|
|
|
Scoblelizer: Samsung loss to Apple actually a victory
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 26 August, 2012
Robert Scoble, the author of the popular 'Scobelizer' blog, has said that Apple's win over Samsung this week, is actually a 'sizeable' victory for the Korean tech giant.
Samsung has to pay $1.049 billion for infringing on seven Apple patents, but during the time it stole ideas, it became the largest mobile company in the world, and the second most profitable (behind Apple).
Says Scoble ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
shortybob
Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 23:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
So... Stealing is good? I've been waiting to hear that for a long time. Goodbye, internet! Hello, Ferrari!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
il2117
Inactive
|
27. August 2012 @ 00:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. August 2012 @ 01:50 |
Link to this message
|
That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis. Samsung has done so well because they DIDN'T COPY APPLE. If they had, then they would have been slaughtered by every other android maker. You know who copied apple? Nokia...at least they copied the whole low quality hardware with high prices and proprietary software model...and they are "guilty" of the same patent violations as samsung (everyone makes rectangles with rounded edges). It didn't work out too well for Nokia, did it?
|
|
Morreale
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 01:57 |
Link to this message
|
I don't know anything about the blogger, but at first glance this seems sarcastic to me... Basically saying win or lose, true or false, what's it to Samsung given the position they're currently in.
As long as they are able to continue to sell goods, I guess :s
*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 05:03 |
Link to this message
|
None of the real innovative stuff in the phone was created by Apple.
Not the first camera phone, not the first GPS phone, not the first touchscreen phone, not the first icon grid phone, not the first phone with a notifications screen or multitasking, not the first music playing phone.
(Apple can thank Samsung for that last one)
and so on....
Long story short, the giants that Apple "borrowed" from were apparently not the petty losers that Apple have become IMO otherwise Apple would have been paying to use all of their real inventions in their phones.
Apple on the other hand "invents" a bounce effect and a black rectangle and goes on endlessly about how their product was stolen.
I'm surprised that the 2001 space odyssey clip didn't kill the ipad and iphone design patents. They really do look much like them and pre-date both by a long margin. I also liked finding out that the pinch to zoom effect that they went on and on about was demo'd to them in 2004... and they go on about theft?
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 07:02 |
Link to this message
|
It's a win in terms if Apple can't sue Samsung for coping their stuff anymore so Samsung is actually free to do what ever it wants now.
The problem is Apple didn't come up with all this stuff there was other companies and Nokia had UIQ which had all the stuff that iOS and Android proclaim to have well before both even existed but Nokia made the mistake of dropping it in favor of their more basic mobile OS.
I still have my A1000 mobile and it still works it was 3G when 3G just just coming out around the world, it runs UIQ.
very nice OS runs very smooth shame nothing much happened with it even though the company really wanted nokia to push it in all their phones.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. August 2012 @ 07:36 |
Link to this message
|
I disagree with this article entirely for the reasons KillerBug stated: Samsung didn't copy Apple. Most of their patents are off-the-charts absurd. It's undeniable there are similarities, but - to use a somewhat loose analogy - no different to the way that cars all have 4 wheels.
If Apple were really the technological innovators and forward thinkers that the majority of people applaud them for being, then they would be proud to have led the way in to the next generation of phone tech and design - rather than suing everyone who brings out a rectangular smartphone, with rounded corners and vaguely gimmicky looking OS icons.
|
|
nbfreak2
Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 08:12 |
Link to this message
|
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
|
Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis. Samsung has done so well because they DIDN'T COPY APPLE. If they had, then they would have been slaughtered by every other android maker. You know who copied apple? Nokia...at least they copied the whole low quality hardware with high prices and proprietary software model...and they are "guilty" of the same patent violations as samsung (everyone makes rectangles with rounded edges). It didn't work out too well for Nokia, did it?
I disagree. The only innovation that Apple brought to the smartphone world is the multitouch interface. Prior to that, it was Apple which copied from Nokia and, less but also, some other companies, like Motorola.
In fact, the UI *EVERY* phone has nowadays from factory, with the only exception of WP7 ones, is based on the first graphical phone UI showing a grid of small colorful icons designed by some finnish company... What was their name?
Not only that: Before the massive arrival of the smartphones, nokias were using a stupid proprietary version of bluetooth which only worked from a Nokia terminal to another, the infamous PTT (push to talk), which gave their users walkie-talkie capabilities, flash messaging... (Does any of this sound familiar or what?) But, since the first iPhone was a newcomer until last year, the most popular mobile OS by far was Symbian, and it was NOT proprietary. So, reality is exactly the opposite of what you depicted here.
And, I almost forgot to mention it, but... I beg you pardon? Low quality hardware? Nokia? Are we talking about the same "Nokia" here? IMHO, they produce much better hardware than most current phone makers. The mistakes they made and keep on making may be (yet they are) many, most of them related to their lack of speed adopting new tech in a rapidly evolving market, but crappy hardware is positively not one of them.
Finally, returning to the original issue, how the hell can anyone be allowed to file patents for "gestures" or a "rectangle with round edges" anyway? It's a complete nonsense. Samsung shouldn't be paying anything. Apple should, for wasting their time. Weird world. Sigh! :(
"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. August 2012 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nbfreak2:
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
The first touch screen phone I know of is the IBM Simon, from back in the early 1990's. It wasn't much what you would think of as a smartphone, but it was touchscreen with basic PDA crap. I know that HP was making true smartphones as of 2003, and there are probably others before that. The first iPhone didn't come out until 2007, the same year that the first iPods started to look like smartphones (but without calling capabilities).
It isn't over...Samsung will appeal this, they will bring it to the Supreme Court if they can...and if they win in a lower court, Apple will bring it to the Supreme Court. Plus, this is just one android maker...if Apple can actually get away with blocking sales of anything that is rectangular with rounded corners, they will try to sue everyone else until they have a monopoly...not just on phones either. Just think of all the things that meet such a description...my laptop does, my desktop monitor does, my Sirius radio does, even my Zippo lighter does! Heck, they could sue Wyoming!
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
27. August 2012 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
Getting back to Robert Scoble, I consider him to be a laser pin light spectacle of genius in the midst of a black hole at times & the rest, a full time blathering idiot. I'm sure there will be members here drawing similar conclusions to my candor as well, but this isn't about me.
Scoble's idea of 'spending money to make money' however quaint, is also juvenile at best. I can certainly think of much better & cheaper ways of spending advertising dollars than to drive a billion into the hands of my #1 competitor.
Hell, a murder scandal is still cheaper & could sell more product so long as Apple is made to look like the bad guy & Samsung somehow more victimized. Morally wrong on so many levels I couldn't begin to count them all, but we get the idea.
Nah, the Scobe want's people to believe he's a 'thinker'. He's outside the box. Well, if it's that one annoying cat that shits outside the box, then yeah, he's outside the box, because he's not original & fortune 100 companies DON'T gamble with Billions of their revenue.
Apple abused the US patent division & payed of the judicial system. They're looking for a monopoly, one way or another, despite what the constitution reads. And DON'T tell me it can't be done.
Remember not too long ago how a room full of congressional members almost immediately tore the knees out of their slacks sliding up to the groin of Bill Gates who was asking for more foreign visas? If the cameras hadn't been trained on them 110% of the time Billy Boy would have definitely had that "happy ending" grin on his face.
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 13:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Apple abused the US patent division & payed of the judicial system. They're looking for a monopoly, one way or another, despite what the constitution reads. And DON'T tell me it can't be done.
+ unlimited
ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64
|
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
pretty sure my old nokia has rounded corners and was made in 2006.pretty sure our local libray back in the 90s has a touch screen computer.not sure if it was ibm or mac who made the touch screen computer but it was a touch screen.If samsung or any other company could prove they invented the technology before apple used and patented it couldnt they sue apple for copyright violations.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nbfreak2:
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
Touch-screen technology has existed since the mid to late '70s; I used an early model of PLATO myself. And no, it's NOT over, as the inevitable appeal already in progress proves.
It is what it is, but it ain't what you think, sorry.
