you just couldn't trickle out minor features indefinitely and remain on top.
Click to expand...

What's funny is even if they didn't have patents CrApple would die off anyway. (Well, assuming the iSheep die off too...)
 
Drhyde said:
After sitting through and reading this article, I now realize Apple is more insidious than ever. They aren't just trying to extort money from the competition or ban their products, they are trying to completely alter the entire industry and the way they view and utilize patents. They are essentially trying to monopolize the entire market with their system of patents where the grunt work of creating all these technologies are worth nothing and aesthetic value is praised more highly than the actual functionally of the phone.

However, one comment from an anonymous poster rang truer than anything legal experts have said:

"One thing confused me about Bressler's deposition. On page 7, paragraphs 29 and 30, he seems to offer up some very contradictory logic.
In paragraph 29 he states:

"Thus, each design patent at issue reflects but one of many potential minimalist designs"

While in paragraph 30 he states: "... these Apple products are based upon the simplest possible use of a visually uninterrupted and continuous surface of glass-like materials that creates a reflective surface covering the product face."

If it is the simplest, it means that there is no other design which could be simpler. If it is simple, then surely it is obvious. Also, by virtue of it being the simplest - does that not invalidate the claim that there are many potential minimalist designs? Surely nothing could be more minimal than "the simplest". Therefore there is only one truly minimalist design, and it is one that all tablet manufacturers/designers would naturally gravitate to given enough time.

Surely Fidler's tablet mock-ups are evidence that more than one person could think of "the simplest" design - thus the idea is not worthy of being patented.

Sign me, a sad Apple user."

In one fell swoop, an anonymous poster has decimated the entire line of logic that Apple is attempting. Brilliant.
Click to expand...
Very good lawyer here guys :)
 
Drhyde said:
After sitting through and reading this article, I now realize Apple is more insidious than ever. They aren't just trying to extort money from the competition or ban their products, they are trying to completely alter the entire industry and the way they view and utilize patents. They are essentially trying to monopolize the entire market with their system of patents where the grunt work of creating all these technologies are worth nothing and aesthetic value is praised more highly than the actual functionally of the phone.

However, one comment from an anonymous poster rang truer than anything legal experts have said:

"One thing confused me about Bressler's deposition. On page 7, paragraphs 29 and 30, he seems to offer up some very contradictory logic.
In paragraph 29 he states:

"Thus, each design patent at issue reflects but one of many potential minimalist designs"

While in paragraph 30 he states: "... these Apple products are based upon the simplest possible use of a visually uninterrupted and continuous surface of glass-like materials that creates a reflective surface covering the product face."

If it is the simplest, it means that there is no other design which could be simpler. If it is simple, then surely it is obvious. Also, by virtue of it being the simplest - does that not invalidate the claim that there are many potential minimalist designs? Surely nothing could be more minimal than "the simplest". Therefore there is only one truly minimalist design, and it is one that all tablet manufacturers/designers would naturally gravitate to given enough time.

Surely Fidler's tablet mock-ups are evidence that more than one person could think of "the simplest" design - thus the idea is not worthy of being patented.

Sign me, a sad Apple user."

In one fell swoop, an anonymous poster has decimated the entire line of logic that Apple is attempting. Brilliant.
Click to expand...


that makes a lot of sense. I totally agree.

but i am sure that they have smart lawyers and expert consultants that would also see this same angle / issue.

so.. there is something that is blocking or debunking that argument.




never the less.. the whole patent suing .. copying.. patenting other's work... just STUPID

I am wondering.. if there is some gov agency that can sue Apple for wasting judicial (public tax dollars) time and money? a reasonable person can see that there is something wrong with most of apples legal games.
 
Not 'How do you want it to end', but how do you realistically expect the fight between Samsung and Apple to eventually end?

Not who do you personally want to win, but based on evidence seen so far, how do you think it will end for both companies?
 
thermal said:
Not 'How do you want it to end', but how do you realistically expect the fight between Samsung and Apple to eventually end?
Click to expand...

After a period of appeals etc. I think both sides will sit down, hammer out a financial deal and move on. Apple sources much of its Appley goodness from Samsung. Samsung gets lots of money from Apple as a result. Unless something cataclysmic happens I would expect a few hundred million dollars to change hands and for the fight to be over.

This is not a fight to the death ala SCO. Eventually technology will move on and render this fight somewhat mute, although probably brought up in law schools in the future to show how broken we were today.

What I would like is for Samsung to win, simply because that would piss off Apple right-royally and I personally would like to see that. Think I have a better chance of winning the lottery though since Apple have been able to rig the game in their favor. Make no mistake, this is not a battle of right or wrong, or of fairness. It's simply using the law to score points - and the legal process has long shown itself to be blind to both.
 
Yeah, but the Judge here seems to be very cozy to Cupertino. Dunno if she has shares in Apple, a house full of iStuff or just a shrine to the late demigod Steve Jobs in her house. Whatever the reason Samsung will get no love in her court.

It remains to be seen how the jury takes it all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom