Apple VS everybody, eerrr I mean Samsung, I mean Samsung
09-04-2012, 06:01 PM
#24
This guy summed it up pretty well:
I personally dislike apple because they are anti-competition, and in many ways slow down progress of the market by trying to dominate it.
Also have a samsung galaxy s3 and its awesome....and my ipod shuffle I use is pretty good too.
This fallacious notion that Samsung copied anything from the Apple was ridiculous from the start. Certain icon colors and symbols were made to become a standard in the '90s(i.e. green send button with a phone). And, patenting the rectangle?!?
The jury was destined to have it out for Samsung whether it was bias or not. It boils down to lack of technical knowledge and how the evidence was presented. In Software development, the user requirements and the system requirements are two very different descriptions of the same product. Whereas the user requirements are an abstract of main points, the system requirements really go into detail and describe something unique. Since all smartphones and tablets have very similar user requirements, that documentation for Apple devices is probably very similar to many of Samsung's products. Without the technical knowledge to really understand how Samsung DID NOT infringe on Apple's intellectual property, the jury was only REALLY presented with an abstract; It became easy to deceive the jury with something every tech company has come to understand: Apple hit the market first so everything else is considered a copy.
No one should be excited about Apple's win because it does not promote innovation or economic growth, it debilitates it. Anyone supporting Apple's ridiculous claims must really want the market to suck. Anyway, I didn't much like what Mr. Palmer said but, one thing is certain: Apple did win this "round" but the consumer (not Samsung) lost.
The jury was destined to have it out for Samsung whether it was bias or not. It boils down to lack of technical knowledge and how the evidence was presented. In Software development, the user requirements and the system requirements are two very different descriptions of the same product. Whereas the user requirements are an abstract of main points, the system requirements really go into detail and describe something unique. Since all smartphones and tablets have very similar user requirements, that documentation for Apple devices is probably very similar to many of Samsung's products. Without the technical knowledge to really understand how Samsung DID NOT infringe on Apple's intellectual property, the jury was only REALLY presented with an abstract; It became easy to deceive the jury with something every tech company has come to understand: Apple hit the market first so everything else is considered a copy.
No one should be excited about Apple's win because it does not promote innovation or economic growth, it debilitates it. Anyone supporting Apple's ridiculous claims must really want the market to suck. Anyway, I didn't much like what Mr. Palmer said but, one thing is certain: Apple did win this "round" but the consumer (not Samsung) lost.
Also have a samsung galaxy s3 and its awesome....and my ipod shuffle I use is pretty good too.
09-04-2012, 06:29 PM
#26
yeh the nice thing about appeals, is as they wonder thru the molasses of the court system they can build a better defense, one that is ready for appellate panel of judges, not a jury of people who likely doesn't understand all the technical garble let alone the crazy patent system around it.
09-04-2012, 08:19 PM
#27
I wish all the android manufacturers would get their heads out of their asses and create phones with the same basic structure. Like the connector in the same spot on the bottom so third party companies could make docking stations. The biggest allure for me is how everything is geared towards the iphone. Ive got two ihome docking stations that could be used for charging and playing music if I had an iphone. Would be awesome if the same was available for say an S3 or 4GLTE EVO.
09-05-2012, 01:32 AM
#28
Originally Posted by ;4985074
"Apple hit the market first so everything else is considered a copy"
Before the first Iphone the blackberry was what was hot and dominating the market and everyone was trying to better the blackberry blueprint to take some of the market away from them. Then Apple came out with the Iphone and the whole market shifted away from the Blackberry, to the point where RIM is now on the brink of going backrupt I believe. Apple, for all intensive purposes invented the idea of today's Smart phone and the it's versatility with the App system.
They did it again with the Ipad, nobody really thought of CREATING a new market with a product that was inbetween a phone and a computer. Why should I be pissed at them for being so innovative and daring? Afterall they were the ones that risked the most should the Ipad market fail to materialize. Their competitors just jumped into the market that Apple created by basically copying what apple did.
And back before the Iphone Apple did the same thing with the Ipod. It's the same plot over and over. Apple invents/creates a market and everyone copies their design and come out with products that are similar to take their market share away. I'm not upset with that, at all, and again I don't agree with the Jury siding with Apple but I can totally understand where/why apple feels a need to defend it's intellectual property and rights.
What's stopping Apple's competitors from Leading the market instead of following what apple does?
09-05-2012, 07:35 AM
#30
Apple, Mr Jobs knew to get into everybody's head as the best thing since mangled's pecker (I've heard stories) that Apple had to build a basic device that a 7 year old could operate and then build all other product platforms from the same concept. It is genius. That same 7 yr old will be 16, 24, 30 and all along the way buy a smart phone. Or any mobility product. Genius. Pure genius. They have a great and organized set up. Android stuff is all over the place. The downside of open source. Google is a little late to the game in trying to create a central organizing place for you and all your ****, but they are the only other company who has enough power ($$$) to compete with Apple on that front. But they still have to rely on other companies to make the handset/other products for you. (who purchased motorola?) I just think they should lose this particular/specific patent battle. It is not good for consumers that they won. They had to fight it, but they need to lose.
Any of you guys read up on or hear the scoop on how these large firms do all of their patents? They buy more patents than they make on their own. When you are a 500 Billion dollar company you can pay crazy amounts of money to own (and shelf) any idea that is competitive to you.
mangled stop texting about your love affairs.
