Apple Files Lawsuit Against 10 Samsung Smartphones

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]lockhrt999[/nom]I don't think you guys have seen Samsung Ace. It's probably not available in US. It's the carbon copy of iPhone 4. Google this handset and see who is copying who.[/citation]
I see similarities but I wouldn't go as far as to say 'carbon copy'. If you want to talk about copying in this manner then how about Apple's new iOS5 upgrade?! - Here is what is supposedly new to iOS5 : notification center, reminders, newstand, twitter integration, "PC free" in regards to activating and setting up device wirelessly and getting software updates downloaded directly to phone as well, use camera from lock screen, single-tap focus, camera grid lines, etc. etc. - interesting because my 'droid phone has had all that on stock well before iOS5 came out, so Apple has taken from 'droid just the same so quit whining.

 

[tranzz]

1 - The iPods were superior in many ways, in many peoples opinions, to the Creative Zen series.

This statement will always be true because of the bold.

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?

you may want to read a little more. Apple are really going out on a limb

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.

No sucking every last penny out of a consumer isn't the definition of a succesful business. Apple went, in many peoples opinion, a bit far with charges for content from content providers. They are stuck till another option comes available. When it becomes a viable alternative IMO either apple will reduce their charges or providers will leave
Have you ever heard of designer. Clothes that cost way more than they are worth but people are willing to pay for the brand and image. It dosn't make them good or bad. Apple products are overpriced but if you want to buy into that design you have to pay. To many people don't know enough about what they are buying (techincal viewpoint) and will buy apple as they know it will be a good product. That dosn't mean you cant get something that is better for less.

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'?

Andriod 3 is for tablets not phones. Android 4 source code has been released

6 - The legal system is responsible for disregarding 'doctored photos' if that doctoring materially affects the case. Not Apple.

From a moral standpoint that almost every normal human posses you would not submit a doctered photo as proof.

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.

Google it...
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention.

Probably cause you not sure whats going on

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ianpac[/nom]The Creative Zen series evolved out of the Creative Nomad series which was launched in June 1999 more than 2 years earlier than the ipod. Creative did win the dispute with Apple even though it was settled out of court and Apple coughed up $100M. Apple tried to patent their version of Creative's GUI but were denied since it was too similar to Creative's patents.Even ipod's design was copied from Braun's T3 pocket radio designed by the famous Dieter Rams. All Apple has ever done is take other peoples' designs and ideas and tweak them into their luxury brand concept. The fact that people willingly pay excessive prices for branded products is a weakness of human insecurities and self-centeredness and does not demonstrate any technical achievement.[/citation]

The Zen series was launched after the iPod. The Zen series is the example YOU gave, not the one I selected. The Zen series did not exist in 1999, or 2000. The reason you didn't cite the Nomad is because it was not comparable (and not good). You specifically chose the Zen, which came AFTER the iPod, rendering that irrelevant.

Creative did not win the legal case, as I stated. It was NOT concluded, and there WERE two counter sues from Apple. You are correct that Apple tried to patent a similar technology to one which already existed, but that is not a legal case. That is simply a patent which was turned down. Apple paid $100M, a tiny percentage of their funds, in return for Creative joining the 'Made for Ipod' accessory program. Please view this article on how Creative joining the 'Made for iPod' program is actually worth far more to Apple than $100M, and thus they did not 'lose' at all:

http/www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/08/24/apples_settlement_seen_as_the_right_move.html

If you want an example of someone who took 'other peoples designs and ideas and tweak them into their luxury brand concept' look no further than Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Phone, Galaxy Player - (or should I say, iPad, iPhone, and iPod).

You can find roots of all technology in other forms of technology, that isn't anywhere close to meaning that all they do is copy. The 'tweaking' you describe is actually the innovation - it's what made their products far more valuable and the reason they went on to succeed and the Creative Zen didn't achieve anywhere near the success. Believing people are willing to pay 'excessive' (in your opinion) prices for 'branded' products misses the point entirely - and incidentally, has nothing to do with human insecurities, it has a logical and rational premise, particularly when looking at technology. The first point you miss is that a brand image has to be earned, and thus a brand reputation is built on how well they support their products, how reliable they are, how happy customers are. The brand spreads through a good reputation, not through anything bad. Secondly, the reason Apple is selling so many more devices year on year is because they appeal to people who aren't necessarily bought into 'apple' as a brand (which was, prior to the iPod, small). They achieved this by developing the best products at the time, which were, whether you like it or not, fundamentally different to players like the Creative Zen in ways which people cared about. The products are what built the brand, not the other way around.

 

[watcha]

Tranz, [citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]This statement will always be true because of the bold.[/citation]

Exactly. It will always be true, because of the bold. And the bold is all that is required to refute the original point. Clearly people voiced their opinions by buying it in much more volume than the Creative.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]you may want to read a little more. Apple are really going out on a limb[/citation]

In your opinion. Clearly not in theirs. It's their right to decide which cases they pursue and which they don't. If they are 'really going out on a limb' the process will simply cost them time and money. So I don't see the problem?

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]No sucking every last penny out of a consumer isn't the definition of a succesful business. [/citation]

Arguably, it is, by the way. But you completely ignored the salient point - which is that people only buy things if they believe it to be worth that money. That's their right, to decide how valuable something is to them. You don't have a right, to tell them that that is wrong, because it wasn't based on reason X, or reason Y (in your case, you cited technology). If you claim apple went 'too far with charges' - then that would damage the brand, as less people would buy. You say 'they are stuck till another option comes available' - is the absence of another option not clearly a very good reason for something being worth more? In all honesty, I have no clue what you're referring to in terms of people not having other options - it strikes me that there have been alternatives to every Apple device - we'll let you clear that one up.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]Have you ever heard of designer. Clothes that cost way more than they are worth but people are willing to pay for the brand and image. It dosn't make them good or bad.[/citation]

To compare the fashion industry to the technology industry is an immediate fail. A brand in fashion can indeed be based on nothing relating to quality, performance, relative value, support. A technology brand? Not so much. Brands are far, far more important when it comes to technology. You want to know that the device will be reliable, you want to know that it will be supported at least for 2 years (unlike Android), you want to know that customer satisfaction rates are high, that they don't often break, that they perform well - and almost every user also factors in price. To have a good brand in the technology world, DOES necessarily mean that they've been doing something 'good' - or right, to be more accurate. If they weren't, the brand would deteriorate. As I said before, Apple actually appeals to people whether they are invested in the brand or not, they have seen such massive growth as a result of the quality of their products.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]Apple products are overpriced but if you want to buy into that design you have to pay. [/citation]

You are entitled to that opinion. Just like anyone is entitled to believe that they are in fact living on Jupiter. But objectively, if something is overpriced, by definition, it will suffer reduced sales by virtue of being too expensive. Since Apple has produced numerous best-ever-selling devices, the rest of the world is sending you a clear message that they DONT believe they are overpriced - remember, value is whatever someone is prepared to pay. As it happens, if we take for example the iPad 2 or the iPhone 4S, there isn't a single comparable smartphone or tablet which can match the overall performance (including graphics) of either - so to call them overpriced is an immediate fail anyway. Similarly, other devices like the Macbook Air represent excellent value for money when compared with other alternatives.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]To many people don't know enough about what they are buying (techincal viewpoint) and will buy apple as they know it will be a good product. That dosn't mean you cant get something that is better for less. [/citation]

I absolutely agree that too* many people don't know enough about what they're buying (technical viewpoint). Take the poster before you who doesn't realise that the iPhone 4S is the fastest CPU/GPU phone ever made. He's probably making a typical 'wannabe-tech' mistake by comparing CPU mhz or RAM, oblivious to the fact the GPU is 3x slower and 2 years older. These types of people often buy Android, either because it's cheaper, or because of the misunderstanding I posted above. Indeed, studies back me up. Android users are on average, less educated, less well paid, and younger. The logical, tech-savvy people know the real facts and also realise that as the fastest ever phone made, yet not much more expensive than the much-slower Android flagship counterparts, the iPhone 4S right now represents excellent value for money. Amazing how much you can learn from a 'technical viewpoint' isn't it. And that's before we even explain that a technical viewpoint isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all, since reliability, support, (eg at least 2 years support) and quality and security (and number) of app can all also be legitimate concerns, or perhaps longest battery life is important. They may also not like the 5 megapixel camera in say the Nexus Prime (which again, the 'technical' guy above doesn't seem to be aware of). The only 'brand' at work here is people who are so delusional they actually believe 'open' is actually a benefit to them, which brings us neatly onto the next point:

'Andriod 3 is for tablets not phones. Android 4 source code has been released'

My apologies, I did in-fact mean the previous smartphone version of Android. The source code for which was not released. I wonder did the ecosystem fall apart during this time? Did the 'closed' system prevent everyone using their Android phone?

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]From a moral standpoint that almost every normal human posses you would not submit a doctered photo as proof. [/citation]

I absolutely agree. But you assume they deliberately and intentionally did it, which may or may not be the case (any conclusion you reach on that is opinion). Secondly, you miss the point of what I was saying. If the court found the photo to be doctored, and said doctored photo was materially relevant to the case, then it would have been disregarded. It's down to the defence to point out if this is the case. Do you know if that happened? Either way - it's a failing of the legal system since you should not and can never assume that all parties in any legal case will be honest. Just look at what got them there in the first place, the far-more immoral blatant copying of a whole product range.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]Google it...Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention.[/citation]

I can Google 'Fairy' too - does that mean I should be looking out for them at night? Just because a concept exists, doesn't mean it actually happened. Look at your own definition for example, Apple are being described as a patent troll for trying to protect the IP of devices they are still selling and will continue to sell. That alone means they are outside the definition you provided. Secondly, if you remove that part of the definition due to the 'often' word - then you reduce it to 'Company sues other company and person X thinks it's agresssive'. In other words, when you reduce the definition so loosely and couple it with opinion - it can never be proven (either way). In my case, for example, I do not believe it is unduly aggressive or opportunistic. That opinion cannot be disproved.

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]Probably cause you not sure whats going on[/citation]

I know that if Apple is making claims which have not even a shred of truth, based on patent infringements, it'll cost them and do no harm to the other companies. For me, that isn't a concern. I'd much prefer that to be the situation than for any big company like Apple or Samsung to just copy the innovative ideas of a small company and mass produce it, putting them out of business.

Patent law is there for a reason - to protect inventions, and I have no issue with that.

 

[back_by_demand]

Those who can't innovate, litigate
...
Totally different story when you steal the menu system for the iPod from Creative, or the Apple logo from the Beatles, or the iPhone name from Linksys
...
Aint it?

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Those who can't innovate, litigate...Totally different story when you steal the menu system for the iPod from Creative, or the Apple logo from the Beatles, or the iPhone name from Linksys...Aint it?[/citation]

Impossible, just need to brainwash enough!

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]poxenium[/nom]Next they'll sue farmers for growing a fruit with the same name.[/citation]

Actually you can get a patent on vegetables and flower breeds !

As for Apple, every time I read Apple-lawsuit my stance to not allow ANY Apple product in my company gets stronger.

F#$% Apple !

 

[nokz]

I have never in my life bought an iCrap product. I absolutely refuse to give them a single penny. They stifle creativity and innovation and sue for any and all reasons. Hell, I rarely come to Tom's anymore because they of the retarded Apple articles. This site is referred to "Tom's Apple Loving Articles and maybe some Hardware".

 

[del35]

Disgusting Apple smears itself again, as if all the drm infested , locked-down and overpriced crap they produce were not enough to achieve all the smearing anyone could possibly stand.

 

[del35]

I never thought I would actually find myself identifying with Samsung and entertaining feelings of brand loyalty; but Apple's sickness conjures up those feelings, and I dont think I am alone.

So disgusted am I with Apple that I will whenever possible expose the deceit and defrauding Apple commits on its gullible and clueless patrons.

 

[ianpac]

Watcha said
"The Zen series was launched after the iPod. The Zen series is the example YOU gave, not the one I selected. The Zen series did not exist in 1999, or 2000. The reason you didn't cite the Nomad is because it was not comparable (and not good). You specifically chose the Zen, which came AFTER the iPod, rendering that irrelevant."

Perhaps you should consider leaving the Job's Reality Distortion Bubble since I never made any previous statements, I was responding to your blatant reality dodging to someone else's post. I bought the Nomad Jukebox in 1999 and it was a widely praised as a great mp3 player so please stop trying to rewrite history.

Only someone in a Job's Reality Distortion Bubble would claim Apple did not lose the case just because they decided to settle out of court and pay "just" $100M. That is a $100M more than Apple would have been willing to settle if it were not for the inconvenient fact that they were guilty of copying Creative's ideas.

Watcha said "The first point you miss is that a brand image has to be earned, and thus a brand reputation is built on how well they support their products, how reliable they are, how happy customers are."

Branding and customer satisfaction are two separate things. Branding is caused by marketing and selling a lifestyle or emotion to people such as claiming your products are revolutionary when in fact they are just the same (or with Apple often less well equipped) than other competitor's products. People who bough Creative were just as happy, supported and found their products as reliable as Apple's. The difference is Creative did not market their product as sexy or revolutionary, overprice it to project the notion that it was a superior product nor did they have a CEO who encouraged a cult following idolizing his every word.

Computers and gadgets have always been about functionality, progressing specifications and compatibility. Apple decided their products would be about selling lifestyle imagery in non-compatible hardware and software configurations to encourage devotion to the brand. Even Job's first partner Woz thinks that notion stinks but there will always be people who believe Louis Vuitton handbags have made an invaluable contribution to society.

 

[legacy7955]

I'm waiting for the one lawsuit crApple starts where they end up bankrupt after the court finds in favor of the defendent!

 

[del35]

"I have never in my life bought an iCrap product. I absolutely refuse to give them a single penny"

I wish I could say that. I unfortunately bought an iPod. To this day I have not forgiven myself for it. One day frustrated with the iTune jail , I took the crappy device to a Manhattan Apple store to see if I could replace iTunes with another media management software. I was strongly discouraged and told that doing so would void my warranty. To make a long story short, in order to relieve my frustration I ended-up flushing the device down the toilet at the Apple store, and still rejoyce when I recall my action. To this day seeing the Apple logo gives me a feeling of disgust. Recently though I have begun to feel sorry for the gullible people being defrauded by Apple.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]"I have never in my life bought an iCrap product. I absolutely refuse to give them a single penny"I wish I could say that. I unfortunately bought an iPod. To this day I have not forgiven myself for it. One day frustrated with the iTune jail , I took the crappy device to a Manhattan Apple store to see if I could replace iTunes with another media management software. I was strongly discouraged and told that doing so would void my warranty. To make a long story short, in order to relieve my frustration I ended-up flushing the device down the toilet at the Apple store, and still rejoyce when I recall my action. To this day seeing the Apple logo gives me a feeling of disgust. Recently though I have begun to feel sorry for the gullible people being defrauded by Apple.[/citation]
Thing is I like my iPod Nano (1Gb, 1st Gen) it is a nice little player, but I have no problems using iTunes as Winamp does a sterling job syncing content.
None of which came from the iTunes store.