back to article Cook's 'values' memo shows Apple has lost its soul

On the one year anniversary of his appointment as Apple CEO, Tim Cook must be partying especially hard in light of Friday's verdict against Samsung. But if his memo to staff about the verdict is anything to go by, in winning the case Apple has lost its soul. The memo, leaked to 9to5Mac, shows Cook is in no mood to play nice …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Re: Its all Bollox!!

> Im getting sick of all the fan bois from either side, Apple, Android or Microsoft. If people cant be arse to be objective about something then whats the point?

Totally agree. Unfortunately it seems most Internet forum posts/article responses are from hot headed testosterone fuelled males who are barely out of university and have very little actual experience but lots of cock sure opinions on everything.

1
1

Re: Its all Bollox!!

Agreed and this comes from one of those testosterone fuelled males although I never went to college or university, I got a job instead!!

0
1
Joke

jury selection

" The jury, who were carefully screened to make sure no-one with technical knowledge got on the case"

I.e. the jury were all iphone owners

5
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: jury selection

Recruited from the antenna development team? ;)

6
1
Anonymous Coward

People resent success

Did Apple develop on top of concepts created elsewhere? Of course they did, everyone does. Did they rip people off or patent troll to the same extent as Microsoft? Not even close.... Whenever any company is successful, there will always be a million people out there resenting them for something... if they can't find anything substantial, they will make something up (e.g. Apple makes a lot of money). I don't use Apple product, primarily because they are expensive. However, Apple won, for the large part, by just making much better products than their competitors.

1
10

This post has been deleted by its author

Facepalm

A sane company would have put a reasonable value (i.e not in the tens of $ per device range) on their UI/UE patents, cross licensed against the mountain of radio related etc stuff required for the phone bit in a smartphone, and picked up the odd few cents per device (which in the quantities this kind of thing ship in woud actually be Quite A Lot of Money) rather than seeking to use FRAND licensing requirements to gain an unfair commercial advantage by valuing the (questionable) IP it brings to the smartphone party at an unrealistic level while paying a pittance for the standards mandated stuff developed by competitors. I can't help thinking that when the principle of FRAND licensing for standards related patents was mooted using it to walk off with your competitors crown jewels for pennies while either asking ridiculous amounts for licensing or (withholding altogether) your own IP wasn't exactly what the originators of the concept had in mind...

As it is I fear that Apple may turn out not to be a sane company, that having got a judgement against Samsung they'll move on to the next page of the classic patent troll's playbook, start working their way down the chain through Sony, HTC, Huawei, Motorola et-al attempting to use the Samsung judgement to either remove products from the marketplace or extract extortionate license fees against the threat of lawsuits, and before you know it they'll have de facto control over two entire classes of device (tablets and touchscreen smartphones) and it will be impossible to produce a touchscreen controlled device acceptable in the marketplace as usable without either paying a lot of money to Apple or risking an expensive court battle with an uncertain outcome. This would almost certainly end in a massive antitrust battle but it still wouldn't be good news for anyone except the lawyers.

In a way it would actually have been better if they'd got a judgement purely on the aesthetic stuff (rectangle with rouned corners etc, although how you could copyright/trademark/patent minimalism defeats me - the idea that an item infringes by sharing the absence of extraneous features, say by being packaged in a plain white box with a picture of the contents on it, seems kind of bizarre...) rather than the technical stuff. As it is Apple now seem perilously close to being able to assert ownership of an entire interaction paradigm regardless of the packaging, and that's not going to end well for anybody...

Typed on an iPad 2 with a Samsung Galaxy SII charging on the bedside table. Haven't mistaken one for the other yet...

8
1
Silver badge
Stop

You're assuming that a sane company

Would want to hand a competitor the rights to copy their non-standards essential designs. The high price was Apple saying "we really don't want you to do this" and Samsung's other option was to engineer them out (which Google have for the most part done with stock Android). Samsung went out of their way to infringe here.

2
4
Anonymous Coward

Any word on how much damages Apple are going to have to pay for losing to Samsung and HTC in the UK this summer?

Did they manage to avoid having to print the full-page apology to Samsung in the newspapers the judge wanted?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html

6
1
Anonymous Coward

The biggest difference we can make

...we non-Apple users, is if we all change our surnames to Jones.

Heh heh heh.

0
0

The jury found Samsung copied Apple does not mean that other tablet/phone makers will be affected too.

According to the foreman, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-says-google-e-mail-persuasive.html, that what undone Samsung's case.

Other manufacturers whose tablets/phones look distinctively different may fight with different strategies, e.g., will try to invalidate Apple's patents etc... This case had already shown that tech companies had privately demoed technologies to Apple which shortly turned up in Apple's patents a few months later.

1
0

I like, but I hope...

Their iPad 3 and I'm using it now, but I hope they take a sharp downfall, just for a while. Because this is arrogance and worse. It's a dire day for freedom of competition and no one should have this much commercial power. It's the extreme end of capitalism where it is actually a bad way to do things.

We will all pay for this in a various ways, our technology culture will be poorer and less innovative for it and arrogant secure companies dictate far more than they innovate. For these reasons, Apple needs to tumble, but only long enough to realise that this is bad for the future. Then wake up and focus on doing good stuff again, minus the vulture pack of lawyers and bullshit.

This isn't a comment on quality but of ethics.

4
4
Linux

It appears like the infamous reality distortion field also works very well inside courts and even without Jobs.

Fascinating!

3
2

terrible crisis for digital freedom

Great piece. It's a terrible crisis for digital freedom. For the first time ever, one company owns an entire category of internet access device, controlling both hardware and software. It was bad enough before, this judgement make things worse. It's as if IBM had a patent on the PC, preventing anyone else from making one, and also made the software. Tragically the journalists and pundits who ought to be shouting right now about digital freedom remain convinced that Apple = liberty, therefore everything's fine.

6
2
Anonymous Coward

Umm, so which is it?

The Register:

"The jury, who were carefully screened to make sure no-one with technical knowledge got on the case, spent less than three days considering its verdict..."

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825

"He [jury foreman Velvin Hogan] said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days - much faster than legal experts had predicted - because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play."

I understand that they could be engineers of, well, anything, but if their engineering skills "helped with the complex issues in play" that implies they're engineers of something relevant - which I thought wasn't allowed.

3
0
Boffin

Re: Umm, so which is it?

Contrary to what seems to be a firm belief in forums, there is no law or even rule against the placing of jurors in a panel with relevant experience with the issues in the case being tried. The general preference of trial lawyers (both defense and plaintiff) is to have a blank slate upon which to write their own opinions and facts, and not have to worry about a juror realizing that there is more to an issue than they are being told, or that the party (or attorney) is not telling them the truth. Having said that, such a preference is obviously not always practical - you have a limited pool of people from which to pull jurors, and even in a case like this a judge will not allow unlimited peremptory (without cause) removal of a prospective juror. The determining factor is whether a juror can be fair with the knowledge presented at trial, based on that juror's own life experience, not whether a juror will put aside his/her own real experience and indulge in accepting only the arguments presented while ignoring what they know to be true in the "real world." Given that, it is not unusual to assume that both technical knowledge, economic experience and basic common sense all found their way into the jury room for deliberations. Even given a lawyer's preference for a jury having minimal opinions of their own, no one wants a bunch of idiots making decisions for their clients. (I realize this is a great set-up line - swing away!)

You can argue with a jury's decision based on a lot of factors, but you should be able to count on a certain amount of garden-variety common sense being applied. If it doesn't appear to have been so, I would suggest looking a little closer at the arguments and exhibits permitted or denied at trial or the jury instructions presented to the jury. That is usually the source of the public's true disagreement with trial results. Of course, it is always possible for juries to mistake instructions and misinterpret evidence or argument, but again, it sometimes depends on the perspective of the observer or comment.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Umm, so which is it?

Thanks for the response, I'm sure I'd read in another article (there's way too many from this case for me to want to go hunt for it) that they'd removed all "experts" from the jury deliberately.

Personally I agree that experts are more relevant than non-experts in a case like this. But IANAL, just an amazed spectator.

0
0
kit

Better Products, not accusations

Does anyone who process a pc would accuse hp,or dell for stealing the design of ibm. or anyone who is using ms excel for stealing the design of lotus123. For goodness sake, for those who bought samsung 's smartphones, is simply the fact that they are better than apples's.

3
0
FAIL

"The company itself got its start from copying the GUI system developed at Xerox PARC."

Aaaand that's where the article writer's ignorance, bias, or flagrant link-baiting kicks in.

Seriously? This mythical "They stole it all from PARC" bollocks again?

Apple paid Xerox for access to the work at PARC in the form of shares! There was no "copying" here, unless you sincerely believe "paying Xerox for the right to develop some of the GUI R&D at PARC" is "copying". If Xerox kept those shares, they'll have made hundreds of millions of dollars on the deal by now. Far more than they ever made by sitting on all that research and doing practically bugger all of any real use with it.

Apple even hired many of the people working at PARC at the time—Xerox clearly didn't mind as they didn't turn around and sue anyone—including the likes of Jef Raskin who went on to be very influential in GUI design over his lifetime; iOS owes more than a little to his "zooming UI" concept.

Also, Apple existed long before they developed their Lisa and Mac designs. Their Apple II series had precisely sod all to do with PARC's work. None. And it, too, was very successful. In fact, it provided the financial cushion needed to keep the Mac on the market long enough to make any real impact. (The first Macs weren't a roaring success; it took them a couple of goes to hit the right technology : cost ratio.)

Either you knew this, and deliberately revived that long-disproven myth to get a rise out of your readership—in which case, it clearly worked—or you didn't, in which case, why the hell are you writing about a topic you know so little about?

Apple are not perfect. They have made many missteps over the years—even Jobs and Ive got it wrong on more than one occasion ("G4 Cube" anyone?)—but "copying PARC's research" isn't one of them, and never was.

The Register has been many things, but it seems to be rapidly turning into the IT world's equivalent of FOX News. You could be so much better than this.

9
3
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

> "copying PARC's research" isn't one of them

But it is. That's what they did. They went in (paid Xerox for the privilege, and why not), went out and copied what they had seen.

Maybe they could have developed the basic ideas themselves, but why bother?

Was the Xerox stuff patented? No. Patents on software and mouse/screen interactions didn't exist.

Was the Xerox stuff copyrighted? No. Copyrights on UI design elements.

Was it stolen? Fanbois and assorted random faggots would says yes (if this weren't Apple). So no.

Was it used as inspiration? Of course!

3
7

@Destroy All Monsters

" Fanbois and assorted random faggots would says yes"

You hear pig organs talking to you?

1
0
Silver badge
Linux

Re: "The company itself got its start from copying the GUI system developed at Xerox PARC."

It doesn't matter if they "stole it" or they "paid for it".

They took someone else's work and used it as the basis as their own. It's exactly what they are accusing Samsung of. They just had the benefit of a less well developed legal framework around computing technology.

Otherwise Apple might not even exist today.

You might be luck to get to use MS-DOS.

2
4

Re: "The company itself got its start from copying the GUI system developed at Xerox PARC."

"It doesn't matter if they "stole it" or they "paid for it"

It's good to see your years at law school weren't wasted. Are you one of Samsung's lawyers?

4
2

I think what galls most people is the rank hypocrisy of Apple. A company that exists due to seeing other peoples ideas and copying/adapting them. Now that they're on top they want this ability stopped for others.

5
3
Gold badge

"Lost" it's soul?

"Lost" it's soul? Apple has ALWAYS been a HIGHLY litigous company. They've tried again and again to sue for things whether Apple had anything to do with them or not -- the infamous "look and feel" suit of the 1980s for example, where Apple tried to sue for the very concept of a desktop GUI, despite the fact Apple ripped large portions of it off from Xerox. They sue people over product leaks, they throw out cease and desists against people merely discussing hardware flaws (even if they are working on a workaround rather than just slagging off Apple!), the list goes on and on.

I think (while we're talking about the so-called "soul" of a company) that Apple is well-known for being perhaps the only firm in Silicon Valley that does not donate to any cause. To me it does seem silly for some hard-up Silicon Valley company that is on the verge of bankruptcy to feel they should still give that $10,000 to the local museum or whatever, but they do. Except Apple.

5
0

"does not donate"

That has changed. According to Ars: "One of the first things Cook did after being named CEO was launch a charitable matching program for Apple's employees. In mid-September 2011, Apple began matching employee contributions to nonprofit organizations up to $10,000 per employee annually, dollar-for-dollar."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/one-year-down-many-to-go-5-things-apple-has-done-since-tim-cook-took-over/

0
0
Unhappy

Bad for Apple

Technically minded but currently owning an HTC that sadly is somewhat smarter than myself....

My instincts are to believe that all the various players have brought something to the market, they wouldn't be selling their devices if they hadn't. Sure, a company might launch a unique and innovative red shining box with a single button on top but would customers recognise it as a smart phone? Isn't it more likely that to conform to customer's expectations a company will produce a device that is obvious, that looks like what it pretends to be... and therefore has the inherent risks that it looks similar to another product in that sector? Same too with the sliding, pinching, tapping figure waggling whatnots. There is only so much a human being can do with a finger and a small 3:4 screen.

I'm not saying there should be a free-for-all. But these companies are fighting over quite modest percentages on top of the hundreds of billions they are making collectively... money that we're ultimately paying from our pockets. Frankly, its slightly obscene!

Apple has embarked on a path it won't quickly abandon. This case isn't the first (Apple vs Apple for example) and its far from the last. They are proving adept at using the legal system to browbeat the competition or to rewrite previous agreements when it suits them. And they don't look good when they do it.

Today, as a result of this case, I'm less likely to purchase an Apple product in future and I suspect I'm not alone. The US courts might yet do Samsung a favour if they ban their products from the USA. They would be free to concentrate on those markets they are doing well in like Asia and Europe (ie the rest of the world), leaving the US as an Apple saturated backwater.

4
1

Apple is a very straightforward company, easy to understand and very professional.

Apple does not give to charity, but does match employee charitable payments up to 10% of salary.

The article and many comments offer opinions as facts, but provide no evidence.

This is only one lawsuit out of 50 or so between Samsung and Apple around the world. It doesn't stop even Samsung from selling Android smartphones; it just makes slavish copying less worthwhile. How does preventing Samsung from copying the iPhone top-to-bottom inhibit innovation? It doesn't.

Apple's business model does require some protected space to survive. Just look what happened when they licensed Mac OS; it nearly killed them. Software patents are stupid, but they are all Apple can use to defend the space in which they operate.

Apple didn't just invent the iPhone; they figured out how to force the carriers to (a) offer reasonable data contracts and (b) get out of the way of providing services based on data. "Walled garden" tight control is what enabled them to negotiate deals that broke down barriers not just for iPhone, but for Android too.

Without Apple and iPhone we would still be on Windows Mobile, with exorbitant data contracts and no significant Android market share. Like it or not, Apple innovation and control freakery has changed the world in desktop, smartphone and tablet computing.

3
3

Jesus, humans are screwed

I honestly can't believe that I am reading how making things pretty is now considered to be 'innovation'. As an engineer that spend most of his life actually innovating things, I can only spit on current state of humanity. Humans are definitely turning into brainless retards.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, humans are screwed

I suspect Woz might agree with you too .....

4
0

Re: Jesus, humans are screwed

Well "pretty'" is't the term I'd use - but yeah sure the physical devices themselves and their controls/GUIs should look good and be very polished, intuitive and easy to use and fast. Sure I appreciate the command line as much as the next geek, but I also appreciate great design and good looks and the need to appeal / make things accessible to the mass market.

Again Apple may by and large pull together existing ideas and polish them - but I don't see may other companies with this obsessive attention to detail - and they up the game for everyone else.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, humans are screwed

I douibt he would. He worked for Apple, is still well connected there and seems to like collecting well-designed equipment.

I trust you avoid all Linux GUIs; Not invented by you. Name one, significant invention you have made, from scratch, with no external forerunner, all out of your own few brain cells, that the rest of us clamour for and so made you a fortune.

Personally, I think good interfaces and polished appearance require as much innovation, imagination and design as anything else, more perhaps than some "engineering". In fact, Apple are not bad at both facets and their genius is in putting the two together so that the user need not worry about implementation, just the task in hand. If, as an engineer, you do not appreciate the value of a properly researched, designed and implemented interface, with the analysis and innovation that that requires, you are not much cop as an engineer. Any engineer knows that the most difficult software concerns the human interface, with all its unpredictability and expectations.

Remember, these devices are designed to be used without needing years of experience and opaque commands or sequences of actions to do the simple things. It takes innovation, skill and understanding to get that message, understand the end user and implement these.

But then perhaps you still programme everything in assembler, sorry, bits (assembler is already too high a level) and or eschew the various CC flags and defaults in favour linking all libraries by hand, renaming a.out and so on. God forbid the use of make(1) or even a shell. No doubt you prefer to start your car with a crank handle and prime the carburettor manually.

With your values, the wheel would not have been created, after all, nothing special, just a rolling log. Who on earth needs axles?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, humans are screwed

"honestly can't believe that I am reading how making things pretty is now considered to be 'innovation'. As an engineer ....."

Engineers like you are the reason companies commission marketing studies. And hire patent lawyers - because you seem to have no understanding of them.

0
0

Imagine a world without ive-phone

Wether it was original or copied, the format of pretty much all smart phones are now a derivative of the iPhone. What seems to have happened is all manufacturers are so scared of Apple that all they are willing to do it imitate the design - and if they are unlucky, pay the price in the courts.

Remember the phone world before Apple? Sliders, flip phones, the bananna phone from Nokia, and even Sony-Ericsson coming up with some fun designs. And before iPad - there were tablets of sort, but Apple made them consumer friendly and a fashion accessory.

Apple's superior product and almost religious following have got the industry on the run. Now almost every piece of consumer gagetery takes its design cues from the pen of Sir Ive. Apple have unwittingly (or by design) eradicated innovation from the consumer electronics industry and created an army of clones.

3
2
Unhappy

If IT&T went back to inventing products rather than than inventing patents we'd all be better off. Some of the US patents are ludicrous - 30 years ago they would have got beyond the the USPTO mail room.

I see echo's of what happened to Financial Services over a couple of decades. They too became obsessed with themselves and one another.

1
0

Foolish article.

2
4

Is it just me?

Or has the definition of what is patentable become somewhat elastic as of late?

Seems to me that it used to be that you could patent a particular way of doing something, but not the whole concept of doing the job in the first place. Yes, maybe Samsung's phone *does* look quite a lot like an iPhone and maybe it does do a similar job in a similar way. But the same could also be said of an Astra and a Focus (cars) they're similar because they do the same job, I get the impression that if Apple's patent lawyers had been around at the invention of the Automobile we'd all be driving something like a 1910 Daimler, due to a court ruling that Henry Ford was infringing their patent by making a "stolen" horseless carriage that worked in a similar way to Daimlers's using similar technology. Whereas all Ford really had to worry about back then was not doing something that was a direct, functional copy of something that Daimler were making and had patented.

5
1
Pirate

Re: Is it just me?

"I get the impression that if Apple's patent lawyers had been around at the invention of the Automobile we'd all be driving something like a 1910 Daimler, due to a court ruling that Henry Ford was infringing their patent by making a "stolen" horseless carriage that worked in a similar way to Daimlers's using similar technology. Whereas all Ford really had to worry about back then was not doing something that was a direct, functional copy of something that Daimler were making and had patented."

This comparison with the motor industry comes up quite regularly.

What everybody seems to overlook is that one George B. Selden did indeed get a patent on a four wheeled conveyance propelled by an internal combustion engine at the back end of the 19th century. In association with one William C. Whitney, and despite it being technically a little shaky (Selden's patent specified an engine based on the Brayton cycle in which compression and ignition take place separately, more like the operation of a gas turbine than the 4 stroke Otto cycle where everything takes place in the same cylinder and as far as I know nobody was ever able to produce a working vehicle based on the Selden patent) he successfully defended the patent in the courts, and then through the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers succeeded in collecting a license fee of $15 per unit with a minimum annual payment of $5000 which was quite a lt of money in those days.

Henry Ford eventually overturned the patent (although with only a year to run you'd have to say this was largely symbolic) but by then Selden and his associates had already made a (by early 20th century standards) considerable fortune, which, in a stroke of irony Selden managed to lose his share of through an unsuccessful attempt to establish himself as an automobile manufacturer...

5
0

Re: Is it just me?

No, I would go even backward thousands of years and imagine the Apple Patent Trolls patenting the wheel and it's shape. How the hell could you build a cart or a truck, if you are not allowed to use circle-shaped wheels?

0
1
Alien

Re: Is it just me?

So THAT's the reason behind that square steering wheel in the Allegro!!!

1
0

Re: Is it just me?

@ Chika -- there was no good reason for the Allegro.... none whatsoever.. even with it's quartile wheel

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Is it just me?

Do you have any idea how few people on this forum are capable of research, and worse, who actually do some prior to mouthing off with their bigotry? From your post, obviously not. The people here hate facts more than anything else. It offends their distorted reality. There are so many deluded individuals trying to prop up their broken version of reality that t is at times hilarious. Actually, it's hilarious every day.

Thanks for your post, upvoted of course, as it's always good that someone manages to puncture 487 commentards in one fel swoop.

0
0
Devil

This statement shows Apple is just like every other firm...

"...we have enough patent filings in the tablet and smartphone arena to make life difficult."

READ: everyone has to come to us if they want to get involved in the tablet market. Kerching!

"For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values".

The values being that of each patient and how much it can bring in per device. Apple is a business. They have a social responsibility just like everyone else. They are not in any way particularly nicer or better people. They just happen to have had 2 very capable people on board in the shape of Jonathan Ive and the late Steve Jobs and a team of very capable lawyers. Some day the fanboi dream will end and millions of disillusioned Apple geeks will wake up and see that actually, these things are merely tools, Apple isn't a channel to heaven in the next life and actually Asus can make a useful product that does the same job but for less money...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

What is funny is that almost all of the assertions by Android fans are incorrect:.

1. Apple didn't patent and stop Samsung from using rounded rectangles. Indeed, that one got thrown out.

2. Apple actually offered to license Samsung key patents in 2010 and Samsung refused. That's why Apple sued. How is that stifling competition?

3. Samsung can and does create phones that don't infringe on Apple property. As do many other companies. Take a look at Nokia, the Lumia series of phones are beautiful and well designed. Others too, like Sony, RIM, etc can design a phone that looks nothing like an iPhone

3. Apple competes in the courtroom not in the marketplace. I guess that's why we have an iPhone 5 just around the corner, updates to iOS and new and innovative features being added to these products all the time like Retina Displays and so on.

4. Pinch to Zoom, Rubberbanding, Tap to Zoom 'All Obvious" . This meme oft repeated by the Android fans is wearing thin. How is it so obvious that right up until Apple implemented it in the iPhone, nobody else thought of doing it? And then straight after, everyone else scrambled to use it?

As for preventing everyone else from using it - Hello Microsoft? They seem to have got round Apple by, erm, cross licensing their technology! Therefore destroying one of the principle claims that Android fanboys like to repeaet. As for 'Prior Art', well, Apple bought Fingerworks, who invented the technology in 1999, well before the Diamond Touch display and other so called 'prior art' evidence Samsung brought up. Also those examples were nothing to do with what is implemented and patented by Apple!

5. Samsung could have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they didn't copy Apple by being allowed the refused prior art? Rubbish. Firstly none of it was from a working and released product. Secondly, it looked nothing like the iPhone. Closer to a Nokia N95 actually. It was considered irrelevant and late. Samsung's typical tactic in this case was to spread FUD and bring up tenuous examples of Prior Art.

6. Samsung stated they weren't copying Apple at all, then tried to invalidate all the claims by bringing up such examples of Prior Art that weren't actually prior art. They either did copy and need to invalidate, or didnt ad therefore dont need to invalidate, which is it?

7. The court were biased because they are from the US, and therefore would always award a US company in a case like this.

Oh come on, how childish are you? Samsung vetted and vetoed anyone they thought might have undue bias. That argument might work in a forum of teenagers arguing over wether iOS or Android are better, but in the real world, evidence, fact and reality get in the way of such nonsense.

8. IOS steals ideas from Android. Nonsense. How can you steal from a free, open source OS? It's also only been since Honeycomb that Android really started to carve out it's own identity.

The fact is, Android fans are upset that the Appple fanboys got 'one over' on them and somehow this is just too irksome for them to tolerate.

The reality is that any ban or fine will take years to come to fruition, Samsung are already working round Apple patents and have a bloody good phone in the S3 that isnt infringing on Apple patents. Most of the stuff Apple got Samsung for are Touchwiz UI features, and Android itself is quite safe.

The end result will probably be that Apple gets a license fee from other Android makers that infringe, and that'll be the end of it.

Symbian,, Windows Phone and Blackberry OS managed to not infringe on Apple IP for many years, so there's no reason to not expect Android to do so too.

What wont happen is that companies like Google and so on wont take shortcuts to success by blatantly copying others innovations, and will instead have to spend money researching stuff themselves.

4
6
Silver badge

Re: The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

Re item 4 - the only bit you mention where you think Apple was innovating - I was doing similar things on computer some 30 years ago. Not exactly the same as we were using 4 button mice - which we could program to do gestures that triggered actions of almost any complexity you desired. Actions from clicking any of the buttons to writing letters or click and slide - you could make so many different 'gestures' that you couldn’t remember them all and multi-touch wasn’t required. We didn’t patent any of them because they were obvious, bleeding obvious, and a direct product of the technology available - to anyone with a positive IQ.

30 years ago this was regarded as 'meh' technology. Very nice to have but to even consider patenting it would have resulted in a pat on the head and a severe pisstaking in the bar akin to that where someone got a simple addition wrong or walked the wrong side of a door.

The reg may not like apple but anyone round computing 30years ago looks on most things apple innovate as either old hat or the emperors new interface. Support them all you like - pig ignorance is the new IT as far as I can tell, you may go far.

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

Some thirty years ago you say? Just as Dos was introduced, and 2 full years before the Mac was released?

Sure you did. Also touch screens were available long before Apple relased the iphone, even touch interfaces. It's just nobody thought to make them finger friendly from the ground up rather than replicating desktop computer paradigms.

Yes, APple didnt 'invent' multi-touch directly, but it bought a company that did, and used it successfully with lots of other technology it either invented or bought. Like anyone who buys a product or company, they have the right to assert the technology or patents they bought therein. Otherwise why bother paying for a company that's up for sale?

Everyone seems to forget the Newton that was doing much of what we see today, long before the iphone. Apple invented and patented that too you know. They used technology from that in the iPhone.

Again, the "its bleedin obvious' - no it's not, and Apple made it the only way to do it by being good at what it does. Samsung, Google, et al, just copied.

Just because you dont like the company that won doesnt mean that the result is any less just.

5
3
FAIL

Re: The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

"The fact is, Android fans are upset that the Appple[sic] fanboys got 'one over' on them and somehow this is just too irksome for them to tolerate."

So let me see. BSD volunteers spend 20 years creating a rock solid UNIX OS. Apple grabs it for free and then tells everyone it's an innovator? It's the double standard that's irksome. We have a phrase. It doges like this.

Don't p155 on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Anyway.

Samsung will appeal this, like, *forever*.

The supremes will be munching on this 10 years from now.

It remains to be seen if they will be as easily led by this "jury". I very much doubt they will.

It is more cost-effective for Samsung to take this right to the top than to pay up.

The lack of fairness from judge Koh is grounds enough for an appeal.

Its only a matter of when, not if, Samsung file.

1
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

Except that OS X isn't BSD, it's Mach Unix with BSD user apps. The whole core OS is still open source and freely downloadable (go look up Darwin). The license that this is based on allows closed source extensions, which is what Apple did with their Coca GUI framework. It's that framework, modified for mobile work in Coca Touch, that is the innovation in mobile phones, unless you are saying that you can't innovate unless you build your own OS from the ground up (which limits the field rather).

4
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...

Yes 30 years ago. Before Windows and before Apple and before mice* - before toy computing.

Like I say pig-ignorance is the new IT. Just because YOU never heard of it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Just because apple bought a company doesn't mean the company invented it.

* I called it a mouse in the previous post - it was a 4 button cursor device for a large square tablet - if anyone gave you something like we had then on an iPad you would probably wet yourself.

0
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018