[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]No what Apple did, and does, is took a already existant product and made it trendy. Their iPods were inferior in many ways to Creatives Zen series. In fact Apple copied Creatives GUI like interface idea which Creative sued and won. Nothin in any of Apples products is original in any way. They just know how to appeal to the masses while sucking every last penny possible out of them. Its like the iPhone 4S. No 4G, normal glass, and locked doen like crazy. Compare it to any of the current high end Android devices, all that have 4G, Gorilla Glass and open.As for someone copying, there will be an idea and then there will be similar ideas. What I find offensive in all of this is that the courts took Apples doctored photos into evidence at all. That alone is a mistrial.Plus look at it from Samsungs side, Apple has long been using Samsungs CPU for their modile devices in what looked like a good partnership. Then Apple turns around and sues Samsung. It would be like Apple suing Intel for something, which I wouldn't be suprised if they do at some point.In short, Apple has become nothing more than a patent troll. I understand patenting an idea, like x86 or such but Apple is just full of it.[/citation]
1 - The iPods were superior in many ways, in many peoples opinions, to the Creative Zen series.
2 - Does the fact Creative sued when someone blatantly copied their design make them a patent troll too? Or is it only allowed.... 2 times? 3 times? How many times are you allowed to try and protect your intellectual property rights, in your opinion?
3 - 'Nothin in any of Apples products is original in any way' - this statement I cannot take seriously. You can dislike Apple but when you overstate your case it lessens your credibility.
4 - 'They just know how to appeal to the masses while sucking every last penny possible out of them' - isn't this the definition of a very successful company? Appealing to the masses is a good thing, by the way. As for 'sucking every last penny' - if their products were overpriced, they wouldn't be best sellers.
5 - You mention no 4G in the iPhone 4S, and 'normal glass', and also 'locked down'. Lets remember that for more than 50% of the world, the HDSPA implementation in the iPhone 4s is actually faster (since there is no 4G in lots of places, for example in the UK) than any 4G implementation in any Android phone, and of course battery life is better. Lets also ask how many people prioritise 'gorilla glass' when buying a phone? Then, lets consider your 'open' argument, since the source code to Android 3 wasn't released. You can, of course, jailbreak your iPhone too. So where's the tangible benefit for this vague claim of 'open'?
6 - The legal system is responsible for disregarding 'doctored photos' if that doctoring materially affects the case. Not Apple.
7 - The fact that Apple has been long been using Samsung as one of its many suppliers to manufacturer Apples custom designed CPU does not give Samsung any rights to copy anything, or any right to not be sued. Indeed, turn it around, given the long standing relationship, Apple being one of Samsung's biggest customers, isn't it completely immoral that Samsung uses that inside knowledge to develop a near-identical range of similar products? As it happens, Samsung will probably regret this because even if the legal case doesn't succeed, Apple will now find alternative manufacturers (and has already started moving away from Samsung).
8 - There is no such thing as a 'patent troll' - if Apple have not even an arguable case, they'll have to pay their own legal expenses and the expenses of their opponents, and will not even gain a preliminary injunction, so it would simply cost them money. In that respect, it's a self regulating industry. Note, I am not passing any opinion on who should win such legal cases - I'm simply saying the legal system can look after itself - and if not, that flaw lies with the legal system, not with Apple.
Facebook
Twitter