Edit --> Much of touchscreen tech was purposefully put into public domain by its creators, to avoid exactly the shenanigans Apple is guilty of.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. August 2012 @ 17:22
|
Senior Member
|
27. August 2012 @ 20:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Heck, they could sue Wyoming!
Epic... I sense a meme in the making... :D
Oh, Im sorry... Did the middle of my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours?
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
28. August 2012 @ 05:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nbfreak2:
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
Even though Nokia and Microsoft had touch screen phones before Apple?
So who copied who then....
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2012 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
Apple Claims:
7469381 & 7844915 - "Bouncing" - Even if Samsung did copy this, I doubt anyone would cry if they removed it. Personally, I turn this off on every phone I get right after rooting.
7864163 - "Single-tap zooming" - Samsung does not have this, nor have they ever had it. Samsung has double-tap zooming to prevent accidental zooming.
D504889 - A design patent that seems to be for the iPad, with almost no detail...it almost looks like an incomplete filing for one of the hundreds of tablet PCs that came before.
D593087 & D618677 - Design patents for iPhone, showing a single round button and a very wide dock connector, Samsung has neither.
D604305 - Design patent for layout of iPhone screen, where the physical buttons of Android are shown as on-screen icons, and other icons are shown in the same way as seen in Windows Mobile 2003.
Samsung Claims:
7675941 - Automatic compression and decompression of transmitted data
7447516 - Automatic selection & optimization of best radio signal
7698711 - Playing MP3s and controlling them while another window is open - Samsung did have this before apple, but it is so specific to MP3s that it is hard to defend.
7577460 - Allowing a phone that has a camera built in to act as both camera and phone - Filed 2006, long after the first camera phones were released.
7456893 - Allowing a phone with storage and display to store and display images - Filed 2005, long after this was on other devices.
So, Apple might have a half-legitimate claim on 7469381 & 7844915, but Samsung could just remove that (not that Samsung created it; it is part of Android). D504889 might also be halfway valid due to lack of detail...but then, it is also pretty much invalid for the same reason...I have an old HP iPaq sitting in a drawer at home that would infringe on it, and it was made in 2003.
Samsung's patents are not much better, but then they didn't start this whole mess; they are just trying to defend themselves.
|
Senior Member
|
28. August 2012 @ 12:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nbfreak2:
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2012 @ 20:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
Originally posted by nbfreak2:
Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"?
LoL...doesn't even know what the case is about; just assumes that it was about the touchscreen, and even then assumes that Apple invented it! If apple sued Boeing because their doors were the same shape as the iPad, this guy would be up here saying, "Apple makes airplanes and then everyone copies, I wonder who made it first?"
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
28. August 2012 @ 20:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hrm. I should have said touch-screen technology has been available to the public since the mid-to-late '70s - lol...
|
Member
|
31. August 2012 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis.
You just proved your own point.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. August 2012 @ 09:35
|
|
Tarsellis
Member
|
31. August 2012 @ 09:48 |
Link to this message
|
The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.
Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago?
The fact that you can patent any of this stuff, the fact that you can sue on it, the fact that these bogus restrictions can last so long is, I'll say it, patently absurd! To say nothing of the clearly biased and most likely purchased jury.
Stop letting them control the argument. Stop letting them abuse you. Stop accepting a false premise and letting them change the language and meaning of words, and start to question the very foundation of the corruption.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
31. August 2012 @ 10:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Tarsellis:
The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.
Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago?
Exactly... It's like trying to put a copyright on the word "And". It is truly absurd, but there are butt reaming assholes out there that will try that very thing & claim it as intellectual property; which can be said to be another absurdity in it own right.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
31. August 2012 @ 11:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, your argument is pretty much covered in the "prior art" topic,. Tarsellis ^^' ...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
31. August 2012 @ 11:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Originally posted by Tarsellis:
The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.
Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago?
Exactly... It's like trying to put a copyright on the word "And". It is truly absurd, but there are butt reaming assholes out there that will try that very thing & claim it as intellectual property; which can be said to be another absurdity in it own right.
The problem isn't the system really; it works fine when massive corruption isn't in place...and no system will work with massive corruption. Think back to the 1930's when white guys would get tried for murdering black guys in the south...no amount of evidence could get a white jury to convict, even if they were all witnesses.
|
|
