Apple vs Samsung

93 comments on “Apple vs Samsung ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   30 August 2012 at 3:07 pm

   Yes, I wasn’t impressed by Apple’s extension of their monopolistic behaviour.

   I also wondered how the US company was aided by the US court system in scoring a blow against a Sth Korean company?
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     30 August 2012 at 4:36 pm

     I also wondered how the US company was aided by the US court system in scoring a blow against a Sth Korean company?

     And according to wikileaks materials, it would be no surprise if US Government agencies and the US State Department were also actively involved in supporting Apple.

     Apple by the way has more cash reserves in its corporate accounts than most medium and large countries do (US$110B and climbing).
   • Matt 1.2

     30 August 2012 at 4:53 pm

     Are we using “court system” and ‘jury’ interchangeably now?
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

       30 August 2012 at 4:56 pm

       the latter is a component of the former. Consider also that the judge gave the jury extremely lengthy and detailed instructions on how they were to consider their verdict. And although deliberations were expected to take a couple of weeks, the jury took only 2.5hrs. It was as if they all wanted to fuck off back to their lives and not worry about going through the material which had been presented in court.
       • Matt 1.2.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 9:43 pm

         “Court system” smacks of some institutional bias that could explain the verdict, but juries are juries. Whether you like the outcome or anything else about the deliberations, like in NZ you draw from the public and you take your chances.

         The next big fight will be between Apple and Google, which as you know is based in S. Korea.
         • SHG 1.2.1.1.1

           31 August 2012 at 2:00 am

           Please tell me more about this South-Korea-based company called Google.
           • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.1.1.1.1

             31 August 2012 at 7:54 am

             구글
       • insider 1.2.1.2

         31 August 2012 at 9:54 am

         The jury chair said they were swung by emails by Samsung officials saying in effect “hey make it more like the iphone cos people won’t like it if it’s not” and the google/android people to samsung “saying don’t make it too much like the iphone”

         Remember the same Jury also halved apples damages claim, threw out the tablet claim and found in favour of samsung in a range of other claims.

         But we should all be happy because, on the bright side, the lawyers are getting paid 🙂
     • mike e 1.2.2

       30 August 2012 at 11:50 pm

       it won’t be long before apple’s mantle will be undone.
       technology is moving at a very rapid pace.
       jobs has gone.
   • SHG 1.3

     31 August 2012 at 1:43 am

     I wasn’t impressed by Apple’s extension of their monopolistic behaviour.

     And in just what market does Apple have a monopoly, exactly?
     • Carol 1.3.1

       31 August 2012 at 6:46 am

       I said monopolistic not that it is a total monopoly. It aims to dominate the market as much as possible by limiting use of other aps and technologies on its basic hardware. eg ITunes can only be played on Ipods etc, I can’t play them on my MP3 player.
       • SHG 1.3.1.1

         31 August 2012 at 12:11 pm

         Point the first: iTunes is an application that runs on OS X and Windows and is a free download.

         Point the second: If you have audio files that your mp3 player can’t play, that means you have a shit player. That’s not Apple’s fault now is it?
       • SHG 1.3.1.2

         31 August 2012 at 12:26 pm

         Oops ran out of edit time. And point the zeroth:

         From what I can see, Apple has no intention of dominating any markets. Apple doesn’t care about market share. I don’t even think Apple cares about money. It cares about making great products.
         • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.2.1

           31 August 2012 at 12:40 pm

           What a fucking joke. The dogma of the Steve Jobs faithful.

           Here’s a clue: a US$600B company outsourced all its manufacturing from its own US soil to poorly paid subcontractor peasants in China for no reason other than profit.

           Get a grip on reality man
           • SHG 1.3.1.2.1.1

             31 August 2012 at 1:03 pm

             What Foxconn offers is turnaround time more than cheapness. If Apple decides “nup, this plastic cover is rubbish, cancel that production run and re-do it with a glass cover instead” Foxconn can turn that around faster than any North American manufacturer, because (yes) Foxconn is a Chinese comp

             Apple could certainly get parts cheaper if it wanted to maximise its margins. What it wants is parts FASTER and EARLIER and GUARANTEED years in advance.
           • infused 1.3.1.2.1.2

             31 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

             They talked to the US. It would cost 2x more and had a far greater turn around time…
2. captain hook 2

   30 August 2012 at 3:49 pm

   pssssssst….
   hey meesta,
   wanna buy a sell fone?
3. RedLogix 3

   30 August 2012 at 3:49 pm

   On the other hand if you had spent $500m developing a product (as with one platform I regularly use) … would you continue to invest in developing it if anyone else with cheap slave labour and resources could simply rip it off?
   • Carol 3.1

     30 August 2012 at 3:57 pm

     I thought Apple also used cheap slave labour to produce its devices….?
     • RedLogix 3.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 4:04 pm

       So we should all stop buying anything made in China, or any other low wage country ….?
       • Carol 3.1.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 4:12 pm

         That wasn’t my original point. It was questioning the US court system’s objectivity.
         • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1

           30 August 2012 at 4:22 pm

           Which is fair enough …that was my reaction too. America has seen so much of it’s manufacturing base exported to Asia that of course no jury was going to vote for more of it. (Yes I know where the devices are actually made, but Apple is a US corporate and Samsung is not … and that appearance is what probably counts here.)

           So while there is precious little moral high ground for Apple to posture from in this case; neither does this extend the idea that intellectual property rights are nothing more than ‘monopolistic behaviour’.
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

             30 August 2012 at 4:41 pm

             (Responding to RL primarily)

             Quite right, patents should act to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

             Apple should be able to patent protect any innovative and unique technologies it developed. But to copyright a shape and a button placement? That’s just anti-competitive. Samsung showed in court that Apple was not the first to come up with a similar shape or button placement.

             Further, patents need to expire soon after granting, most within 6 or 7 years, and the rest within 10 years. That pushes inventors to get on with doing something with their designs, not just sitting on them waiting to trap other businesses with law suits.

             Patents need to give those who invest in technology a head start, not a license to print money into perpetuity.

             The changes to the NZ software IP legislation are concerning too.
             • RedLogix …

               30 August 2012 at 4:56 pm

               patents should act to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

               Exactly. And I’d suggest that the lawyers are primarily responsible for taking a system that had a positive purpose, and twisting into something else .. as we see in this case.

               I’m not so sure that a fixed time-frame is going to be universally useful. Some ideas have a very short market life, while others might take decades to make a viable return. Compare for instance say the really hot, rapidly moving smartphone business with something quite different like earthquake base-isolators for large buildings.

               Moreover such a short time frame inherently advantages big players who have the resources to bring an idea to market very quickly. And other ideas might well take a decade to develop into an actual product… too many variables for one fixed period to cover effectively.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 30 August 2012 at 5:25 pm

                 Moreover such a short time frame inherently advantages big players who have the resources to bring an idea to market very quickly. And other ideas might well take a decade to develop into an actual product.

                 Having had personal experience of this scenario I’m sympathetic, however large corporates are always going to have certain advantages in terms of resources and expertise. Start up entrepreneurs have to play the game smart and to their own strengths; and they have to find sufficient funding (from angel investors and VCs) as well as other partnerships to enable them to move forwards at pace.

                 Also, one might decide not to apply for a patent until closer to launch, or decide that keeping your technology a trade secret would be a better strategy than publishing it for the world to see.
   • Bunji 3.2

     30 August 2012 at 4:29 pm

     I’m not advocating no patents at all, but software should be protected enough by copyright and code confidentiality. Patents for real inventions that cost money to develop are also quite different to patenting rounded corners, or any future computer user input system that might involve waving your hands around (in 3, 4 or 5 dimensions, without even naming what that 5th dimension might be…).

     The US copyright & patent system where everytime Mickey Mouse is about to lose his protection they extend the dates 10 years isn’t exactly something we want imposed via TPP either…
     • Carol 3.2.1

       30 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

       Thanks, CV, RL & Bunji. That’s a very useful discussion and background.
     • SoSoo 3.2.2

       30 August 2012 at 11:42 pm

       Would you accept that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple, given that internal Samsung documents have them saying that they were blatantly ripping off Apple?

       It’s not hard to look at most Android smartphones and see a ripoff of the iPhone. It didn’t have to be that way – Microsoft has managed to make a decent, original smartphone OS. But of course that doesn’t matter, because what’s really going on here is Freetards whining because Android is the current great hope for Linux (even though it’s really just a play by another megacorp).

       If you want to complain about patents, why blame Apple? They don’t make the laws, and if you don’t defend your IP to the full extent of the law, you lose it.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.1

         31 August 2012 at 1:31 am

         It didn’t have to be that way – Microsoft has managed to make a decent, original smartphone OS.

         And so did Google – what was your point again?

         But of course that doesn’t matter, because what’s really going on here is Freetards whining because Android is the current great hope for Linux (even though it’s really just a play by another megacorp).

         Which really shows which side your on – the megacorps and their supposed right to determine everything and make a profit from it.

         They don’t make the laws, and if you don’t defend your IP to the full extent of the law, you lose it.

         The problem with that assumption is that a lot of people can’t afford to go to the courts to defend their IP and thus lose it by default.

         And then this video, this history and this device from 1994.

         And yet Apple won the patent for rectangular with rounded corners.

         The patent system is very, very sick and it’s being abused by unscrupulous corporations such as Apple.
4. tc 4

   30 August 2012 at 4:24 pm

   Job’s was such a hypocrite, much like Foss and his mates, wailed loudly when anyone wanted to patent and protect their creations yet had selective memory when it came to his practices.

   The original GUI interface for Mac him and Wozniak found at Xerox’s Palo Alto research centre, known as the Star OS then, so hardly their original idea.

   Apple shared code with Microsoft to keep office on the mac, then lost the copyright suit with them largely because MS showed they’d been allowed to use the code by Apple.

   Plenty of US business’s duplicate the iPod/iPhone look and feel (Oracle’s CRM is such a blatant copy even they smirk when presenting it) yet Samsung gets the suits.

   has that dotcom feel doesn’t it.
   • Bunji 4.1

     30 August 2012 at 4:48 pm

     You mean Steve Jobs 1996: “Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
     vs Steve Jobs after iPad: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” ?
     • Lanthanide 4.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

       Steve was a megalomaniac asshole. He used a loophole in California law to avoid having number plates on his car – he simply bought a new one every 6 months.
   • SoSoo 4.2

     30 August 2012 at 11:26 pm

     “The original GUI interface for Mac him and Wozniak found at Xerox’s Palo Alto research centre, known as the Star OS then, so hardly their original idea.”

     Not this tired old rubbish again. You are wrong on several counts, not least that the Xerox Star post dates Apple’s visit to PARC by some years. IIRC what Apple saw was much earlier than the OS shipped with the Star, and they ended up hiring away many of the developers because Xerox wasn’t really going anywhere with the idea (one reason they let Apple see it). Anyway, the facts:

     http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/

     The GUI you will find on most personal computers these days mimics the Macintosh interface in most respects (Windows is quite close, for example). Both look like the Xerox Star, but anyone who tried to use a Xerox Star would have a hard time getting it to work, because the interface works quite differently. There are demo videos of it on Youtube.

     Samsung got sued and lost because they copied the iPhone. There are internal Samsung documents stating they were copying the iPhone. It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.

     And let’s not cry for Samsung, a corporation that is regularly had up in its native country for bribery and other corrupt business practices. Apple is squeaky clean next to Samsung.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1

       31 August 2012 at 12:46 am

       The GUI you will find on most personal computers these days mimics the Macintosh interface in most respects (Windows is quite close, for example).

       Actually, that would be wrong – most GUIs these days mimics the Amiga.

       The Amiga computer was a dream given form: an inexpensive, fast, flexible multimedia computer that could do virtually anything. It handled graphics, sound, and video as easily as other computers of its time manipulated plain text. It was easily ten years ahead of its time.

       Compared to the Amiga, the Apple stuff was a load of crap. Actually, so was the PC.

       Apple is squeaky clean next to Samsung.

       Does that include the suicides at it’s factories in China?
       • infused 4.2.1.1

         31 August 2012 at 2:59 pm

         Are they Apple factories?
       • Bastables 4.2.1.2

         31 August 2012 at 3:44 pm

         How does apples GUI innovations crib from Amiga’s GUI when Macintosh’s and it’s OS ( indevlopment since 79 and in market 84) predate the Amiga 1000 (85)?
         • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2.1

           31 August 2012 at 8:52 pm

           Read what I said carefully. I didn’t say that MacOS cribbed from the Amiga OS but that today’s MacOS more closely resembled Amiga OS from 1985.

           There were a few things on the Amiga that was neither on the Lisa nor the Mac in 1985 but is today. One is the fact that Amiga OS was a multi-tasking OS which was not seen in the either MS or Apple until the 1990s (Win95 for MS and MacOS 9 for Apple).
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.2

       31 August 2012 at 12:55 am

       SoSoo you are a fucking corporate shill.

       Intent on hurting consumers to the benefit of a $600B US corporate.

       Samsung got sued and lost because they copied the iPhone. There are internal Samsung documents stating they were copying the iPhone. It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.

       Lies. Samsung copied a rectangle with rounded corners.

       Justify your defence of that, asshole.

       And lets not forget, Apple stole their Mac OS concepts from Xerox R&D in Palo Alto.

       Listen to this ZDnet interview about it.

       http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/parc-scientist-recalls-jobs-famous-xerox-visits-video/63203

       and they ended up hiring away many of the developers because Xerox wasn’t really going anywhere with the idea (one reason they let Apple see it).

       So that excuses the theft by Steve Jobs, does it?
       • SHG 4.2.2.1

         31 August 2012 at 1:52 am

         I hate to rain on your parade, but Apple purchased the rights to commercialise Xerox’s GUI concepts in a perfectly normal licensing deal. This is well documented by everyone including Xerox.

         Xerox developed some technologies which were technically cool but barely usable by modern standards (just watch the demos). A guy came along and said “why aren’t you doing anything with this technically cool stuff” and Xerox said “meh, we’re a research lab. Too hard, just give us some shares in your company and you do it”.

         So Xerox sold the rights for a million dollars of options on then-private Apple stock, which — if Xerox had retained it — would now be worth, well, let’s just say “a considerable amount of money”.

         Xerox sold its concepts to Apple knowing that the technology would be commercialised. That was the point of the deal.
         • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1.1

           31 August 2012 at 12:35 pm

           I hate to rain on your parade, but Apple purchased the rights to commercialise Xerox’s GUI concepts in a perfectly normal licensing deal. This is well documented by everyone including Xerox.

           You are telling the story very selectively.

           Actually, this was a legal settlement with Xerox which occurred AFTER Apple stole the designs, and only occurred because Apple was threatened by legal action.
           • SHG 4.2.2.1.1.1

             31 August 2012 at 1:09 pm

             You are completely wrong. Seriously. The Apple-Xerox GUI deal is one of the most well-documented IP transactions in the history of business, and you are completely wrong about it.
   • mike e 4.3

     31 August 2012 at 1:41 am

     tc MS insisted that mac install MS os because they bailed out apple and still own shares in apple.
5. shorts 5

   30 August 2012 at 4:42 pm

   shouldn’t we, or at least the standard, be advocating the US govt nationalise Apple and share the wealth with all its citizens?

   and advocating the overthrow of all IP and patent styled laws – innovation should be free too all to enrich the species not a select choosen few…
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     30 August 2012 at 4:51 pm

     shouldn’t we, or at least the standard, be advocating the US govt nationalise Apple and share the wealth with all its citizens?

     Uh, the big corporates own the US Government, not the other way around, and they do so in order to take the wealth of the citizens of the USA for themselves.

     It’s a bit of a reverse to how it should probably work, but that’s kleptocracy for you.
     • shorts 5.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 4:54 pm

       well apple should then privatise the US govt and share the wealth with its slave labourers in China…. um, er… 🙂
6. captain hook 6

   30 August 2012 at 5:15 pm

   +1 carol
   the US supreme court no longer represents the common man.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     30 August 2012 at 5:27 pm

     Citizens United! lol
7. Sanctuary 7

   30 August 2012 at 6:13 pm

   The biggest loser from all this is going to be the U.S. consumer, who will probably as a result of this find they cannot buy a whole raft of “patent infringing” products. They’ll be limited to what a U.S. megacorp thinks they should be able to buy.

   Yet another reason to not be stupid enough to sign up to any agreement that locks us into US intellectual copyright laws.
   • Richard Christie 7.1

     30 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

     I agree.
     The ruling will discourage legitimate development of competitive product.
     However demand for alternative will not diminish and I suspect pirating and fake product production will only be encouraged.
   • SoSoo 7.2

     30 August 2012 at 11:34 pm

     Don’t be so melodramatic. Anyone can purchase a Windows Phone, which is an original and striking design that doesn’t rip off Apple’s design for the iPhone. Nothing is stopping any other company from creating a still different design.

     Android vendors like Samsung decided not to do this at their own risk.
     • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

       30 August 2012 at 11:53 pm

       Windows for phone is shit

       Apple’s design for the iPhone was ripped off a bunch of other companies

       Nothing is stopping any other company from creating a still different design.

       You mean create a phone which isn’t a rectangle? And doesn’t have rounded corners?

       Android vendors like Samsung decided not to do this at their own risk.

       I reckon you’re a corporate hack defending hundred billion dollar Apple’s stifling, monopolistic practices.

       Don’t you believe in capitalism? Where risk is rewarded and anti-competitive behaviour like Apple’s is quashed?
8. Rusty Hellback 8

   30 August 2012 at 11:48 pm

   I <3 my galaxy S3!!!
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     30 August 2012 at 11:51 pm

     Yeah its nice heh
     • Sufi Safari 8.1.1

       31 August 2012 at 11:47 am

       And it’s full of cool non-infringing innovations. Turns out Samsung can make great devices without ripping off the iPhone. So why didn’t they do that to begin with?
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         31 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

         Because Apple’s design was generic and indefensible.

         If Apple was worth its chops it would compete with Samsung without resorting to lawyers.

         The fact that a US court has upheld Apple’s patents on a rectangle with rounded edges shows how stupid and gullible the US court system is in supporting Apple’s monopolistic behaviour.
         • Bastables 8.1.1.1.1

           31 August 2012 at 2:48 pm

           This is a bit of a straw man as the Samsung emails presented in court show Samsung was copying Apples UI, even more damning is the Google emails to Samsung pointing out they need to differentiate their stuff as it is too similar to apples designs.

           Windows tiles system is quite different to Apples IOS app’s system for instance.

           Samsung on the other hand has design documents stating that they had in essence copied too closely Apples icon designs and to improve needed differentiate them more
           http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsung-icon-concept-640×510.png

           Apple showed other manufactures icon designs that do not slavishly copy IOS’s icon design
           http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/alternative-designs-640×399.png
           Which sort of shows even with android one is not restricted to aping Apples UI/Iconography.

           Historically Samsung have been caught out copying Sharp’s LCD technology as well. They’ve needed a good kick in the balls for a while.

           Apples argument is that the oblong with rounded corners is symptomatic to much deeper and comprehensiveness stealing of IOS’s look and feel.

           Conversely in differentiation Mac/os and Windows treat full screen quite differently where windows expands a window to fill the screen/desktop and Mac/os expands it into a “separate screen” off the desk top. Windows minimize maximize and close widows buttons are all in the top right as symbols and Mac os uses traffic lights in the top left.
           Using the two different OS’s is functionally different. Samsung did not bother to do this
         • SHG 8.1.1.1.2

           31 August 2012 at 4:05 pm

           a US court has upheld Apple’s patents on a rectangle with rounded edges

           Which patent would that be, specifically? And exactly which of the jury’s findings upheld this patent?

           Come on. You’re just making stuff up.
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.2.1

             31 August 2012 at 4:15 pm

             The patent on rectangles with rounded edges. And the jury took just 2.5 hours to consider thousands of pages of presented evidence and return a verdict.

             US justice system = a corporate rort.
             • Colonial Viper …

               31 August 2012 at 4:20 pm

               2.5 days actually 😎
             • SHG …

               31 August 2012 at 4:39 pm

               The patent on rectangles with rounded edges.

               Come on, which one was it? There were a number of patents being discussed in the Samsung case and they’re all clearly labelled – which is the one that you allege gave Apple ownership of rectangles with rounded edges, and what was the jury’s decision specifically in regard to that patent?

               You don’t know, do you?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 31 August 2012 at 4:48 pm

                 There was also the scolling-bouncy patent. Super secret stuff that Apple got all jealous about. I mean, Apple is so out of ideas it has to turn to lawyers to protect its shitty over priced, under-reliable, non-user serviceable designs.
                 • SHG …

                   31 August 2012 at 4:49 pm

                   You don’t know, do you?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     31 August 2012 at 4:58 pm

                     If you have a point, porridge for brains, please make it. PS Plz see below.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 31 August 2012 at 4:56 pm

                 Come on, which one was it? There were a number of patents being discussed in the Samsung case and they’re all clearly labelled – which is the one that you allege gave Apple ownership of rectangles with rounded edges

                 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D618,677.PN.&OS=PN/D618,677&RS=PN/D618,677

                 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D593,087.PN.&OS=PN/D593,087&RS=PN/D593,087
                 • SHG …

                   31 August 2012 at 5:02 pm

                   I don’t see the words “rounded” or “rectangles” in either of those documents. Do you think you might be, hmm, lacking some important info? Are you sure you have the right patents? Or did you just read something somewhere and take it as gospel?

                   For the sake of argument, because it’s not true, let’s assume that those two patents give Apple the rights to assert ownership of “rounded rectangles”. What did the jury decide?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     31 August 2012 at 5:05 pm

                     I’m not your research staffer. Do your own homework lazy boy.
                   • SHG …

                     31 August 2012 at 5:20 pm

                     I don’t need to, because I know the answers, because I’ve read the patents, and I know what Apple has claimed, and I’ve read the jury’s decision.

                     If you have a point, porridge for brains, please make it.

                     My point is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve read an oligarchic megacorp’s calculated use of the intentionally-misleading phrase “rectangles with rounded corners” in a press release following a legal defeat and you’ve latched on to it as gospel because it reinforces a narrative to which you’ve already committed yourself. You WANT Apple to have claimed broad ownership of “rectangles with rounded corners” in portable electronic devices because that would be breathtakingly arrogant and you want to believe that Apple is breathtakingly arrogant. You WANT the jury to have found that Samsung wilfully infringed this supposed ownership of “rectangles with rounded corners” of that because that would be fucking ridiculous and you want to believe that the US patent and legal systems are fucking ridiculous.

                     NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED. No matter how much you want to believe all that stuff NONE OF IT HAPPENED.

                     You’re imagining it. You are literally making it all up in your head. You’re a guy sitting there saying “two plus two is five, what’s your point?”
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     31 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

                     Sorry mate of course it happened. You’ve provided no links, I provided links to the actual patents just as you asked.

                     Apple, a US$600B company, is deliberately limiting technological progress and customer choice – and you are supporting them.

                     and you want to believe that the US patent and legal systems are fucking ridiculous.

                     They are ridiculous. They’re designed to disenfranchise the rights of people around the world. They’ve declared that corporations have the same rights as people, and they’ve declared that Monsanto can patent breeds of rice which Indians have been developing and growing for centuries.
                   • SHG …

                     2 September 2012 at 12:31 pm

                     Once again, it’s plainly evident that you haven’t read the patents and you haven’t read the jury’s ruling. You don’t have the foggiest idea what the court actually ruled, and you don’t want to because the facts might conflict with the narrative that you’ve already bought into.

                     NONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU’RE UPSET ABOUT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
         • rosy 8.1.1.1.3

           31 August 2012 at 9:16 pm

           If Apple was worth its chops it would compete with Samsung without resorting to lawyers.

           Absolutely. On the one hand the corporatist apologists support a company that sues on ‘look and feel’ of a product rather than technical innovation, and on the other hand those same apologists support the ‘invisible hand’ of the ‘free’, i.e. competitive, market.
           • freedom 8.1.1.1.3.1

             31 August 2012 at 9:53 pm

             you are not wrong rosy, it is a laugh. Albeit a sad rather pathetic whimper of a laugh bravely escaping the strangulated throat of invention.

             Often, when this mishegoss pops up and an Apple devotee is slavering over some sensory wonder of the i-phone, it is always fun to lay down the S2 plug in a portable flash drive and demonstrate the most basic of data operations that apple still cannot do …
             … use a usb and share files without needing any other computer.
9. xtasy 9

   30 August 2012 at 11:56 pm

   Again, I state, these are to some degree maybe “important”, but to most of us “petty” arguments. Yet when it would come down to Jobs here and there, we would feel differently, but that is no the case.

   Like the US NZ companies have and are outsourcing. They make more money to have oprations in China and so on. We get told all this patriotic stuff by NZ First and the Greens, where is your alternative, please. I am totally in favour of yours, but you must present the alternative, otherwise Key and liars will take you to the cleaners. I hope you can deliver. Regards H
10. freedom 10

    31 August 2012 at 7:21 am

    Here is Apple bending over to protect political interests
    http://rt.com/usa/news/app-begley-drone-strikes-967/
11. freedom 11

    31 August 2012 at 7:21 am

    Here is Apple bending over to protect political interests

    http://rt.com/usa/news/app-begley-drone-strikes-967/
    • freedom 11.1

      31 August 2012 at 7:31 am

      Excuse post duplication. phone said it failed to publish. ( editor is also scrolling back to middle of page when you try to type which makes text entry fun as you cannot see what you are doing)
    • Draco T Bastard 11.2

      31 August 2012 at 12:10 pm

      Developer develops an iPhone app that aggregates news about drone killings, Apple bans it because they think it’s objectionable.

      Not surprised to hear that in the least. The biggest issue I have with Apple is that it’s controlling the apps that are available for the iPhone and iPad through iTunes.
12. Tiger Mountain 12

    31 August 2012 at 7:51 am

    Apple is never going to be universally popular, when tiny and failing in the 90s PC fans and corporates put the slipper in, and now it is huge and mega everyone from Greenpeace down are doing likewise (and justifiably so when it is workers rights in China).

    BUT it’s products have made life easier for this freelancer which is why I buy them. Accurate colour for pre-press and a whole bunch of technical stuff I need not bore readers with. Patent disputes go with the territory in a capitalist system.
    • Carol 12.1

      1 September 2012 at 7:38 am

      I has always seemed to me that Macs are usually the best computers for people creating stuff with graphics (video-makers, designers etc) and for programmers. But for most users, like me the cheaper IBM/MS computers do the things we want just fine. There seems to be an added (usually quite middle-class) snobbery that has been built around this central advantage of Apple computers – a corporate-driven status-symbol that goes beyond the main capabilities of the technology/ies.

      Over the last few decades I’ve got a bit fed up with the sneering and put-downs of us PC users from Mac users. They used to characterise MS as the evil capitalist empire, and Apple as the friend to the left. But it turns out Apple is every bit the exorbitant profit-seeking capitalist corporation.
      • rosy 12.1.1

        1 September 2012 at 7:56 am

        I has always seemed to me that Macs are usually the best computers for people creating stuff with graphics (video-makers, designers etc) and for programmers.

        Yes, my child the designer agrees with this, my other children, the gameplayer and IT, geek don’t. You could say that Apple lost the graphics kudos as soon as geographic information systems were developed for PCs, imo of course.
13. brybry 13

    31 August 2012 at 1:02 pm

    I don’t understand how the shape of a general use item can be patentable. Is this not the same as patenting the shape and key placement on a keyboard? Or the aerodynamic tube shape of an aircraft? To be useful, a phone has to be held in your hand, the microphone must be near your mouth when the speaker is close to your ear, and it needs to fit in your pocket – what other shape can it be?
    • Roflcopter 13.1

      31 August 2012 at 4:37 pm

      A shoe… worked for Maxwell Smart.
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        31 August 2012 at 4:46 pm

        You just lived up to your name
    • Bastables 13.2

      31 August 2012 at 5:45 pm

      The shape of a general item was not what the litigation was about or the patents that Apple is suing for. . .
14. Fortran 14

    31 August 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Anything which the American’s do not like – like competition, is UnAmerican, and you can guarantee the American courts will support anything which is UnAmerican whatever it is.
    Remember is only about Money – because that is the American God.
    I once worked for an American Financial Group and am fully aware how agressive they are in everything – because it is only they who are right, and the rest of the World must accept that role.
    • Matt 14.1

      2 September 2012 at 11:25 am

      Yeah those bad American guys, They’re not altruistic like NZ companies. The ones who have done nothing but mercilessly extort every last cent from a captive NZ audience. If a German company can import fiberglass insulation and retail it for HALF what Fletcher has been extorting people for, you know the jig is almost up. And none of the typical excuses for high costs in a remote country hold up; NZ can produce radiata pine faster than anywhere else, yet timber prices here are obscenely expensive. The country is overflowing with dairy but milk is ridiculously expensive, because rather than be ‘nice’ to their fellow Kiwis, they charge you as much as they can. Same goes for lamb, etc. Thanks NZ business!

      The same piece of crap Chinese made 1″ PVC plumbing elbow that would cost 23 cents at Home Depot in the US is $11 at Placemakers, where also a packet of fifty deck screws (maybe it was 25) was something like $24. Are you fucking kidding me? Don’t tell me simple volume explains the difference, because I can cruise Alibaba just like anyone else and know what the landed cost is for 10K units. It’s pure exploitation of customers which, they hope, either don’t know any better or are too compliant/lazy to revolt.

      Buy a Coke at the petrol station here, where they want $3.60 for the smallest bottle. Conversely, go to a gas station in the US and pick up a Super Mega Gulp for a little over a buck. The business model is completely flipped; Here the goal is to gouge you for convenience purchases since you’re already there buying fuel. In the US, the model is to offer deals to attract you to this gas station instead of a different one.

      So tell me how nice NZ companies are again? Even Hugo Chavez makes sure his people get cheap petrol, as do many (otherwise horribly repressive) Gulf states, yet NZ companies systematically screw you on stuff which is locally produced in massive quantities. 

      NZ companies are, by and large, monopolistic dinosaurs whose business plan has been to exploit a captive customer base mercilessly. They are among the worst anywhere.
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        2 September 2012 at 11:34 am

        Welcome to the capitalist free market. What you talk about is also the reason that big Oz chains like Bunnings and JB Hi Fi have just waltzed into the NZ market and become quick successes. While typically, NZ retailers always do badly when they try and set foot in Australia.

        BTW in the US all that stuff has to be really cheap because 66M of their population live within a stones throw (25%) of the Federal poverty line.

        In other words, the US imported product price deflation from China, and have simply accepted the employment, wage and living standard deflation which came along with it.
        • Matt 14.1.1.1

          2 September 2012 at 11:38 am

          What I have described in the US is how it’s been for decades, in the fat years as well as the lean ones. I’m sorry if that doesn’t quite mesh with your peak oil/fading empire themes.
15. mickysavage 15

    31 August 2012 at 7:25 pm

    He he this is funny.

    Samsung paid it in 5c pieces … 
    • NickS 15.1

      31 August 2012 at 7:38 pm

      ’tis a hoax 😉
      • mickysavage 15.1.1

        31 August 2012 at 7:58 pm

        Feck and I thought it was true!

        If I was Samsung’s PR advisor I would tell them to do this …
    • Colonial Viper 15.2

      31 August 2012 at 7:39 pm

      I’m just waiting for the Onion to own up to this.
16. Draco T Bastard 16

    31 August 2012 at 9:12 pm

    And Japan throws Apple’s case out.

    Two men say they’re Jesus,
    one of them must be wrong
    • Carol 16.1

      1 September 2012 at 7:30 am

      Yes, on Al Jazeera, I just saw a report on the current score line in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung battle.

      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/08/20128315959128736.html

      The Tokyo court’s three-judge panel awarded legal costs to Samsung on Friday and refused Apple’s claim that Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets had infringed its patent.

      “The defendant’s products do not seem like they used the same technology as the plaintiff’s products so we turn down the complaints made by [Apple],” Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji told the court.

      Al Jazeera’s conclusion was that Apple are ahead on cases won, including cases in Aussie and other countries.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS