Samsung Sues Aussie Patent Office In Apple Suit, Apple Sues Back 160
schliz writes "Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner — and by extension the Australian Government — in an attempt to force a review of patents key to its global battle with smartphone rival Apple. The Korean manufacturer claims that the commissioner should not have been able to grant four patents used by Apple in its case against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. The Government solicitor will face Samsung in court on June 25." Not to be outdone, niftydude points out that Apple has filed a motion in a California court to prevent Samsung selling its latest smartphone, the Galaxy S III in the US.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Apple called Samsung a doodoo head and is currently grounded.
MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Mutually Assured Destruction:
This is like the nuclear deterant, but without the massive death toll to keep it at bay.
They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.
Re:MAD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MAD (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is the aggressor here. They started the war, they are the ones trying to get Samsung products banned from sale. Samsung mostly tries to defend itself by getting patents invalidated, with occasional and IMHO misguided attempts at having Apple products banned in retaliation.
There need to be severe consequences for failed patent litigation.
Re:MAD (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, because we didn't have rectangular stuff with round corners before Apple. But talking about copying stuff, when did iOS get notification bar? Or multitask? Dictating and voice commands? Shall I continue on? Get over it, Apple copies as much as the next. The question is what is and it's not patentable (and I won't even go to the argument if Apple has the right to announce existing tech as new tech when launching "new" stuff or not).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's the point, it didn't add anything to the discussion. It's also that kind of simplification that everybody has to wade through to educate people about the actual legal claims. Stop repeating shit.
Here and don't say rectangles again: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/2011/05/03/apple-vs-samsung-a-visual-guide-to-apples-ip-claims-hardware-icons-packaging/ [peanutbuttereggdirt.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone who confuses an SGS2 or SGS3 with an iphone is an idiot, so no, samsung did not "copy" the iphone. They did copy elements of it, but then everybody does that, so now we're in a discussion about degrees of similarity and what is acceptable (very vague).
The irony is that where I think samsung went too far isn't what they got into trouble for. I think the copying of the icons went too far. I think they could have made a nicer icon set that didn't look so much like the iphone's. But since they weren't id
Re:MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Satire... I have a Galaxy Ace, and have no trouble telling it from my boss's iPhone. There are some cursory similarities, but the reality is that there's really only so many ways that a large-screen small handheld device can be put together and still have something that's functional. The only truly functional alternatives while keeping the same basic use are a clamshell and a slider, and both make for a heavier and larger device. In this day and age, people seem to want smaller, thinner, lighter devices, and so the bar is winning out as the most popular design.
Compare how the software actually functions on the devices, and tell me that Samsung copied the iPhone. While doing so, please ignore that the software actually comes from Google, and that Android was actually in development since 2003 (and that Google acquired them in 2005), while iOS was first announced in 2007. You'll have more credibility if we just sweep that little tidbit under the rug.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let us also sweep under the rug the fact that android in June of 2007 was vastly different from what it was after iPhone was released and google had their "oh, shit" moment...
Re: (Score:2)
The only truly functional alternatives while keeping the same basic use are a clamshell and a slider, and both make for a heavier and larger device. In this day and age, people seem to want smaller, thinner, lighter devices, and so the bar is winning out as the most popular design.
Oddly, I was just trying to find a suitable replacement for my dead HTC Dream. It turns out that here in europe there are basically no qwerty slider phones - just the Desire Z and Xperia, which are both ancient technology. In a weird change to normal, the US seems to have a better selection of phones and has stacks and stacks of qwerty sliders. So in the end I'm having to import a Samsung Captivate Glide from the US (and the US being typically crap when handling the rest of the world, virtually no US com
Re:MAD (Score:5, Informative)
Compare the iPhone 1.0 to the LG Prada phone. Apple was not the first capacitive touch phone. It came up with a similar design to the LG Prada. It's convergent evolution - once they realized that capacitive screens are better (because no-one wants to mess around with a stylus) then a few common solutions (big screen, no buttons, big icons, smooth dragging) cropped up. Apple just did it a bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor are these the defining characteristics of the iPhone anyway. Inertial scrolling with elasticity is more so. But even there, it was invented for the iPod, which had a wheel rather than a touch screen.
... and note that it's hardly something Apple came up with first. For instance, high-end stereos in the '70s had tuning knobs that did this (and it was clearly a "design" rather than an artifact of the mechanism).
Using a well-proven mechanical UI technique in an electronic device was a good idea, and Apple certainly deserves kudos for doing so—but "good ideas" are not patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
... and note that it's hardly something Apple came up with first. For instance, high-end stereos in the '70s had tuning knobs that did this (and it was clearly a "design" rather than an artifact of the mechanism).
And there lies the difference between inspiration and copying.
The Beatles were inspired by Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley amongst others. But they didn't copy them.
Using the idea of a mechanical analogue tuning system for a radio for a a digital electronic media player is inspiration. Doing a phone design that's just like a competitors phone design is copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it's irrelevant. "Copying" is not illegal. Certain narrowly defined types of copying are, under the regimes of copyright, patents, and trademarks, but the cues Android took from the iphone are still general enough, and simple enough, that they do not fall under any of these regimes—anything you can describe in one sentence (and reimplement!) after a one-second external examination, and which follows pretty much entirely from a straight-forward mapping of previously well-known techniques to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy? Android is being developed since 2003, the T-Mobile G1 was released 2008 only a couple of months after the iPhone 3G (which was the first "smartphone" iPhone, the iPhone of 2007 not offering apps), so I guess Android was really quick at copying the stuff, you know, Google engineers had lined up at the Apple stores to get an iPhone 3G, and to save time, because the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 was in preproduction already, patched the copied features into the firmware by editing binary files directly, ...
If y
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Copy? Android is being developed since 2003
And prior to the launch of the iPhone, it resembled the Blackberry UI. Plagiarists are fickle.
the T-Mobile G1 was released 2008 only a couple of months after the iPhone 3G (which was the first "smartphone" iPhone, the iPhone of 2007 not offering apps)
The industrial hardware design, and the UI design don't rely on the supporting of apps. They were both there in the original iPhone. The phone you mention was launched 1 year and 9 months after Steve Jobs publicly demonstrated the iPhone.
Though why you chose a HTC phone when the topic is Samsung's plagiarism isn't clear.
And then, the Xerox meme? Really? Are you that stupid? If you don't know by now that Apple pai
Re:MAD (Score:5, Informative)
Apple fans love that version of events but it just isn't so. The Blackberry-esque device was only one prototype. There were fully touch enabled prototypes being tested in the same time frame:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_ [osnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder if Apple apologists haven't seen that article or if they consciously ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda.
The video [youtube.com] really shows that there's no truth to their arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article, saw the video. It doesn't prove that Google had a real touchscreen strategy until after the iPhone was announced.
Video and engadget article post date: 11 November 2007 (Android beta released 5 Nov)
iPhone announced, live demo: 9 January 2007
LG Prada announced (so we've covered the bases): December 2006
10 months is enough time for a large company with Google's resources to come up with a beta touchscreen OS and SDK, and prototype hardware for a video-only demo, shot in a controlled environ
Re: (Score:2)
Apple fans love that version of events but it just isn't so. The Blackberry-esque device was only one prototype. There were fully touch enabled prototypes being tested in the same time frame:
It's not a matter of who likes it, it's just the facts. That blogger's opinion is just wrong. The video he shows dates to Nov 2007. That's 10 months AFTER the iPhone was launched. And you see a pretty complete Blackberry clone, but a rudimentary port to what at first appears an iPhone like device. So rudimentary that for most options, the touchscreen isn't available. They never show the area below the screen but from the thumb movements it's clear that the there is a d-pad there.
The video doesn't show that
Re: (Score:2)
Apple fans love that version of events but it just isn't so.
And Android fans (or at least you) apparently love to ignore relevant data when arguing that something came first, since every single piece of evidence you just cited postdates the iPhone announcement by a minimum of 10 months.
There are plentiful examples of what Android looked like and how it worked in the early days. Hell, some UI designs dated May 2007 [theverge.com] were released on The Verge just a few months ago after they came to light in the Oracle v. Google suit. The one thing ALL of the evidence has in common is
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox.
Apple and Microsoft were both invited to copy the GUI.
Android looked nothing like iOS until iOS came about
Nothing? Disingenuous.
a happy Nokia owner who could really care less about these lawsuits!
If that were true, and you weren't an anonymous, cowardly liar, you probably would not be reading this story at all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple and Microsoft were both invited to copy the GUI.
And Samsung were not. See there's not actually a problem with copying when you have permission.
Nothing? Disingenuous.
He's right. Android didn't look anything like iOS until after the launch of the iPhone. Back in those days, Android was copying from Blackberry.
Re: (Score:3)
there's not actually a problem with copying when you have permission.
So are you going to actually argue that every GUI that isn't MacOS or Windows is "a problem"?
Android didn't look anything like iOS until after the launch of the iPhone
You and he are both on the same crack. both had all the same major UI components. Shit at the top, shit at the bottom, grid of icons in the middle. Minor differences in behavior don't equate to being "totally different".
Re: (Score:2)
Troll harder. Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox.
Yeah, about that... Xerox sued Apple [nytimes.com] for "unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers."
Re:MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because there is an infinite number of ways one could design a device that has exactly the same function, being used by people with about the same sized appendages in the same sorts of ways.
Head on down to your local hardware store, and look at the hand tools, and think about why every hammer looks pretty much the same, every screwdriver looks pretty much the same, every wrench looks pretty much the same...and now imagine how fucking retarded they would have to be designed if a single manufacturer owned such a broad and over-reaching patent. Imagine how many would sell if they had to be deliberately designed to be less effective just to get around a ridiculously generic design patent.
If the only way a competitor is supposed to get around Apple's stupid bullshit patents is to cram unnecessary hardware buttons onto their device, or make it work less efficiently, then there's a problem with the patent, and it likely never should have been granted in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because there is an infinite number of ways one could design a device that has exactly the same function, being used by people with about the same sized appendages in the same sorts of ways.
That you haven't the imagination to think of a different way of doing things isn't an excuse for copying. Strangely, before the iPhone came along, phone manufactures managed to come up with many very different designs. Now most copy the iPhone to a greater or lesser extent.
Head on down to your local hardware store, and look at the hand tools, and think about why every hammer looks pretty much the same, every screwdriver looks pretty much the same, every wrench looks pretty much the same
I'll tell you why they are allowed to be. Because the ideas are old enough not to be patented or design patented.
Re:MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I can think of a lot of different ways to design a phone, the problem is, Apple's design patents are so generic that the only way to avoid them is to design a less efficient product. If they own a "minimal design", then every manufacturer out there has to cram buttons on the front of their device? Come on, that's just stupid.
I could design a spherical cell phone, and nobody would buy it. Why? Because the most efficient shape for a communication device is a rectangle about 4-6 inches across. Look at every damned television remote, holy crap, all basically the same design. Why? Because they all have the same function, and they're all being used by hands about the same size.
Imagine if someone owned the concept of a rectangular remote control with buttons on the front, and now imagine how fucking retarded every competitor's remote would have to be to avoid that generic patent. How healthy could a market be with those limitations?
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple doesn't copy anything. Just watch this video, starting at 4:30 if you're in a hurry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI [youtube.com]
And this wikipedia page shows that Samsung used the word "Pad" way before Apple,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad [wikipedia.org]
Notice the lowercase "i" used in GRiDPad. (What word do you get if you only omit the letters "G", "R", and "D")?
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple doesn't copy anything. Just watch this video, starting at 4:30 if you're in a hurry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI [youtube.com]
Don't go skipping ahead. If you look from 1:25 you'll see their concept was just an Apple Newton with a bigger screen and a web browser. And concept it was, this wasn't a real product.
And this wikipedia page shows that Samsung used the word "Pad" way before Apple,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad [wikipedia.org]
That was GRiDs product. It wasn't Samsung's any more than the iPhone is Foxconn's.
Re:MAD (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair to Apple, Samsung called a lot of this shit onto itself by so blatantly lifting design elements from the iPad.
Oh really? [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gruber pointed this out:
Device has the perfect name for something trying to ape the BlackBerry design. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your link appears to back up my assertion. Did you have an argument to make?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MAD (Score:4, Insightful)
They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.
Corporations never die and patents do not simply walk into mor— er, they do not vanish. And when corporations die their patents often end up owned by trolls. You do NOT want this to end in fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Mutually Assured Destruction:
This is like the nuclear deterant, but without the massive death toll to keep it at bay.
They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.
You really think that's how MAD works? In this situation the only ones that can *survive* are the established players with lots of patents. A new player has nothing to defend itself with and would immediately be sued into oblivion by one of the companies with patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Mutually Assured Destruction:
Hardly. This is just them playing their cards to see who has the strongest case before settling in or out of court. Eventually, things will all be dealt, a sum will be decided upon, and somebody will pay up and might even get something for it. I'll be surprised if this actually affects either companies bottom line much in the end, let alone be detectable by any consumer not paying attention to tech site news.
What a strange outfit to sue someone (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...or is the entire Aussie Patent Office staff dressed like that ?
Only on casual Fridays.
supprised it took so long (Score:1)
Whatever happened to.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whatever happened to.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes more sense if you consider that the "free market" that big businesses have been all about is really just code for allowing them to abuse consumers and employees. Then this kind of systemic abuse actually makes sense as just one more step in the pattern.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theage.com.au/business/accc-seeks-225m-bite-from-apple-20120608-200p8.html [theage.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this what capitalism is about, the consumers choose based on price, quality, features etc...
In a perfect world...in the real world, people buy stuff because they watched an awesome advertisement, or got it stuffed down their throats, or because it is so shiny.
Re: (Score:1)
There has to be some benefit to R&D or people won't do it. If you invent a new dohickey get it to market but someone else with deep pockets then copies it, under-cuts you, and stops you reaping the benefits, potentially putting you out of business are you just going to shrug your shoulders and say "it's just capitalism in action."?
Some of the patents are too broad, some of the things Apple is using are ridiculous, however there is no doubt that Samsung has copied Apple's products as near as it can in or
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung could have put more differentiation in their interface
Er... didn't Google's Android team design the interface? Or are you referring to the actual hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
How long before others do the same? Who cares? This isn't rocket science, the actual work going into software and usability research simply isn't expensive ... it doesn't need absolute monopolies over basic ideas to make it worthwhile. Simple first to market advantage is more than enough to earn it back.
I don't have GoogleVision, I have a sense of history ... we've been through this before. I know that I couldn't even use KDE if Apple (and Xerox) had not lost the first time around ... and I know that if App
Re: (Score:2)
letting the consumer/market decide? Isn't this what capitalism is about, the consumers choose based on price, quality, features etc...
Yes, and what design patents are about is protecting your particular design aesthetic and brand so that consumers can make that choice. If you went into a store and saw two identical bottles of soda labeled Coke, but one was really by Pepsi, wouldn't that seem to be intentionally confusing to try to mislead you into buying their product? Similarly, if you see two iPhones, but one was really a Galaxy, wouldn't that seem to be intentionally confusing to try to mislead you into buying Samsung's product? That's
Re:Whatever happened to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's design IS distinct. It's minimal design is exactly that : distinct.
The design itself is a natural evolution of the device as a whole, not Apple's particular spin on it. Allowing Apple to patent a rectangle with rounded corners is like allowing Craftsmen to patent a hammer with a handle and a claw. Now nobody else in the world can sell a hammer without radically changing the design and making it less efficient? Come on.
If the only way a competitor can avoid litigation for their patent is to actually make their own competing product harder to use, then that's a sign that the original patent should never been granted in the first place. Do people honestly expect Samsung to cram a bunch of hardware buttons on the front of their devices just because Apple removed them and now "owns" a minimal look? That's going to degrade their product's functionality, just the same as having to design a hammer with the claw coming out of the top of the head, or the handle coming out of the top with the intention of swinging it underhanded. Nobody would buy that piece of shit hammer, obviously.
Since most human beings are using these devices with the same appendages (their hands), the device is going to be roughly the same shape, and since most people's hands are about the same size, there's not going to be much variation on size before usefulness is impacted. They're all phones, and function dictates form. Imagine if Ford was able to patent such generic design concepts? How many cars would there be on the market if no one else was able to produce one with 4 wheels and doors on the sides? How stupid would every competitor's car be if they actually had to design around such a ridiculously broad and over-reaching patent? Who would drive the fucking things?
Now, I'm sure Apple would be happier than a pig in shit if their patents were upheld and they got to basically own the concept of a smartphone in totality, but that is totally against the spirit of patent law in the first place, and everyone knows it. The only people defending this nonsense are Team Apple cheerleaders, not because it's actually right or makes any sense, but because it's their team.
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to popular misbelieve, the Prada was announced AFTER the iphone.
The original iPhone was announced January 9, 2007. First pics of the LG Prada appeared on Engadget on December 15 2006 [engadget.com], and according to LG, it was unveiled for the first time at the 2006 iF Design Award in September 2006. Not saying this means anything, as I don't think Apple copied it, but your facts are wrong.
Lawyers are overhead costs (Score:3)
Ultimately, lawyers and courts (when used for stuff like this) are overhead costs that are to be minimized. Don't get me wrong: the individual companies can come out better, but the customer always loses. All those lawyers are paid by the customers.
And I think we'd be better off without them.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. The cost/benefit of the patent system is our of whack. Without saying it has no benefits, in the software arena the costs it is burdening companies, and hence consumers, with are much greater than the benefits. Does anybody think Apple would /not/ have implemented swipe to unlock because their competitors would copy it? How many research man hours went into this startling invention?
Re: (Score:1)
Does anybody think Apple would /not/ have implemented swipe to unlock because their competitors would copy it? How many research man hours went into this startling invention?
Apparently Apple was not first with swipe to unlock anyway:
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unlock-even-though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it
Telling! (Score:2, Funny)
I've never seen two children running so fast as when they both want to be first to the teacher to tell on the other. God I hope these corporations don't grow up, or we'll have a scene from Deus Ex. I'm call it now. One of these corps will order a hit on the HQ or R&D site and that'll be the end of this.
Excuse me to be ignorant but (Score:1)
Isn't Apple that all the time sues Samsung or, (... put another Android phone maker here).
Would it mean that Apple is losing more and more ground compared to Android ? Patent justice is the last method when you have no more alternative to compete.
RIP Steve Jobs
Re:Excuse me to be ignorant but (Score:5, Informative)
I've been a pragmatically happy iPod owner, but one of the reasons I bought an Android phone was Apples behavior wrt patent lawsuits. If they want to continue to shoot their own foot, so be it.
Re:Excuse me to be ignorant but (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Apple that all the time sues Samsung or, (... put another Android phone maker here).
When it comes to tablets, I think Apple is the lead horse regarding lawsuits, but the entire technology industry uses the courts as a 'business partner'. Just look at all the patents that are bought and sold when troubled or failing companies need to raise money, or when large companies want to strengthen their positions against their competitors.
Would it mean that Apple is losing more and more ground compared to Android ? Patent justice is the last method when you have no more alternative to compete.
Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
Well, they are quite a bit away from Android in smart phones, market share wise they are neader to Windows Phone than to Android, tablet-wise the same will basically happen, it will just take some time => it's basically Apple against all other manufacturers, again, offering not one model, that by religious decree has to fit everyone, Android tablets offer all kinds of form factors. From cheap to expensive, from small (= oversized phones) to huge (>10"), different types of display technology (no pun in
Re: (Score:2)
I hate this. Why are supposedly intelligent people unable to properly categorize and make valid comparisons?
iPhone is a device.
Android is a platform.
Is there a single phone family that runs Android that has more market share than the iPhone?
Is there a single model running Android that beats any single model of the iPhone?
Is there any cutting-edge model running Android that beats the iPhone 4s?
I actually don't know the answer to any of those questions, but at least the comparisons are valid. I have a feeli
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yeah, someone posted above that the Galaxy III is beating the iPhone in sales in the UK (which AFAIK isn't a totally carrier-dominated market).
Prior to that the Galaxy II was beating the iPhone 4s.
And, yeah, the Galaxy III beats the pants off the iPhone 4s. Nice new design, thinner than the iPhone, and 1280 x 720 pixels (Super AMOLED).
If the iPhone 5 comes out with lower specs than the Galaxy 3, expect the iPhone to wither except among fans. Prediction: they will delay the release until they can get som
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
The last innovation they made in phones was the iPhone 3G. the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S have all been progressive updates of their existing invention, and as technology advances we're getting closer and closer to the point where the last generation is "good enough" and people stop upgrading. And I'd be reluctant to say that the 3G was actually innovative, since the appstore (which showed up with the 3G, and is the only real addition over the original iPhone) is something that had been done already in WinMo an
Competition == Irreparable Harm (Score:5, Informative)
Apple claimed that the new phone, which is yet to go on sale in the US but went on sale in Australia last week, could cause it "irreparable harm," citing press reports that mobile companies had already sold more than nine million units in pre-orders.
Hardly surprising that Apple is worried, according to the Telegraph the Samsung Galaxy S3 has now overtaken the iPhone 4S as the UK's most popular phone. [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Competition == Irreparable Harm (Score:4, Insightful)
From your link:
Samsung’s new Galaxy S3 now ranks as the UK’s most popular handset based on live searches and sales, according to the uSwitch.com Mobile Tracker.
Assuming the accuracy of these statements, the current rate of sales of the Galaxy SIII is exceeding that of the iPhone 4S. I think it's more surprising that the iPhone 4S is selling so well several months after it was released than a top-end brand new phone selling better than it. Only time will tell whether the SIII ends up being truly more popular than the 4S.
Re:Competition == Irreparable Harm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, the S2 managed this feat already for a good number of markets.
Another interesting tidbit, from a local network operator is that the S3 is the first phone beside Apple products, where they had preorders before the specs were released.
Re: (Score:2)
The Samsung S3 handset is popular based on "live searches and sales" from the article you submitted. I'd rather just go off actual sales if Samsung actually released any.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather just go off actual sales if Samsung actually released any.
It's not just Samsung - Apple also does not release its monthly sales figures for the UK and other regions. That's why all of the media cited figures are just estimates; the uSwitch mobile tracker [uswitch.com] is based on actual sales from one of the most popular price comparison sites in the UK, so perhaps it has more validity than quoting some random analyst company.
Patent Stupidity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This technology IP "war" is ridiculous. If motor manufacturers had the same intent there would only ever be one model with an IP registered "internal combustion engine"
Read it and weep.
[...]Ford independently developed its own hybrid system at the same time Toyota was doing its own. The basic architecture of both systems is the same and both are based on the concepts developed and patented by TRW engineers in the late 1960s. When Ford introduced the Escape Hybrid, Toyota went after the Blue Oval for infringing on its patents. Ford had patents of its own on the technology that Toyota was using. Eventually, the two companies reached a cross-licensing agreement that gives bo
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the heads up, Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering how you thought your upcoming iPhone5 stacked up against the S3. It's too close to launch to change it now, so these desperate acts speak volumes.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering how you thought your upcoming iPhone5 stacked up against the S3. It's too close to launch to change it now, so these desperate acts speak volumes.
I'm not sure that the two are directly related. Apple has been using Samsung as a patent punching bag for the last few years. I can't foresee a day in this decade when Apple isn't trying to sue Samsung for something. Just wait until Samsung has a manufacturing issue with some of Apple's components and Apple sues Samsung for sabotaging their parts supply. Grab a comfy chair, a barrel of popcorn and a good book 'cuz this is going to get boring.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were in charge of Samsung, I'd have had "supply difficulties" long ago, around about the time of each new lawsuit. It would be hard to prove a deliberate malicious reduction in supply, and furthermore, hard to say if that's in fact, illegal. Nobody is forcing Apple to use parts made by their primary competitor.
Re: (Score:1)
If I were in charge of Samsung, I'd have had "supply difficulties" long ago, around about the time of each new lawsuit. It would be hard to prove a deliberate malicious reduction in supply, and furthermore, hard to say if that's in fact, illegal. Nobody is forcing Apple to use parts made by their primary competitor.
That would only result in Apple going elsewhere, and Samsung losing a lot of money and then suing Apple for being anti-competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only result in Apple going elsewhere
They already tried [appleinsider.com]. It didn't go well.
It also seems like Apple relies on Samsung for the iPhone 5 processor [technorati.com], too. Maybe Samsung is the only manufacturer with the right set of tools for building them?
Fruit of the Loom (Score:5, Funny)
About Goddamn time (Score:3)
Samsung and Apple are at it again? (Score:3, Funny)
Here's my fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts get fed up and ban every single mobile company on the planet from selling phones for a year. Then they can come back in to apologize for their shit and maybe they'll be allowed to play again.
Your business is making and selling phones, not preventing other people from making and selling phones. I'm no longer buying any electronics product of any company who is plaintiff in a patent infringement case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad i Live in Africa (Score:1)
...where governments do not interfere in things like this, and the big cellphone companies generally do not consider it worth it to litigate on points like this (even in the more progressive African countries that have stable judicial systems).
This means that cellphones are forced to compete on the basis of some of the most unheard of things, y'know, things line "price" and "features".
Ridiculous (Score:2)
I'm glad Apple is not in the car business (Score:4, Informative)
They would have patented the use of four wheels.
The point is that in other industries, we do not see the petty suits over similarities. Perhaps we don't see them because we aren't looking. But the only issue I recall even remotely similar to this in terms of pettiness is the patent on "rotating table inside of microwave oven." For the longest time, people had to buy little devices or turn their food by hand because the ones with rotating tables inside were too expensive and the patent holder's license was too high.
I suppose we are seeing SOME patent issues in cars now that I think about it. Toyota holds patents related to the Prius pretty close and it's literally keeping hybrids from being developed. Yes, there are other hybrids out there. Just not many and not as successful. It's not that people don't want them, it's that they don't all want the same frikken car!
Lawyers don't want this to end. The judges aren't tired of this either... perhaps some are, but certainly not the ones in East Texas. The other parts of government are too busy collecting contributions and donations, walking through revolving doors and anything except "bribery" to even consider reform or intervention.
We'll just have to be content watching goliaths tear each other apart and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
And they would patent cars with rounded corners.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have patented the use of four wheels.
The point is that in other industries, we do not see the petty suits over similarities. Perhaps we don't see them because we aren't looking.
Poor analogy. And yes, you're not looking.
Premium cars (Porsche, Ferrari, etc) sometimes aren't available in even top-tier racing games, and regular cars never look similar to premium cars, because they're protected by IP laws too [internatio...office.com] (registration wall on second viewing, clear site's cookies to view again). Ferrari didn't win the copyright aspect, but did win the trademark violation claims, and the toy cars had to be destroyed even though there's no way they'd be mistaken for a full-sized Ferrari.
They won the
Finally! (Score:2)
Someone needs to grow a pair... (Score:2)
Apple uses like 30%+ of Samsung components in their iOS devices. Samsung is getting rich off of that fact and using the stuff they learned making iOS device components in their own line of Android components. Apple has been enjoying the relative supply stability, quality and reliability of Samsung parts.
One of these companies need to grow a set of balls and do one of two things:
If Apple grows a pair first then dump using Samsung parts in retaliation for all the cloning of Apple products Samsung has done in
a pox on both your houses... (Score:2)
No, seriously, please keep it going - you're doing more to the current IP madness to a grinding halt than any companies before you... thanks for showing the general public how patently insane the current situation is...
Quit Being Petty Children... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung is only dependent on iPhone as long as iPhone is a major player. If the Samsung phones take top spot, and Samsung have enough power to no longer need to make components for Apple, then guess who's screwed? What does bewilder me is that yes, Samsung has a contract to manufacture the components now, but how long does that contract last for? What happens when it's time to renew?
I work in Pharma, and our production site was bought by another company some time ago. We agreed to continue to manufacture th
Re: (Score:2)
What does bewilder me is that yes, Samsung has a contract to manufacture the components now, but how long does that contract last for? What happens when it's time to renew?
The question becomes whether Apple can find someone else who will give them a better deal. It is safe to assume that Samsung would sell the same parts cheaper to someone other than Apple, who is a direct competitor. Can Apple even find someone who is not a direct competitor from whom they can purchase parts?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they tried that, as someone referenced [appleinsider.com] above.
The problem is, the competitor they went to is LG, also an Android maker. That didn't turn out so well (quality problems), so they had to turn back to Samsung (haha).
There's also CMI, but they have quantity issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand why they should battle each other when they are dependandt on each other...
Apple is far more dependant on Samsung than vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Samsung makes more money by delivering parts to Apple than by it's own handset group.
A cool 6 Billion by Apple.
6 Billion in revenue in low-margin hardware parts vs 5.2 Billion in profit [reuters.com] in a single quarter?
You're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the issue here is that Samsung learnt from Sony's downfall (which included beside other issues the interference between business units e.g. DRM crippled entertainment devices because Sony is also in music/movie business), and so Samsung business units basically run independently, so the screen producing division happily sells to Apple, while the mobile/tablet unit is battling Apple in court around the globe.
(Basically it's "if we are not hard on ourselves, the competition will be, and that will be eve
Re: (Score:2)
Are you publicizing it? No? Then why are you asking meaningless rhetorical questions?