Backlash Has Begun Against Apple…

” I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: “Wait, so what they’re saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?”
Friend: “I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book”
Guy: “Seriously”

So, Apple has just persuaded a jury and the US public that Samsung copied Apple’s technology. Nice “own goal”, Apple. The whole world now knows how good Samsung’s stuff is and you provided them free advertising.

see Enrique Gutierrez – Google+ – I can't make this stuff up I'm sitting in a Starbucks….

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Backlash Has Begun Against Apple…

  1. I have only ever been an apple user since the 90’s and now I’ve had it!!! I bought the MacBook pro back in 2008 and recently it completely packed up, I took it in to the Apple store and the “genius” told me that I needed a new logic board that would cost over $500. When I asked him why this happened he shrugged his shoulders and said these things happen…I did some research and found out that my exact model was made with a faulty nvidea card and that Apple had sued the manufacturer of the bad part and won. So I took my computer in again and asked them to fix my computer at thier cost, long story short the customer service at Sherway gardens Apple store was terrible the Genius was quite rude and condescending talking over me in a louder voice…repeating thier policy which in a nutshell was that I was 2 months too late for the free repair…that there was a public notice and there was nothing they could do for me! Public notice? Why didn’t they contact me? I paid the 350 dollars for “AppleCare” I have bought 4 macs and 2 iPhones but NEVER again…Samsung here I come!!!

  2. Geoff Berry says:

    Apple: Holier than thou.

    http://everythingapple.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/apple-steals-ibooks-interface.html

    http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/neville-white/apple-is-the-worlds-tech-darling-ready-for-the-backlash/

    Most companies seem to indulge in patent warfare, but it is Apple any less guilty. These 2 links give some idea of where Apple are coming from.

    Personally I think they have great products and great design. But it clearly comes at a price.

  3. George Hostler says:

    Robert Pogson wrote, “Unfortunately, no one argued in court that software patents are invalid, so the supremes likely would not go that far.”

    I read the earlier Groklaw run down on the jury’s verdict. It was pointed out their disregard for prior art. OTOH, article through JR’s link expresses that the Dutch judge through out all but one Apple patent claim, having to do with the photo application. The others had prior art invalidating those patents.

    Here’s the latest from Groklaw:

    [quote]
    It’s a video on YouTube, titled “Apple Jury Foreman: Here’s How We Reached a Verdict”, and while he answers the criticisms, he describes how the jury, under his instructions, decided that the Samsung prior art didn’t invalidate an Apple patent. In doing so, I think he has revealed the biggest mistake of all made by the jury, one so large I don’t believe it can be ignored. At a minimum, Apple shouldn’t want to win like this. His aha moment, as he calls it, and assuming what he says on the video is accurate, was based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art.
    [/quote]

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

    RP: “It’s about time patents were limited to real innovation and not permutations of prior knowledge. Everything in software is obvious just like plain language because software is very plain language.”

    I totally agree with you there, Robert. A rounded corner rectangular electronics device with a bezel should not be considered patentable. Software coding on a overall general purpose type computerized platform should not be patentable. This is not innovation, it reveals absurdity of the system.

    This court case has made me rethink Apple. I am more reluctant to spend money on Apple products as of now.

  4. Clarence Moon says:

    Also the 15 percent profit samsung is making is under reported…

    Let’s see here, Mr. O…

    You have shown in numerous postings that you have a childish sort of understanding of laws regarding copyright, trade secrets, patents, and anti-trust. You have equally unsophisticated (and erroneous) understandings of military organizations and even world history. Your ability to use language is retarded and your personal pride in your work is non-existent. All that I can garner from your technology issues discussions is that you are merely parroting things that you find from Googling for technical terms.

    Now you add evidence of your lack of comprehension of corporate finances and understanding of how operations reports are constructed.

    It would be informative for everyone here for you to post a picture showing the manner in which you have tied your shoelaces. Then we would know for sure.

  5. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon really you need to go and do those numbers yourself.

    Mobile device margin is only for its own made.

    Just to be extra evil Samsung is multi company. Many sub companies 100 percent owned by the listed company.

    One of those sub companies is the company that designs and makes it chips. Guess what part of Samsung is going insane for profits.

    http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corporateprofile/affiliatedcompanies.html

    So all those screens samsung sells to apple appear as profit in. Not where you are looking. The numbers you are looking at don’t take into account the hardware business of samsung.

    Also the 15 percent profit samsung is making is under reported. Because the parent company takes a percentage and the sub samsung design company also takes a percentage and production done by a samsung company takes a percentage. So three slices out the pie going to samsung and you are only accounting for 1 of the slices.

    Clarence Moon my statement is 100 percent correct without question Samsung as its complete entity is doing the best out of the Mobile phone business.

    Yes seeing how much profit Samsung is taking is not a simple process you have a multi company mess to work out with different companies in the process taking there slice but they are all Samsung.

    Apple is a single depth company with departments. Samsung mostly does not believe in departments lets just make another company they take care of that problem solved. Also if a company does not work out they can let it just go under with Samsung where Apple is stuck with the bill of the failure.

    Clarence Moon really lot of people are kidding themselves and really don’t know how to read to see how money is really going.

    Samsung has its money spread out. So it does not appear that profitable.

  6. George Hostler wrote, “This case may end up in the Supreme Court.”

    The more cases head that way the more likely the supremes are to sort things out. Unfortunately, no one argued in court that software patents are invalid, so the supremes likely would not go that far. It’s about time patents were limited to real innovation and not permutations of prior knowledge. Everything in software is obvious just like plain language because software is very plain language.

  7. George Hostler says:

    Excellent article and responses, Mr. Pogson. I agree. IMO, the patents are way to broad to be considered innovation. We have yet to hear the judge’s decision. This case may end up in the Supreme Court.

  8. Clarence Moon says:

    without question at moment Samsung is making the most profit out of any company out the mobile phone business.

    You are only kidding yourself, Mr. O, and, as easy as that is to do, it is not changing reality:

    Contributing to AAPL’s “remarkable” share of the operating profits is the firm’s apparent industry high operating margin of 47%. By comparison, the operating margin for Nokia (NOK) was estimated to be 3%, Samsung 15%, Research in Motion (RIMM) 8%, Motorola (MMI), – 1%, Sony Ericsson (ERIC) – 18% and LG, 0%.

  9. JR says:

    Some more reading regarding the patents in this case.

    http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung

    This is especially for you Clarence.

  10. Brillo says:

    Plaster repair yes humans at this stage. Fitting new plaster not so much machines do that faster.

    Why do I have a feeling that oiaohm a robot of some sort. He sure as heck will fail a Turing test if he’s put on one.

  11. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “Though I doubt a robot will ever be able to do as beautiful a classical plaster job as my uncle used to do when he was working in construction.”
    http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/A_construction_robot_for_autonomous_plastering_of_walls_and_ceilings.PDF

    Fencing repairs yes humans need to be able to think why it broke and alter the design as required. Fitting new fences not so much a lot of that can be done by machine.

    Plaster repair yes humans at this stage. Fitting new plaster not so much machines do that faster.

    Just to be fun you can buy a robot plaster from italy. EDILROBOTICA http://edilrobotica.jimdo.com/

    They do a lot of robot construction tools Oldman. You don’t need a skilled plaster any more unless the plastering in fancy or its repair work.

    Its only a matter of time before you will not need a skilled painter either for new construction.

    italy if you cannot guess has a lot of old building with plastered walls that need fixing up so the robot to do the plaster job was developed there first.

    That company also does a brick laying robot and foundation levelling robot. Combined that with the UK LOMAR Speed Screeder for laying the floors and foundations. You are talking very few humans required to build a building from brick. None of these robots do electrical or water or gardens yet.

    Construction is highly effected by robots. Less jobs will be in Construction as well. Basically why employ extras. Plumber, Electrician and designers and there off sides might be your only humans building your house these days. 6 people max. Yes robots can clean the floors put the walls up.

    Since the robots don’t need to sleep they can work through the night due to lot of stuff like roofing truss and frames prepared in factory as long as walls are put up right there needs to be no cutting or use of other noisily machinery they can be bolt assembly. So they don’t need to stop at night due to possible neighbourhood disturbance.

    As yet this tech is not global.

    Oldman reality lot of jobs are no more as human jobs. Just there are areas still using humans todo them because the machines have not got to their markets yet.

    The most assured job at this point is truck driver. Even with a computer controlled truck I still expect regulators are going to be happier with a human onboard just like most commercial aircraft.

    Oldman being in the USA you have not been exposed to this tech in any large amount yet.

    Lot of this robot tech has to be developed so we can populate Mars and the Moon. We want to build buildings their before we send humans.

  12. oldman says:

    “So yes we are heading the path that the first human to touch a phone will be the human that takes it out the box.”

    Yeah, yeah, whatever. I think there is a fence that needs mending Hamster, why don’t you get to work…

    But then again, if you are right construction will be the place to be, at least until the construction robots get good enough.

    Though I doubt a robot will ever be able to do as beautiful a classical plaster job as my uncle used to do when he was working in construction.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “Your biases must have blinded you to the facts, Mr. Pogson. It was reported here that Samsung had surpassed Apple in terms of unit volume but was only about a third as profitable in terms of proceeds from smart phones.”

    He is not. If you include the devices Samsung makes for Apple that they take a cut from Apple is behind Samsung. Even a iphone contains some parts made by Samsung.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-samsung-apple-supply-idUSBRE87Q06N20120827

    This is Apple problem. Every device Samsung sells directly they profit from. Every device Apple sales Samsung profits from. Apple made a mistake thinking that Samsung will not scorch earth them because they will not kill a income stream. Problem is each device Samsung sells directly Samsung makes more profit than supporting Apple products. Scorch Earth Apple long term more profit for Samsung.

    Clarence Moon so without question at moment Samsung is making the most profit out of any company out the mobile phone business.

    So the 1 billion dollar payment from samsung to apple will be mostly Samsung returning money apple paid them.

    So now Apple has two pissed off big companies after their hide. Good show apple. Its not winning a Battle it winning the War.

    So yes Samsung blocking Apple products from sale directly effect Samsung bottom line. Yes oldman you share holder arguement does not hold up. The question is will the short term pain give long term gain.

    Patents the current system contains nothing to prevent MAD particularly for cases like Motorola who are no longer dependant on the very thing they are fighting with. Next problem is Motorola is not just another patent troll wanting payment.

    oldman
    “Grow fat on what Pog? the zero margin low end? Samsung is not stupid enough to do this. They will come to terms.”

    There is a problem its like the china solar panels been cheep. Factories making them contain no humans most of the time and run 24/7. In fact its a laugh because one of the China based companies due to USA being stupid is looking to load all the parts to a factory up build it in the USA so the USA government learns that solar panels can be cheap and should be cheap. The problem with USA made solar panels for cost is the fact they are using old out of date factory gear. Same applies to phones and everything else.

    Lot of companies are looking to return to the USA. Problem is there is going to be no employment out of this.

    Zero Margin low end is not true. Production has got that good without patents a 100 dollar device to customer is profitable. Really when you break that down and don’t try to by the parts by replacement channels the 100 dollar phone only contains 50 dollars or less of parts. 50% profit is nothing to laugh at. With reduced costs of production(no humans in production or quality control or packaging) a 50 dollar device could be 100 percent profitable in a few years. Interesting enough it can take less power as well using robots. Reason you don’t need lighting or temp control in some areas of the production process.

    So yes we are heading the path that the first human to touch a phone will be the human that takes it out the box.

  14. oldman says:

    “How does not having a design patent for a product make it not paid for.?”

    I could resort to some convoluted justification a la Pog or the Hamster, but I am not going to here JR. Your point is well taken in this case.

  15. JR says:

    @ Oldman

    Forgive me if I am wrong but……

    “Design patents are not that silly Pog. Of course Being a committed parasite you would love that patents disappear so that you can eventually reap the benefits of what you didn’t pay for.”

    How does not having a design patent for a product make it not paid for.?

  16. Clarence Moon wrote, “with more units but substantially less profits, it is mathmatically impossible for Samsung to have higher margins. Go back an check your work.”

    Samsung sells a lot of good with lower margins that are not smart phones. They are vertically integrated producing their own chips. Apple does not. Of course, Samsung can have a better margin if they don’t pay someone else to make stuff.

  17. oldman wrote, “Design patents are not that silly Pog.”

    see USC 36 Sec 101:“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

    Nothing about designs in there. You can’t make stuff up.

    “35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.

    A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -…
    (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented,”

    and stuff has to be original and not obvious:
    “35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.

    (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”

    Apple certainly did not invent rounded corners or rectangles etc. Apple certainly did a lot of obvious stuff if I/O is mainly through a touch-screen. I remember holding up my fingers and squinting through a small aperture when I was a kid. It’s fairly obvious if tactile-oriented kids can do it. Apple did a good job of system integration not invention. The jury apparently ignored that completely. They were supposed to review the validity of the patents and did not.

  18. oldman says:

    “Legislators and courts should chuck a lot of these silly patents. Even the silly jury had the good sense to ignore rounded corners”

    Design patents are not that silly Pog. Of course Being a committed parasite you would love that patents disappear so that you can eventually reap the benefits of what you didn’t pay for.

  19. Clarence Moon says:

    It was recently reported that Samsung has higher margins than even Apple

    Your biases must have blinded you to the facts, Mr. Pogson. It was reported here that Samsung had surpassed Apple in terms of unit volume but was only about a third as profitable in terms of proceeds from smart phones.

    Ergo, with more units but substantially less profits, it is mathmatically impossible for Samsung to have higher margins. Go back an check your work.

  20. oldman says:

    “Samsung is truly global and can laugh and grow fat without the market of the USA. ”

    Grow fat on what Pog? the zero margin low end? Samsung is not stupid enough to do this. They will come to terms.

  21. oldman wrote of M.A.D., “Nope. All parties are beholden to shareholders who have their eye on the money. Terms will be set and agreed to and all will continue.”

    In the recent court case, Apple stated that it did not intend to license the patents. The early negotiation involved prices high enough that it is clear that is the case. The fact is that any smart phone has so many technologies involved that to pay a licence for a bunch of them completely eats any profit. There is not much difference from being licensed to death and being banned. USA could become a backwater for IT if stuff is banned their and not elsewhere.

    Apple really is centred in USA. They can’t afford to lose any market share there. Samsung is truly global and can laugh and grow fat without the market of the USA. Apple is lighting a candle in a powder-keg with this strategy. It could bring down much of the IT industry in USA if software-patents etc. kill IT in USA. This threatens M$ too as they depend on IT thriving in USA. If corporations don’t act responsibly government/courts will have to act. Legislators and courts should chuck a lot of these silly patents. Even the silly jury had the good sense to ignore rounded corners.

  22. JR wrote, ““Taking a popular concept and driving the prices into the dirt is not the way to achieve prosperity in the industry.”

    How exactly is Samsung doing this.?”

    Samsung is definitely aiming at maximizing its margin, a far more important feature of technology than price. Profit = units * price * margin. Units and price are of no value if margin is too small. It was recently reported that Samsung has higher margins than even Apple. Both are mostly vertically integrated but Samsung makes chips, and Apple does not.

    see Digitimes

    If this recent lawsuit publishes Samsung as much as some are saying, Samsung’s units will increase. Combined with their margin, Samsung will laugh all the way to the bank no matter what happens in USA.

  23. oiaohm says:

    Ok samsung is directly hitting back going after product bans.
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=118251

    oldman
    –“Chris Weig with Microsoft vs Motorola as well there is every chance iphone and windows phones will be banned from sale.”

    Nope. All parties are beholden to shareholders who have their eye on the money. Terms will be set and agreed to and all will continue.–

    Except there is a problem oldman. Motorola has no direct shareholders any more. They are just a sub department of Google. So as long as Google Advertising and other areas are making a profit Google shareholders will not care about Motorola not being profitable.

    So crushing MS and Apple out of existence is beneficial to Google shareholders.

    oldman basically we have 1 player in the game who does not have to negotiate at all since its does not effect there share holders either way if they sell a device or not.

    Microsoft and Apple are the ones who have shareholders who will force them to settle. This is not a level playing field.

  24. JR says:

    @ Clarence Moon

    Clarence please explain this comment of your’s to me or perhaps someone else can explain it to me because I know you do not reply to my comments.

    “Taking a popular concept and driving the prices into the dirt is not the way to achieve prosperity in the industry.”

    How exactly is Samsung doing this.?

  25. oldman says:

    “Chris Weig with Microsoft vs Motorola as well there is every chance iphone and windows phones will be banned from sale.”

    Nope. All parties are beholden to shareholders who have their eye on the money. Terms will be set and agreed to and all will continue.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Chris Weig with Microsoft vs Motorola as well there is every chance iphone and windows phones will be banned from sale.

    “What Samsung has to fear is Apple being able to charge them for their patents. If Apple gets through with it, it could set up a dangerous precedent for the Android ecosystem as a whole, as the next patent infringement charges may be directly targeted at Android. And then you’ve got a game changer, because manufacturers without a huge profit margin on their devices will think twice about using Android, if they have to add all kinds of new patent fees to the production cost of one of their devices.”

    You are missing who the dangerous precedent is for. Motorola is not after cash. Motorola is willing to go MAD. Is Microsoft and Apple. What case if over turned does is give Motorola more patents to use in a MAD assault on Microsoft and Apple.

    This is the second time a company in mobile phone history has had to use MAD to get patent sanity.

  27. Mats Hagglund wrote, “Are people in west really so stupid that they believe that huge majority of consumers there outside west are going to pay 500-1000 dollars for mobile devices by M$ and Apple?”

    Yes, many are so foolish. It’s like a death in the family. The first stage of grieving for the loss of the way things were is denial. Just read some of the comments in this blog. There’s plenty of denial going on. Real people do love small cheap computers and the world can make them with ARM and FLOSS. That’s causing a lot of grief. M$ has gone past denial as they produce “8” for ARM. In fact, they’ve passed “anger” and are into bargaining:
    “”I’ll do anything for a few more years.”; “I will give my life savings if…”
    The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…” People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example “Can we still be friends?..” when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it’s a matter of life or death.”

    There’s no other explanation for M$ suddenly making diverse radical changes to the OS than to try to remain relevant for a few more years in the face of the dramatic success of iOS and Android/Linux. M$ has gone past denial where they called FLOSS a cancer etc. and spread FUD. They’ve gone past anger when they realized M$’s customers were using FLOSS in a big way. Now they are into bargaining trying to preserve dignity or cash-flow. The world will be a better place when Wintel reaches acceptance and actual tolerates competition instead of trying to kill it. Of course they will lose revenue from monopoly but they can be just another platform in a world full of effective platforms. Concentrating on price/performance instead of irrelevant marketing ploys and bullying will make all of us better off.

  28. Clarence Moon wrote, “The judge and jury agreed.”

    Correction: The judge has not written a final ruling. There is a hearing scheduled where Samsung will ask for the verdicts to be overturned. With an unbiased judge, that’s a real possibility given the public statements of jurors. Ignoring the judge’s instructions and doing things their own way is bound to tick her off. They apparently did not weigh evidence of prior art at all, and so did not really consider whether Apple’s patents were valid or not, so they did not do their jobs. It should have taken them much longer to consider all the issues they were supposed to consider.

    see GROKLAW: “After we debated that first patent — what was prior art –because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn’t something out there before Apple.

    “In fact we skipped that one,” Ilagan continued, “so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.” …

    “Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents,” Ilagan said, “it’s easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel…then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn’t rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated.””

    Bezel: “The rim which encompasses and fastens a jewel or other object, as the crystal of a watch, in the cavity in which it is set.
    [1913 Webster]“

    “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” seems to have been their motto. It’s not against any law to have a bezel. That’s an ancient means of protecting a fragile/valuable object. e.g. a picture/window frame or moulding. Yet, the juror seems to be stating that’s all they considered to decide in Apple’s favour… Sick. They made bizarre leaps of logic to fill out the form more quickly.

  29. Clarence Moon says:

    Barack Obama or Mitt Romney won’t be the most powerful man on earth in 2013-2016.

    Well, the US President is constricted by the laws of the land stemming from the US Constitution and that statement is possibly correct in terms of what the President can directly order without any review by Congress or the Federal courts versus what the Chinese or Russian premiers can do, although it is not so certain that Wen Jiabao and Vladimir Putin are not themselves held in check by their political systems.

    Collectively, though, the USA is the most influential shot-caller on the planet. The hope that those here have for the third worlders to somehow turn their huddled masses into some sort of economic advantage due to their being a giant source of consumers is rather forlorn. History has shown that the have-nots are eager to become “haves” and, given the opportunity to do just that, they will mimmic the actions of the wealthy nations and opt for the same sorts of toys, with an even more intense desire for the leading brands. They want to be seen as instantly successful and not as some sort of second rate loser who has to make-do with generics.

  30. Clarence Moon says:

    It is clear Samsung was declared guilty before the trial.

    Well, they were declared guilty by Apple anyway. The judge and jury agreed.

    That is the fate of the copycat. Rather than cloning the iPad, Samsung should have tried to invent some unique version of their own. That strategy worked great for Amazon with the Kindle series. Taking a popular concept and driving the prices into the dirt is not the way to achieve prosperity in the industry.

  31. Mats Hagglund says:

    Below the last line we probably would see neither great victory for Apple and Microsoft nor any benefits for Samsung, Google and Linux.

    What’s really crucial is economic, demographic and social global change. Most of new consumers are coming outside Europe and North America. United States Of America has not so much influence as media authors and so called advocates are still claiming. Barack Obama or Mitt Romney won’t be the most powerful man on earth in 2013-2016.

    Are people in west really so stupid that they believe that huge majority of consumers there outside west are going to pay 500-1000 dollars for mobile devices by M$ and Apple? Perhaps in USA millions of people see Steve Jobs as a new Jesus but hardly in Karachi, Bogota or Dakar.

  32. JR says:

    @ Chris Weig

    There were nine jurors not eleven.

    Perhaps you should read this to get a better perspective on the verdict……

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

  33. keith forsyth says:

    as an apple customer i have really had enough of apple now they are bullies who bully the competition . ive has 3 iphone,s now but switched to galaxy 3 way better and cheaper apple move over youve had your day

  34. Chris Weig says:

    People are not going to interpret the Samsung loss in the way expressed in this questionable anectdote, rather they are going to see it as it was, the exposure of a copycat who violated the law. No worries, as the saying goes.

    Quite frankly, I think most people won’t care one way or another whether Samsung did or did not rip off Apple’s designs or infringed on their patents.

    What Samsung has to fear is Apple being able to charge them for their patents. If Apple gets through with it, it could set up a dangerous precedent for the Android ecosystem as a whole, as the next patent infringement charges may be directly targeted at Android. And then you’ve got a game changer, because manufacturers without a huge profit margin on their devices will think twice about using Android, if they have to add all kinds of new patent fees to the production cost of one of their devices.

    That said, right now, Samsung hasn’t really any other choice than to support Android, as they have heavily invested in the platform. It’ll remain to be seen if they will rely more on Windows Phone as an alternative.

