[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]The context of the ruling seems to still indicate that Samsung's device harmed Apple, when it is Apples greedy control measures that harmed Apple.[/citation]
Of course Samsung's devices harmed Apple, they are superior products. What they did not do, is infringe on Apple's bull spit patent of a black rectangular device with a button on the front.
oh Apple, Apple, Apple... tisk tisk tisk. With every greedy fight you try to win, every time you tell customers "you're holding the phone wrong, our product is perfect", you are in fact driving potential customers away from you and into the welcome open arms of your competitors. The iPhone 4 I had actually worked better than my HTC Thunderbolt - but I switched and refuse to go back to Apple products because of how they do business. They are causing their own "irreparable harm" by acting the way they do. I just don't understand how they can't see that!
Apple may be in a worse position than the media outlets would have you think. In the October brouhaha, the media outlets pointed out how the judge wave the two tablets in the air asking the Samsung attorney to tell her which one was which. However, the issue pointed out at that time is that the iPad itself is a carbon copy of the Knight-Ridder future tablet published back in 1994.
Samsung is not denying that the tablets look very similar. Their approach is to invalidate the iPad patent since, based on the published Knight-Ridder tablet, the design would be considered obvious...therefore, unpatentable.
On behalf of Technology, I would like to sue Apple for the use of a "screen" employing a grid of "pixels" for display of computing processes resulting from an "integrated circuit" employing micronized "transistors" which function through the transmission of an electrical current through both circuits and "power cords", controlled by the interaction of the user through either a "keyboard", a "computer mouse", or "touch-screen technology". NONE of which did they create or invent.
All of Apple's technical success rests solely upon the shoulders ... not of giants, but of other people, people who spent nights and years of their lives, away from family, friends, and society, to create the technologies that Apple would later integrate into computers, and then declare were created only by them.
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]AFAIK, nobody is forcing anybody to buy Apple products.[/citation]
Through litigation, Apple is driving up the cost to do business with anyone. If I decide to purchase a Samsung product, it will be more expensive thanks to Apple's frivolous lawsuits and Anti-Competitive practices because, ultimately, the cost for companies to defend themselves in court must be passed along to the consumer.
Apple already builds in its litigation campaign money into every device they sell. (or so it seems)
Teh only thing that makes me sad about this is that it may stymy my plan to give each kid a Samsung 10.1 for Xmas. The part of the world I live in, not more than a spit away from Australia, has been offering some great deals on the 10.1 pad because they want to empty their inventory in light of the Oz court judgements. Some of those deals have already gone after the Oz high court rulling last week. This following means I'm gonna hafta rush out n grab those Samsungs today.
ps Words cannot describe the superiority of the 10.1 image rendering, over the Ipox2's clunky graphics.