Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
Thanks, although the people that matter (in many places in the world) don't appear to share your view.
I dont doubt that the world of tech is littered with dubious payments, I doubt Apple or any other manufacturer is free from those claims. Samsung has been caught quite a few times with information that they shouldn't have and no doubt they have plagiarised many ideas from other vendors that couldnt defend themselves. Oddly enough anybody that raises those claims are called fanbois...hey ho.
You probably find that's because of past court cases.
Colour schemes, sizes, rounded corners, swipe to unlock, "a clean desktop".....the list goes on with absurd claims. So, when it's so hard to justify their rampant claims, you have to question people who state "They are just protecting their IP".....
Now, if it was code they had stolen, we could all agree that there was wrong-doings.......but it's not, it's all nonsense created by a company who got a foothold much bigger then they had ever had before and then didn't like it when others started under-cutting them with better products.
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
I think for the most part people are whining because its Apple doing it. I dont recall anybody getting upset when Nokia started the whole patent wars in 2009. Apple could have started it against Palm with the Palm Pre but they didnt.
People aren't "whining because its Apple doing it" they're "whining" because the patents that these cases are based on wouldn't stand in any other court than a few, select US ones. I'm also less than impressed with this latest salvo because, from what little I've seen, Samsung have a point for once and it's really Google that should be in the dock. But then again you can't play the "plucky little 'mer'can company against evil massive foreign invader" card if it's Google in the sights not Samsung. Oh, and there was also some talk about Palm being able to sue over parts of its interface that ended up in the iPhone, but chose not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
Rolls Royce has been defending its look and feel for years, I'm not sure why you cant have that protection in Mobile phones.
Hmm, that's around the badge and SoE isn't it. Not "four wheeled motor vehicle driven by internal combustion engine" - he says remembering that ridiculous EU trademark from last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
I dont doubt that the world of tech is littered with dubious payments, I doubt Apple or any other manufacturer is free from those claims.
I think you mean "patents" not "payments" there. If there were "dubious payments" then anyone could report that company under the FCPA - for which penalties can be quite harsh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
Samsung has been caught quite a few times with information that they shouldn't have and no doubt they have plagiarised many ideas from other vendors that couldnt defend themselves.
Hmm, I'm going to argue that. Unless I've missed a nuance here having "information that they shouldn't have" sounds suspiciously like a charge of industrial espionage - be careful! As to the lifting of ideas from others - yes Samsung's definitely guilty of that, (e.g. stupid fingerprint sensor in S5), then again Apple's also admitted that it's not above doing that either. It's the way of the world - and they (Apple) come across looking like bullies if they're happy to do it, but not content to be a "victim".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tay2001
Oddly enough anybody that raises those claims are called fanbois...hey ho.
To defend the undefensible is the mark of a "fanboy", whereas being an "enthusiast" is good. For example, I'm a Nokia and Linux enthusiast, but I'll quite happily admit where both are lacking.
No what gets me is that this latest case is merely yet another "vulture swoop". Did Apple send Samsung a "cease and desist" or - better still - a request for license payments before this latest? From what's been said, the answer to both is no.
So you're left with the conclusion that Apple quietly squirrelled away these "patents" until Samsung were taking enough of their market share to be a "problem", then struck. Good business? Probably ... but it's what I'd call immoral. And that's one reason why I won't buy a new iPod and certainly never an iPhone.
But then again, I won't be buying a Galaxy S5 either - but that's more to do with being VERY unimpressed with Samsung's "value add" features. To me the S5 is neither innovative nor attractive. So "no sale".
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crossy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torashin
Well, Apple is right. It's been the same with smart watches. Since the world the slightest whiff that Apple might be working on one, every man and his dog has been releasing them.
Ah the token Apple apologist! I knew that there had to be at least one.
So you're going to claim that Apple invented the smartwatch? Hmm, I've GOT a
Sony Ericsson Live View that was supposedly "old hat" when I bought it at the beginning of 2011 (I got it in a Play clearance sale) - so allow me to disagree ...
vehemently.
No - as usual - Apple's going to take someone else's idea, polish it a little, then launch and sue the pants off of Samsung. :D Although we've had two generations of Samsung's wrist brick, a very nice Motorola (the 360 :drool:) and a host from others such as Pebble (who are on, what, their 3rd gen?) - so meanwhile where IS this "magical" iWatch?
Said it once and I'll say it again ... when a "technology" company's legal department is making more column inches than the engineering department, then that's a sure sign that the company has lost it's "mojo".
That's all well and good, but the big question is, if the rumours of apple designing a smart watch had never existed, (or word from any other moles they may or may not have inside apple) would Samsung still have produced said wrist brick?
I'd be willing to bet the answer is a big fat NO.
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torashin
That's all well and good, but the big question is, if the rumours of apple designing a smart watch had never existed, (or word from any other moles they may or may not have inside apple) would Samsung still have produced said wrist brick?
I'd be willing to bet the answer is a big fat NO.
Or you know, it could be something people had been doing for a decade.
http://www.smartwatchnews.org/2004-m...ch-smartwatch/
The fact is google have announced their platform, and I think samsung wanted in on it. They saw the success of the pebble and the fact it's hard to broaden their current product offerings, from phablet, to small, where do they go now?
The fact is that apple hasn't produced anything in this field, and already you are somehow crediting them as influencing something that has been going on since they were circling the drain.
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torashin
That's all well and good, but the big question is, if the rumours of apple designing a smart watch had never existed, (or word from any other moles they may or may not have inside apple) would Samsung still have produced said wrist brick?
I'd be willing to bet the answer is a big fat NO.
I'll take that bet - and I think my money is probably safer than it is in a bank. :p
Smartwatches have been mooted for a long time - although I'm ancient enough to remember when we called 'em "Dick Tracy watches". So if you're claiming that the mere rumour that Apple was thinking about doing one was enough to kickstart others into doing theirs then I'm afraid you've fallen victim to Apple's PR hype machine.
Why did Samsung do theirs? Probably for the very sensible reasons that others were doing theirs (e.g. Sony, Pebble and a host of others), and because the Samsung one(s) are pretty much limited to Samsung phones, then it's a great way to "value add" for your brand. That last point is pretty crucial when Android phones are pretty much comparable these days. Because I'm a registered S3 owner (oh the shame!) I get marketing from Samsung and it was ALL pretty much "Galaxy Gear - a perfect partner to your Galaxy S4".
Remember that none of these companies live in an ivory tower - they all employ focus groups and opinion research companies to help shape future directions. And if all those groups and companies are feeding off of the same social pools then it's pretty obvious that we'll end up with companies acting like shoals of fish.
Remember Apple did the Newton, but I didn't see a rush of folks trying to do similar devices - more's the pity imho.
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crossy
Hmm, I'm going to argue that. Unless I've missed a nuance here having "information that they shouldn't have" sounds suspiciously like a charge of industrial espionage - be careful! As to the lifting of ideas from others - yes Samsung's definitely guilty of that, (e.g. stupid fingerprint sensor in S5), then again Apple's also admitted that it's not above doing that either. It's the way of the world - and they (Apple) come across looking like bullies if they're happy to do it, but not content to be a "victim".
There are probably earlier phones but the Motorola Atrix from Jan 2011 had a finger print scanner.
http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_atrix-3709.php
The market is getting saturated, there will be very few original ideas these days.
Re: News - Apple seeks $2bn from Samsung in new patent infringement battle
I do think sometimes we're guilty of over thinking these things, my Thinkpad has a fingerprint scanner and it's quite simply a great and easy feature to use to login to Windows etc. On a phone, if done right, I can see it's a great feature to have. So perhaps Samsung thought about it before and then decided after Apple's phone had it it would just be a good idea? If Apple wanted to be arsey, how about others penalized them....because they don't want to spend a fortune they could possibly lose is the answer. Apple happens to have a fair few truckloads of spare cash and can afford to lose a patent battle where other companies can't