backtop


Print 181 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Jul 11 at 3:39 PM


Apple claims Samsung broke the law by selling a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons. Apple filed the suit after its products proved unable to compete with Android in sales.  (Source: Sizzle Core)

The pair's legal battle stretches over eight courts in six different countries.  (Source: Foss Law)

Apple is also hurting Samsung by cutting off component sales. Apple is one of the company's largest component electronics purchasers; for example, the first gen. iPad used a Samsung CPU/SDRAM, Samsung NAND flash, and a Samsung LCD display.  (Source: iFixIt)
Company is also battering rival with component boycott

South Korea's Samsung Electronics (SEO:005930) may be poised to become the world's largest smartphone maker, passing Finland's Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V), but life isn't all sunshine and roses for the gadget maker.  The company faces serious danger on at least two fronts.

I.  Apple Goes for Samsung's Jugular in Patent Dispute

Rival gadget maker Apple Inc. (AAPL) is hoping that a court will give it a kill shot on Samsung.  Apple has filed [Scribd] for preliminary injunction that could force Samsung to take its flagship Android products -- the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- off the market in the U.S.

If granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the injunction could force Samsung into a massive settlement payout with Apple -- which again would be a major loss, and could interfere with product development.

While Apple's April 15 lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and June 22 lawsuit (South Korea's Seoul Central District Court) cite a broad range of patents, the injunction request only includes four.

Three of the patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677D593,087, and D504,889 -- lay claim to the shape, color, and button placement on the iPhone case.  Apple claims that Samsung's phones look too much like the iPhone in that they are small, thin black rectangles with buttons.

A fourth patent actually deals with technology, U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.  It deals with methods of "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display."

A request for a preliminary injunction (PI) is a bold move in a lawsuit, as it will only be granted if the court considers the case strong.  Apple is fond of the tactic, but has found it to backfire at times.  For example, while a court granted it a PI against Mac-clone maker Psystar, a more recent request in its case against Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) use of the term "Appstore" was rejected.

A PI rejection, while not decisive to the overall case, can be damaging, in so much as it gives the impression that the overall case is weak.

Samsung is hardly rolling over, though.  In the last week it filed suit against London-based High Court of England and Wales and Italy.  These suits join pending lawsuits in Seoul, South Korea, Tokyo, Japan, Mannheim, Germany and the U.S. (Delaware).  Samsung is suing Apple in eight different courts [Scribd] in six different countries.  It's also expanded the number of U.S. patents involved to 17.  It's also using many foreign patents against Apple.

The company has filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to try to block the imports of iPads, iPods, and iPhones.  While not as rapid as a PI request, the filing could block imports of the devices within 16 to 18 months.

Apple resorted to lawsuits and legal harassment in desperation, after its smart phones proved incapable of competing effectively with Android.  Android currently has more than twice the market share of Apple's iOS.

II. Parts Sales Offer More Woes

Even as Samsung scrambles to maintain its legal war with Apple, it's facing a serious logistics crisis, as well.

Apple is the largest single buyer of Samsung liquid crystal displays -- a lucrative business for Samsung.  Samsung also sells and/or licenses NAND and processor chips to Apple.  With the legal war, Apple is reportedly considering dropping Samsung altogether as a supplier.

Samsung's head of its recently combined semiconductors and display units, Kwon Oh-hyun states, "In the past, the semiconductor market tended to be weaker in the first half and stronger in the second half, but for this year, it is likely to remain flat throughout the latter half."

This is very bad news for the company as a whole, as these units drive 70 percent of Samsung's profits and 44 percent of its total revenue, typically.

It's unclear whether Apple's growing boycott on the company's components is to blame for the drop, but it's clearly playing a major role.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Seriously?
By DigitalFreak on 7/5/2011 11:22:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple claims Samsung broke the law by selling a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons.


Pathetic.




RE: Seriously?
By quiksilvr on 7/5/2011 11:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
My brain literally started to hurt when I read that.


RE: Seriously?
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 11:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
Likewise for those that worked especially hard to come up with such ideas.

I can only imagine the man-hours, the creativity, hard work, money and originality employed within.


RE: Seriously?
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By Bubbacub on 7/5/2011 12:08:02 PM , Rating: 5
is this guy a mactard or is this sarcasm running just under the threshold of my sarcasm detector?


RE: Seriously?
By Bubbacub on 7/5/2011 12:08:41 PM , Rating: 5
ohh and didnt LG have a black rectangular touch screen phone before the iphone


RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 12:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
Yes they did. It was the LG Prada (KE850) and was announced in Dec 2006, it was the first cellphone with a captive touchscreen as well.

The iPhone wasn't announced until Jan 2007.


RE: Seriously?
By Commodus on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:36:17 PM , Rating: 4
So one month would have been enough for LG to rip off this idea/patent???


RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 12:41:45 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry you're dead wrong. The LG Prada won the iF Design award in September 2006, and issued a press release in Dec 2006 annoucing it. Engadget also has a story on it dated Dec 15th 2006.

http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850...


RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:11:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple would have ripped off LG's design in what, 4 months??? I still don't think this would be possible.

Sure it would. It's a small rectangle with a big screen. How many months does a company need to copy that?


RE: Seriously?
By Hyperion1400 on 7/5/2011 3:12:07 PM , Rating: 5
Nobody is suggesting Apple ripped off LG; they are just making the point that the opposite argument is BS. In reality, such a vague idea "black, rectangular thing" isn't worth patent protection, so nobody is ripping off anyone.


RE: Seriously?
By borismkv on 7/5/2011 7:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Then there's the fact that neither are actually rectangular due to the fact that they have rounded corners. I mean if we're going to go down the legal route, that's your loophole right there.


RE: Seriously?
By Omega215D on 7/5/2011 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 1
There are ways to finding out upcoming tech from competitors before it's shown to the public, especially if some of the stuff was being sourced from LG or its collaborators.


RE: Seriously?
By nstott on 7/6/2011 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
US patents are based on date of conception with accompanying proof, not on the filing date and not on the first public release. The patent must be filed, however, within one year of first public release or the invention will become public domain. Thus, this discussion and the provided evidence are somewhat irrelevant. (EU patents are based on filing date.)


RE: Seriously?
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 12:49:28 PM , Rating: 5
Too bad he's dead wrong.


RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 3
Define thin...

Define black...

Define rectangle...

Today's thin phones are going to be tommorow's bulkier...

iPhone is a great product and will always will be but being that thin or that black with a single button is an extrapolation not an "invention".


RE: Seriously?
By nstott on 7/6/2011 1:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
The patent would actually define such things quantitatively, usually in a range. They could have broadened it even more by saying "smaller than" a given thickness. Black and rectangle are also definable. That's why patent lawyers make a lot of money, although it's a mind-numbing process to define such things in such a way to ward off infringement.


RE: Seriously?
By Chaser on 7/5/2011 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 5
And as a former 3G owner (a brief moment of stupidity) I couldn't be happier with Android "knockoffs". I'll never go back to that draconian Fischer Price "smartphone" Apple experience again.

Choices in competitive "market place" are wonderful! :)


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. Government SAYS Apple owns the rights to thin black smart phones

And we all know that the U.S. Government has never been wrong before...


RE: Seriously?
By inperfectdarkness on 7/6/2011 7:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
for the first time in my life, i truly believe in the existence of astroturfing.

this user is an astroturfer if there ever was one.


RE: Seriously?
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/5/2011 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 3
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen. LG Prada sold 1 million units[4][5] in the first 18 months.[6]

A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008.


RE: Seriously?
By jvillaro on 7/5/2011 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Seriously?
By Falcoxx on 7/6/2011 1:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of the ipod touch? Launched in 9/2006, stick a celluar radio in it .... you have the beginnings of the iphone,


RE: Seriously?
By Falcoxx on 7/6/2011 1:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
Apple didnt need to copy the LG Prada, theu just needed to to a cell radio in the ipod touch, which was launched around the time the LG Prada was announced.


RE: Seriously?
By EasyC on 7/5/2011 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
No, this is like Ford creating the Mustang, and suing GM for making any car that resembles a 2dr coupe.


RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it :P


RE: Seriously?
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then why did the U.S. government consider the iPhone a unique enough design to grant it three patents, protecting it against Android ripoffs, like the Samsung designs mentioned here?


The US government just record the patent. It doesn't make it stand it court...


RE: Seriously?
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 5
Are you running out of arguments or are you just immature?

English is not my primary language... Stop being self centered.


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 5
"Immature" suggests that he'll eventually become "mature". I don't think there's enough time left in the universe's life span for that to happen.


RE: Seriously?
By Omega215D on 7/5/2011 4:11:21 PM , Rating: 5
Probably another one of Tony Swash's friends or the pathetic idiot created another account.


RE: Seriously?
By Tony Swash on 7/6/2011 5:39:29 AM , Rating: 1
If malice or envy were tangible and had a shape, it would be the shape of a boomerang.


RE: Seriously?
By inperfectdarkness on 7/6/2011 7:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
look at his post history. i swear he's an astroturfing account. seriously.


RE: Seriously?
By Tony Swash on 7/6/2011 9:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
look at his post history. i swear he's an astroturfing account. seriously.


Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity


RE: Seriously?
By Anubis on 7/5/2011 12:21:13 PM , Rating: 5
its not a ripoff its a completely different device that shares a common form factor. that’s it

and if you want to get down to it the patent office is broken and im sure paid off because both Nokia & RIM were making small rectangular phones with buttons for years before apple even entered the market


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:15:21 PM , Rating: 3
I remember small rectangles with buttons and screens before Apple even invented the iMac.


RE: Seriously?
By cjohnson2136 on 7/5/2011 4:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
My Handheld Sega game was black rectangle and had buttons, does that mean Sega can sue Apple :)


RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 12:23:01 PM , Rating: 3
You are kidding when you ask questions like that about the US Patent Office right???


RE: Seriously?
By nafhan on 7/5/2011 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure what's crazier: your belief in the infallibility of Apple or the infallibility of the US government...

I'll let you in on a secret: both fail sometimes.


RE: Seriously?
By DigitalFreak on 7/5/2011 1:26:43 PM , Rating: 1
Is that you Pirks?


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/6/2011 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny how you don't see a lot of lawsuits like this in the automotive industry.

It's also funny how a lot of the "features" in cars made within the past 15yrs are really a lot older.

For example the 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham had:

Electrically Operated Trunk
Power Seats with 2 Memory Settings
Separate Front and Rear Seat Climate Control
Air Spring Suspension
Rear Door Interlocks (Locked rear doors while in drive)
Auto Headlight Dimming
Digital Clock

It also cost 2.8x the average yearly wage in 1957... or $13,074.00. While rumor has it was actually costing Cadillac $23,074 to make each one.


RE: Seriously?
By Skelum on 7/5/2011 12:09:25 PM , Rating: 5
You seem to be turning your opinions into facts...

quote:
This is no different than if GM decided it was going to start producing Mustangs or if Ford tried to rip off Cadillac.


Actually it is different... I can buy a black Mustang or a Black Camaro... They are both sports car with 2 doors and 4 wheels...

Putting a mustang horse on the camaro would be wrong for sure... That being said, I don't see, any apple logo on Samsung's phones...


RE: Seriously?
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 12:19:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple was the FIRST smart phone maker to create a large screen, black, rectangular smart phone without a keyboard.


You've obviously never heard of the LG Prada, my friend.

Now, stick your head back up Steve Jobs's ass and forget about reality :)


RE: Seriously?
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Prada was a foreign product and LG did not file for intellectual property rights on its design.</quote? It's known as prior art. If confirmed it invalidates the patent.


RE: Seriously?
By mcnabney on 7/6/2011 1:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Filing a patent isn't required. 'Prior Art' will invalidate the patent of the item that came after.

For example, Apple's patent on multitouch will get thrown out because there is a ton of prior applications of a multitouch interface (going back to the 80s, wow!).


RE: Seriously?
By 91TTZ on 7/5/2011 1:42:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You can argue with me all you want, but the U.S. GOVERNMENT says YOU'RE wrong.


The government hasn't said anything at all. All they did was file a patent that someone requested. Once someone sues in court to question the validity of the patent, a court will then rule whether that patent is valid or not.


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can argue with me all you want, but the U.S. GOVERNMENT says YOU'RE wrong.

You don't know much about anything, do you?


RE: Seriously?
By semiconshawn on 7/5/2011 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 3
The U.S. government says your wrong is your best argument? No more debating for you sir. Besides you can file a patent on/for anything. Billions get approved that shouldnt and millions get thrown out later in lawyer fests like this Read up Mr. high six figure salary. BTW posting your income on a tech site? Bashing someone who posts in a second language? Makes you sound like a kid further discrediting your arguments. Sounds more like Apple desperation to me. Android is killing Apple in overall sales on smart phones. No one maker has to be more profitable. The success of them all is what Apple is finding hard to compete with. Overly broad patent will be tossed.


RE: Seriously?
By themaster08 on 7/6/2011 2:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW posting your income on a tech site? Bashing someone who posts in a second language? Makes you sound like a kid further discrediting your arguments.
Sounds to me like the absolute epitome of an Apple customer.


RE: Seriously?
By Fritzr on 7/5/2011 5:58:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Prada was a foreign product and LG did not file for intellectual property rights on its design.

The iPhone design is unique and distinctive. Samsung, above all others has emulated it (why do you think its sales are pretty decent?).

*The iPhone is a unique design
*The earlier phone with same design doesn't exist because it wasn't made or registered in the USA

ROTFLMAO

The Prada was manufactured and sold (a million plus seller definitely influences the market)
The Prada was not the first to use this basic form
The iPhone is not unique in reusing this basic form

Apple is not even unique in claiming to be unique in their marketing materials :P


RE: Seriously?
By themaster08 on 7/6/2011 2:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The fact that Apple used such a generic design that had been used a number of times in the past, as their design icon, is their stupid problem.

Try being more creative next time, like with your notification system. Oh wait......


RE: Seriously?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/5/2011 12:26:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
FACT: Apple is the world's largest tech company (MICK, you wrote this yourself... market cap, remember?), and has out innovated its competitors, including Samsung.


Wrong.

Samsung is MUCH larger.
Samsung usually tugs along with 150+ Billion dollars in revenue and over 250k+ employees.
Granted they are a conglomerate corporation, but the majority of their business is tech related.

Apple...
65 Billion dollars in revenue and about only 50k employees in comparison.

It's like the old "wives tales" I used to hear about where Microsoft was the largest company in the world, which was never true, just like that "fact" you claim.


RE: Seriously?
By eldakka on 7/5/2011 9:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung is MUCH larger.


Depends on how you define 'large'.

Generally speaking, when people such as economists, commentators, journalists, politicians, and many others refer to the size of a company, generally they are referring to the market capitalization of a company.

Based on market cap, apple is the larger company.

According to the 2011 FT 500 (http://www.ft.com/intl/reports/ft-500-2011), Apple's market cap is $321B USD (3rd), while Samsungs is $138B USD (36th).

Based on revenues, Samsung is 'bigger', $137B USD vs $65B USD, with their profit's being similar, tho slightly in favour of Samsung at $14,092M USD vs $14,013M USD.

Maybe the writer should have stated by what metric they were defining large by, but you can generally assume when appearing in journalistic sources they are usually referring to market cap.


RE: Seriously?
By Alexstarfire on 7/6/2011 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Market cap is a pretty useless metric for judging the size of a company. Practically any other metric is a much better indicator.


RE: Seriously?
By nafhan on 7/5/2011 12:27:27 PM , Rating: 5
FACT: The LG Prada looks a little like the iPhone and came out a year earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada). Honestly, it's just an obvious design for a device that's mostly a touchscreen.

Also, your car analogy would only work if Sammy was saying their phones ARE iPhones. Cars from different manufactures often look very similar.

FACT: You've got it backwards: Apple's lawsuits actually kicked off the whole fracas.

FACT: Apple has the largest market cap of any tech company... And that's the only thing you can say definitively based on market cap numbers. Plus this has no direct bearing on the lawsuit.

FACT: Number of apps or developers has nothing to do with a lawsuit over patents.

FACT: Number of phones sold has nothing to do with a patent lawsuit.

FACT: Profitability has nothing to do with a patent lawsuit.


RE: Seriously?
By Commodus on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming that the story you linked to was the one that you earlier said "you wrote"?

Again just because you subscribe to the Daily Tech method of reporting old news and claiming to be first doesn't mean anything at all.

Here is an Engadget article about the LG KE-850(Prada) dated a full month before your own article.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-to...


RE: Seriously?
By Commodus on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A pre-announcement IF Award isn't a launch -- it just means LG had largely settled on the design

Which means it's "prior art", which means Apple is wrong.


RE: Seriously?
By nafhan on 7/5/2011 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
The important thing is that the design is fairly obvious and Apple wasn't the only thinking of it.

The example you give of convincing someone that a product is a decent substitute is fine. It's convincing someone that a product IS another product that's not acceptable.
quote:
Apple started the lawsuits, but anyone who believes pure-as-snow, innocent Samsung was attacked solely because its products were just too good is kidding himself.
I believe Apple started the suit in order to slow down adoption of a competing product by using a legal tactic that's well suited to the current legal and competitive environment. Believing any large business is "white as snow" is silly...


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The example you give of convincing someone that a product is a decent substitute is fine.

Exactly. Are companies supposed to pretend that the market leader isn't the market leader?


RE: Seriously?
By Meinolf on 7/5/2011 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 5
Fact: Fanboys are Cazy


RE: Seriously?
By 91TTZ on 7/5/2011 1:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is no different than if GM decided it was going to start producing Mustangs or if Ford tried to rip off Cadillac.


Yes, this is different than your example. Samsung never claimed to be producing iPhones. Your analogy would work if you said that GM decided to produce a competitor to the Mustang that was rear wheel drive, sporty, and contained a V8 engine.


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
GM would never do that. The vaunted and blessed U.S. GOVERNMENT will swoop in and save the day!


RE: Seriously?
By Myrandex on 7/5/2011 1:36:44 PM , Rating: 1
Are you serious? The original iPhone was launched in July 2008. The HTC Touch, a "black slab" touchscreen phone with a soft keyboard and one button at the bottom in the same position as Apple's iPhone home key, launched in June 2007. HTC was almost a year early with their model.

Jason Cook


RE: Seriously?
By Myrandex on 7/5/2011 2:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oops was wrong, July 2008 was when the 3G was available. June 2007 is when the original was released, which is still the same month as the HTC Touch.

Jason Cook


RE: Seriously?
By BZDTemp on 7/5/2011 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FACT: Apple is the world's largest tech company (MICK, you wrote this yourself... market cap, remember?), and has out innovated its competitors, including Samsung.


Oh, please. Market value is just one way to measure and it tells nothing about innovation.

Here is one example on how Samsung is much more than Apple. Today they signed a contract for two drillships worth $1.3 Billion which Maersk has ordered. It takes selling a lot of phones to hit $1.3 Billion and that is just an example.

A possible way to measure innovation might be to count patents. Lets look at 2010 which should be a great year for Apple and see how they did. With regards to US patents Apple was awarded 563 patents making them number 46 on the list however in all fairness they did much better than the year before (in fact up 94%). But now guess where Samsung came in? No, they were not number 1 they only came second behind IBM still Samsung was awarded 4,551 US patents. Look at those numbers and included that Samsung is: A. Is routinely found at the top of the annually awarded patent list. And B. Not a US company but based in South Korea where they do a lot we don't even see like for instance how South Korea is way ahead with the advanced use of phones and tech as a whole.


RE: Seriously?
By WinProcs on 7/5/2011 6:09:05 PM , Rating: 1
MacDevDude wrote:
Apple was the FIRST smart phone maker to create a large screen, black, rectangular smart phone without a keyboard. As is proper it filed for design protections, under U.S. laws and was granted those protections.

What about the O2 XDA2? I had one of these in 2004. It was made by HTC.
http://www.gsmarena.com/o2_xda_ii-697.php

So they didn't have it in black.


RE: Seriously?
By bupkus on 7/6/2011 9:43:12 AM , Rating: 1
In other news...
Ford Motors reportedly is suing Toyota, Honda, General Motors, Toys-R-Us and Amish carriage makers for violating their patent on the wheel.

Quoted Mr. Blockhead, attorney for Ford Motors, Inc.: "We don't mind if they use wheels, just as long as they're not round."


RE: Seriously?
By hanmen on 7/8/2011 2:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best

sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: Seriously?
By hanmen on 7/8/2011 2:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best

sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: Seriously?
By Motoman on 7/5/2011 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
...what do you expect from Apple? Rational behavior?


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/5/2011 12:55:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Internet is full of stories of Samsung failures and product glitches, their quality is abysmal.


*GASP!*

Have you looked at Samsung's Televisions? They're pure sex appeal.
Wait... Your God/Master of the fruitiest fruits doesn't make Televisions!
Heck the Hardware in the Macs, iPad, iPhone and iPod aren't even of Apple design, they're designs that are done by other companies. (CPU = Intel/Arm, Screens = Samsung etc')

All they do is put it into a neat cute wittle package and put a shiny sticker on it for you to worship before going to bed.

/end Trolling the troll.


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By DigitalFreak on 7/5/2011 1:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
All they do is put their TV a neat cute package and put a shiny sticker on it for you to worship before going to bed.


Not a good comeback, considering that Apple sources a lot of it's parts from Samsung.


RE: Seriously?
By 91TTZ on 7/5/2011 1:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Have you looked at Macs? They're pure sex appeal.


No, they're smug and not much else.

quote:
The hardware in the Samsung TVs isn't even of Samsung design, they're designs that are done by other companies. (chips made by TI, capacitors made by Nippon Co, etc)


That's pretty much how the entire industry works. Nobody builds the whole thing from scratch. When a company makes a chip, such as a scaler or a mpeg decoder chip, they release a reference design which others can copy. They do this to make it easier to incorporate their chips into a design. And what electronics maker makes their own resistors and capacitors to use in a product? Do you think Apple makes discrete components to use in its products? have you ever seen an Apple brand capacitor?

quote:
All they do is put their TV a neat cute package and put a shiny sticker on it for you to worship before going to bed.


This is what everyone does, including Apple. When you buy a MacBook pro, do you think you're getting an Apple CPU, Apple memory, Apple hard discs, etc? They use commonly available components just like everyone else does.


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's the Samsung stuff that is smug and not much else.
quote:
That's pretty much how the entire industry works
Stevo is too dumb to get it.
quote:
This is what everyone does, including Apple
Poor dumbo Stevo, boohoo.


RE: Seriously?
By nafhan on 7/5/2011 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's the Samsung stuff that is smug
Considering how much Apple stuff has been built on top of Samsung technology and components over the years... this is actually correct.


RE: Seriously?
By 91TTZ on 7/5/2011 2:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
Can you at least reply to my points instead of dodging them or replying with a smart comment?


RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'll reply!

I like how Apple uses a lot of IPS screens. Probably IPS screens made by Samsung, I'm guessing. Man, those Samsung IPS screens in Apple products are great.


RE: Seriously?
By silverblue on 7/5/2011 5:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung don't make IPS screens, AFAIK; that's LG. Samsung are interested in manufacturing such screens, however.

Happy to be proven wrong, but why would Samsung manufacture IPS and SAMOLED?


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 4:38:57 PM , Rating: 1
Why me and not Stevo? He started this round of BS, so please relate to him as the original perpetrator of lies, not me. Thank you.


RE: Seriously?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/5/2011 4:30:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stevo is too dumb to get it.


Oh I get it Pirks... You love your God/Steve jobs so much that, you wish you could marry him and play "hide the salami" several times a day.
I TOTALLY understand.

Sorry I was to "dumb" to pick up on that...

/Throwing around more childish insults to troll the troll.

u mad yet?


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's you who wants to suck that fat yummy Korean Samsung cock so much, you can't stop craving for it can you?

Confess your sins son and be saved!

u mad yet? troll some more, it's fun :)))


RE: Seriously?
By nikon133 on 7/5/2011 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon guys, give Pirks a bit more breathing space.

He cannot work out all the repplies so quickly so he is just parrot-ing what others said. Hardly any fun.

One at the time, please.


RE: Seriously?
By Omega215D on 7/5/2011 3:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
iFruit (no not the one in FoxTrot comics but the one from GTA IV).

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/01/flickr-find-grand-t...


RE: Seriously?
By Camikazi on 7/5/2011 6:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
You realize that is pretty much what Apple does too right? All Apple does is buy everything from other companies, they even have other companies put it together, hell they don't even put the shiny sticker on there another company does it for them and then they sell it.


RE: Seriously?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 6:43:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You realize that is pretty much what Apple does too right?
I know Samsung does the same stuff as Apple, problem is Stevo's skull is too thick to understand this. Hopefully we'll cure him together eh? ;)


RE: Seriously?
By BZDTemp on 7/6/2011 2:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
The internet is full of stories about products failing by any major companies on the globe. With a company making so many things like Samsung and touching so many people there are bound to be some unhappy customers.

Also just seeing the amount of BS being posted here it's clear some Apple fanboys aren't beyond fabricating lies about Samsung.

I like my Apple but it is getting more and more so that I am keeping that fact to my self, since I'd rather not be seen as a fan because they are often both sad and crazy.


RE: Seriously?
By Anubis on 7/5/2011 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 3
yep it is

samsung is a threat sue them

nearly every phone made today is small black and a rectangle with buttons on it


RE: Seriously?
By ipay on 7/5/2011 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nearly every phone made today is small black and a rectangle with buttons on it
Exactly. That's why Apple "recently" unveiled the major revolution in smartphones to date: iPhone4 WHITE.


RE: Seriously?
By Anubis on 7/5/2011 12:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
there is a white droid and a white galaxy s

and actually both were out before the white iphone


RE: Seriously?
By Commodus on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying Apple doesn't have anything to brag about? That's just... silly. Even for you.


RE: Seriously?
By chiadog on 7/5/2011 12:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
iPhone looks unsurprisingly like my PDA from almost 15 years ago. It is black, has a screen that covers the front, some buttons, and runs apps. Someone please smack some sense into Apple's lawyers.


RE: Seriously?
By Solandri on 7/5/2011 3:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung also had samples of this puppy out before the iPhone. Granted it's an MP3 player, but proof that Samsung was going for the "thin, black, rectangular" look before Apple even showed up for the party.

http://anythingbutipod.com/2006/11/more-details-on...
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/30/samsungs-yp-k3-...


RE: Seriously?
By robinthakur on 7/7/2011 6:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
I lol'ed when I read this. It's not that they are small rectangular black devices with buttons, it is that as of the Galaxy S range, Samsung started to ape the iPhone 3GS design quite obviously, even down to the choice of sync cable. Whilst one might suppose that it's fairly obvious, in hindsight, that a touch screen phone looks like the iPhone, if you recall what phones looked like before the iPhone like all those HTC Windows devices, there's a gulf of difference. Anyone who doesn't see this needs their eyes testing. Button placement, design of the back, curved corners, individually they are small commonalities, but together, it's very obvious that they were copied.

This was a deliberate tactic, I feel because Samsung could see people passing on their devices, in favour of the iPhone at the time. However since then, the Galaxy S2 can proudly stand toe to toe with the iPhone, so it's sad that they feel they need to copy Apple's design so closely. I think a lot of this stems from a difference in approach between the west and Asia to Intellectual property specifically relating to design.


RE: Seriously?
By hanmen on 7/8/2011 2:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best

sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: Seriously?
By hanmen on 7/10/2011 9:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: Seriously?
By GotThumbs on 7/11/2011 3:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
The only true winner with all these legal arm wrestling matches........The Lawyers. Greedy Bas ards make money running up the hours meter. I say we start exporting all the lawyers and get back to using common sense.


Pure Conjecture
By tdawg on 7/5/2011 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple resorted to lawsuits and legal harassment in desperation, after its smart phones proved incapable of competing effectively with Android.


This seems completely out of place in this article. There's no way this claim can be made any authority. I dislike Apple as a company as much as the next guy, but the iPhone is clearly the best-selling single smartphone on the market, at least in the United States. It takes all of the available Android phones to top the iPhone in terms of operating systems in service.

Apple is likely suing to protect their sole device design, which is iconic to Apple, they'd argue. While I think it's ridiculous to have a design patent granted to the iPhone that covers "thin black rectangle with buttons", Apple's just protecting their brand.

Claiming Apple is suing because it can't effectively compete with Android is outlandish; Apple is competing strongly with a single device against an army of hundreds.




RE: Pure Conjecture
By xti on 7/5/2011 11:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
imma need you to stop making sense.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pure Conjecture
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 12:29:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
While I don't understand why you would say you dislike a highly successful company like Apple
Just because they're successful, that doesn't mean they are an ethically, morally and environmentally responsible company, whose products fit all.

Their aggressive, elitist, inconsiderate, petty and authoritarian business practices are what put most people here off purchasing their products.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pure Conjecture
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pure Conjecture
By xthetenth on 7/5/2011 1:20:50 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe it's that the most distinctive feature of apple products is making their owners feel like it's acceptible to suck themselves off in public. Seriously, it isn't acceptable to butt into an argument just to give one side a substance-free literary blowjob. That's the sort of airs that really annoy rational people.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pure Conjecture
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
most are normal guys like you and me

If you're online and arguing this topic, you're not normal.

Most Apple customers don't care about defending Apple, because most customers of anything don't care about defending it.

Of those that DO speak up for Apple, they tend to have a greater fervency and blind passion for the subject than those fans that do speak up about other subjects they enjoy. Only vocal sports fans are as stubborn or prone to flights of fancy or mystical rationalizations.

What Apple is doing in this case is disgusting. They could have shat pure gold for a thousand years before, and continue doing so a thousand years hence, doesn't matter, that doesn't change the fact that the company's actions against Samsung are stupid, and certainly highlight the problems with patent corporate warfare these days.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of those that DO speak up for Apple, they tend to have a greater fervency and blind passion for the subject than those fans that do speak up about other subjects they enjoy
This can be said about any brand, you singling out Apple is just a proof that you are another Apple hater, nothing more.
quote:
the company's actions against Samsung are stupid
Hahahahaha. This is NOT up to you to decide. Your opinion is worth zero. We'll see what the court has to say, this is going to be much more interesting than your empty blahblah.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 3:21:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't need some envirowhacko like you telling me what to buy.
Whose telling you what to buy? You asked why would anyone have a dislike for a successful company such as Apple. I merely pointed out possible reasons. Besides, from your attitude of your posts in this article, Apple devices appear to suit you perfectly.

quote:
By your logic any successful business is "bad"... why do you hate the free market so much?
It might come as a surprise to you, but not all successful companies completely shun their social responsibilities. A free market has rules and regulations that it must abide by. Apple's success has somehow made themselves believe they are above all of that.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Commodus on 7/5/2011 1:15:53 PM , Rating: 3
Remember: Samsung is part of a duopoly in Korea along with LG.

Samsung regularly "punishes" companies that dare to offer competition in its home country. KT (a local carrier) mysteriously got sub-par support for its Samsung phones the moment it was clear the iPhone was clobbering the Omnia in sales. And as arguably the biggest of the "blessed" corporations in Korea, it can get away with corruption and influence of the kind that brought Enron down in the US.

There's an anti-Apple myth that persists: that Apple, and only Apple, can do wrong, while everyone it competes against is a bastion of openness, sunshine, and light. So while you go and buy a Galaxy S II in protest, just remember how Samsung is squashing choice in its home country.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By themaster08 on 7/5/2011 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was merely pointing out why people may dislike Apple. That doesn't mean I support Samsung, their business practices, or purchase their smartphones either.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's an anti-Apple myth that persists: that Apple, and only Apple, can do wrong, while everyone it competes against is a bastion of openness, sunshine, and light.

I think the fact that you perceive that says more about your own myopia than any attitude or "myth that persists" actually present anywhere of significance.


RE: Pure Conjecture
By nafhan on 7/5/2011 5:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only way "Apple, and only Apple, can do wrong" is a myth is if myth = "something I just made up to make myself feel better". (FYI, generally, that's not what people mean by myth).

Arguing that Apple can do wrong is very different from arguing that only Apple can do wrong. Have you really seen someone on here saying that Apple is the only company that can do wrong? I haven't, and I also haven't seen anyone arguing that Samsung is a bastion of light (maybe you should cut back on the World of Warcraft :).


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Strunf on 7/5/2011 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feel sorry for Apple they may be alone but they have a fanbase much bigger than anyone else, also have you heard the saying divide to conquer!
On the Android real, you have dozens of brands and each brand has dozens of smartphones, it may seem a good thing to have a choice but in the end it only makes harder to chose the right phone. The worst point with the Android phones however is that you can't update it to the latest android OS when available... I still see plenty of phones on version 2.1 and 2.2!


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 5:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The worst point with the Android phones however is that you can't update it to the latest android OS when available
That's not the Android's problem, that's the problem of idiots who chose to buy second grade crap instead of Google Nexus which is officially supported by Google with timely updates for years after release. I wouldn't blame Android for the idiocy of those who buy crap instead of proper hardware. Would you?


RE: Pure Conjecture
By Strunf on 7/6/2011 7:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
Idiots? idiots for buying phones with better hardware and better looks? idiots for thinking that Samsung, LG, HTC and the like should at least update there less than a year old phones? even the 3GS has the latest iOS...


So you assume copying is ok?
By vision33r on 7/5/2011 11:20:30 AM , Rating: 1
Of all the Android phones, Samsung phones and UI is the closest to copying iOS. Korean engineering in general spends on manufacturing and less in R&D. Why invent, just copy.

Is it coincidence that TouchWhiz UI is so similar to iOS?

Right now Android is ripe for litigation because Google did not patent nor licensed any tech on the get go and you see patent awarded to Apple because their filing was done before the iPhone was released.

Soon, the biggest lawsuit will be filed against all Android device maker because Google copied many parts of iPhone after Apple's iPhone release and behind the patent filings.




RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By DigitalFreak on 7/5/2011 11:24:46 AM , Rating: 5
The only reason Apple got a patent is on this is because the people approving applications at the USPTO are morons.


RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By xti on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
By Ghost42 on 7/5/2011 12:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much.


RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By vision33r on 7/5/2011 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
It was filed 3 years ago before the iPhone was available. Google didn't file anything because they didn't know the iphone had multitouch, gyroscopes, etc.

Apple was awarded because their filing was ahead of others and 1st to launch such a phone.

So Samsung invented this multitouch touch screen phone concept?


RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By Omega215D on 7/5/2011 3:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
What's with the influx of Apple fanboys? At this rate it'll become another Engadget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch

Apple provoked this little flame war when they aired fraudulent Macs vs PCs and their smuggy attitude. Just throwing it out there to explain much of the Apple hate.


RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By SPOOFE on 7/5/2011 3:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly: Apple isn't all that different from other companies in actual practice, they just differ in specific tactics and design.

Their products can fail, like any other company's. Their product support can falter, like any other company's. Their products can come with major glitches or bugs with hackneyed fixes provided, just like any other company's.

Yet Apple isn't treated by the paying public or the media as "any other company". Apple has deliberately and expertly crafted a market presence that's "special". Crafting such a facade works for some consumers, and not so well with others, and often foments antagonism in that latter case.


RE: So you assume copying is ok?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 5:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple has deliberately and expertly crafted a market presence that's "special"
They just know more than anyone else how to attract the consumer and how to make big money fast in the consumer electronics market, this is the only special thing about them.
quote:
Crafting such a facade works for some consumers, and not so well with others, and often foments antagonism in that latter case.
Yeah, a lot of basement dwellers (Motoman type folks) love to harp on the rich ones and scream about them being bad guys and shit. They screamed about MS, Apple, Google, what not. Successful rich company is always a big juicy target. "Crafting facade" my ass... you better start your own business and try to craft shit like this before babbling about others, loser.


Um...
By adiposity on 7/5/2011 2:12:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple claims Samsung broke the law by selling a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons.


While I completely disagree with this lawsuit and hope Apple loses, this is a deliberately biased summary of what Apple is doing. Nowhere does Apple say they are suing because it is a black, thin, rectangular phone with buttons. They are suing because Samsung has created a phone that is nearly identical to the iPhone in those particular aspects.

Again, I certainly believe Samsung has the right to do what they did. But let's not create strawmen when there are plenty of real issues to debate here.

There are many thin, black, rectangular phones with buttons that are not the subject of lawsuits...




RE: Um...
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 2:19:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
this is a deliberately biased summary of what Apple is doing
Mick's anti-Apple rhetoric is always biased because he's in this for $$$, he wants more hits, more clicks, more trolls - hence the bias and lies in his posts. Not news exactly. Are you new to DT?


RE: Um...
By SPOOFE on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um...
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um...
By inperfectdarkness on 7/6/2011 8:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
you're really not helping your case here. if there's a rational argument to be had on behalf of apple, then present it. apple deserves to have logical, sane, rational fans defend it with formal, concrete thinking and analysis. it certainly needs some to save it from the deluge of public backlash against the uppity, pretentious, overpriced, lackluster-performance image that apple has with the techno-literate crowd.

unfortunately, apple usually seems to have only two types of fans, those who remain quiet....and those who (while quite verbal) cannot assemble any compelling argument for apple.

you see, rational debate is where facts and figures are exhanged by both parties--and conjecture, bias and irrationality are exposed. apple doesn't have many (if any) proponents that can engage in rational debate. i can't say if this is due to lack of trying or lack of ability to do so--but it is quite noteworthy.

on the plus side, you're clearly a troll, and not an astroturfer like macdevdude; although that really only like the difference between a pet rock and a chia pet.


RE: Um...
By Pirks on 7/6/2011 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
How can you have rational debate with mentally ill Apple haters like Motoman? My approach always works since I talk the language of the opponent. If he's an idiot I'd never talk rational, since talking rational with an idiot is a waste of time.


RE: Um...
By CrazyBernie on 7/6/2011 10:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
So... are you getting a slice of Mick's profits? You seem to show up and fan the flames quite often.


RE: Um...
By macdevdude on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
WOT?
By ph0tek on 7/5/2011 11:19:31 AM , Rating: 4
"Three of the patents ... lay claim to the shape, color, and button placement on the iPhone case."

How can you patent such a generic shape or button placement, and especially a COLOR?




RE: WOT?
By DanNeely on 7/5/2011 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 3
Good question. The appearance/packaging stuff where Apple's case appears strongest seems like it should be a trademark.


RE: WOT?
By xti on 7/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: WOT?
By Anubis on 7/5/2011 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
actually the SGS2 has 3 buttons. in the version with the larger center button it is flanked on either side by touch buttons


RE: WOT?
By Motoman on 7/5/2011 12:00:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's very naive to think that other phone makers didn't purposely do this just to piggy back off the iPhone "visual identity".


...it's far more naive for you to be falling for Apple's BS here. The general shape, size, and layout of all cellphones is dictated by their usage. Or do you honestly expect someone to be producing cellphones with giant spikes coming out of them, or that are perfect round spheres maybe?


RE: WOT?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: WOT?
By flyingpants1 on 7/6/2011 1:25:04 PM , Rating: 1
Please don't downvote the only guy who makes this solid point. Do you really think the words "Hey this will make it look like a bigger iPhone 4!" never crossed the mind of anyone at Samsung?

That doesn't mean it's patent infringement, however if you make a competing product with a near-identical shape, color and button-layout, you are open yourself up to this kind of BS.

No point, just saying..


RE: WOT?
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/5/2011 11:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
I hope I get to see a patent on the wheel in my life time, at that point I can rest assured permanently leaving the US is in my best interest.


Okay
By room200 on 7/5/2011 12:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Where are all the politicians screaming about frivolous lawsuits?




RE: Okay
By vision33r on 7/5/2011 1:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
Because, it's a Korean vs American company. Which side do you think the US politicians are behind?


RE: Okay
By Taft12 on 7/5/2011 4:17:33 PM , Rating: 3
They're both global multinationals with no loyalty to any country (and more power than US politicians and judges).

No home-field advantage.


RE: Okay
By silverblue on 7/5/2011 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
Notwithstanding the fact that Apple doesn't make its products in the States...


RE: Okay
By FITCamaro on 7/5/2011 2:55:04 PM , Rating: 1
Busy spending money we don't have.


But didn't
By Belard on 7/5/2011 2:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
hey.... Samsung has been making their own CEL-PHONES many many years before the iPhone was even an idea at apple.

All cell-phones are thin small plastic devices, always getting thinner and smaller.

Samsung could almost just cut-off APPLE's supply of components.

Lets see... Samsung makes displays, memory, CPUs, controller chips, communications chips... and phones for years. They don't need to copy the iPhone. In no way, do I view my Samsung phone as an iPhone clone.




RE: But didn't
By silverblue on 7/5/2011 5:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's more likely that Samsung developed its smartphones as a counter to LG than Apple, considering their tech-crazy domestic market.


RE: But didn't
By Belard on 7/5/2011 5:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
If there was no ANDROID... There wouldn't be Galaxy or other such phones.

The playing field today would be iOS, Meego, WP6.5 (what 7?), WebOS and RIM-QNX. Android has allowed a lot of players onto the market.

Apple needs to spend their time on their own tech... then again, this is business is usual with the big guys. Once iOS5 and iPhone 5 comes out later this year, they'll feel better about themselves.

Afterall, many features on Apple products do come from others.


RE: But didn't
By nstott on 7/7/2011 12:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I hate Apple, I have to disagree. The iPhone really pushed Samsung's rapid development of smart phones. There was a lot of talk within the company about developing iPhone competitors while I was there. They definitely compete with LG, but Samsung is always considered the top company with LG coming in 2nd place as a cheaper alternative in Korea. Furthermore, LG smart phones were such a dismal failure that the president of the LG cell phone company within the conglomerate was canned not too long ago, although they have improved since then.

LG has done a great job with marketing in the US to make themselves seem more on par and sometimes even better than Samsung, although the perception has shifted more to the favor of Samsung in recent years even in the US. While most Koreans disagree with me, I think LG might overtake Samsung for the top spot some day in part due to Samsung's blind arrogance against their local competition.


RE: But didn't
By NES on 7/7/2011 2:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
Case in point from today on DT:

LG Cuts Smartphone Sales Estimates for Quarter
http://www.dailytech.com/LG+Cuts+Smartphone+Sales+...


You can't patent the look of a device...
By Taft12 on 7/5/2011 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
Each of the patents in question reads about as follows:

quote:
CLAIM The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.


I'm no patent researcher, but that's not patentable IP! Copyright and trademark law is what this crap should fall under, am I wrong?




By DigitalFreak on 7/5/2011 1:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're not. It's another example of how f*cked up the patent office is.


By theapparition on 7/5/2011 2:54:36 PM , Rating: 3
Sadly, you are wrong.

You can get a patent on the look of an object. This is called a Design Patent. This prevents competitors from directly copying the physical form.

Look it up on Wikipedia. It does a decent job explaining what a Design patent covers....and doesn't. For example, the Coca-Cola bottle is iconic, and was patented. This however did not prevent Pepsi Co from making a clear bottle with similar shape, however they just couldn't use the ridges other features that Coke defined. Design patents don't let you patent common objects. You can't patent a thin rectangle with screen and a button. You can patent a rectangle that has certain dimensions, button placement and overall look. The intent is to prevent competitors from directly coping the "look". Keep in mind.....Directly copying. They can't stop everyone from making a bottle because Coke defined the ridges in the bottle.

