Apple Is Really Overdoing It Now

[Lostlover]

I agree with Samsung copying them, but now it seems like Apple is using the court system to stop sales from a competitor. I don't like that component but I do like scaring Asian companies from doing this in the future whether it's cars, technology, or industrial design.

The New York Times

This injunction stinks to high heaven.

Any one else's thoughts?

All the products Apple wants Samsung to stop selling:

http://gizmodo.com/5938238/apple-wants-to-bans-these-samsung-products

 

[swerve]

For some reason, my apple macbook didn't like the NYT link...

But, from what I read in USA Today this weekend was that even Google ADVISED Samsung to NOT copy Apple SO BLATANTLY...

Maybe the should have heeded the warning...

It took Samsung 90 days to copy 4 years worth of R&D from Apple...

I think a company SHOULD be able to recoup their investment on ONE hand -- and on the other, I think that patents CAN lead to stifling innovation...

Maybe this ruling will lead to differentiation which wouldn't be a BAD thing...

Oh -- and I have a Motorola Android phone -- so its not like I'm super one sided for Apple...

 

[Lostlover]

I'd love to read said USA Today article. And I don't mean to talk with blanket terms, but Asian companies are known for copying/lifting ideas. I keep reading that consumers will lose from the $1.1B verdict. I see it as the opposite. A big company like Samsung will have to offer a different enough product to compete, legally. It will be forced to do its own R&D. We, the consumers, win.

 

[swerve]

Here is the link to the article I referred to...

As usual for USA Today -- it is not in-depth or biased -- just an overview...

Jury: Samsung violated Apple patents

And an important quote which pretty much made me side with Apple on this one...

In closing arguments on Tuesday, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny alleged that Samsung documents show that in three months, it was able to copy four years of Apple development. He said they show "hundreds of pages of copying directions" for icon design and functions such as tap-to-zoom that were put into the Galaxy phone and tablet line.

He also said Samsung met with Google, which advised the company to change Galaxy designs, but Samsung declined

 

[Lostlover]

Thank you^^^.

 

[looseliam]

I have to side with apple on this - and that makes my eye twitch. The UI was an intentional rip-off. The tap-to-zoom, dimensions, etc. should be thrown-out.

I think back to the IBM and IBM compatible days; what would have happened if IBM went after those who re-engineered their BIOS? What if early auto makers went after others for using 'similar engines'? You have a 101 keyboard too? Can't have that. Serial mouse with three buttons? Ohnoes! Where would we be in computing were companies this litigious 30-40 years ago.

If people were buying samsung devices expecting an apple experience then I see grounds for enforcement. But I doubt people say to themselves, "gee, I really want an apple but I'm going to buy samsung because it looks like the same thing." He who want apple products buys apple products and usually doesn't go looking for alternatives.

 

[Telstra]

.
I don't understand patent laws and i think copying the design is ok

 

[Lostlover]

I have to side with apple on this - and that makes my eye twitch. The UI was an intentional rip-off. The tap-to-zoom, dimensions, etc. should be thrown-out.

I think back to the IBM and IBM compatible days; what would have happened if IBM went after those who re-engineered their BIOS? What if early auto makers went after others for using 'similar engines'? You have a 101 keyboard too? Can't have that. Serial mouse with three buttons? Ohnoes! Where would we be in computing were companies this litigious 30-40 years ago.

If people were buying samsung devices expecting an apple experience then I see grounds for enforcement. But I doubt people say to themselves, "gee, I really want an apple but I'm going to buy samsung because it looks like the same thing." He who want apple products buys apple products and usually doesn't go looking for alternatives.

I respect your opinion and I'd like to hear more of it since I have about a minute experience with Samsung's products. You had me until the comparison to engines and other innovations. Why would any company invest in R&D if what they're investing in can be lifted with no consequences by a competitor? Why put all the money into it if it won't be yours?

 

[ZmercTheDuke]

Best professor I ever had in college 2 years ago told me this after talking to him after class. He said best field of law to get into right now is copyright and intellectual property law. I mean look at all the major cases in past 5 years or decade. More and more high profile cases are becoming more frequent. Not to mention theirs some crazy laws that some label companies and others are pushing, like singing a your favorite song even to your self, they are trying to make illegal you have to pay to be able to sing it. Honestly we have only seen the start of whats going to come in following years with copyright and intellectual property cases.

 

[silverbelt]

Take Windows Phone as a prime example of seeing the iPhone and thinking, "Wow, Apple were brave to try that. I wonder what we can come up with?" The new Metro UI is beautiful, functional and so far removed from iOS. Samsung worked hard to make Android work, look and feel like iOS.

This sort of win for Apple means that we should see more competition and variety in the market, not less. We'll finally have some proper differentiation of products, instead of everyone trying to release another iPhone clone.

 

[JB3]

I agree with Samsung copying them, but now it seems like Apple is using the court system to stop sales from a competitor. I don't like that component but I do like scaring Asian companies from doing this in the future whether it's cars, technology, or industrial design.

The New York Times

This injunction stinks to high heaven.

Any one else's thoughts?

All the products Apple wants Samsung to stop selling:

Apple Wants to Ban These Samsung Products

It doesn't stink. The jury already decided Samsung infringed, so Apple has the right to ask for a ban on infringing products.

 

[Nishin]

I hate apple, they are a bully and I hope this firebacks to their arrogant sorry asses

 

[JB3]

Gee, thanks for that scintillating addition to the thread.

 

[Lostlover]

Take Windows Phone as a prime example of seeing the iPhone and thinking, "Wow, Apple were brave to try that. I wonder what we can come up with?" The new Metro UI is beautiful, functional and so far removed from iOS. Samsung worked hard to make Android work, look and feel like iOS.

This sort of win for Apple means that we should see more competition and variety in the market, not less. We'll finally have some proper differentiation of products, instead of everyone trying to release another iPhone clone.

I agree 100% with what you said, especially about the Windows Phone (stunning UI) and increase variety in the marketplace. Companies will now have to compete with their own ideas.

 

[maxpowr9]

Samsung is one thing (I love my Galaxy sIII btw), but if Apple tries to go after the android OS and Google, I see Google putting an injunction on them using their "products". Google has already barred Apple from using youtube and gmail apps on their products and I know my iPad defaults to Yahoo! search engine (Msft has bing so that's another rival).

BTW, guess who owns the copyright on 4G LTE technology? Samsung. That's the delicious irony in this case so expect a counter-sue on the iPhone 5.

 

[swerve]

BTW, guess who owns the copyright on 4G LTE technology? Samsung. That's the delicious irony in this case so expect a counter-sue on the iPhone 5.

Uh-oh...

 

[looseliam]

Let us not forget, though, that the patents that are crucial for LTE operability are required to be licensed (see FRAND).

As I recall there are some not-so-important patents pertaining the LTE that could be used in fighting apple.

 

[maxpowr9]

Despite the recent release of 4G LTE phones, the technology has been around since 2007. South Korea, a country the size of Kentucky, already has full 4G wireless capabilities in their country [I won't go into their strict internet laws] and is actively working on 5G tech already.

Again, Apple is not an innovator but an excellent marketer and only that. You look at the iPhone 5 and it has very similar specs to the Samsung sIII galaxy.

 

[JB3]

Samsung is one thing (I love my Galaxy sIII btw), but if Apple tries to go after the android OS and Google, I see Google putting an injunction on them using their "products". Google has already barred Apple from using youtube and gmail apps on their products and I know my iPad defaults to Yahoo! search engine (Msft has bing so that's another rival).

Google has no interest in fighting Apple. If Apple sues them, there will be a quick settlement. Since the iPhone, Google has made more money off of Apple's products than they have off Android. Google will not cut off a revenue source that contributes billions of dollars in ads every year when they know they can settle.

Also, Google has not 'barred' Apple from using anything. There is a Gmail app in the app store (which sucks, by the way), Google is building a new YouTube app for iOS 6, and may build a Maps app as well. Apple has been moving away from using some Google services like Maps, but that's because Apple thinks they can do it better. All Apple products are defaulted to search Google in Safari. Google pays millions a year for that privilege.

BTW, guess who owns the copyright on 4G LTE technology? Samsung. That's the delicious irony in this case so expect a counter-sue on the iPhone 5.

No, the copyright is owned by ETSI. Samsung owns 12% of the LTE PATENTS. But that is largely irrelevant. For Samsung to own LTE patents, they are required to ask for licensing on FRAND terms. That means they can't seek outrageous licensing fees, can't sue for an injunction, and can't treat Apple any differently than any other licensee. Samsung has already been slapped around in court for abusing their 3G patents, so they won't be likely to do the same with their 4G patents.

But that doesn't even matter; Any components Apple buys will already be licensed by Qualcomm, which is one of the biggest patent-holders, which itself will have licensed patents from the other patent holders. ( Apple itself also owns a pretty big handful of LTE patents. ) Further, Samsung is already under antitrust investigation in the EU and US for abusing Standard Essential Patents (like those required for 3G and 4G), and any action taken against Apple will be met with skepticism and subpoenas.

 

[JB3]

Despite the recent release of 4G LTE phones, the technology has been around since 2007. South Korea, a country the size of Kentucky, already has full 4G wireless capabilities in their country [I won't go into their strict internet laws] and is actively working on 5G tech already.

Ha uhm, no. 5G isn't even a blip on the radar. Hasn't even passed conceptual phase yet, and won't, considering that LTE is still in its infancy. (it only started deployment in 2009, and took until 2011 before the biggest carriers started rolling it out)

The next phase is true 4G, which no nation has yet. It is called IMT-Advanced, and will be found in the form of LTE-Advanced. The bandwidth available will be more than three times as much as LTE has now (1 Gbit/s vs. 300 Mbit/s), and will also have a number of other improvements. Its going to be at least another year before LTE-A is ready to be rolled out for customer use, and at least five years before it reaches saturation.

Again, Apple is not an innovator but an excellent marketer and only that. You look at the iPhone 5 and it has very similar specs to the Samsung sIII galaxy.

Oh really? Name me one capacitive touchscreen phone with multitouch capabilities and a screen bigger than 3 inches that came out before the iPhone.

Oh you can't?

There's your innovation right there.