"I absolutely believe it's had an impact on our sales," he said.
Yes, competition has a tendency to have such an effect...
Apple's demand that Samsung be censured for releasing evidence that had been struck out of the two companies' patent battle has been rejected by the presiding judge. Apple had asked Judge Lucy Koh to sanction the lawyers involved in Samsung's decision to send evidence that had been filed too late for the trial proceedings to …
They expect protection just like you would if you worked hard on a product only for a competitor to produce an almost identical looking product reducing your sales.
You're obviously not in business, my brother is and has had some of his designs copied by the larger companies he is trying to compete with.
If Apple cant compete in a world where similar LOOKING devices are sold, then they clearly are not producing good devices..
Clothes are a good analogy, when a top designer produces a collection, the high street copies it...yet people still buy expensive clothes because they are high quality, yet cheap imitations are often commonly found, these look similar but are not fakes pretending to be designer.
The same goes for phones, Samsung released phones in a similar STYLE to Apple, but the devices are different hardware and software, so HOW are they copying? also their phones look Evolutionary from the older phones i've seen, not a direct rip off of apple. What apple has patented should NEVER have been allowed to be patented, how can you patent such a basic feature...
I concur, having sold both iPhones and Samsung Galaxy Models S-S3, as well as Galaxy Tabs, I don't see the likeness beyond the general shape. The Nexus lines even less so. Vocal Apple fans still have loads of evidence to actually cite (for once) before parroting the "wholesale copying" angle they keep parading about.
I HAVE had people mix the generic name of tablet with iPad, but I make sure to clarify where there is any doubt. If that's Apple's version of losing sales, they're not doing too great a job of being distinctive over generic design.
Still waiting for Apple to sue Intel as another one of their suppliers for promoting a similar rival to their Macbooks...
Actually generally the high street copies are exactly the same as the designer clothes, not a difference. My mum used to work in one of the few UK factories. Effectively they just had a single line making trousers. At the final point that line would be split into several others.
The several others would have the branding put on, tags, and then packed separately and shipped to different companies. So it's not so much every other company ripping them off, it's the designer themselves. They design it, license it under their name, and then sell off other unbranded versions to cheaper retail outlets even though its the exact same product.
Same with food at the supermarket. Generally the stores own is from the same place as heinz / kellogs etc, just slightly lower quality batch.
But I agree, apple shouldn't be allowed to patent rounded corners. I mean I have an old phone from the 90's one of the massive nokia housebricks. It has rounded corners, sadly though it isn't a touch screen so it's a completely different product.
> Generally the stores own is from the same place as heinz / kellogs etc, just slightly lower quality batch.
This is absolutely *not* true when it comes to Kelloggs. They refuse to make foods for anyone else.
Other manufacturers do quite often just package their standard product in the supermarkets' foil/boxes.
"They expect protection just like you would if you worked hard on a product only for a competitor to produce an almost identical looking product reducing your sales."
The phones were not at all identical apart from the basic rectangular shape which is dictated by using a rectangular screen, which touch screen phones and PDA's had been using for at least a decade before Apple claim they invented that look.
Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor, they just get on with the job of competing, which Apple should be doing instead of spending all this money to keep competitor's stock off the shelves.
I mean why not sue every Android manufacturer then? In terms of form factor the differences between all smartphones are mere nuances around a rectangular screen.
Apple are only going after Samsung because they have been successful.
""Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor..."
I wish that were true :(
Asus should probably start an injunction on MacBook Air then. That would be hillarious. :)
""Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor..."
I wish that were true :(
What a f*****g joke. The US patent system has a lot to answer for.
Typing this on a Macbook Pro - I think it will be the last Apple product I buy on principle...
Apple "worked hard", did you say?
"The files contains a snippet of a deposition by former Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori who said that Apple’s design chief Jonathan Ive told him to create a phone inspired by Sony’s designs. “If Sony were to make an iPhone, what would it be like?” Nishibori then goes on to comment on some designs for an Apple phone that he says were created “based on my own thoughts or my understanding of Sony-like designs.”"
This doesn't seem to be the case in the world of cameras, MPVs, aeroplanes, televisions and many other products. I suspect a lot of people like the idea of several similar products to choose from. Having a choice of one does rather smack of a Stalinist ideology and rather flies in the face of the idea that competition is a good thing
It's absolutely ridiculous!
I have a desktop calculator at work, the design of which is a rectangle with rounded corners, with the buttons being squares and rectangles, once again with rounded corners. It's other innovative feature is that the icons (read "Buttons") are below the screen!
It uses mechanical buttons rather than a touch screen, but in terms of basic design appearance, the iPhone is nothing more than an expensive knockoff of a calculator that I have had for over a decade.
Apple's use of "Design Patents" is an example of patent abuse at it's worst. It should never have been granted in the first place, and the granting examiner should be fitted out for a white cane immediately!
"The vitriolic Androids get on their high horses and pontificate and postulise on the de-merits of the Apple Empire."
So you think companies should be able to patent rectangles then?
Nothing wrong with the "Empire" as you call it, I wouldn't have a problem with Apple taking action if it was a genuine invention - this is just frivolous.
"He did acknowledge that Apple bought phones from the competition and analyzed them, but said this was largely to sort out how to design antennas and avoid dropped calls"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh IC said the Blynde Mann.
I suppose they coiled their antenna's clockwise while the people they stole the ideas... ummm I mean reverse engineered.... No I mean... ummm merely looked at the competitions phones - fully assembled of course... yeah well the competition coiled their antennas anti-clockwise...
Well I suppose that all comes down to how you insert the antenna's into the phone... as to which way the antenna is coiled... but there is a difference and we made sure that we made sure, ummm..... the antennas were not ummm...... copied, stolen or reverse engineered... and the coiling went in the opposite direction.....
Everyone does it, they all tear down rivals products and see what they've done and work out the cost of the product in parts.
In the 80s at trade shows some of the Japanese companies would take apart the display computers while nobody was looking.
Many of the patents are on the process and what a part is trying to achieve. Such simple parts are unlikely to be protect-able.
I still remember working the tills at PC World, and some chap comes over with a Nintendo DS. As the script demands, I ask "business or personal use?" A slight smirk, because who would buy a games console for business use?
Imagine my surprise when it was for business use. Then while capturing details for the VAT reciept, I find out it's being bought by a director for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe?
So no, Apple buying competitor's phones doesn't surprise me. However, tearing down phones to look at antenna designs doesn't seem to have paid off all that well, it must be said!
... and then they put Samsung chips at the heart of it and gave it a Samsung screen as well. There's enough Samsung parts in an iPhone that its almost a Samsung.
Apple's attorney isn't helping their cause by pointing out the marketing aspect ONLY. Apple's contribution is marketing, UI and API's, but it is telling on Apple being a marketing company rather than an engineering/innovating company.
Evidence is EVIDENCE - its existence does not rely on being filed on time.
One must question the judge's decision to exclude it then expect a jury not to be able to view it. OK, so perhaps a financial penalty should be placed on Samsung for submitting it late, however should the case go in Apple's favour the exclusion of the evidence gives grounds for Samsung to appeal.
And ultimately the winners are the lawyers
Not that much when you consider there are a total of TEN jurors. IOW, the potential corruption only covers a minority of the jurors, and I haven't heard anything concerning alternates. Since this is a civil case, only a majority is necessary to find in favor of one or the other (it's in criminal cases where the unanimity rule applies).
Firstly it's 4 out of 9 (one of the original 10 has been excused)
Secondly only 6 of the 9 get to vote (3 are alternates in case any of the main 6 have to withdraw)
We don't know how many of those 4 were alternates or primary. Worst case it could be 2/3rds of the voting jury.
"In a busy day's testimony, Apple's marketing boss Phil Schiller took to the stand to defend his company's right to own such design features as a tablet with rounded corners. "
I like Apple products but I have no idea how this guy could have done that and kept a straight face. FFS, it's just plain childish.
To a forum post where a fanboi is asking why he can't get siri, facetime, iTunes or something similar to load on his Samsung branded iPad or iPhone?
If they can, then yes I will believe that Apple lost a sale.
On the other hand, I don't own iAnything but did buy a Mac for my wife for Christmas so there's one extra sale they can deduct from there 'lost sales' net figure.
Ah, now THAT's an ad hominem attack, you might want to explain it to "Mark ."
You're trying to put words in my mouth I see. All I've ever said is that Samsung's designs are close enough to confuse a non technically literate user and allow them to be swayed by a salesman in the direction of the cheaper device.
Sadly, and I must remain anon, but yes it is true, I work for a national company, our sales commission changes month by month, at the moment we are being told to push for the S3 our reward is a 12% commission on every phone we sell whereas the average for the others is between 5%-8%.
Samsung are incentivising it and also as a prize the top S3 sales will get an all expenses paid 4 night stay for two in Las Vegas.
Now you know why it is selling so well.
I don't think you're quite following the argument.
If Samsung had their own distinctive model that consumers wouldn't confuse with Apple's version (and to be fair, the Galaxy SIII is quite different in appearance to the iPhone) then its down to sales tactics and advertising.
If on the other hand they have a model that is very similar to Apple's then they are unfairly piggybacking on Apple's sales and marketing campaign. In this case Apple shouldn't HAVE to compete by discounting, giving out spiffs etc.
Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line, with features copied from them and at a lower price. Add to that they give dealers a bigger discount and offer salesmen incentives to sell their sets rather than the equivalent Samsung. Don't you think Samsung would be more than a little P'd off and would take LG to court?
confuses you guys? Not a boring mid range box, something like this
(and I'm sure the fandoids will only see rectangular screen and no other details)
"What part of "top of the range" confuses you guys?"
You are obviously missing the joke that Apple's claims of violating a patent on rectangles costs them sales makes about as much sense as Samsung patenting rectangular televisions and making similar claims.
What part of that joke confuses you?
> Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line, with features copied from them and at a lower price.
Since we're in the market for a TV I can inform use that - at least in our market segment - the products from these two companies are well-nigh indistinguishable and we will probably buy whichever is cheaper.
In fact I'm hoping for some competitive cost-cutting to break out... but back to your example, if that happened Samsung would have at least three options:
1) if their product has a loyal user base, keep the same price and make more profit on fewer units (probably resulting the barand being perceived as more upmarket), while watching the discounting competitor lose money or make a very thin margin
2) if they have loads of cash in the bank, use some of it to boost sales and take market share from the competitor.
3) reduce the price of a product for which the R&D, tooling, and, marketing are sunk costs (maybe an older iteration of the product) to undercut LG's discounted product and steal its potential customer base.
As far as I am aware, all 3 of these options are open to Apple (and they have used #3 to maintain the dominance of the ipad brand?).
The great advantage an original has over the derivative product is that the derivative is always one generation behind. But if there is little or no geniune innovation, the derivatives will catch up quickly.
No, I'd be glad that a company is able to produce a top-of-the-range product at a lower price, and I'd praise them for passing that price saving onto the consumer, rather than using it to profit. If that model means that they also have more money to engage in marketing, then good for them. Especially if the company with the overpriced products has adverts everywhere, that no one seems to have a problem with.
Well, heaven forbid that Samsung be allowed to use marketing, that they pay for, to help sell their immensely popular products.
But that's nothing compared to the amount of coverage Apple seem to get - every phone store I see still has massive banners for the old Iphone 4S and Ipad, whilst the far better selling Samsung get less coverage, even with a more recently released flagship phone. Meanwhile there's all the free advertising Apple get, from the endless media coverage, the constant "on my/your Iphone" product placement, the "get this on your Iphone" ads from other companies, the obvious Apple logo you see the few times you see someone with their product, to everyone who has the "posted on my Iphone" advert when they post to the Internet. Not to mention, the obligitory token Iphone owner, who has to tell everyone they meet that they have an Iphone.
Oh, and as best as I can tell (the numbers aren't published) Samsung do offer higher retail margins than Apple. Sales based on what the retailer want to sell you because of higher profit/sales incentives aren't good for the customer unless they understand that they aren't getting impartial advice.
"Given that Samsung have a history of giving out "spliffs", incentives to individual salesmen for meeting sales targets, then this is a very real problem."
Somehow I don't think its Samsung salesmen smoking spliffs.......
Do you really love a BRAND that much! Suppose $600oddM CAN buy the weak minded, so the Apple advertising budget is justified.
If rounded corners make a copy, then I guess my old N900 is a copy of the iPhone too... black, rounded corners, touchscreen... hell, it even has almost the same CPU (Cortex A8 with a slightly different GPU). The fact that it and the Samsung phones run a completely different OS isn't enough of a barrier, I would posit.
I'd better get the file out, and make the corners flat again...
"evidence that had been filed too late for the trial proceedings"
OK, I admit I'm not very familiar with the specifics of trial procedures, but the idea that evidence however relevant can be ignored because it's filed too late seems to me a major flaw. And if that evidence isn't allowed during the trial, then doesn't it make sense that the party with the new evidence could demand an appeal or new trial?
When will Apple realize that there is more to selling products than how it looks.....
If your whole case is about whether you lost sales because somebody designed a product that looks the same then I would be seriously concerned about the need to have 'technical' engineers being paid thousands of pounds and yet admitting to breakdown other peoples phones to see how they antenna work.
Surely if your product is so good people would be saying well the samsung looks the same but the iPhone has this and that, or vice verse. It should be about which has the best tech not which looks good in your pocket!
"The company also took a considerable risk with products like the iPad, which launched into a sector that was considered moribund by many in the industry, he explained."
The RDF, argued in court.
There were plenty of tablets (or media players as they were called then), such as those from Archos. Android tablets appeared before Apple ones. In general, handheld computing devices flourished and exploded in mainstream popularity in the 2000s, the most obvious example being smartphones, but also things like PDAs. They were just called different names.
The only thing considered "moribund" was the idea of a fully functional PC in tablet form - but sorry, the Ipad isn't that either. If anyone is first with that, it'll be the likes of the Microsoft Surface, or perhaps Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 which is at least striving towards general purpose computing, rather than a locked down media player for consumption.
Also of note is the achievement of a mobile PC, realised in 2007 with ASUS's revolutionary EEE PC, creating a whole new market of netbooks.
There was little risk for Apple, less than what most companies have to deal with. As with phones, they launched into an existing market created by other companies, and unlike their competition, had the benefit of vast amounts of media hype and free advertising, which appeared even before the product was announced, let alone released. With the billions they have in the bank to back it up, the Ipad must go down in history as one of the least risky product launches in tech history.
If Apple consider that risky - or risky that companies might dare to release competing products - that says it all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019