Apple has rejected Samsung's peace deal in an Australian court, preferring instead to go to trial where a win could influence its other lawsuits around the world. Last week, Samsung offered an undisclosed compromise aiming to halt the battle in Oz, which is now focused on just one disputed patent. Neither manufacturer let on the …
we don't accept and there is no surprise ...
damn right there is no surprise. Apple lives for this sort of thing. Always has done.
"The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch..."
And there we have it in a nutshell.
This case would have been better if both companies were ordered to cease selling the offending products until a settlement is reached.
I can't see how apple will win anyway, it's stifling competition
Help or Hinder?
Since OZ makes its own laws on patents on behalf of big business it hard to see how it will influence other countries with laws based on the needs of the voting citizens in healthy democratic countries.
I guess we're fucked...
Monopoly, monopoly, monopoly
That's all they're after, through every means they can.
Good for the consumer? Hell no! But what does that matter?
Odd choice of words
"slavishly copies", and now down to just one possible patent infringement...
Just lawyer weasel words.
It's also an attempt by the weasel to "Poison the well", by using a judgmental term "slavishly" the weasel is trying to load the argument before the court with an emotive term.
If Samsung had "slavishly" copied the iFad, the galaxy would be the same size as the iFad, and as we all know, that's only true in crApples photoshopped images.
I've often wondered why a witness in a legal case has to swear an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but why don't lawyers have to swear the same oath?
1 possible outcome
Samsung can't sell ipad lookalikes...
,,, and Apple can't sell anything which incorporates mobile phone technology
Apple would end up in a huge payout...
If this occurred as you say then Apple would be paying Samsung for the hardware they've already sold & it would be huge because they would be punished with backdated costs as well as interest. Here's going...
I always heard Apple was good at whipping up demand by restricting supply and it's true... the more I'm told I can't have a Galaxy tab the more I want one.
all this apple agression.....
....is the sole reason I won't ever buy another Apple product. I have a mac and I love it. I have an HTC desire and an Android fondleslab. I was going to buy the wife a mac as a replacement for her aging laptop, but given how much of a bunch of tossers Apple are being, I can't bring myself to contribute to their legal fund. My next phone will be a Samsung, if only to help them kick apples butt.
It's a Metallica moment for Apple
And we all know who still bears the scars for that...
Erm, the PR departments.
Bring on the court
I can only hope that, with the Samsung lawyers fully prepped, this will be a 'proper' battle over the validity of both Apple's patent and their claim of it's applicability.
Even to my untutored eye the differences between the two devices are clear as they are different sizes (yes it isn't much but for a slavish copy it would need to be a damned sight closer) have different size screens with different resolution and different primary orientation (the iPad logos and docking ports imply portrait while the Samsung logos etc clearly imply landscape)
With regards to the on-screen layout, well I hope it isn't a shock to Apple but a screenful of icons is about as common as it gets. My old Palm Pilot did it that way
"With regards to the on-screen layout, well I hope it isn't a shock to Apple but a screenful of icons is about as common as it gets. My old Palm Pilot did it that way"
I don't think it's so much the "screenful of icons", which, as you rightly point out, has been used by computers for years (possibly back to the GUI used on Xeroxs "paperless office" in the 70s), more that Samsung have repeatedly copied the idea, the arrangement (icons in a strictly enforced grid, on a black background, with four icons on a differently coloured background on the bottom).
I am not defending Apple's actions (on the contrary, I think the tech industry as a whole would be a lot better off if companies started innovating rather than suing each other), but merely moving a logo is not proof you didn't copy a design..
I still don't get it
The whole of Apple's infringement suit is that the samsung's look the same.
OK, so the Galaxy Tab, if you squich the aspect ratio and squint a bit might look similar (though I also don't see how you can patent rounded corners, I for one do not look forward to Apple preventing the sale of custard creams) but the S range of phones look nothing like an iPhone.
Well you must not be looking at the right pictures?
There's a lot more than coincidence there. HTC's phones don't look so similar, Nokia don't look similar and many other phones don't look similar. Samsung does and it's mostly deliberate.
Then please explain this
Looks a lot like an iPad doesn't it. Except that is a Samsung product released in 2006, just remind me again when the iPad was launched - 2010 wasn't it.
It could be argued that they are 2 different products doing totally different things and you would be right, however Apples claims are based on design - nothing more. In terms of design I would say that Samsung got there well in advance of Apple wouldn't you.
"The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch and maintain the status quo"
Forward thinking tech firm?
The current generation of smart phones is not the end game. They may make a lot of money now, but there are uncountable leaps of innovation still to be made.
Start making those leaps instead of trying to stagnate the market.
Apple will lose in the long run...
There is a good chance they'll win the court battle, but I think the hearts of the customers are already lost.
The logical result is that people will wonder what Samsung has that Apple wants to stop them from having.
After my experience with the Galaxy S2; they're missing a lot because it is a nice little machine.
I would like to think you're right
but it will only be thinking people whose hearts will be lost. The masses will continue to follow the Pied Piper, sadly.
No fan of Apple's behaviour, but.....
Yes, it punishes the the consumer when products aren't available and yes, it even perhaps stifles innovation while everyone tries to ensure that todays R&D that they are carrying out for tomorrows products, doesn't infringe a patent somewhere.
There are two issues here. One of them is the granting of patents that cover vast traunches of similar technologies, such as how a capacitive touch screen will respond, and the second is the legitimate defence of patent rights.
In my opinion, it is the granting of patents that needs looking at, so that broad patent definitions do not cover a particular technology that is in wide use (such as how touchscreens are used) and are limited to something more specific and less generic.
I would condone anyones right to defend their patents, but when the patents are too generic and widespread and start to describe how a device could be used, so that other manufacturers cannot make devices that use certain touch gestures, then I would say that the patent reach is too wide and needs to be more focussed.
It is a sadly accepted fact that these days a patent portfolio is a huge and commercially recognised asset for a business and is high on the list of assets looked at by companies involved in takeover bids. Litigation and commercial profit are not in the interests of anyone but the device manufacturers however, there is certainly no benefit for you and I.
TL;DR - Ensure patents are more specific before they are granted rather than broad spread, blanket coverage of technologies.
After the comical launch of the 4S yesterday, which is basically a fix version of the iPhone 4, fixing all the faults and bringing it up to spec with where other smartphones were a few months ago, Apple must be redoubling their efforts to stop better products reaching the market.
I laughed when I saw some apologists saying that £99/$99 for an iPhone 4 on a two year contract was a great deal now the 4S has been announced, tempting the 3GS owners (like me) to upgrade on the cheap. Why would I want an iPhone 4 though? It will be almost 3 iterations out of date by the time a 2 year contract runs out.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?