backtop


Print 148 comment(s) - last by Any14Tee.. on Aug 7 at 8:34 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
iPhone/iPad Ban is blocked by Obama's trade ambassador

Apple, Inc. (AAPL), the world's second largest smartphone maker and top tablet maker has scored bans on a number of South Korean rival Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) products over time, due to alleged copyright infringements.  Some of these bans have been overturned in the eleventh hour; others have not.

I. Samsung Almost Scores a Major Win

Samsung, the world's largest smartphone maker and second largest tablet maker, was on the verge of its first court win, scoring a ban on some Apple products.  But in the eleventh hour the ban was overturned by the administration of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama (D) in a decision that was described as a "rare" display of executive power.

The ban had come from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).  The ITC is not a standard federal court, but rather a trade court.  However, it has become an increasingly popular place to try to block competitors infringement-accused products, ever since the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in eBay v. MercExchange [PDF] made it harder to ban products while pursuing infringement claims in the federal court system.

On Tues., June 4, 2013 an ITC panel reversed an early decision and found that Apple was in infringement of a so-called "standards-essential" patent (SEP) owend by Samsung -- U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348.  The patent in question -- "Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system" -- covered device side reception technologies using the 3G CDMA standard, which is used by Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) and Verizon Wireless (a joint venture between Vodafone Group Plc (LON:VOD), Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)).
 
A court ruling threatened to ban older iPhone models (right). [Image Source: Reuters]

The decision did not effect new iPhones/iPads which used baseband chips from Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) (in other words, the iPad 4G, iPhone 4S, and iPhone 5).  Most of the older members of the iPad Line (iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G) and the iPhone line (iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4), however were scheduled to be banned in 60 days (Sun. Aug. 4, 2013).

II. Obama Administration Vetoes Ban on iPads, iPhones

The executive branch (via the U.S. Trade Representative, a presidential appointee) has the privilege to review and reject these decisions anytime during the 60 day window prior to the ban, however, such rejections are historically extremely rare.

In this case however, a rejection did come, on (Sat.) Aug. 3, 2013 in the eleventh hour.

Obama pointin
Obama's trade appointee shot down a ban on iPhones and iPads, despite a preliminary finding of patent infringement by the ITC. [Image Source: Sodahead]

U.S. Trade Ambassador/Representative Michael B. G. Froman informs that after "extensive consultations" he and the President "decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation."

He says the ban would adversely impact the "competive conditions in the U.S. economy and effect U.S. consumers."  He also takes issue with Samsung's ability to purse bans with SEP patents, writing:

I would like to underscore that in any future cases involving SEPS that are subject to voluntary FRAND commitments, the Commission should be certain to (1) to examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and during the formal remedy phase of the investigation before the Commission, including information on the standards-essential nature of the patent at issue if contested by the patent holder and the presence or absence of patent hold-up or reverse hold-up.

The decision by the Obama administration does have basis in the long-standing debate over the value of SEPs (also known as patents licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms) versus general software patents, as it pertains to standards ethics and patent lawsuits in general.

Most agree that it's bad faith to promise to license a patent openly, and then turn around and use that patent to sue rivals.  In many jurisdictions laws -- including the U.S. -- laws or court precedents make it difficult or even illegal to seek bans/punitive damages using FRAND intellectual property (IP).

On the other hand companies like Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Motorola Mobility and Samsung complain that their SEP patents, which they obtained in a spirit of industry cooperation, have been devalued by a broken U.S. intellectual property system and an increasingly adverserial OEM atmosphere.  The value of non-SEP patents in the U.S. has been hyperinflated by rampant bans and infringement suits.  A non-SEP patent on something as trivial as a bounce animation may be 10,000 times more valuable in practice than a standards patent on an in-depth communications technology.

This value difference threatens to kill standards development and acts a terrible anticompetitive club for companies like Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Apple to use to beat their rivals.  But it is the law of the land right now.

III. Apple May be Cashing in on Donations, Close Relationship to Obama

But there also may have been a favoritism factor.  President Obama enjoys a close relationship with Apple and was good friends with its late CEO/co-founder Steven P. Jobs.  Mr. Jobs, not long before his death in Oct. 2011, personally helped President Obama overhaul his campagin strategy, pushing staffers to make greater use of social media channels like Facebook.com, Inc. (FB), Twitter, Google YouTube, and Tumblr.

Apple gave $308,000 USD to President Obama versus $28,000 to Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger [source].  Steve Jobs' widow, Laurene Powell Jobs personally donated $5,000 USD to the Obama campaign [source].  Current CEO Tim Cook donated $2,300 USD to the Obama campaign.

Obama dinner with Steve Jobs
President Obama sits next to late Apple CEO Steve Jobs at a White House dinner on Feb. 2011.  Mr. Jobs was a major donor/campaign advisor to the president. [Image Source: White House]

Donations aside, Mr. Jobs enjoyed a close relationship with the president -- he and Barack Obama met multiple times to discuss technology and the economy.

Apple cheered the administration's decision, telling All Things D, "We applaud the Administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark case. Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way."

Given Apple's financial/campaign ties to the White House, it should be interesting if the Obama administration practices favoritism, or if it treats Apple's upcoming ban of multiple Samsung products to a similar veto.

Samsung's older Galaxy Tab tablets and Nexus smartphones/tablets were found in initial and secondary ITC rulings to infringe on an Apple (non-SE) patent on the process of text selection in a GUI -- U.S. Patent No. 5,949,432 "Method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display."


Nexus 7
Apple may be able to ban Samsung's Nexus and Galaxy Tab devices in August.

The administrative law judges (ALJs) in those rulings suggested a ban; a final ruling is due this month.  Thus a ban could be in place as soon Oct. 2013, if the final ITC ruling upholds the preliminary opinions.

A Samsung spokesperson opined to The Verge on the Obama administration rejection of its iPhone/iPad ban (almost) win:


We are disappointed that the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s decision correctly recognized that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license.

ITC bans work by blocking the shipment of imports, which Congress gave it authority to regulate.  In the past (e.g. the 1950s) such powers were relatively weak, but as the U.S. stopped manufacturing the goods it designs, moving most manufacturing to Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia/Latin America, such bans became a catastrophic blow.  Today an import ban typically equates to a sales ban when applied to a retail product, with a small latency period as already-imported retail chain stock is sold off.

Sources: President Obama's U.S. Trade Ambassador [PDF], Apple's statement via All Things D, Sasmung' statement via The Verge



Comments     Threshold


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

Told you so
By testerguy on 8/4/2013 1:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
The writing was always on the wall since Samsung was abusing FRAND patents in order to seek bans of competitors products, rather than simply seeking the damages they are owed. I've said all along that this was illegitimate and against the intention of FRAND in the first place.

Shady practises, shady company. Add the benchmark fixing, and the multiple instances where they were caught trying to buy fake publicity over the past couple of weeks and you see what Samsung as a company are all about.




RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: Told you so
By ritualm on 8/4/2013 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 3
So we are not allowed to talk about Apple's political contributions towards Democrats/Republicans, when - under today's rules - the only way you can get anything done at Capitol Hill is to buy your way to heaven?

(I don't like the phrase "buy your way", it's too politically correct for you iSheeps, I prefer "bribery" outright because this is exactly what is going on right here. Land of the Free is merely a corporate daycare center.)

Never mind that those donations are highly relevant to the discourse of this Apple v. Samsung spat.

You have to even create a second DT account named "Acupuncture" to drive home pro-Apple rhetoric.

Pathetic.


RE: Told you so
By retrospooty on 8/4/2013 6:59:27 PM , Rating: 3
"So we are not allowed to talk about Apple's political contributions "

You are replying to Testerguy, one of these nutjobs... http://i.imgur.com/hfXERxv.png

So no, you really aren't allowed to talk about Apple at all unless you agree with everything they make, say, and do.

As for the issue, I am against any bans like this. Every company copies the successful ideas of other companies. Apple shouldn't be banned any more than Samsung, HTC or anyone else as they all copy, always have and always will.
Whoever can make the best product at the best price wins. Its called free market. I do find it odd that Obama got involved though. WTF is that all about?


RE: Told you so
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/5/2013 6:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do find it odd that Obama got involved though. WTF is that all about?


Perhaps he's one of these nutjobs... http://i.imgur.com/hfXERxv.png


RE: Told you so
By bug77 on 8/4/2013 4:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole point of standards essential patents is that you necessarily must have them in order to compete in an industry.

Design patents, on the other hand, are not essential , so you are perfectly able to compete in said industry without infringing the work of other companies .

It's quite clear and obvious that where you have no choice but to utilize a patent it should not be held against you, but when you copy the intellectual property of another company where it wasn't essential , you're choosing to copy instead of innovating, which is clearly worse.


In other words, let the suckers standardize communications, protocols, modems, antennas, connectivity and everything else - you get to use them for free, because they're essential for a smartphone. But God forbid someone draws a circle on their smartphone, because you did it first - off with their heads.
That about sums up Apple's philosophy.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
Other way around.

We only accept anything as a standard if the company is prepared to agree to FRAND obligations. Otherwise we simply don't use their technology.

Design patents are where differentiation and innovation happens.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and nobody said they would be free - Samsung is still entitled to reasonable license fees.


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 8:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
Except reasonable fee means zero fee as far as Apple is concerned.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 10:31:33 AM , Rating: 2
Except that's also rubbish.

To quote Apple themselves, in their ITC filing:

quote:
Fourth, although the foregoing considerations apply without regard to Apple’s willingness to negotiate a license, in fact Apple has always been willing to pay Samsung a FRAND royalty for any valid, infringed, and enforceable patent that Samsung has declared essential to the UMTS standard


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 11:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the true story is this:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/05/...

It essentially said non-essential patent is MORE VALUABLE than essential patent. So, Apple, the master of non-essential patents are able to do whatever they want, while inventors of essential patents will be at Apple's mercy, denied non-essential patents on any ground and there is nothing Samsung can do about it. Most importantly, USA government supports this.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 3:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
The error you're making is that you are confusing 'essential' with 'valuable' or 'complex'.

If something is 'essential' - it means it's a given, it's necessary, like wheels on a car. It means that anyone has to be free to use said patent.

Non-essential patents are how companies differentiate their own products and how real innovation happens.

It's quite correct that they are more valuable.


RE: Told you so
By bigbusinessgreed on 8/6/2013 12:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
The reason Samsung said FU apple? Apple wants $30 per samsung device while at the same time offering samsung $0.0049 per iphone. Since samsung refused the offer, Apple can just steal it?

First off, you don't get to set your own obnoxiously low price when buying into someone else's patent, frand or not.

Samsung ignored apples patent infringement until Apple decided to sue Samsung for patents that Apple stole in the first place.

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/10409/201207...


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
while at the same time offering samsung $0.0049 per iphone


This isn't what Apple offered.

quote:
Apple wants $30 per samsung device


Apple can ask for $9,999 per Samsung device if they like. They haven't signed up for any FRAND obligations with the patent in question.

quote:
you don't get to set your own obnoxiously low price when buying into someone else's patent, frand or not


When the patent is FRAND, the holder doesn't get to set their own price either. They are both obligated to pay / receive what is reasonable , not what they want to pay / receive.

quote:
Samsung ignored apples patent infringement until Apple decided to sue Samsung for patents that Apple stole in the first place


Samsung was never going to 'ignore' any patent infringement.


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 8:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
It is more than that. The true philosophy is "it does not matter what the competitors do or what they don't do, we always win in court. So pay up, cease and desist or be sued to oblivion"


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 10:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
You sound like such a ridiculous fanboy.

In this very article you cry foul about Apple not winning cases in Europe (despite bans in Germany on the Galaxy Tab), yet here you claim that they always win.

Apple is on the receiving end of more litigation from its competitors than it dishes out, so you need to educate yourself a little.

And you don't get to decide that 'Apple doesn't have any valid patents' either - that's just ridiculous fanboy nonsense.


RE: Told you so
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2013 2:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You sound like such a ridiculous fanboy.
Oh the irony...........


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 11:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Apple only won in USA. Obviously the government is biased. The latest development has seen South Korean also starting voicing concern. This is going to be a political issue.


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 11:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
"“A huge swath of everybody’s patent portfolio has just been rendered impotent,” said Rodney Sweetland, a patent lawyer with Duane Morris in Washington. Standards patents “are dead on arrival” at the commission now, he said"

Thanks to this veto, this has essentially given patent troll such as Apple more power to abuse the patent system using "non-essential" patents to protect their market and to destroy competitors using lawsuits. Meanwhile, those companies which invent the basic inner workings of the products get nothing, they cannot sell their devices in the market because a "round cornered rectangle" is a very important patent that nobody else can use. Or a icon (which has been in use in general computing since the 80s).


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 3:58:01 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
this has essentially given patent troll such as Apple


You plainly have no idea what a patent troll is.

quote:
abuse the patent system using "non-essential" patents to protect their marke


Look at this sentence. If the patent is non-essential, how does Apple protecting it prevent competitors in the market place? The very definition of non-essential is that you do not necessarily need it in order to compete . There is no 'abuse' in protecting your own innovation and designs when you haven't voluntarily signed up to FRAND commitments .

The 'round cornered rectangle' isn't a patent on round corners, either. It's a design patent on the iPad, meaning that it is inextricably tied to the iPad itself. No damages have been awarded for the infamous patent to which you refer because its applicability is only if someone copies the iPad to such a degree that it becomes impossible to differentiate. The 'rounded rectangle' ignorant label is assigned only by people who don't understand design patents, or the law. The test of infringement happens by reference to the actual iPad and the actual infringing device, not by assessing whether or not the infringing device has rounded corners.

It is beyond belief how many people so biblically ignorant such as yourself feel you're able to pass legal judgement when you haven't got the first idea.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 3:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple only won in USA


More uninformed rubbish. Apple has won in many countries all over the world against Samsung, such as in Germany and in Japan.

You plainly have done no research whatsoever.


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2013 2:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's a sad day when the President can arbitrarily counter the rule of law, and yet again side with his favorite crony companies. Why even have a judicial branch?

I know you're having your little Apple-gasm and "told you so" fest here. But Samsung's legitimately won in court, hate to tell you. The fact that this jerkwad in the White House, illegally, ordered his legal czar to countermand an appointed judge is of no consequence to me.

This trial wasn't over the use of FRAND patents. It was over Apple's refusal to negotiate. FRAND doesn't mean you can just use the technology for years without paying a dime. Which is what Apple has done, and continues to do.

As far as "Shady practices", please, Apple remains at the top of that list. Benchmark fixing? Uhhh like Apple did with the G5 Mac's? They wrote the book on shady benchmarking practices.

What about the E-book fixing? Yeah that wasn't "shady" at all. Tester you need to get a life.


RE: Told you so
By timothyd97402 on 8/4/2013 4:20:30 PM , Rating: 5
Have it your way by all means. The law was flouted. Everyone cry foul.

Except that the very same law establishes, as part of the process, a final review by the U.S. Trade Representative.

In his decision the USTR made clear that Samsung could still pursue their patent royalty claims in court as they should have done in the first place.


RE: Told you so
By Tony Swash on 8/4/2013 8:06:09 PM , Rating: 1
Obama is the president of the USA not the world, his job is to look after the interests of the USA. The situation from the point of view of that job function is pretty clear cut. A foreign owned company with a track record of copying the designs and products of what is considered to be one of the most innovative of the leading American tech companies has managed to get a US supervisory body to ban the import of a flag ship product of that leading American tech company. Vetoing that is a no brainer.

If Obama didn't veto he would be failing in his job of protecting the interests of the USA. This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and the realities of what national leaders do, of what their job description is. Imagine standing for election anywhere in the world on a platform of not putting the national interests first. Duh!


RE: Told you so
By retrospooty on 8/4/2013 9:08:09 PM , Rating: 4
"A foreign owned company with a track record of copying the designs and products "

Apple is a US based company. To be clear Apple copies from both foreign and domestic companies, whichever suits the needs of the day, just like any company.


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2013 10:12:10 PM , Rating: 4
As if we needed proof Tony was off the deep end for Apple lol. It's the personal JOB of the President to defend Apple from foreign competition in the free market!? Just..WOW!


RE: Told you so
By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 12:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
in his world everything is a threat. Google is a threat to Apple Samsung is a threat to Apple, to him it's a war. To the rest of the world it's just business and politics. You and I and Tony as well all know that if Obama came down on Samsung's side his tone would be very different... "politics has no place in business" and "how much did Samsung contribute to get this done?" "A travesty"

I personally don't think anything should be banned other than the current patent system entirely, especially when it comes to software patents.


RE: Told you so
By Dorkyman on 8/5/2013 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow...I never thought I'd see someone make the comment that "it's okay for Messiah to screw Samsung because Apple is an American company."

Pretty pathetic.


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2013 10:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The situation from the point of view of that job function is pretty clear cut. A foreign owned company with a track record of copying the designs and products of what is considered to be one of the most innovative of the leading American tech companies


AHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Oh my god, how can people STILL make that accusation after all this?

quote:
If Obama didn't veto he would be failing in his job of protecting the interests of the USA.


Ironic you used the word "protecting". Because that's at the key of every pro-Apple ruling to date. Pure protectionism.

quote:
Imagine standing for election anywhere in the world on a platform of not putting the national interests first. Duh!


AHAHAHA!!!

Yes because compared to all our problems, stopping some old iPhone models from being banned would rank right up there at the top!

Ironically this would hurt China far more than America. For all your Apple is 'murican bluster.


RE: Told you so
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/4/2013 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The writing was always on the wall since Samsung was abusing FRAND patents in order to seek bans of competitors products, rather than simply seeking the damages they are owed.
True but the real problem is the broken court/IP system.

When the courts rely on non-expert juries to dole out anticompetive product bans and multi-millions to billions of dollars in damages like candy to hyperlitigious OEMs, it inflates the value of non-standards patents to insane rates.

That's the real problem.

Let's say FRAND settlements/licensing is "reasonable". The real problem is the unreasonable rate of settlements/licensing for non-FRAND.

This is particularly true when the patent in question is something as trivial as a graphical flourish (e.g. a bounce animation) or a minor variation to a common GUI element (e.g. a special text box).

Reasonably you might think that since a FRAND patent was much more complex, it would be worth more. But, okay, there's a risk involved with licensing & lawsuits -- you could use -- so maybe there should be a greater reward for non-FRAND, regardless of the subject matter compexity/importance.

But greater from a reasonable perspective might be 10x the value, not TEN THOUSAND times the value -- which is the current state, when you consider the dollar value of lost sales and damages.

Samsung is abusing the system (by suing using FRAND) after the fact to try to compensate for Apple's abuses (exploiting the hyperinflation of non-FRAND as an anticompetitive tactic). Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is important to recognize that Apple shot first.
quote:
hady practises, shady company. Add the benchmark fixing, and the multiple instances where they were caught trying to buy fake publicity over the past couple of weeks and you see what Samsung as a company are all about.
Fair enough, but what about Apple photoshopping Galaxy devices in court documents or modifying them with custom launchers to deceptively make them look (both physically and from a UI perspective) like Apple's products, versus the stock appearance?

Apple has done that in multiple jurisdictions.

That seems a direct attempt to mislead jurors.

Or what about Apple writing a memo to employees telling them to lie and feign ignorance about Mac malware? That sounds like a horrible, anticonsumer thing to do right?

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Orders+Technicians+...

Maybe Samsung is shady, but Apple is as shady or more so.


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2013 3:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Great post Jason, but as far as Tester goes, nothing you could possibly say would matter lol.

If Samsung is "abusing" FRAND, than so is Apple: by refusing to pay for their use.

quote:
Samsung is abusing the system (by suing using FRAND) after the fact to try to compensate for Apple's abuses (exploiting the hyperinflation of non-FRAND as an anticompetitive tactic). Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is important to recognize that Apple shot first.


Good point as well.


RE: Told you so
By Mitch101 on 8/4/2013 7:46:22 PM , Rating: 1
Im sure Samsung would never play foul

Samsung Accused of Paying Developers for Promotion
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-marketing...

Samsung allegedly boosting benchmark performance
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/samsung-all...


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: Told you so
By Mitch101 on 8/4/2013 9:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Go READ the code on Anandtech which explicitly increases the speed for benchmarks. Id say that's more than allegedly.

Aren't you paid by Samsung? I haven't seen you refute it care to go on record?


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2013 9:58:00 PM , Rating: 1
Find me a tech company out there that hasn't fudged a few benchmarks, and I have some ocean front property in Detroit to sell ya.

Seriously you can't really take the high road here when your Daily Tech's biggest Microsoft advocate. Shall we start making a list of all of their sins? Not that I have time on a Sunday night to do so, I would need about a week.

quote:
Aren't you paid by Samsung? I haven't seen you refute it care to go on record?


LOL!!! I am not, nor ever have been, paid by Samsung. Nor do I own any Samsung stock. I don't even own a Samsung phone or tablet! I have refuted your pathetic accusation plenty, I just don't bother anymore.


RE: Told you so
By Mitch101 on 8/5/2013 1:01:55 AM , Rating: 1
I find it amazing that Samsung has clearly been caught with their hand in the cookie jar the code is explicit and yet the defense is well everyone does it? It fraudulent and deceptive behavior and it may have influenced someone's purchase decision. They need to be penalized for it like everyone else.

Microsoft pays a huge fee for doing it even if they don't do it the EU decides they need a cut, Apple pays a fee for doing it. But don't pick on Samsung because the rest of them do it?

Do I think the punishment fits the crime. No. Much in the same way I don't think Microsoft deserved the fines they received at the hands of the EU. Is this a bit extreme YES but maybe just maybe this is the kind of extreme to clean up this market so Everyone isn't doing it.


RE: Told you so
By Reclaimer77 on 8/5/2013 8:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about the EU bullcrap. I'm on record as being against that.

Microsoft has done plenty of wrong right here in the US, that is also on record. So yeah, you can beat up on Samsung if you want, but you'll come off like a hypocrite.

I'm not defending Samsung for allegedly optimizing software for a benchmark. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.


RE: Told you so
By tamalero on 8/6/2013 1:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
because this thread as nothing to do with benchmarks?


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:32:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Samsung is "abusing" FRAND, than so is Apple: by refusing to pay for their use.


You don't know what FRAND abuse is.

Simply being liable to license a patent isn't 'FRAND abuse'.

And Apple never refused to pay, they challenged the validity of the patent, the applicability to their devices, and the rate which Samsung was requesting (I believe 2.4% of sale price of the device).

All of which they are perfectly entitled to do.

As the presidential veto defined - FRAND abuse in this case is Samsung obtaining 'undue leverage' over Apple when they are obligated to treat all licencees the same. Consider the case that Samsung deliberately offered Apple license fees at 10x the reasonable rate, which Apple would necessarily have to refuse. Now Samsung can ban any Apple devices using that technology? Clearly the system can't work this way which is why it was veto'd.

There is a way in which Apple could abuse the system too, if Samsung had offered a reasonable rate and Apple simply said no - that would be undesirable too. However, in this case Samsung is entitled to late payment damages so the end result is no harm to anyone.


RE: Told you so
By JPForums on 8/5/2013 10:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple never refused to pay, they challenged the validity of the patent, the applicability to their devices, and the rate which Samsung was requesting (I believe 2.4% of sale price of the device).
Here's the real crux of the issue. Mind you, I've not looked into that deeply, but I haven't been able to find legitimate sources corroborate such claims. If you could point people to some reputable sources (preferably with relatively neutral biases to avoid contention), it would help to clear up what is obviously misinformation on one side or another.
quote:
All of which they are perfectly entitled to do.
Yes, they are entitled to challenge the patent validity, applicability, and usage fees. What they are not entitled to do is use the patent without a license. If they disagree with the rates Samsung demanded, they need to take them to court or some third party arbitrator. You could argue they could be forgiven for continuing their designs while challenging the rates, but once the final verdict is made, they are obliged to pay.
quote:
Consider the case that Samsung deliberately offered Apple license fees at 10x the reasonable rate, which Apple would necessarily have to refuse.
All we need to consider is what Samsung actually demanded (unless, of course, you are suggesting that the did in fact demand 10x the reasonable rate). Again, just point us to a reputable source that can corroborate this with certainty. In this case, Apple would be justified in taking it to court or a third party arbitrator and would almost certainly win. If the rate was, in fact, similar to what is currently being paid by others in the industry, then it would be considered reasonable and Apple would need to pay up or cease selling products that use it.
quote:
There is a way in which Apple could abuse the system too, if Samsung had offered a reasonable rate and Apple simply said no - that would be undesirable too. However, in this case Samsung is entitled to late payment damages so the end result is no harm to anyone.
I would argue that a company shouldn't have to pay millions in litigation to get what they are due, but otherwise I agree. Though, some here have argued that the punishment needs to be steeper to discourage the thought of trying it again.
quote:
As the presidential veto defined - FRAND abuse in this case is Samsung obtaining 'undue leverage' over Apple when they are obligated to treat all licencees the same.
If Samsung is in fact charging clearly unreasonable rates to Apple and Apple alone, then there is some validity in the veto. Valid or not, Samsung's recourse is to bring it to court.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:10:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but I haven't been able to find legitimate sources corroborate such claims


From Apple's own ITC filing:

quote:
Fourth, although the foregoing considerations apply without regard to Apple’s willingness to negotiate a license, in fact Apple has always been willing to pay Samsung a FRAND royalty for any valid, infringed, and enforceable patent that Samsung has declared essential to the UMTS standard. As just one example of the communications expressing Apple’s willingness to execute a truly FRAND-compliant license or cross-license, in an April 30, 2012 letter introduced into evidence at the hearing in this investigation, Apple made a licensing proposal to Samsung under which each party would take a license to the other’s declared-essential patents using the same methodology. (RX-1659C.)


quote:
What they are not entitled to do is use the patent without a license


Except what choice do they have if the offer on the table from Samsung is unreasonable in their view , and if they don't believe the patent is valid or applicable. It's not their responsibility to pro-actively take Samsung to court for the courts to decide how much they should pay. It's Samsung's, both to prove the validity applicability and for the amount to be agreed.

quote:
once the final verdict is made, they are obliged to pay


That isn't something anyone has ever argued against. No final verdict has been made, though. So they aren't obliged to pay yet.

quote:
All we need to consider is what Samsung actually demanded (unless, of course, you are suggesting that the did in fact demand 10x the reasonable rate)


You're missing the point. I used an example of 10x the reasonable rate to illustrate the fact that just because Samsung made an offer doesn't mean Apple is suddenly obliged to pay whatever they demanded. I proved this by using this example. Our opinions on what Samsung actually offered are irrelevant, because we're not in an informed enough position to decide - but the relevant point is that Apple felt it was unreasonable . Even if Samsung's offer was reasonable, it doesn't mean that Apple necessarily agrees and if they don't agree they can't pay. The risk they run, as I illustrated, is that if the original offer was reasonable, they will be liable for late payment damages.

quote:
In this case, Apple would be justified in taking it to court or a third party arbitrator and would almost certainly win


Again, it is in no way Apple's responsibility to take Samsung to court. Samsung has to assert their own patents and its their responsibility to instigate any legal proceedings. If they offer 2.4% to Apple and Apple refuses saying it's unreasonable, it's down to Samsung to take Apple to court to prove that it was reasonable. Which hasn't yet been proven.

quote:
If the rate was, in fact, similar to what is currently being paid by others in the industry, then it would be considered reasonable


Not necessarily. The rate being spoken about is a percentage of the final value of the device. Given that Apple is probably the highest end licensee this would mean that Apple would be paying significantly more than anyone else because of value that they added themselves. Again, to quote Apple's ITC filing directly:

quote:
Fifth, in contrast, Samsung has not been a “willing licensor” on FRAND terms. Samsung demanded a royalty of 2.4% of the full price of each Apple device—which is not remotely close to FRAND. (Id .; CX-1589C; JX-0010C [Chung] at 57:22-58:4.) Samsung is demanding payment for value in the iPhone and iPad—including features such as the industrial design, the user interface, the camera, and the operating system—that is wholly unrelated to any contribution Samsung may have made to the UMTS standard. Samsung’s demand is not only unfair and unreasonable, it also discriminates against Apple for developing sophisticated products with higher value and cost than more basic phones. As an example of the basic flaws in Samsung’s logic, in August a federal jury in California found that Apple had conceived of important intellectual property embodied in the iPhone and iPad—covered by Apple patents and Apple trade dress that Samsung was found to infringe—yet under its license demand, Samsung remarkably seeks to tax the value of Apple’s innovations as if they were Samsung’s


quote:
I would argue that a company shouldn't have to pay millions in litigation to get what they are due, but otherwise I agree


So is it therefore the case that in the August trial Apple vs Samsung, it should have been Samsung who took themselves to court for patent infringement?

quote:
If Samsung is in fact charging clearly unreasonable rates to Apple and Apple alone, then there is some validity in the veto. Valid or not, Samsung's recourse is to bring it to court.


The value really is that it's making it especially hard for FRAND abusers to seek their remedy in the form of product bans. Lets remember that at no time did Samsung necessarily need to seek bans in order to seek the damages they are owed . The presidential veto clearly leaves the door open for them to pursue the patents in the proper way (ie for the reasonable license fees) but it prevents the option of them abusing their FRAND position to seek bans of their competitors.


RE: Told you so
By TSS on 8/4/2013 4:51:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but it is important to recognize that Apple shot first.


Don't worry, Obama will soon come with a digital re-release of history showing samsung shot first.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:34:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but it is important to recognize that Apple shot first


No, actually. In order for Apple to seek a legal case in the first place, Samsung had already infringed Apple's patents.

Thus, in true playground style, 'Samsung started it'.


RE: Told you so
By w8gaming on 8/5/2013 8:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
Except that Apple has no valid patent that can be copied in the first place. Apple only won the court case in California and lost in the rest of the world. It is just that the is no chance at all for any foreign company to win this in USA soil. Samsung should just give up and stop selling the banned products in USA. The legal system and government is clearly biased it is useless to fight.


RE: Told you so
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:16:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
When the courts rely on non-expert juries to dole out anticompetive product bans and multi-millions to billions of dollars in damages like candy to hyperlitigious OEMs, it inflates the value of non-standards patents to insane rates.


I actually agree with you that non-expert juries shouldn't be determining the verdict or damages, but I disagree that non-standard patents have insane rates. If you look at the case Samsung lost, and how much they've gained as a result of copying Apple in the mobile space, I have no doubt they would have been perfectly happy to pay what will probably end up around 700-800m for the massive increase in sales they've seen. Remember, they copied things from Apple which Apple did not wish to license at any price . Now, Apple has been forced to license it because Samsung infringed their patent, the damages go nowhere near to compensating for the real cost.

quote:
This is particularly true when the patent in question is something as trivial as a graphical flourish


I half agree, and I half disagree. If it was truly trivial, then there would be no reason to copy it in the first place. These little details can get understated but they all add up to the feel of the device and if Samsung copies all of Apple's 'flourishes' it dilutes Apples originality and therefore value.

quote:
But greater from a reasonable perspective might be 10x the value, not TEN THOUSAND times the value -- which is the current state, when you consider the dollar value of lost sales and damages.


Well I don't think this has yet been determined, has it? In this case, I don't believe a value has been assigned to Samsung's FRAND patents. The problem is, if there are hundreds of FRAND patents per device which you necessarily must utilise, the price for each will always be low.

quote:
after the fact to try to compensate for Apple's abuses (exploiting the hyperinflation of non-FRAND as an anticompetitive tactic)


The difference is, when you haven't signed up to FRAND, you're perfectly entitled to decline to license your patented technology, or charge any amount you like. Apple didn't calculate the damages to which you're referring to, and could only do anything within the law. Apple wasn't 'abusing' anything by trying to assert their patents, that's why they won the case and that decision hasn't been veto'd. Samsung, on the other hand, has additional obligations and in my view acted anti-competitively which is against FRAND intentions.

quote:
what about Apple photoshopping Galaxy devices in court documents or modifying them with custom launchers to deceptively make them look (both physically and from a UI perspective) like Apple's products, versus the stock appearance


Well, that's not good either, but that's not misleading customers, and it's down to the court system (and Samsung's defence lawyers) to assert that this has occurred if and when it has. Regarding the custom launcher - depends whether the custom launcher is designed by Samsung or not. If so, I don't have an issue with it.

quote:
Or what about Apple writing a memo to employees telling them to lie and feign ignorance about Mac malware? That sounds like a horrible, anticonsumer thing to do right?


Generally I would agree if Apple's support wasn't categorically superior to Samsung's. It's an area I wouldn't want to highlight if I was trying to make an anti-Apple point. If I did a quick Google I could find 20-30 far worse Samsung stories which are far more severe. And 3/4 of those stories have happened in the past 2 weeks, you had to go back more than 2 years to May 2011. There's no way that Apple as a company is 'more shady' than Samsung. Samsung is as corrupt as it gets.


WARNING! Lots of facts
By Tony Swash on 8/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... It takes you over 20 paragraphs to say "It's perfectly OK for Apple to copy other tech companies, but not for other companies to copy Apple".

There, my way is much more efficient to say the exact same thing.

Like I said above I don't think any product should be banned, so I am glad Apples are not... Let them compete. But lets stop the ridiculous pretense that Apple is "the innocent victim" in all this. They copy too, as much if not more than any other tech company and they do it shamelessly and then act like they are above it.


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By Tony Swash on 8/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 3:30:27 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, wrong [insert subject of the day]

- "It's perfectly OK for Apple to infringe patents owned by other companies, but not for other companies to infringe patents owned by Apple".

- "It's perfectly OK for Apple to copy other tech companies, but not for other companies to copy Apple".

- "It's perfectly OK for Apple to have a monopoly, but not for other companies that compete with Apple".

- "It's perfectly OK for Apple obscure benchmarks, but not for other companies that compete with Apple".

Whatever it is, Apple is always right, even if they do the exact same thing that other companies are wrong for. "It just works" that way I guess. :P


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Retro, you just crossed the line from bitter Android fanboy to absolute retard, in my view.

How are you so stupid? *Slaps self*.

quote:
It's perfectly OK for Apple to infringe patents owned by other companies, but not for other companies to infringe patents owned by Apple


Er, no. He said that Apple is happy to license the FRAND patents at reasonable rates, and puts forward the case why the proposal from Samsung wasn't reasonable. The patents owned by Apple aren't FRAND at all so Apple is free to charge whatever they like over them or not license them at all.

quote:
It's perfectly OK for Apple to copy other tech companies, but not for other companies to copy Apple.


Er, no, every single phone must use standards-essential patents, that's why they're called essential . It can never be described as copying for that very reason. Apple's patents, on the other hand, are not essential so if you choose to infringe them you ARE copying.

quote:
It's perfectly OK for Apple to have a monopoly, but not for other companies that compete with Apple


What monopoly? Jesus.

quote:
It's perfectly OK for Apple obscure benchmarks, but not for other companies that compete with Apple


No, it's not OK for anyone to cheat on benchmarks. Samsung has been caught making their phones look faster than they are, Apple hasn't. Period.

I may even stop replying to you, you've crossed some kind of stupidity threshold making it worthless.


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/6/2013 8:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I may even stop replying to you, you've crossed some kind of stupidity threshold making it worthless.
You were at that threshold a long time ago...


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 8:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
"Retro, you just crossed the line from bitter Android fanboy to absolute retard, in my view."

In your view? LOL. Considering your view is that of a mentally imbalanced buffoon, I wont worry about it. That post wasnt just about Tony's post above, it is about the double standard he applies to Apple. Each of those points make sense to conversations Tony and I have had and you need not comprehend them, they are beyond your capacity.


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 12:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow... It takes you over 20 paragraphs to say "It's perfectly OK for Apple to copy other tech companies, but not for other companies to copy Apple".


Yes you were definitely not referring to his comment on this article and instead some imaginary delusional conversations yourself and he had previously...


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's about the double standard he (and it seems you) out out where Apple gets a "pass" and other companies that compete with Apple are always "in the wrong".

Can you at least admit that? If not, there is no use conversing with you on it any further.


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By testerguy on 8/7/2013 5:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, what it's actually about is that you fail to understand that FRAND patents and design patents are different, there are different rules surrounding them so naturally the correct outcome may also be different.

There is absolutely no case where I have given Apple a 'pass' in the same circumstances that I have condemned another company.

All that's happened is that you've failed to understand why two cases can be distinguished.


RE: WARNING! Lots of facts
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/5/2013 2:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
tl;dr


Protectionism
By ResStellarum on 8/5/2013 6:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
That's a really bad decision. It means Samsung has no recourse at all. Regardless of whether it's a standard based patent or not, if Apple refuses to even licence it, then Samsung should clearly have the right to request a ban.

I see nothing in this judgement but protectionism for American companies. Though, in truth, Apple makes nothing in the US anyway. If I were Samsung, I'd seek the same thing against Apple in south korea and china.




RE: Protectionism
By testerguy on 8/5/2013 7:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
What rubbish! Samsung has every right to continue to seek the license fees they are due plus any damages for late payment.

If you don't educate yourself properly before commenting you're obviously going to reach such silly conclusions.

And this decision isn't protectionism for American companies, it's an assertion that SEP are essential to competition and so should not be capable of abuse.


RE: Protectionism
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/5/2013 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh? And where pray tell do they do this if the U.S. government is sticking their noses in and overturning legal rulings? And exactly how can Samsung enforce legal rulings and stop Apple's unlawful use of their patents by halting sales of their products containing Samsung's legally patented property if they are being blocked from enforcing their patents?

Let's put it this way - Tim Cook really needs a car to drive back/forth to work so Tim jumps in your wife's car and drives off in it without asking you or arranging a rental agreement with you. You take Tim to court and they rule that Tim has no legal right to drive your wife's car without an agreement giving him permission to do so. They rule that Tim must stop driving your wife's car.

Tim cries foul and tells his pal Barack that you won't let him drive your wife's car even though you can use your own car to get to work. Barack grabs the car keys from you and tosses then to Tim saying "To bad for you Sammy. Tim is my pal and he needs to use your wife's car to go to work. Feel free to sue him. Oh wait, you were already in court about this weren't you. Bwahahaha! Sucks to be you then because Tim is my pal and you aren't".

How is the above any different from this case? Does the above not sound just a little communist?

I know this sounds really pro-litigation but I fail to see in this age of rampant patent whoring any real solution to this kind of thing especially if the U.S. government is stepping in and overturning legal rulings. I get all the patent trolling is totally fracking up the economy, but this is being approached at the wrong end.

The real problem is that patents are handed out for some of the most idiotic and common sense ideas. Major corporations like Apple and Samsung drive their staff to exhaustion pumping out patents for just about everything regardless of its value. Just do a patent search and if the idea hasn't been patented -- register one right now! Who cares if it is a new procedure for screwing in a lightbulb! Register it! Your value as an employee is based not on your ability to produce top quality products. Your performance and advancement is based on the number of patents you crank out each year. (Just retired from this kind of environment. So glad I am out of that stupidity.)


RE: Protectionism
By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
The legal ruling which was overturned was a product ban, which was the only remedy the ITC can offer.

Samsung can seek damages exactly the same way Apple sought (and won) damages against them.

Your whole rant is negated by the fact that product bans aren't necessary for damages to be awarded.


By timothyd97402 on 8/4/2013 4:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
Opinionated much? Senators and Congressmen from both parties and CEOs of some of Apple's biggest competitors all asked the White House to come to this conclusion.

Samsung should have pursued this matter (and they still can)
in a civil suit to enforce their patent rights. Once adjudicated, Apple will pay Samsung for use of their patents.


By ritualm on 8/4/2013 6:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Then Samsung will never win. Apple already has the US government in its back pocket, thanks to its political donations and contributions.

Bribery is the most effective political tool available to the corporation. Who cares if it's illegal? Most everyone on Capitol Hill's doing it anyway, they just call them "donations" or some other convenient catchphrase to get off the hook.


Bribery
By ptmmac on 8/4/2013 8:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
One bit of context on the local favorite, Samsung. The number of actual convictions of a Samsung CEO for bribery is 2. The number of Presidential pardons needed by the CEO to keep his job? Again the answer is 2. The number of convictions for Apple? 0

Your complaint about Apple getting a break from the Obama administration is a bit silly. This was a decision about how Patent laws should be used. It is supported by many competitors of Apple. You don't get to make a bad ruling in legal terms because you don't like the system as a whole unless you are using jury nullification as a basis for your argument. If you don't like the system then correct the system or vote for people who will. Otherwise, you are forced to live with what everyone else has agreed are the rules of the game. This is the basis of one of the most important cornerstones of our civil society called the rule of law. I hate Apple so the rules should always be interpreted to be against them is not a rule of law argument.




Insider trading
By daos on 8/5/2013 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 1
And Im sure Obama told all of his "buddies" to sell their Samsung stock just before the 11th hour. Insider trading at its best...

Reminds me of a Chicago crime boss.




RE: Insider trading
By Any14Tee on 8/6/2013 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
iObama
By btc909 on 8/5/2013 2:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'll continue to stay away from iObama products.




By Monkey's Uncle on 8/5/2013 6:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Some food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

We just need the right people watching that.




By half_duplex on 8/5/2013 9:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'm also wondering why we havn't seen anything on Samsungs cheesy overclock code. If Apple had done something this cheesy and pathetic, we'd never hear the end of it.

Even if it were just an app on the App Store that pulled one of these cheap dirty tricks, we'd never hear the end of it.

IMO this is big news and exposes the real Samsung.




My issue with this ...
By danjw1 on 8/5/2013 10:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
My only issue with this is that Apple has used patents offensively. They started the patent war with Samsung. So they brought this on themselves.

On the other hand, the administration had made a statement with regard to patents recently. They stated that they were going to do what it was in their power to do to promote innovation and try to work to a more reasonable patent system. They issued a request for some congressional action. But, they also said that would do what the could within the power of the executive branch.

The other issue here is that it would block Verizon and Sprint from having iDevices on there networks. Arguably, there could be antitrust concerns on that front.




Analogy
By ProZach on 8/6/2013 4:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
If Apple provided toilet paper it would be made with exactly the same industry pulp and cardboard spool. Problem is after the paper gets used their lawyers claim to have a patent on skid marks because it resembles other manufacturers' used paper. But if they can't wipe themselves to show proof they cry for mommy and she comes and does it for 'em.




By Acupuncture on 8/4/2013 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 3
It was coded for specific benchmarks, not games or videos. They purposely implemented code to inflate their scores. Didn't you read the article on the highly respected Anandtech? Not reporting on such a matter is disgraceful, and shows DailyTech's obvious bias.


By ritualm on 8/4/2013 5:51:08 PM , Rating: 1
Samsung rigged its hardware to run faster on some benchmarking tools! OH MY GOD! They are frauds!

Except Intel did the same thing during the past decade, and all it got was a few million dollars in fines.

If Apple does the same thing, what are you gonna say? Wait, I know, you're going to praise them instead!

Stop breathing please.


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/4/2013 6:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Apple does the same thing, what are you gonna say? Wait, I know, you're going to praise them instead!
Pretty sure they did, many years ago.


By Motoman on 8/5/2013 1:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Stop providing actual facts to show that Apple has done the same things in the past. It upsets the retards and they vote you down. From their iThings.


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 2:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung rigged its hardware to run faster on some benchmarking tools! OH MY GOD! They are frauds!


Er, yes? That's exactly what they are?

quote:
Except Intel did the same thing during the past decade, and all it got was a few million dollars in fines.


Oh, only a few million dollars in fines? That definitely proves that they did nothing wrong.

quote:
If Apple does the same thing, what are you gonna say? Wait, I know, you're going to praise them instead!


Yeah lets guess what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Apple hasn't done this.

Did you see what it was called? 'Benchmarkbooster' - LOL.

Clear attempt to mislead customers into believing the Galaxy S4 is a powerful device, and they got caught.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 10:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Yes, that's exactly why Android phones even with quad cores lag, and exactly why Samsung felt the need to cheat at the benchmarks."

Another totally uneducated remark from TG.

Android runs perfectly smooth on a dual core Krait from last year. The "lag" seen is specifically caused by bloat. Samsung is loading way too much in memory to run smoothly. Samsung Phones could have 16 cores and would still be laggy. There are a few OEM's that do that, but Sambloat is by far the worst. Samsung is now flirting with adding 3gb ram in its high end devices presumably to add even more bloat... Beyond ridiculous, and the benchmark fudging is ridiculous as well... But Android itself can run totally buttery smooth with a dual core CPU and 1gb ram.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
Guys, my car runs perfectly well with a 500cc engine from last year. The 'lag' in the car is only caused by the weight of the chassis, the body and the passengers. It doesn't matter that it is factually the case that those three exist , I stand by my point that a 500cc engine is perfectly fine for my car.

Hint - you talking about bloat is simply attempting to explain away why I'm correct. It does nothing to change the fact that those phones lag.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 8:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
If you are trying to say Samsung phone have bloat and lag then say that. You said "Yes, that's exactly why Android phones even with quad cores lag" which is totally incorrect.

If Apple licensed IOS out to HP and HP bloated it to death with literally over 2 dozen apps running at all times and they were laggy, would you say IOS is laggy, or HP phones are laggy? It's not an IOS issue, its and HP issue.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are trying to say Samsung phone have bloat and lag then say that. You said "Yes, that's exactly why Android phones even with quad cores lag" which is totally incorrect.


No, those two claims are perfectly consistent with each other. The majority of Android phones ARE Samsung and Samsung isn't the only manufacturer to add bloat to their phones. The sentence 'Android phones even with quad cores lag' doesn't specify that 'ALL' phones with quad cores lag.

That being said, my Nexus 4 lags and that has no bloat at all so you're fundamentally wrong anyway. I was simply pointing out your logical failure in attempting to prove me wrong by finding reasons to explain my correctness.

quote:
If Apple licensed IOS out to HP and HP bloated it to death with literally over 2 dozen apps running at all times and they were laggy, would you say IOS is laggy, or HP phones are laggy?


If HP phones constituted 90% of the phones running iOS then yes I would say that iOS phones are laggy. But they don't, so I won't.

It's an Android issue because even the Nexus devices lag, which I know because I own one. I don't believe you do. So you're just talking nonsense about phones you haven't even owned.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
"No, those two claims are perfectly consistent with each other. The majority of Android phones ARE Samsung and Samsung isn't the only manufacturer to add bloat to their phones. The sentence 'Android phones even with quad cores lag' doesn't specify that 'ALL' phones with quad cores lag."

Playing word games to prove your point really doesn't prove your point. Nice try though.

"It's an Android issue because even the Nexus devices lag, which I know because I own one. I don't believe you do."

I do have a Nexus 7 2012 and a 2013. No lags. The 2012 is a bit slow, the 2013 with the same chip as the Nexus 4 and higher res is insanely fast with zero lag. I touch all sorts of phones all the time setting them up for our users at work. I have played with iPhone 4 ,4s and 5's as well as a huge variety of Androids including a couple Nexus 4's. I have owned, used, tested and repaired smartphones since smartphones existed, long before the term
"smartphone" was even phrased. If your Nexus 4 is laggy, there is something wrong with it. The play store is laggy, but that is a site issue. Anything else, then your phone has an issue, probably user education... Beyond that your 1 phone sample size is a joke to me. You know nothing son... Nothing at all.


By testerguy on 8/7/2013 5:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Playing word games to prove your point really doesn't prove your point. Nice try though.


Saying I'm playing 'word games' without any reference to anything I said which was incorrect doesn't really prove your point. Nice try though.

It remains the case that Android phones with quad core CPU'S lag. Fact.

quote:
I do have a Nexus 7 2012 and a 2013. No lags


It's a sad day when I have to educate you to the fact that the Nexus 7 isn't a PHONE and PHONES are what we're talking about. On top of that, I have seen THOUSANDS of posts from people saying that their Nexus 7 is so laggy to the point it's unusable. So please, educate yourself on both points.

quote:
I touch all sorts of phones all the time setting them up for our users at work


LOL.

quote:
I have owned, used, tested and repaired smartphones since smartphones existed


LOL. Sorry, but none of this changes anything whatsoever about the fact you don't own a phone with stock Android. Everyone has 'owned, used, tested' smartphones. You're uninformed and clueless. And even if you had tested the Nexus 4 that doesn't make you more qualified to assess its lag than me, someone who owns it.

quote:
If your Nexus 4 is laggy, there is something wrong with it


This is just the most ridiculous fanboy Android nonsense I've ever seen. Deny deny deny. No, your phone doesn't lag - you're SEEING IT WRONG!

quote:
Anything else, then your phone has an issue, probably user education... Beyond that your 1 phone sample size is a joke to me


Oh right, so someone who actually owns the phone and uses it every day and visits numerous other sites such as TheVerge and has mentioned the various other people who have the SAME ISSUES is less credible a sample size than ONE GUY who DOESN'T EVEN OWN THE PHONE.

You're beyond retarded.


By retrospooty on 8/7/2013 8:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
I repeat, you know nothing. You are obnoxious and clueless and I am done spending effort explaining things to the deaf. If you cant figure it out by now, then you aren't going to.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 8:25:15 AM , Rating: 1
"Yeah lets guess what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Apple hasn't done this."

Actually captain fanboy, they have. Back when they used PPC and they were insisting their PPC risc chips were faster than Intel chips, they were caught in a huge scandal with faking benchmarks. In fact worse than this. Where Samsung and video card makers throttle chips up when certain programs (benchmarks) are running, Apple deliberately lied. They used an old downlevel and extremely slow compiler for the Intel results hampering the scores to make it look slower than it was. When done independently Intel was suddenly 20-30% faster. It was a big stink back then.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 10:50:21 AM , Rating: 3
So long as we aren't inferring that Apple is above such trickery, because they aren't. They have been caught red handed before, and not just overclocking in certain benchmarks, straight up falsifying data to make the competition's scores appear much lower, so its even worse. Not that that excuses Samsung, but it puts them in good company.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well it puts Samsung in company with a shady time in Apple's history.

Lets not forget that Samsung is cheating customers today, now.

Apple isn't.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I am massively turned off by Samsung these days. The bloat is worse with every new release. The cheaply done plastic, the lies, the courts, the general selfishness is a major turn off. As for Apple, they qualify for all of the above except cheaply done plastics and bloat.


By JPForums on 8/5/2013 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
So it is OK because it wasn't a phone. Look at all that relativism you just jumped into. You could have used any number of excuses, like the fact that that was many years ago and not necessarily representative of Apple today. You could also have mentioned that the leadership structure is vastly different now than it was then. Instead, you excuse it because PC aren't phones. What does that have to do with whether a practice is unethical or not? As far as I can tell Samsung has never done it on PC. So, assuming that's true, does that suddenly make Samsung ethical?


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Er, no, I haven't commented on what Apple did with PC's vs Mac, because this is an article about phones, in case you missed it.

Just because I state the factual reality that something is different doesn't mean I condone it. That's some kind of weird dumb logic you're applying there.

It remains the case, as I said, that Samsung has been caught cheating phone benchmarks and Apple hasn't .


By Any14Tee on 8/7/2013 7:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Its ironic Apple is now using Intel chips (CPU) inside their PC's.
The performance battle between IBM Risc based PowerPCs(MAC)Vs X86 Cisc based architecture(Intel/AMD)was won long ago, PowerPCs with their shorter pipelines wasn't able to rack beyond 2Ghz and more importantly due to inherent problems in reducing the silicon wafer, IBM couldn't churn out sufficient volumes to compete with Intel.
Also ironic it was IBM that gave Intel the license to produce x86 chips for their PC's, the rest is history.
Apple saw sense eventually and jumped ship.


By Any14Tee on 8/7/2013 8:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
I know my last comment was not in context with the main thread I was merely adding to Retro's comments about PPC v Intel benchmark debacle. In case you were wondering what has this got to do with the price of butter?

Ok I suspect you don't give a flying fig.

Thanks, nice to get it off my chest, I feel so much better now.


By Any14Tee on 8/7/2013 8:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Also ironic it was IBM that gave Intel the license to produce x86 chips for their PC's, the rest is history."

Which incidentally almost led to the demise of Apple. Well almost, wished it had though - Gatesy saw to it that it didn't and the blasted IPOD, damn.

Open PC against Closed Shop Apple MAC, same 'ol, same 'ol Apple, nothing changes.

sorry, couldn't resist.


By bug77 on 8/4/2013 5:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
http://blog.gsmarena.com/samsung-responds-to-bench...

There you go, almost a week old by now.


By Mitch101 on 8/4/2013 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
They code explicitly increases when a benchmark is run not the other way around. Thats pretty much the definition of inflating benchmarks.

Samsung "Cheats" To Gain Benchmark Performance Edge Over Competition
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/l...ons-galaxy-...

Samsung admits paying students to lambast rival phones in fake web reviews
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/04/17/samsung-fa...

How much are Samsung's dirty tricks hurting Apple's shares?
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/20/apple-samsu...
Behind the scenes, the company engaged in more surreptitious stratagems. It began paying students and other heavy users of social media to post anonymous messages talking up the virtues of Samsung's products and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about Apple and other competitors


By ritualm on 8/4/2013 10:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Petty "optimization" code like that is frowned upon for most people, that is all. Not as bad as Photoshopping court documents to support a viewpoint, however.


By Mitch101 on 8/5/2013 12:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
Both are defiantly guilty parties but Samsung is not the saint they pretend to be and this site tends to shy away from any negativity toward Samsung. I get people defending their purchase but they need to own up to what's really going on.


By bug77 on 8/5/2013 3:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Hey idiot, straight from the link I provided (which you didn't bother to read):

quote:
Under ordinary conditions, the Galaxy S4 has been designed to allow a maximum GPU frequency of 533MHz . However, the maximum GPU frequency is lowered to 480MHz for certain gaming apps that may cause an overload, when they are used for a prolonged period of time in full-screen mode. Meanwhile, a maximum GPU frequency of 533MHz is applicable for running apps that are usually used in full-screen mode, such as the S Browser, Gallery, Camera, Video Player, and certain benchmarking apps , which also demand substantial performance.


And even if they cheated, what's that got to do with the huge boon Apple has just been handed?


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 6:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I shouldn't really have to explain to you that what Samsung officially claims may not necessarily represent the truth.

Go and look up the Anandtech article, not the first one, but the second one written in response to precisely the link you posted (which I read several days ago).

They disproved Samsung's claim. No games or apps other than the benchmark apps can utilise a sustained 533MHz. The only apps other than benchmarks which even reach that 533MHz are the native apps which are missing the necessary boolean flag to sustain that MHz.

And the fact that the GPU frequency is lowered for every single 3rd party app is precisely why what they are doing is cheating - that's why they called it 'BENCHMARKBOOSTER'.

And as for the relevance, the topic in this particular chain of comments wasn't brought up by me, I'm simply replying - exactly like you are.


By bug77 on 8/5/2013 6:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's exactly what Samsung claims: a boost for apps that do not need to sustain it for long . Otherwise it would just kill battery life.
Seriously, Intel and AMD boost clocks, nvidia does it too. Just move on.


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 7:04:41 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah except that's exactly why what they do in the benchmarks is cheating.

In the benchmarks, they allow that 533 MHz to be sustained, despite the fact that no app can do this due to the fact it would overheat.

When Intel and AMD overclock - they have to explicitly declare that that's what they have done, and end users have the option to clock those processors to that speed. In Samsung's case, the end users do not have any option to enable the 533 MHz in games so it's false advertising, pure and simple.

And no, myself and the rest of the educated world will not 'move on' and ignore such unethical behaviour, and nor should you. Even if what Intel and AMD did was the same - it doesn't mean that it's suddenly OK for Samsung to do it. If someone murders someone in the US, does that justify anyone doing the same? You're an Android apologist, which is the worst kind.


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 7:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
And also - no third party app can even reach that 533 MHz, for any length of time.


By bug77 on 8/5/2013 7:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
So, what, Samsung writes the benchmarks now, too? Because I was under the impression those are third party apps.


By half_duplex on 8/5/2013 10:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
Go read the Anandtech article...

Basically, Samsung has code looking at the app names that does something like this...

if (appName == "benchmark"){
boostGPU();
}

If it's one of the 'benchmark' apps that they're looking for, they're making the GPU perform better than it would for any other app.

That's blatant and pretty bad, not to mention cheap and cheesy.


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 10:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, what, Samsung writes the benchmarks now, too? Because I was under the impression those are third party apps.


If you lacked the comprehension to understand what I meant by referring to third party apps (ie not benchmarks) - I can't fix stupid.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 10:54:39 AM , Rating: 2
"So, what, Samsung writes the benchmarks now, too? "

No, they put in code that basically says if [insert benchmarkname] is running, then clock GPU at [X] - X being a higher clock than it normally runs at. It's a shady practice, and it's false. Call a terd a terd. It doesnt take away from the phone, if you like it, buy it, but don't excuse the practice. If Samsung wants their phones to run faster, remove the damn bloat.


By JPForums on 8/5/2013 11:11:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And no, myself and the rest of the educated world will not 'move on' and ignore such unethical behaviour, and nor should you.
This is funny coming from the same guy that just a few post back downplays the impact of lying to the courts.
quote:
Court documents get seen by nobody. A few jurors, literally. Cheating benchmarks by artificially increasing the clock speed of the GPU to rates which no game or app can achieve is misleading millions of customers, and it's also far MORE misleading to each and every customer than simply resizing the picture of the device.
Given that the article is a U.S. issue, I should mention that freedom of speech (unfortunately in this case) protects their rights to say or post things that may mislead people. Commercials do this all the time. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal. There is nothing I know of in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) that gives the same concession while under oath in a court room. Further, while it may be far more misleading to the general populace to corrupt benchmark results, there is far more impact to misleading a few jurors when you are trying to seek injunctions and/or damages.

Note: I in no way condone the corruption or alteration of a product (a la the accusations against Samsung) in such a way as to mislead people into thinking a product is more capable than it actually is. Such practices are clearly unethical and shows a disturbing lack of regard for the consumers they mislead. If they don't mind lying to sell you a product, who is to say they won't lie to get out of warranty obligations.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 3
"This is funny coming from the same guy that just a few post back downplays the impact of lying to the courts."

Does it surprise anyone that a clown that does nothing but defend Apple regardless of the issue is a complete and total Hypocrite? He may as well come right out and say "whatever Apple does is justified , and whatever competitors do is unethical" and save the typing. That is pretty much his stance on anything and everything. The only difference with him and Tony is that Tony has some class.


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2013 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does it surprise anyone that a clown that does nothing but defend Apple regardless of the issue is a complete and total Hypocrite?
Doesn't surprise me anymore considering that's all he does. Just the fact that he thinks that blatantly lying to a court isn't as bad as what Samsung did says it all.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 2:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... Yes, its OK to lie in court because not a lot of people see that. To lie in software that artificially inflates benchmarks is worse because more people see it. The moral ambiguity is hilarious. Both are lies and both are BS.

Anything for "the cause" I guess.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, its OK to lie in court because not a lot of people see that


Retro's kiddy homework for the day - go away and find an actual quote of mine (unlike the speechmarks you put around your own words in other comments) where I said that it is 'OK to lie in court'.

And when you come back and realise that I said nothing even remotely resembling that, hopefully you'll realise how idiotic you look failing to read.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 8:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
"putting aside the reality that photoshopping a picture by resizing it isn't anywhere near as bad as misleading customers"

That is what people are referring to. You didnt say "ok" but you said its not as bad. So falsifying court docs is not as bad as benchmark throttling? Both are lies and both are BS but if any one is "worse" its falsifying court docs.

At this point you are just trying to dig out of the asinine hole you dug yourself into, so I will let you at it captain clandestine fanboy.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 10:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
What I said, and I remain of this opinion - is that in my view , given that millions of people will see the benchmark scores, and basically nobody knows about any photo-shopping of court documents, that the former is worse for the consumer.

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with me, it's an entirely subjective question which is also why you can never ever prove me wrong on it.

What I did not say is that it's OK or that we should allow it or ignore it. For me I just think it's less detrimental to the consumer.

Whether you agree or disagree though, we're kind of arguing around the real issue which is that Samsung is cheating on benchmarks.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 12:29:20 PM , Rating: 1
"Whether you agree or disagree though, we're kind of arguing around the real issue which is that Samsung is cheating on benchmarks."

Meh... Both companies are totally full of shit. It could easily be argued that Apple trying to falsify court docs to get Samsung products banned is far more harmful to the consumer than a few people thinking a phone scored higher on a benchmark than it really should have. No ban is good. Apple copies as much as they are copied and if you maintain that they don't you are either completely ignorant or completely full of shit, neither of which interests me.


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/6/2013 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It could easily be argued that Apple trying to falsify court docs to get Samsung products banned is far more harmful to the consumer than a few people thinking a phone scored higher on a benchmark than it really should have.
Of course it's worse, lying to a COURT to get your competitors products banned? Absolutely no comparison and to think otherwise is absolutely asinine.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 1:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
I know, but again... We are talking to this nut... http://i.imgur.com/hfXERxv.png


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 1:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
ACtually Fry is way too cool... This is TG - http://i.imgur.com/mI0eqRU.png


By testerguy on 8/7/2013 5:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give you a response, Cheesew, mainly out of pity. I normally don't bother responding because you tend to simply parrot insults of others with no mental capability to actually discuss anything.

I will, however, educate you to the fact that everything you (and your father? retrospooty) said has already been addressed by numerous quotes.

quote:
Of course it's worse


What I had already said:

quote:
You're perfectly entitled to disagree with me, it's an entirely subjective question which is also why you can never ever prove me wrong on it.


If you're struggling with that long word 'subjective' it means that this matter is necessarily something which is purely based on opinion so nobody can ever be right or wrong on it.

quote:
lying to a COURT to get your competitors products banned


What I had already said:

quote:
Yeah that would be the case if the legal case had led to any injunctions, or if Apple had ever been charged (rather than merely accused) of photo-shopping documents. Or if the stretching they did to the images had even been noticed by anyone, including the Samsung lawyers


To be clear, there weren't any bans as a result of the stretched image in question, and Apple was never charged with falsifying evidence in any way, nor did Samsung ever accuse them of doing so.

I also said:

quote:
Feel free to point me in the direction of the Apple lawyer/employee who was charged with this most heinous of crimes


Something which of course, neither of you have addressed because it immediately disproves your entire rants of idiocy. Which brings me on to something else yourself, Reclaimer and retrospooty (an incestuous family in Texas as far as I'm concerned, cheesy being the brother and son of Retro with 6 fingers and requiring 'special education') - you never actually address the core issue of any of my posts. In this case, instead of addressing anything factual such as who got charged, the fact that no bans occurred, the fact that no Samsung lawyer raised the objection, or the fact that Samsung is misleading millions of customers. That doesn't get addressed. Instead, you argue like fanboys over 'which illegal act is worse' - completely ignorant to the fact that even IF lying in court was worse (a possibility I already catered for in my early post) - it doesn't do anything whatsoever to absolve Samsung of any guilt. Not only that, but the thing you're choosing to argue over is something completely objective. You're like a bunch of delusional retards screaming 'OF COURSE PEPSI IS BETTER THAN COKE!!'. Beyond dumb, and you all don't realise it because you continue to validate each others nonsense. It's probably why you continue to post here because anywhere educated rejects you.

Again, to illustrate my point above, here is my previous quote:

quote:
even if we assume that your idiotic stance is correct and that photoshopping is worse - it still doesn't change what Samsung did, at all - it's still unethical and it should still be condemned. Everyone but the most ardent and blind Android fanboy would admit that.


Your desperate claims were already catered for in my comments. It's a recurring theme.


By testerguy on 8/7/2013 5:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the thing you're choosing to argue over is something completely subjective*


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/7/2013 8:37:04 AM , Rating: 1
Blah blah blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's all anyone sees from you.


By retrospooty on 8/7/2013 10:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
I know... I think he comes back on a monthly cycle to vent his frustrations. His tactic is always the same... Misunderstand the comment and then assume and insult based on the incorrect assumptions... Freegin nutjob.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is funny coming from the same guy that just a few post back downplays the impact of lying to the courts.


Again, your lack of logic astounds me.

There is a difference between positing an opinion that one unethical action is more unethical than another, to saying that people should 'ignore it' and 'move on'.

It remains my opinion that stretching an image in court (which doesn't mislead any customers at all) is not as bad as cheating on benchmarks (which millions of customers see). That doesn't mean I think it's ethical, or should be condoned or ignored . It means I think that what Samsung did was worse. That's your own idiotic failure to read properly you're arguing with right there.

You also have to question the calibre of the Samsung defence lawyers if they weren't able to notice this and point it out in court. Just how drastically misleading could stretching the tablet be if they didn't even notice it.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that the article is a U.S. issue, I should mention that freedom of speech (unfortunately in this case) protects their rights to say or post things that may mislead people.


Except that this article isn't about the benchmark issue, it's about the FRAND argument. The benchmark issue isn't a U.S. issue, they do it on all their phones internationally.

And freedom of speech doesn't mean that companies can say or post things which mislead people, either - that's called 'false advertising'. You should do a bit of research and discover the fines which Intel received after a similarly shady practise.

quote:
Further, while it may be far more misleading to the general populace to corrupt benchmark results, there is far more impact to misleading a few jurors when you are trying to seek injunctions and/or damages.


Yeah that would be the case if the legal case had led to any injunctions, or if Apple had ever been charged (rather than merely accused) of photo-shopping documents. Or if the stretching they did to the images had even been noticed by anyone, including the Samsung lawyers. And even if all of that was true, I still think that giving millions of consumers the wrong impression that your device is at the cutting edge of performance will result in more additional sales than any product bans have ever prevented.


By ritualm on 8/5/2013 4:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
No big deal because I've already expected this to happen in the mobile SoC space, it was only a matter of time. Meanwhile, it was such a big deal to you, you have to create a second account to cry foul over it.

Cheating benchmarks? Meh. Lots of people used dope on Tour de France, only Lance Armstrong got taken out to dry, same thing.

Photoshopping court documents is as bad as, in the case of state of Florida vs Zimmerman, refusal by the prosecution to hand over key evidence to the defence.

Yep, one too many ridiculously uninformed iSheep nutcakes alrighty. Keep it coming, however. You're about as good as the kid who tries to rob a gun store with a toy BB gun.


By testerguy on 8/5/2013 7:11:23 AM , Rating: 1
Second account? Why on earth would you think that?

quote:
No big deal because I've already expected this to happen in the mobile SoC space, it was only a matter of time


Oh right, so if I anticipate that there will be murders in the US in the next month, they are all 'no big deal' because I already 'expected this to happen' and it was 'only a matter of time'. The most idiotic, backwards anti-logic I've ever seen.

quote:
Cheating benchmarks? Meh. Lots of people used dope on Tour de France, only Lance Armstrong got taken out to dry, same thing.


Oh right, so now you're making totally unfounded wild claims that everyone else is as unethical as Samsung, to justify Samsung misleading their customers.

quote:
Photoshopping court documents is as bad as, in the case of state of Florida vs Zimmerman, refusal by the prosecution to hand over key evidence to the defence.


Even putting aside the reality that photoshopping a picture by resizing it isn't anywhere near as bad as misleading customers as to what your device is capable of, even if we assume that your idiotic stance is correct and that photoshopping is worse - it still doesn't change what Samsung did, at all - it's still unethical and it should still be condemned. Everyone but the most ardent and blind Android fanboy would admit that.

quote:
Yep, one too many ridiculously uninformed iSheep nutcakes alrighty. Keep it coming, however. You're about as good as the kid who tries to rob a gun store with a toy BB gun.


Oh you mean there's more than one person for whom it's quite clear just how deluded you are? Yeah calling me a 'kid with a BB gun' is just about as compelling for your argument as the rest of your nonsense.


By PReiger99 on 8/5/2013 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Quote:"Even putting aside the reality that photoshopping a picture by resizing it isn't anywhere near as bad as misleading customers as to what your device is capable of"

Seriously? Lying in court is not as bad as a misleading benchmark... Did you suffer from a blunt head trauma as a kid to say such idiocies?


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2013 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, he is serious unfortunately... pretty pathetic isn't it? And he calls others deluded! LOL


By Reclaimer77 on 8/5/2013 4:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm pretty sure lying in court and submitting false evidence is a felony? And he's saying it's "not big deal" because not many people see it? Just...lol wtf. Can we ban all the 13 year old's now please?

Last time I checked tweaking a benchmark wasn't a punishable crime, but these retards are seriously trying to equate that to what Apple has done.


By retrospooty on 8/5/2013 5:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Yeah I'm pretty sure lying in court and submitting false evidence is a felony? And he's saying it's "not big deal" because not many people see it? Just...lol wtf. Can we ban all the 13 year old's now please?"

The sad part is that he is an adult (I am pretty sure). Bitter and lonely, but full grown.

I have said this before but it bears repeating. He is worse than Tony. At least Tony can admit he is a huge Apple fan and Tony has class. Tester is just a classless waste of skin. Rude, ignorant, massively in denial, and just dimwitted enough to not realize how dim he is.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 4:35:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah I'm pretty sure lying in court and submitting false evidence is a felony? And he's saying it's "not big deal"


Don't put things in quotes which I didn't say. That just makes you ignorant.

Lying in court is a felony - I don't see Apple charged with it though? I also didn't see any Samsung lawyers pulling them up on it in court. Not do I see any comment from me indicating that it's not a felony or that it's OK. Feel free to point me in the direction of the Apple lawyer/employee who was charged with this most heinous of crimes.

The simple, obvious point I'm making is that cheating millions of customers (false advertising which is also illegal - refer to Intel case) is worse in my view than stretching an image of a tablet in court, which was never actually charged.

quote:
Last time I checked tweaking a benchmark wasn't a punishable crime


It's as if you think that whether something is a punishable crime (as opposed to something you can be liable for and fined for - ie cheating benchmarks, false advertising) changes how unethical it is and how bad it is for consumers.

And lets not forget that amongst all this, the reality is that this is just a bunch of Android apologists trying to make out like Samsung misleading customers is OK because Apple did something x years ago. It's beyond desperate.


By Skywalker123 on 8/4/2013 9:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, its the MSNBC of Tech blogs


By bug77 on 8/5/2013 9:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty obvious Jason held a gun to the president's head to force him help Apple. You know, just so he could get some material for his article.


By tng on 8/5/2013 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 3
I am sure that this has been said before somewhere in the dozens of comments above, but does it bother anyone that the Executive Branch of government is interfering with a decision that is basically the Judicial Branches territory?

I know that there is allot that can be said about the court system, but the Constitution was set up with separate Exec, Judicial and Legislative branches for a reason.


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2013 4:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
It bothers everyone BUT the iSheep, they think it's OK that this happened, proof is right here on this very page.


By testerguy on 8/6/2013 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the 'iSheep' such as Microsoft and Intel who both publicly backed Apple in this and pushed for Obama to veto.

It does require intelligence to actually understand the implications and nobody with any intelligence would ever use the word 'iSheep' other than when quoting.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2013 3:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
"nobody with any intelligence would ever use the word 'iSheep' other than when quoting."

Completely wrong. Whether anyone is a blind fanboy or not, clearly its obvious to all that some people will follow a company right or wrong, good or bad and take their side in any argument no matter what the issue, be it political, legal, product, or process. If you cant see the slang term iSheep being used for that, or if you get upset by it's use then you probably are one. Of course, we all knew that already about you. A particularly obnoxious one at that.


By testerguy on 8/7/2013 4:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said, nobody with any intelligence.

On more sophisticated forums with a more educated user base the use of silly terms like 'iSheep' are widely condemned.

There are ways to convey that someone is a fanboy without resorting to terms which are themselves indicative of being a fanboy.

For example - you're the most blatant Android fanboy I've ever come across. Note how I didn't feel the need to devolve into coming up with silly terms like 'Fandroid' or other such idiocy.

Just levels apart.


By tng on 8/7/2013 6:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
He does have a point.

I use an Iphone because that is what work gave me. While I find the thing useful, it is somewhat boring, looking for all intensive purposes like the first Iphone I seen years ago. It also does not play all that well with my MS based PC in most things.

However, one of the most intelligent guys I know would not just qualify for the label "iSheep" he would proudly proclaim it. He got an 3, the 3gs, the 4, now the 5 and I expect him to go for the 6 when it comes out. He is Apple inside and out.

There are benefits to this when it comes to how things play with each other as he points out, but not everybody wants to base everything they do with a computer on the Apple environment just so they can update their contact list over all their devices.


Cutting through the crap
By Tony Swash on 8/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Cutting through the crap
By bug77 on 8/5/2013 9:09:02 AM , Rating: 4
Meh, you know very well that when one party has to pay and the other to cash in, what's reasonable to one will be unreasonable to another.
One judge saw things your way, but (just like real life) everybody else saw it differently.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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