The burden on recieving a Design patent is signifigantly lower than a technology patent. I know, because I have several. Because this burden of proof is so low, courts are very apt to overturning said patents. Show the court one prior artwork and it's game over.

Overall, this patent lawsuit will go nowhere. Prior art dictates otherwise. There were black phones before iPhone. There were full screen touch devices before iPhone. Thinness isn't definable. My old Dell Axim x51V was black, had a full touch screen with single large button centered on the front face below the screen. WinMo phones were similar.

Despite the fanboy responses both ways here, issuance of a patent by the US means little. Apple has now taken the step to defend it's patent, which IMHO is a terrible move. Invalidation of thier patent could open the floodgates to a swath of clones.

But that's not why Apple is doing this. They want some IP collateral to counter Samsung's claims. Soon, they'll work out an IP sharing arrangement and both companies will be holding hands again.


well
By kleinma on 7/5/2011 11:11:59 AM , Rating: 5
If you can't beat em... sue em...




RE: well
By icanhascpu on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
Desktop Patents
By Tro8 on 7/5/2011 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Let's just be happy that Apple didn't get similar patents for desktop products. Imagine not being able to use a "black rectangular box housing a processor attached to a display device" or "a desktop environment with shortcuts to frequently used applications or files" or even "a small icon that can be moved by a user with a mouse that is used to select various elements of the GUI."

It's just ridiculous that they can get away with patenting such vague and frankly non-inventive processes in the mobile arena.




RE: Desktop Patents
By xti on 7/5/2011 11:50:58 AM , Rating: 1
if the lamp looking iMac sold record bajillions, then more OEM's would have at least tried to make something similar looking.

it isnt the concept of chip in the box, that they are defending.


RE: Desktop Patents
By Goty on 7/5/2011 11:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
*submits three patent applications*

That will be 9 bajillion dollars, please.


Xerox Anyone?
By MrPerez on 7/5/2011 7:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
Apple does not have "unique" ideas like they claim, they re-use others ideas and i hate to admit it market it very well.

Apple stole its great, super secure, never gets viruses OS from Xerox. It just recently also stole its notifications from Android phones.

Apple will file for a patent on ANYTHING they can, Appstore was invented by guess who? US the consumer and they decided to patent.

What is there to Apple? Macs have year+ old hardware and will always be behind and fanbois will say its the latest.

macdevdude your very clueless, i bet when you read about Apple's getting viruses you cried, when you heard Apple servers got hacked you seriously thought about killing yourself.

I buy what i need not what i "like" or everyone else things is cool, I have a Palm Pre still and to my opinion is a MUCH better OS than your lovely iOS, I run Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

Finally i own the iPod Classic 160gig and i iPad 64gig, and thats the ONLY Apple products ill ever own. My 1 year old uses the iPad because its a great toy for children not for adults sorry.




RE: Xerox Anyone?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 7:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I buy what I need not what I like
So you don't like Apple stuff but you need it? Who forces you to buy it then, if you don't like it?


RE: Xerox Anyone?
By Fritzr on 7/6/2011 1:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
You miss his point...

He does buy Apple in those cases where the Apple product is the best product at an affordable price.

I do the same ... the result is that my desktop and laptop computers are generics or an occasional off lease name brand running Microsoft Windows and Linux. These give me a lower hardware cost, high reliability & the largest software selection in most categories

I do own an IPod Touch 64GB due to one Windows software package that had bonus material that was iOS only.

Should I ever have a need for a software package that is Mac only, then I will likely add a Mac to my computer collection.

To put it bluntly I do not buy the brand, I buy the support for the software I use at the best price I can find with quality I find acceptable.

If you are buying the brand without considering price or utility you are very likely wasting money.


Umm...
By FITCamaro on 7/5/2011 2:52:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Three of the patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889 -- lay claim to the shape, color, and button placement on the iPhone case. Apple claims that Samsung's phones look too much like the iPhone in that they are small, thin black rectangles with buttons


I'm going to sue all auto manufacturers because my ancient ancestor invented the wheel which is round and all car wheels are round.




RE: Umm...
By NES on 7/8/2011 12:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, FIT, but I think your patent has long expired... :P


Imitation is suicide
By Tony Swash on 7/5/2011 7:35:18 PM , Rating: 3
Trust yourself. Think for yourself. Act for yourself. Speak for yourself. Be yourself. Imitation is suicide.
Marva Collins




Flash
By Jotatsud1 on 7/5/2011 12:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
On recent news Apple patented the toilet seat, now they will sue our a**




Samsung suing High Court!
By michec on 7/5/2011 3:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung is hardly rolling over, though. In the last week it filed suit against London-based High Court of England and Wales and Italy.


Is proofreading so horrible here that an error this egregious gets through the quality control process? Samsung is suing the High Court of England and Wales and Italy? Really?




LOL.
By silverblue on 7/5/2011 5:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
So Apple are boycotting Samsung components... and putting what in their own products, exactly?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In any case, the last time I checked, Apple's business is worth $7.8B this year to Samsung.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/14/7_8b...

Not a small amount, but I doubt it'd kill Samsung for Apple to boycott their components for a short period of time (just remember how big Samsung is). If anything, the shortage of Apple products will fuel interest in Samsung's own product lines. If this drags on, who says it will really hurt Samsung? Apple seriously cannot expect to source the necessary components to keep throwing out i-devices, and this might even have a knock-on effect on the launch of the iPhone 5 (well, 4GS). Time will tell.

As for this article... well, it's less news and more personal opinion, though I'm not too surprised by that.




cxz
By gagafafa on 7/5/2011 9:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




Being second is easy
By Tony Swash on 7/6/2011 5:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else.  ~Judy Garland




Wankers, all of them
By Mr Joshua on 7/6/2011 1:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
When the F&%k are all these people going to stop this crap and go back to producing products, you know, the core business. Starve the lawyers I say. Tech companies are becoming patent trolls in their own right and the only ones smiling are the lawyers. We, the consumers are the losers as we are the ones funding these jet setting corporate mouthpieces.




By VinnyRandy on 7/9/2011 8:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
How can those so called ideas be patented at the first place. When did Apple "invent" black long rectangle phone? It is just like a remote control. Maybe Logitech should sue Apple.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki