Sign in / up

back to article Apple: You're a copycat! Samsung: This is really about Google, isn't it?

It was déjà vu all over again in a California court yesterday as Apple and Samsung rehashed the same old arguments in a new patent trial, with the odd twist. Apple once more kicked off with its allegations that Samsung had deliberately "copied" its iPhone, because the Jesus mobe was such a game-changer. "The introduction of …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. 20legend
        Reply Icon

        Re: Apple Disappointing

        'Jesus they can't even make enough of them to sell'

        1) highlight a point where the iPhone has ever been in short supply other than upon release of a new model (which is a scenario far from exclusive to the iphone)

        2) cuts in orders for the iPhone 5c to manufacturers by Apple would suggest a surplus.....

        8 2
      2. VinceH
        Reply Icon

        Re: Apple Disappointing

        "Are you a gibbering idiot? Name me one quarter ONE where Apple has made a loss on its iPhone's, Jesus they can't even make enough of them to sell."

        While Dade's comment would probably cause even the most powerful grammar checker to overheat and die, I can't see the bit where he said Apple has made a loss on its iPhones, only that they "did not have the sales" - by which I suspect he means lost sales (which are very disputable) rather than losses.

        1 0
      3. Philip Lewis
        Reply Icon

        Re: Apple Disappointing

        "no mark"

        Wow, it's ages since I heard that "clock busting" term. I use it myself, mostly in conjunction with "Belgian bastard" or similar, but I digress.

        Welcome to The Register sentient life club, whomsoever you might be.

        0 0
  2. DerekCurrie
    Thumb Up

    Apple Requires Competition. Deceitful Liars And Plagiarists Need Not Apply.

    Dear Apple,

    Rip Samsung to shreds please. Make room for REAL competition. That is what we *all* require.

    2 25
    1. Neil Alexander
      Reply Icon

      Re: Apple Requires Competition. Deceitful Liars And Plagiarists Need Not Apply.

      Oh boy, you are full of it if you think that the courtroom is the way to achieve competition. Real competition comes from companies innovating, not litigating.

      12 0
    2. Roo
      Reply Icon

      Re: Apple Requires Competition. Deceitful Liars And Plagiarists Need Not Apply.

      "Rip Samsung to shreds please. Make room for REAL competition. That is what we *all* require."

      Ironically, given the title you chose, you totally lied - perhaps that was a joke I missed ?

      Personally I don't require a bunch of overpaid toffs debating how best to wipe out any semblance of free-market competition.

      6 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    "The Galaxy-making firm is also likely to argue that the patents in question are for relatively minor features that wouldn't influence a customer's choice of which phone to buy."

    This is so very true, but for Apple fangurlz who like to channel the late Steve Jobs and pretend they're geniuses, it's the small details and little touches that make Apple products so desirable.

    Actually, what makes Apple products so desirable is excellent marketing, product placement (seen Channel 4 News for example? Everyone they interview, even jobless people who are about to be made homeless, seem to own top of the range Apple kit) and brand management that draws the weak minded to the shiny-shiny and makes them go 'Oooooooooooh'.

    8 1
    1. Tom 7
      Reply Icon

      Apples true genius

      seems to be taking money off people who then seem to think that because they paid Apple it must be Apple that invented everything. Can you imagine if they had tried patenting the same sort of things at the start of the PC era - imagine a mouse click being patented to mark a point on the screen?

      Can I patent new form of Stockholm syndrome for use in marketing please?

      10 1
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Shiny-Shiny

      "that draws the weak minded to the shiny-shiny and makes them go 'Oooooooooooh'."

      This explains why my iPhone keeps being stolen by Magpies.

      2 0
      1. MrT
        Reply Icon

        Sounds as if staying away from...

        ... St. James Park is the answer.

        Luckily Newcastle City Council wisely avoided renaming the place on roadsigns etc to the Wonga.com SportsDirect Stadium, or whatever Michael (only-in-it-for-the-c) Ashley has pimped it off to this season.

        :-D

        0 0
  4. Moosh

    About time

    This pleases me because at least one of the parties involved has finally cut through the crap and outright stated that the real issue is that Apple has some sort of personal vendetta against Android for no real discernable reason other than the fact that they're embarassed by how well its doing.

    This is something everyone has known from the very start, but its nice that one of the people actually involved has come out and said it officially.

    The real issue is that Murrican courts will never view this objectively because it ultimately boils down to US Company versus Foreign Company.

    What Apple are trying to do is the equivalent of "We started breathing first, so you have to pay us $1 Billion or stop breathing yourself".

    9 3
  5. Slawek

    Apple is the most disgusting high-tech company. They seem to sue every major phone manufacturer, except Chinese ones (they know they will not win) and Microsoft (they have cross-licensing agreement).

    5 3
    1. Steve78
      Reply Icon

      They are protecting their IP. Apple have spent billions only for companies like Samsung to copy and rip it off. Apple (or any public company) are obligated to stakeholders to protect their IP.

      4 10
      1. Moosh
        Reply Icon

        Why isn't Microsoft suing apple for clearly ripping off their tablets, then?

        The iPad is as much a ripoff of the earlier windows XP tablets as a Galaxy S2 is of an iPhone.

        3 2
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          1) you'd need to be blind and/or mad to think the iPad was a rip off of XP tablets

          2) Apple and Microsoft have a cross-licensing agreement

          2 0
        2. Philip Lewis
          Reply Icon

          No Moosh, it's not - unless you are both blind and absent both hands

          0 0
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        @steve78

        nokia took a big bite out of apples ass on patents that are actually necessary to make the thing go. nokia licenced them at reasonable cost after apple used them without permission and had to be sued

        the patents that apple are asserting are usually cosmetic and non essential. but they want even more $ and wont licence them cos they are unreasonable

        3 0
        1. Philip Lewis
          Reply Icon

          "cos they are unreasonable"

          Read: "Because they are within their rights not to and choose to exercise that right"

          0 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "Microsoft (they have cross-licensing agreement)."

      I guess that includes HTC now, Nokia previously and who knows who else that Apple have notably failed to sue.

      Are you getting the picture yet????

      0 1
  6. Yugguy

    Patenting breathing?

    The trouble is that motions like pinch and zoom are so basic to ANY touchscreen that any manufacturer would have to invent and incorporate them.

    So for Apple to prove Samsung copied their ideas is a bit like trying to prove one human being copied breathing in and out from another human being.

    2 3
  7. NotWorkAdmin

    Wait

    Samsung sell a product under the moniker "Galaxy"? Cadbury should get in on this legal shenanighins - it would make about as much sense.

    0 2
  8. SpiderPig

    iPhone a leader !!! Ha!

    Why you would want to copy the iPhone is beyond me. The original was as dumb as a brick, nearly every other phone on the market had more smarts, they just did'nt have the cash to throw into the spin machine as Apple had.

    2 1
  9. Crady

    Had to laugh last week when it was announced Apple had patented 'Text n Walk' when Samsung did this back in 2010. Whose the real copycat?

    0 0
  10. Hans 1
    Headmaster

    CC

    So up until 2009, Sammy tried hard to compete:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_%28original%29

    then

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_i5700

    But cheap looking crap does not sell, so what does in 2010 ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S

    Why ? iPhone clone.

    Case closed, Sammy cough up, thanks!

    I really could do with some down votes, guyz ;-)

    0 1
  11. Robert Jenkins

    Handheld Linux & the touch / icon interface date back to 2000...

    A lot of the interface features they keep fighting over originated long before either Android or the iphone.

    I have an old Sharp Zaurus PDA, which runs Linux using a touchscreen interface.

    Mine's a 5600, but the first Linux-based one was the 5000, released in the year 2000.

    Android is basically another version of Linux for mobile devices.

    The first iphone was not not released until several years later.

    The Zaurus also had a full QUERTY keyboard, very similar to that later used on the Blackberry devices.

    http://tuxmobil.org/pda_linux_sharp_sl5000.html

    The patent fights are purely to try and hold back competitors, not due to any genuine, dramatic innovations.

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like