Apple this apple that.

socreative
socreative
deal with itPosts: 8,914 in General Discussion
this is just fucking ridiculous
A US jury has ruled that Samsung should pay Apple $1.05bn (£665m) in damages in an intellectual property lawsuit.

BBC News - Patent trial: Jury awards Apple $1bn in damages from Samsung
«13456737

Comments

  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    I think it's fine that Samsung has to pay for copying Apple. We don't need any more iPhone/iPad clones anyway - I'm sick of the lack of innovation these days.
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    Had to laugh:

    0rJ7P.gif
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    US court finds in favour of US company shocker.
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    ...or world's wealthiest company finally beats down one that is not as wealthy. However it needs to be spun.
  • freelancr
    freelancr
    Señor Member Posts: 7,015
    This spat is very strange. Lots of other companies are producing phones/tablets that have taken inspiration from Apple products, and vice-versa.

    Aren't a lot of the components in Apple products developed and manufactured by Samsung?

    I wonder if it will ever get to a point where Samsung tell them to fuck off the next time they put in an order. Bit difficult to I suppose as they are a massive customer... cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    This patent horseshit needs to stop. I read the other day that apparently "Swipe to unlock" is now patented. I haven't read the article, but I assume this was decided in a court in Texas.
  • steveb
    steveb
    BitterHusk Original™ Järvenpää FinlandPosts: 24,035
    The trouble with patents these days, especially - guess where - in the the USA, is that the seem to be able to patent body functions. (Swipe, jab, poke, etc). I hope they don't get round to wipe or we'll all have skid marks. Fuck the lot of them. To anyone with any sense, almost all the patent feuds are ridiculous. They only continue because the corporate diktat allows it. It's an attempt by legal means, which the corporate dictatorship has hijacked, to protect US products against superior imports. The US has always been known for protectionism, it's the main reason its living standards are so mediocre.
  • ian
    ian
    éireannach Posts: 1,960
    Samsung should just charge Apple double from now on and they'll soon raise the cash for this ridiculous fine.
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    But if Samsung cut Apple off, won't Apple just go elsewhere for their components? I think I read somewhere the only reason they stick with Samsung is because they have massive capacity, other manufacturers just couldn't keep up with the demand. It's an absurd situation, two giant corporations that need each other but hate each others guts. In the end, the only people that are going to be hurt by this decision is the consumer.
  • freelancr
    freelancr
    Señor Member Posts: 7,015
    Signum wrote:
    But if Samsung cut Apple off, won't Apple just go elsewhere for their components?

    Samsung are quite unique, very few companies actually make stuff any more, and even fewer do the research and development. This is all off the top of my head, but...

    Screens? I think Samsung and LG are the only ones that actually make them for Phones/Tablets/Laptops/PCs

    RAM? I think Samsung and Kingston are the only companies that make them, other companies buy the chips and put them on their branded sticks.

    Hard Drives? There are a few more companies here, but when it comes to the custom SSD storage used in Apple products, I would be surprised if Samsung didn't make the chips.

    Batteries? Choices are Samsung or Sony for Phones/Tablets/Laptops?
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    Sharp and LG make most of the screens for Apple, but you're right about chips. They permeate a ridiculous amount of hardware. Everything from DVDs to fridges probably have a Samsung made chip in it. I think Pioneer have a patent on slot drives so I think they make the DVD stuff. Batteries are probably Sony.
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    steveb wrote:
    The trouble with patents these days, especially - guess where - in the the USA, is that the seem to be able to patent body functions. (Swipe, jab, poke, etc).....

    Software patents are way out of control, especially in the U.S., it's really fucking up the industry. But copying a complete device like that to that extent should be discouraged.
  • slate
    slate
    Senior Member Posts: 6,137
    kHLka.jpg
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    Software patents are way out of control, especially in the U.S., it's really fucking up the industry. But copying a complete device like that to that extent should be discouraged.

    What about two separate manufacturers of shovels.

    Or two printers who create books with pages that turn.
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    Giraffe wrote:
    What about two separate manufacturers of shovels.

    Or two printers who create books with pages that turn.

    Well you can draw the line wherever you want. I'd draw it a little south of where Samsung drew it.

    In hindsight I think it was a smart move by Samsung. They could have innovated a little more, like Microsoft did with their phone OS. Instead they copied a proven design and took their chances in court. Even having lost this battle they're still ahead having well established themselves in this market. They'll have to address this legal decision and make some changes to stay in the U.S. market, but at this point Samsung, along with Apple, is set to take the lion's share of the smartphone mega-billions-market. Compare to Nokia who took a more adventurous strategy.

    Samsung's stock is almost double what it was when they released the products at issue.
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    Samsung's stock is almost double what it was when they released the products at issue.
    ...and they're still OK on cash.
  • Shiro
    Shiro
    社長 Posts: 15,038
    Apple should stand on the quality of their products. It's why I use apple products, not because no other brand has similar components. I won't be surprised if Apple sinks into complacency over the next decade or so, resulting in either a loss of quality, or a disregard of customers.
  • ian
    ian
    éireannach Posts: 1,960
  • socreative
    socreative
    deal with it Posts: 8,914
    great read! I think apple is digging itself a grave slowly
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    ian wrote:
    You won't find many apple fans on Google+...in fairness.

    ...and, uh oh, my HP's keyboard is backlit like Apple! Will they sue HP next?

    d3be10a4ef8111e1b0f41231381418eb_7.jpg
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    [yt]CW0DUg63lqU[/yt]
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    ian wrote:

    It's all anecdotal that so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. :)

    Interesting how people have been saying that obvious gestures like pinch to zoom should be universal but my (ancient) HTC phone doesn't have that, instead you drag your fingers apart to zoom in - to me that seems natural, you're expanding the area with your fingers. If anything when I used an iPhone it seemed weird to pinch to zoom in on a map for example.

    What I'm saying is, I think there's plenty of room for the Android OEMs to come up with something different.
  • Matt_e11
    Matt_e11
    Grammatically inconsisten Posts: 5,058
    Come on, Samsung ripped Apple off. Looks just like it.
    If you designed a website and someone else copied it but changed the content from yours to theirs you would be going mad.
    If you pitched an idea to a company, they rejected yours but then you saw that they had got someone else to do your idea but cheaper? You would be ok about it?
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    Who are you asking?
  • Matt_e11
    Matt_e11
    Grammatically inconsisten Posts: 5,058
    anyone who thinks its ok for Samsung to copy Apples design
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    Nobody has said that...
    Come on, Samsung ripped Apple off. Looks just like it.
    If you designed a website and someone else copied it but changed the content from yours to theirs you would be going mad.
    If you pitched an idea to a company, they rejected yours but then you saw that they had got someone else to do your idea but cheaper? You would be ok about it?

    But the problem is that patents that govern universal behaviour should never have been granted. The fact of the matter is that competition forces greater innovation. Would the iPhone have the notification centre if Android had never existed? Hard to say isn't it. If anything, all manufacturers have been forced to compete because they all do similar things. If Apple litigate all the competition away through bullshit patent rulings, how is that good for anyone, including Apple customers? Short answer: it will be a fucking disaster.
  • sbx
    sbx
    Senior Member Posts: 3,606
    If people never stole ideas the modern browser wouldn't exist. Most features that exists today has been stolen from Opera.

    I wonder what would happen if Opera patented tabbed browsing, searches, speed dials, and so forth.

    Apple have patented the idea of a swipe action to unlock the phone. Pinching to control zoom commands focused on a central point.

    Apple haven't projected a need for innovation, they've just destroyed it by being bitches. Microsoft said it best - now there will be a huge forray of change to existing products to avoid the dreaded patent bitch slap.

    Another notch added to the fuck apple campaign.
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    Some lawyers are saying the ruling might not stand.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    If you invest millions in R&D which results in a successful product and then another company just copies that product and proceeds to make money from it - then I have no problem in them being held to task. From that point of view the patent law HELPS innovation as it allows companies to pour their money into research

    The problem here is not that Apple are stopping innovation, that's a load of sensationalist bullshit - it's all about what should and shouldn't be patentable, and that's not up to Apple

    No companies are altruistic, they all look to protect their assets and the system that allows them to do this is in question - turning it into anti Apple or anti Samsung debate is a smokescreen and doesn't really help

    Don't hate the player, hate the game
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    d*d wrote:
    Don't hate the player, hate the game

    Or hate both. If you're a "player" then you're complicit, and inevitably part of the problem.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Because something is possible in the "game" does not force the player to take those actions. Sorry shifting blame is just cheap. I sued the store owner because I could... not because I should have, not because they really did anything wrong but because I could.

    Waits patiently for the lawsuits against Google and Mozilla because their browsers have back and forward buttons.

    I'm an iPhone fan, it's the only smart phone I've ever owned and I'll argue it's still the best one out there. But Apple themselves? They've always been a bunch of smug self important cunts that cry everytime someone does something they don't like.

    ala suing MS over Windows, they're fucking lucky Xerox didn't sue the fuck out of both of them because technically they BOTH stole the graphical UI from Xerox.
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    Yes, let's just lay the cards out on the table. We're talking about a shitty corporation that has cried foul before yet hasn't hesitated to blatantly steal ideas, undercutting the "innovators" by putting their generic label on the technology and charging less for the product. They're just Wal-Mart in a slick plastic casing.

    Fuck these idiots.
  • Nick
    Nick
    Cream of DT Posts: 18,098
    Well said, d*d. My sentiments exactly.

    You can't blame a company for wanting to protect it's products. Samsung would do exactly the same if in Apple's position.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Okay, I'm confused. You can't be talking about Apple since you said charging less... Samsung can't really be accused of being cheap either, not when it comes to their TV's and home entertainment anyway.

    *edit - talking to Giraffe (Sub snuck between posts)
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    calder12 wrote:
    Okay, I'm confused. You can't be talking about Apple since you said charging less... Samsung can't really be accused of being cheap either, not when it comes to their TV's and home entertainment anyway.

    *edit - talking to Giraffe (Sub snuck between posts)

    Sorry, when I said "charging less" I meant copying and including the software natively for free.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    I fucking hate these companies trying to make money, using the law n' shit - why can't they just share all their ideas and give us stuff for free
  • laste
    laste
    Senior Member Posts: 299
    I don't think that one copied the other is really the point, I think that when samsung started leaning towards the apple-look people actually started catching on to the fact that apple's products are mediocre, incompatible with others, ridiculously overpriced and in some cases pointless. That had to have pissed them off so naturally they'd pursue these actions.

    After seeing the results of this case I really hope this backfires on them somehow, I mean where do you get the balls claiming devices with rounded corners was your idea.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    I fucking hate these companies trying to make money, using the law n' shit - why can't they just share all their ideas and give us stuff for free

    Yeah that's it, summed it up perfectly in a completely oblivious fashion. Bravo!
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    d*d wrote:
    I fucking hate these companies trying to make money, using the law n' shit - why can't they just share all their ideas and give us stuff for free

    What a well-argued straw man argument.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Yeah that's it, summed it up perfectly in a completely oblivious fashion. Bravo!

    Does any form of sarcasm go over your head?
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    That's your idea of sarcasm? Funny, it looked strangely like a "gee I have no real argument so I'll throw up the usual generic shit" to me.

    Apologies.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    That's your idea of sarcasm? Funny, it looked strangely like a "gee I have no real argument so I'll throw up the usual generic shit" to me.

    you want an argument?
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    lol
  • Pete Nice
    Pete Nice
    Gorzilla Posts: 5,214
    Jesus - is it 3am in the US? Wakey wakey US bredrin.
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    lol
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    you want an argument?

    Nope
  • LukeV
    LukeV
    Senior Member Posts: 630
    I don't get people who argue that this ruling holds back innovation. To me, innovation is not recycling ideas on cheap plastic phones. If anything, this ruling forces Samsung to actually come up with something different, possibly better.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    '381 patent: Relates to the "bounce-back" feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a photo or document.
    No real argument here I suppose but meh.
    '915 patent: Relates to a device capable of distinguishing between a single-touch scroll operation and a multitouch "pinch-to-zoom" operation.
    '163 patent: Relates to touch to double-tapping to enlarge and center portions of an electronic document.
    So only iPhones apparently are allowed to zoom since Apple invented zooming...
    Design patents:
    D '677 patent and D '087 patent: Relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.
    Only iPhones can have fronts?
    D '305 patent: Relates to a user-interface design depicting a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.
    Seriously? No fuck seriously? Who's the fucking idiot that APPROVED a patent on that?
    D '889 patent: Relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer.
    Not even really sure what this means or how Samsung infringed on it. How else do you design a tablet computer, it's not like the form factor leaves a lot of room for specialization.
    Trade dress (a legal term that refers to a product's physical appearance, including its size, shape, color, design, and texture):
    Dilution: Apple asserts that Samsung's smartphones dilute its iPhone trade dresses (one registered, two unregistered), and that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 dilutes its unregistered iPad and iPad 2 trade dresses.
    Infringement: Apple alleges that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes its unregistered iPad and iPad 2 trade dresses.
    Antitrust: Apple alleges that Samsung's assertion of patents that are essential to 3G standards constitutes a violation of federal and California antitrust law.

    Oh please do fuck off. If d*d had anything right it's that note one of these fucking things should have been allowed to be patented. Your tablet looks like our tablet... umm ALL tablets look like tablets that's what makes them tablets fucksticks.
  • roto
    roto
    |-/ Posts: 12,958
    Jesus, Calder...not too busy today? ;)
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    D '305 patent: Relates to a user-interface design depicting a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.

    I see this as a bit of a culdesac where the apple ios interface is concerned.

    I can see the benefits in so much as you can impose control of the appearence of the homescreen but the widget style front page is a much more progressive idea.

    I also agree with D&D, apple should be able to protect the ideas that they innovated.
  • top_buzz
    top_buzz
    For your health! Posts: 6,702
    They didn't invent that bounce back effect though. That's been about for ages.
  • laste
    laste
    Senior Member Posts: 299
    '381 patent: Relates to the "bounce-back" feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a photo or document.

    that relates to a patent? symbian phones probably had that feature in 98.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Not even really sure what this means or how Samsung infringed on it.

    Think this can be applied to your entire rant - listing the patents like that and then applying your own layman's understanding of them is not very constructive

    Lets assume a certain, even basic degree of capability of the patent lawyers involved

    Samsung did copy apple - that's not up for debate - that's obvious from looking at the products

    What should be patentable is up for debate - I'd question some of those but don't pretend that I'd understand the how or why they were patented in the first place without a fair amount of research - until you have done that research all you have is assumptions
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    I also agree with D&D, apple should be able to protect the ideas that they innovated.

    I don't think anyone is honestly arguing against this idea, but against the validity of what exactly constitutes as innovative amidst this slew of patent claims.

    You also have to look at their patent drawings. They're rounded rectangles with the barest representations of functionality and features. That's absolutely done on purpose for cases like this so that they end up with the most leverage even if their claim is just fucking absurd.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    Giraffe wrote:
    You also have to look at their patent drawings. They're rounded rectangles with the barest representations of functionality and features. That's absolutely done on purpose for cases like this so that they end up with the most leverage even if their claim is just fucking absurd.

    It is absurd if you look at it like that -then no one can ever use rounded corners again, and that's not the case

    quote from the head juror -
    the jury made the decision not based just one element of the design, such as a device’s rectangle shape.

    “In the case of the design patent it was the look and feel of it, and how the device presented itself,” he said. “When you compared them side by side, it was apparent the patent was valid.”
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    It isn't a matter of how you look at it; that's simply how it is regardless of the mindset of that juror.

    There's a reason why patent drawings depict about a third the amount of detail they did more than thirty years ago, and isn't because it's a cost-cutting measure. The more vague the drawing, the more room for interpretation. The patent office lets any swinging dick through the door, so why not get away with stick figures?
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    Matt_e11 wrote:
    Come on, Samsung ripped Apple off. Looks just like it.
    If you designed a website and someone else copied it but changed the content from yours to theirs you would be going mad.
    If you pitched an idea to a company, they rejected yours but then you saw that they had got someone else to do your idea but cheaper? You would be ok about it?
    NGFwg.jpg
    Exactly. If your website was copied to this extent and was in direct competition you'd be angry.
  • Nick
    Nick
    Cream of DT Posts: 18,098
    The Samsung example still looks like its been shitted together.
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    he jury made the decision not based just one element of the design

    NGFwg.jpg

    The same in nearly every respect apart from samsungs shoddy production values on their own device
  • Giraffe
    Giraffe
    toxic designer Posts: 9,798
    Just to lighten the mood: one of the ipad patent drawings

    screen-shot-2012-07-31-at-4-38-22-pm.png
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    My hands totally look like that.
  • moz
    moz
    The 1970sPosts: 6,587
    Giraffe wrote:
    Just to lighten the mood: one of the ipad patent drawings

    screen-shot-2012-07-31-at-4-38-22-pm.png

    Reminds me of the Dynabook.

    Dynabook.png

    dynabook1.jpg

    apple-ipad-landscape-keyboard.jpg
    The Dynabook is still remembered as a vision of what computers could eventually become. Kay described a plasma screen with a contrast ratio approaching that of a book; a keyboard with no moving parts; a network connection with the ability to purchase, transfer, and download “instantiate” files; global information connectivity, such as libraries; media connectivity; and a target price of $500.

    Did Steve Jobs Steal The iPad? Genius Inventor Alan Kay Reveals All
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    moz wrote:

    Long ago when I was a young programmer Alan Kay was my God.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    Think this can be applied to your entire rant - listing the patents like that and then applying your own layman's understanding of them is not very constructive

    Lets assume a certain, even basic degree of capability of the patent lawyers involved

    Samsung did copy apple - that's not up for debate - that's obvious from looking at the products

    What should be patentable is up for debate - I'd question some of those but don't pretend that I'd understand the how or why they were patented in the first place without a fair amount of research - until you have done that research all you have is assumptions

    And as usual you take one comment and make it as if that were the whole comment, which quite clearly it isn't.

    Take the zooming for example, really you can't double tap, you can't pinch, so hmm I know you can use Morse code to spell the word zoom!

    Whether you like it or not most of Apple's suit is, from outward appearances, frivolous. The fact that they were allowed to patent such generic ideas isn't their fault no, the fact that they're suing over it most certainly is.

    Quite honestly people and organizations that do things just because they can are pathetic, since you're arguing the "don't hate the player hate the game" I'm going to assume that's the type of person you are, not terribly surprising we've had a history of not getting along.

    Not being a patent lawyer DOES NOT preclude my right to have an opinion whether you like that opinion or not.

    Yeah, the Samsung phone looks like an iPhone. Is that really eating into Apples sales? Unfuckinglikely.

    Most washing machines look like other washing machines.
    Most airplanes look like most airplanes.
    Most computers... yes look like other computers.

    If Apple is so fucking worried about sales how about they make a real change, you know something they haven't done since the original iPhone, instead of whining that other people make smart phones that look like smart phones.
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    calder12 wrote:
    Most washing machines look like other washing machines.
    Most airplanes look like most airplanes.
    Most computers... yes look like other computers.

    Most iPhone copies look like iPhones.

    There's more to this case than just patents and physical evidence that suggests copying. There are behind the scenes communications that point to Samsung's intent.
    “Certain actors at the highest level at Samsung Electronics Co. gave orders to the sub-entities to actually copy,” Hogan said. “So the whole thing hinges on whether you think Samsung was actually copying. The thing that did it for us was when we saw the memo from Google telling Samsung to back away from the Apple design.”

    Read more: Apple-Samsung Jury Foreman Says Google E-Mail Was Persuasive - SFGate
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    calder12 wrote:
    Quite honestly people and organizations that do things just because they can are pathetic

    What is more pathetic in my opinion is companies that slavishly reproduce every detail of someone elses design just to piggyback onto their sales.

    Wheres the innovation?

    They should get sued just on the plain fact theat they are not even attempting to do anything new


    I have to say I admire the new windows operating system becuase they have had the balls to do something completely different.

    Whether its any good or not remains to be seen but at least they are contributing in an innovative way.

    Samsung only has itself to blame for being lazy
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    I'm not denying the fact there is a certain degree of copying there, and that particular phone you posted could easily be mistaken at first glance for an iPhone.

    The thing is though it's not. Anyone buying one knows it's not. The majority of the public doesn't buy a phone because it looks like another phone, they buy one because it fits their price range, their needs, it's what their friends have etc etc.

    I honestly believe, and of course I could be completely mistaken here, that most of the time when people buy things, technology in particular, that there are a lot of things that go into that purchase and what it looks like is only one of those things. People tend to research technology purchases more than say clothes for example and simply making one item appear to look like another isn't enough to sway the majority of purchasers.

    I never said Samsung had no liability here nor did I say they were blameless. What I said, and what I still feel, is that a) Apple needs to spend more time innovating and less time whining (if the news over the years is any indication they spend more money on lawsuits than they do R&D) and b) the judgement was absolutely ludicrous. A billion dollars AND you can no longer make/sell certain products? Does that really seem reasonable, does anyone believe they've actually taken anywhere near that in sales from Apple based on the allegations?

    @roto - I have a lot to do, just frustrated with it and taking frequent breaks ;)
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    calder12 wrote:
    ...a) Apple needs to spend more time innovating and less time whining (if the news over the years is any indication they spend more money on lawsuits than they do R&D)...

    Where do you come up with this stuff? Apple spent 2.4 billion $ on R&D in 2011.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    And as usual you take one comment and make it as if that were the whole comment, which quite clearly it isn't.

    I've read that a couple of times now and it makes no sense
    calder12 wrote:
    Take the zooming for example, really you can't double tap, you can't pinch, so hmm I know you can use Morse code to spell the word zoom!

    Nobody has said that
    calder12 wrote:
    since you're arguing the "don't hate the player hate the game" I'm going to assume that's the type of person you are, not terribly surprising we've had a history of not getting along.

    I added that at the end of my post as a joke - it's a gangster slang meme, not my life philosophy and I really have no grudge against you
    calder12 wrote:
    Not being a patent lawyer DOES NOT preclude my right to have an opinion whether you like that opinion or not.

    Have as many opinions as you like, but they will be ignorant and uninformed making them pretty useless
    calder12 wrote:
    Yeah, the Samsung phone looks like an iPhone. Is that really eating into Apples sales? Unfuckinglikely.

    point. missed
    calder12 wrote:
    Most washing machines look like other washing machines.
    Most airplanes look like most airplanes.
    Most computers... yes look like other computers.

    You really don't get this at all
    calder12 wrote:
    If Apple is so fucking worried about sales how about they make a real change, you know something they haven't done since the original iPhone, instead of whining that other people make smart phones that look like smart phones.

    Smart phones only looked like the iPhone after the iPhone, that's kind of the point
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Not going to quote all of that and respond because it's pointless.

    Smart phones looked like smart phones after the iPhone because that was the logical progression. It's not a progression that Apple invented, computers and other electronic devices were going touch screen long before the iPhone.

    Now taking that into account there really aren't a ton of other form factors that make sense. Icons, yup Apple didn't invent those either (and the rounded corner icons on black is just sad how is that a patentable idea?)

    The zooming thing, from what I read Apple says they came up with double tapping and the pinch therefore it's theirs and patent infringement if anyone else does it that way. So if those two are taken away what's left a physical switch? A magnifying glass?

    My point is most of what Apple is claiming is theirs they probably did come up with first, but it's also the logical way these devices should look and act and having patents on these things is just wrong. I don't believe for a second that Apple doesn't know this, they sued because that's what Apple does.

    The "point" is that they're not being hurt as badly as they were rewarded for, if at all, and there was no reason to sue other than to damage Samsung. It was malicious and not self defensive.

    Where did you get your degree in law specializing in patent law? Just curious since you seem to be a self proclaimed expert on the matter.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Where did you get your degree in law specializing in patent law? Just curious since you seem to be a self proclaimed expert on the matter.

    How the hell have I given that impression???!! I'm the one advocating a bit of sense and not making the sort of ill informed assumptions that make up your last comment
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    You keep explaining how my opinions are ignorant because of a lack of knowledge of patent law. Therefore your knowledge of patent law must be extensive enough to make that statement no?

    How do you qualify the degree of someone's understanding of a topic without an extensive understanding of the topic yourself? I'm positive I can't tell you whether or not you know anything about quantum physics since I know nothing about the subject to base that opinion off of.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    You keep explaining how my opinions are ignorant because of a lack of knowledge of patent law. Therefore your knowledge of patent law must be extensive enough to make that statement no?

    No, all I need to know is that you're not an expert in patent law - I admit that was an assumption on my part - you're not an expert in patent law are you?
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    No, all I need to know is that you're not an expert in patent law

    Based on your expertise in patent law of course.
  • drik
    drik
    techno drik Posts: 3,152
    Popcorn-15-Scary-Movie.gif
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Based on your expertise in patent law of course.

    No based on the (fairly safe) assumption of you not being a patent lawyer

    You want to carry this on?
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    I admit that was an assumption on my part - you're not an expert in patent law are you?

    I'll answer the edit now.

    No, and neither are you, meaning you're no more qualified to judge my opinions than I am to judge the patent arguments themselves.

    Some of them seem exceedingly simple, having looked at patents before there is obviously a fair bit more to it than the simplified explanations I quoted but patent law expert or not how can you sue (or use as part of your lawsuit) rounded corner icons on a black background?

    I have never once implied that Apple doesn't, or didn't, actually have a leg to stand on and I think that's what you're missing. I have argued that they were just plain being cunts by doing it. I don't believe in the sue because you can argument and I honestly don't believe they deserved the judgement nor did they suffer anywhere near those losses.

    So really my understanding, or lack thereof, of patent law isn't really relevant to my opinion. My comments on the simplified explanations were probably out of place for my argument though.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Some of them seem exceedingly simple, having looked at patents before there is obviously a fair bit more to it than the simplified explanations I quoted but patent law expert or not how can you sue (or use as part of your lawsuit) rounded corner icons on a black background?

    I don't know and neither do you, that's my point numnuts

    I'm not judging your posts for their legal accuracy I'm asking that you stop making shit up - doesn't matter now since your pedantry and stubborness have pretty much derailed the thread
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Oh grow up, you were just as involved, in fact I believe you were the one asking if I wanted an argument. The thread isn't derailed it's still completely on topic.

    See the difference between you and I is you don't actually read what people say. We've had this argument before, you cherry pick something then that becomes the whole discussion and you go out of your way to call the other person ignorant, stubborn, or whatever else your name of the day is.

    Apple didn't need to sue.
    They did because they could.

    Whether they had a legal leg to stand on is completely irrelevant. They were being malicious by doing it, hence they were being cunts, and yes yet again still on topic.

    Now toddle along and fuck off I'm tired of arguing with your childish bullshit.
  • LukeV
    LukeV
    Senior Member Posts: 630
    The fact of the matter is that Samsung is a piece of shit company that does absolutely fuck all but copy Apple with the hope of undercutting them in terms of price. It's not just the phones:

    Samsung Store
    Samsung Windows 8 Launcher
    Laptops

    There are plenty of knock-offs but this sort of stuff isn't acceptable from a multi-billion dollar company. They needed to get their ass handed to them. Lets hope they learn something from it.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Oh grow up, you were just as involved, in fact I believe you were the one asking if I wanted an argument.

    read those posts back - I wasn't asking for an argument, I was questioning the part of your post that suggested you wanted one
    calder12 wrote:
    The thread isn't derailed it's still completely on topic.

    See the difference between you and I is you don't actually read what people say.

    I'm so in awe at the hypocrisy of that statement
    calder12 wrote:
    We've had this argument before, you cherry pick something then that becomes the whole discussion and you go out of your way to call the other person ignorant, stubborn, or whatever else your name of the day is.

    I admit I have rather focused on trying to make you understand that you aren't an expert on patent law
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    d*d wrote:
    I admit I have rather focused on trying to make you understand that you aren't an expert on patent law

    Which I already said really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not, in my opinion, Apple was wrong here. Not legally wrong, morally wrong. If you would take statements as a whole and not cherry pick the parts you don't agree with this was never an issue.
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    ^ Dell, Sony etc have done the all-in-one long before Samsung :)
  • moz
    moz
    The 1970sPosts: 6,587
    very_interesting.gif
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    :(
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    The original all in one (I am pretty sure it had no peripherals anyway)

    altair8800.jpg
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Which I already said really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not, in my opinion, Apple was wrong here. Not legally wrong, morally wrong.

    No of course an understanding of patent law would be absolutely useless here wouldn't it

    as for the moral angle - I might argue that it's not morally wrong to persecute for IP infringement - but I'm not going to have that debate with you
  • LittleMick
    LittleMick
    also known as little dick. The Occupied SixPosts: 8,952
    moz wrote:
    very_interesting.gif

    :) Saved!
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Morals, unlike law are a matter of opinion. Having that argument would be a waste since our opinions on that matter are obviously at odds.

    Check out that wiki page though, Apple is pretty well known for suing for nearly anything and they really don't seem to mind the size of the company they're trying to hurt.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    calder12 wrote:
    Morals, unlike law are a matter of opinion

    well.....


    a lot of philosophers may disagree with you, but we'll leave it at that
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,614
    calder12 wrote:
    ....
    Smart phones looked like smart phones after the iPhone because that was the logical progression.
    ....

    I completely disagree. There are many alternative designs for a computer-phone-PDA. Windows phone is just one example. Many other alternatives will be developed as a result of this verdict. There's tons of innovation left to be done in this area.
  • ian
    ian
    éireannach Posts: 1,960
    Signum wrote:
    ^ Dell, Sony etc have done the all-in-one long before Samsung :)

    Or anyone who has ever made a calculator. Or an abacus.
  • moz
    moz
    The 1970sPosts: 6,587
    Leaked Apple Genius manual reveals seductive sales tactics - Tech News - Digital Spy
    Customer: "This Mac is just too expensive."

    Genius employee: "I can see how you'd feel this way. I felt the price was a little high, but I found it's a real value because of all the built-in software and capabilities."

    Employees are also warned against using certain negative phrases, such as saying hardware could "bomb", "crash" or "freeze", rather than it "unexpectedly quits", "does not respond" or "stops responding".

    According to Apple, there is also no such thing as a "bug" or "problem", it is just a "condition" or "situation".

    iObey.jpg
  • calder12
    calder12
    Senior Member Posts: 13,302
    Wonder if that's one of the reasons why the Big Bang Theory people enjoy picking on Apple Geniuses so much?
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    That is some creepy shit.
  • moz
    moz
    The 1970sPosts: 6,587
    I really like Apple's attention to detail, from the design of a casing through to the user interface, but as a company its turning into an entity I really don't like.

    Now they've become 1984's Big Brother.
  • David
    David
    Keeping Tom Happy Posts: 12,891
    Signum wrote:
    That is some creepy shit.

    I know, it's almost like their training their sales staff to sell the product - I've not come across this level of bastardness before


    (edit for calder - this is sarcasm)
  • Signum
    Signum
    Bliss™ Posts: 4,557
    On page 60, the following dialogue is presented as a realistic sample conversation between two Apple employees:
    “Hi, fellow Genius. I overheard your conversation with your customer during the last interaction and I have some feedback if you have a moment. Is this a good time?”
    “Yes, this is a good time.”
    “You did a great job resolving the customer’s iPhone issue. I was concerned with how quickly you spoke to the customer. It seemed like you were rushing through the interaction, and the customer had additional questions.”
    A few minutes later:
    “Thanks for listening to the feedback. In the future, please make sure to signal me if you need help rather than work too quickly with a customer.
    “Thanks for giving it!”

    That's not creepy to you d*d? Who the fuck talks like that? It's like they joined a fucking cult. It's just weird.
Sign In or Register to comment.
© Copyright 2003 - 2016 - DT