    BTW, there’s this article at Ars Technica which suggests why the jury reached a verdict so fast. It’s… disturbing, regardless of this case. It’s basically saying that from the 11 jurors, 10 decided to play braindead and follow the 11th like good sheep.

  35. Finalzone says:

    It is obvious Apple resorted to the court to stop competition knowing they don’t stand a chance against companies like Samsung.
    The way the verdict came exposed the very core issue of nationalism with the fact Samsung was denied to defend itself in numerous times like the prevention of prior arts.
    Not only that verdict showed how US software patent system is broken beyond, it exposed Apple as a bully worse than Microsoft. Historically, Apple products are nothing more than refined copies of the original inventors while claiming their own creations. The verdict also displayed misconduct from the jurors, one of them holds a patent.
    It is clear Samsung was declared guilty before the trial.

  36. kozmcrae says:

    Clarence Moon wrote:

    “Also the dangers of being second in these kinds of markets.”

    If you think Apple is going to get out of this (patent war) unscathed you are foolish and mistaken. Everyone will pay, everyone but the lawyers. The patent system is the enemy, not Samsung, Apple or Microsoft. They are just taking advantage of a misguided and broken patent system. While you are laughing at Samsung the next generation of tablets will most likely cost you more than what they would have as the manufactures brace themselves for the litigation/protection payments that surely must come.

  37. Clarence Moon says:

    Kozmcbear and the doughboy seem to both be advocating the old advice “When life gives you lemons…lemonade!” for Samsung, but it is out of despair, I think. It just goes to show how dangerous it can be to leave technical items to juries, judges, and lawyers in general. Also the dangers of being second in these kinds of markets.

    In another thread the boy down under (he claims) has fallen in love with SJVN’s notion of MAD and expects the Motorola cavalry to ride to the rescue of Samsung and others who may have been harshly treated at the hands of Apple or, better yet, Microsoft. I guess he has seen On the Beach once too often for his own good!

  38. dougman says:

    Samsung should market the hell out the story, a billion dollars in marketing will go far!

    Either Apple products are better or Samsung products are the same. That’s what the case was about. Whether Samsung COPIED Apple.

    If Apple has a better product then Samsungs can’t be a copy. Don’t try to say its about the equity of the parts because Samsung makes Apple parts. So to say someone looking at price only in this situation isnt in Apples target market is silly. The only difference is price according to the jury. Apple can no longer argue that they have a superior product because it would mean its different.

    Introducing the all new Sampple sPhone, thats ‘S’ for Smart design.

    This new phone ‘looks’ so much like the iPhone, that we feel you should pay 2x the cost compared to our regular line of smartphones.

    Customers have seen how my Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 blow away the iPhone and iPad and now this verdict will draw more attention.

  39. kozmcrae says:

    Clarence Moon’s scenario misses the fact that Samsung is an established brand with a strong customer base. They don’t produce “knockoffs” in anyone’s mind. Apple may have indeed just convinced the World that Samsung has produced an iPad sibling. If so that would be a terrible irony for Apple.

    It has been said many times that a patent war is a painful and costly experience for everyone except the lawyers. No one wins except the lawyers. Samsung lost a billion dollars (maybe), Apple may have lost their precious brand differentiation. And we, the consumers, will pay more for our technology.

  40. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon No worries until the grinding halt.

    The Samsung vs Apple is highly heated but friendly style of patent battle.

  41. Clarence Moon says:

    The whole world now knows how good Samsung’s stuff is and you provided them free advertising.

    Your minimalist world probably prevents you from understanding the mass market’s perceptions regarding originals and knock-offs, Mr. Pogson. It is unfortunate for your need to get some understanding that Enrique’s view is stuck in the same rut.

    People are not going to interpret the Samsung loss in the way expressed in this questionable anectdote, rather they are going to see it as it was, the exposure of a copycat who violated the law. No worries, as the saying goes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>