[gaweidert]

Maybe Kodak would be in better financial shape it Apple would pay up for it's violations of Kodak patents over the years. They don't mind stealing other peoples intellectual property but don't like it when anybody else who competes with them has any sort of financial success. Rounded corners is a patent violation?

[jogiba]

But Hogan says that the jury made the decision not based just one element of the design, such as a device’s rectangle shape.

“In the case of the design patent it was the look and feel of it, and how the device presented itself,” he said. “When you compared them side by side, it was apparent the patent was valid.”

When asked if he thought this was a case that could be handled by a traditional jury, Hogan answered with a firm “Yes I do.” He then went on to say “While it was complicated, I believe that any jury of our peers could have reached this decision.”

The jury in the case found that Samsung “willfully” infringed on five of seven Apple patents including the iPhone’s iconography, its “pinch-and-zoom” feature, the “bounce-back” effect in on-screen scrolling and the double-tap zoom.

Apple vs. Samsung Head Juror: 'Evidence Was Overwhelming'

[boriscleto]

Maybe Kodak would be in better financial shape it Apple would pay up for it's violations of Kodak patents over the years. They don't mind stealing other peoples intellectual property but don't like it when anybody else who competes with them has any sort of financial success. Rounded corners is a patent violation?

If those patents had any value Kodak would have gotten a higher bid than $500 million. Kodak lost, Apple won. Get over it.

[boriscleto]

Apple vs. Samsung Head Juror: 'Evidence Was Overwhelming'

Apple's revenue stream from thos patents could be greater than their iPhone revenue, but it probably not. I mean M$ is making more shaking down HTC et al than they are from selling Windows Phone 7, and they just had to threaten to sue. Now that the handset makers know that Android isn't a free ride they may even run back to M$.

[kenafein]

Maybe Kodak would be in better financial shape it Apple would pay up for it's violations of Kodak patents over the years. They don't mind stealing other peoples intellectual property but don't like it when anybody else who competes with them has any sort of financial success. Rounded corners is a patent violation?

I don't know about that, bit I do agree that Apple is an unethical company. They're worse than Microsoft ever was, back when they called foul on Bill.

[jogiba]

Samsung Windows Phone 8 devices leaked | Ubergizmo\
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3201323/samsung-odyssey-marco-windows-phone-8-devices
It would be funny after all this that Windows Phone 8 OS gets picked by Samsung and others to compete against the new iPhone coming out next month.

You Tube

You Tube

[RobA_Oz]

I don't know about that, bit I do agree that Apple is an unethical company. They're worse than Microsoft ever was, back when they called foul on Bill.

Now, that just depends on whose FUD you believe. Many in business these days seem to depend on dog-whistle marketing, ie developing a plausible narrative that polarises those people who have the need to point fingers and stridently condemn. The rest just turn off and ignore the shouting - it's all a bit like modern politics, or life in Sicily.

[kenafein]

Now, that just depends on whose FUD you believe. Many in business these days seem to depend on dog-whistle marketing, ie developing a plausible narrative that polarises those people who have the need to point fingers and stridently condemn. The rest just turn off and ignore the shouting - it's all a bit like modern politics, or life in Sicily.

Not at all. No propaganda required. Take one example, iTunes. Itunes is preinstalled, default and required to use many Apple products. Sound like anything else? Apple was one of the loudest voices blaming Microsoft for including IE and making it integral to OS functionality. There are many reasons to detest Apple as a company. They don't even bother to hide them because many will forgive them any transgression to get their latest and greatest.

[pakinjapan]

I don't know about that, bit I do agree that Apple is an unethical company. They're worse than Microsoft ever was, back when they called foul on Bill.

I couldn't agree more with that.


but when think of it in a positive way, this will make everybody in the industry think harder trying to come up with a new design and new way of operating their device / OS. It is a kind of benefit user and industry in the long run but for the short term, yes it will leave customer with less choices and perhaps the price hike.
also it will indirectly help Windows 8 and hurt Android.

[Rupert]

I'm not too worried about Samsung....this is not over yet and anyhow a $Billion to Samsung is like a dime rolling out of my pocket.....not a major setback by a long shot.
If you look at Samsung's history, it is full of these types of situations....and in the end they always come out on top one way or another. This will be no different.
Regards!

[RobA_Oz]

Not at all. No propaganda required. Take one example, iTunes. Itunes is preinstalled, default and required to use many Apple products. Sound like anything else? Apple was one of the loudest voices blaming Microsoft for including IE and making it integral to OS functionality. There are many reasons to detest Apple as a company. They don't even bother to hide them because many will forgive them any transgression to get their latest and greatest.

I think there are a few contestable things in what you say. For a start, iTunes is only necessary to synchronise data, including media content, so where is the comparison with IE, which Microsoft was attempting to install as the gateway to all browsing on its products, thereby effectively locking out established web-browsers from competing against them? If you don't like iTunes, there are plenty of other applications to put on your PC to synchronise media with.

People can complain about the App Store being the only way to install applications on iOS devices, but Apple is hardly in a monopoly situation with portable media devices these days. Those who object to the "walled" approach on iOS can easily go to Android or Windows Mobile instead. Most of the content is not device-specific, the way things were when Microsoft had a virtual monopoly on desktop OSes.

Next, Apple hardly "blamed" Microsoft for anything related to IE - they even installed IE as the standard browser on OS9, for heaven's sake! Microsoft got a damned good deal from Apple at that time, including some very lucrative shareholdings in the company.

There's nothing unethical in anything you've said here. There may be robust behaviour or even bloody-mindedness, but you don't get to be a successful, profitable business by acting like a charity. By that measure, no successful company the size of Apple or Microsoft has clean hands.

I'm still waiting for some concrete examples of unethical behaviour, nonetheless. I don't doubt there'll be some, somewhere, but nothing deserving of the vilification that gets heaped on Apple because of their success. Like I said, plausible narratives and FUD.

By the way, I use both MacOS and Windows systems at home and work, so I can hardly be said to be biassed, but I do claim to have a broader experience than many who just take an Orwellian approach to these matters ("four legs good, two legs bad", until the pigs start to walk on their hind legs, that is).

[pakinjapan]

For a start, iTunes is only necessary to synchronise data, including media content, so where is the comparison with IE, which Microsoft was attempting to install as the gateway to all browsing on its products, thereby effectively locking out established web-browsers from competing against them? If you don't like iTunes, there are plenty of other applications to put on your PC to synchronise media with.

you right when talk about iTunes and other apps to sync media with some of Apple portable device.
but on the IE part, I think MS was far from "effectively lock out other web-browsers from competing against IE". It's just that most people do not know or too lazy to try another browse, etc...
for people hate IE enough, they can install other browser on their system. and people doing that since... very long ago. I still remember using Netscape on my pc since the first browser war, and end up go with IE because they support web standard better back then. now leave IE because of the very same reason!

[Eulogy]

It's cool. Samsung still owns 40% of South Korea(Just kidding, only 33%, Hyundai owns the rest with all their pharmacies and such), and builds better products at a lower cost.(Spec wise, they still can't make a smartphone work for the "Average" non tech savvy person) Worst case scenario? They stop selling *new* S1 and S2s, as the S3 took a bit of a turn away from the "Appleish" look.(Same with the Note)

I'm willing to bet this is overturned anyways, doesn't seem like a $1B. settlement will go over fully.

Also, it might be worth noting: Android has nothing to do with this. That's Google's issue.(And sorry Apple lovers, no one trumps the internet overlords.) Primary issue behind it was the Shape and Design of the phones.(Esp. the GT-i9000 and i9100s, as they even had a center button) As well as the TouchWiz UI system's launcher, for having 4 "buttons" by default.(So I guess based on that concept, some should sue every phone company for having a Send/End button on flip phones) Personally, I think this is going to be Apple's last rally in the phone business, as the iPhone is already losing ground in the soon to be saturated market.(Mostly due to the silly policy of "Oh, it's been 8 months, we need to shell out $300 again to get a phone that works as well as two year old Droids/Windows Phones. Trade-Ins? What are those?)

And to continue: This seems silly. They sued Samsung for Pinch-Zoom, a feature on all android and Windows phone devices...same with overscroll bounce effects...

Just glad that the glass on Samsung phones doesn't break easy, or else they might sue for that too.

[boriscleto]

[jogiba]

Escalating lawsuits and barbed comments by executives have dramatized the all-out war between Apple and Google for dominance over mobile devices.

But Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs offers an unprecedented look at the Apple co-founder's battle-cry against Google, a company he thought was guilty of a "grand theft" when it launched its Android operating system, which competes directly with the iPhone and has surpassed it in popularity.

"I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this," he told Isaacson of the patent lawsuit Apple filed against cell phone manufacturer HTC.

In Isaacson's "Steve Jobs," a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, the author recalls that Jobs, who was known for his fierce temper, "became angrier than I had ever seen him" during a conversation about Apple's patent lawsuit, which by extension also accused Android of patent infringement.

"Our lawsuit is saying, 'Google you f***ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off,'" Jobs said, according to Isaacson. "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."

Jobs also slammed Google's work, telling Isaacson that "outside of Search, Google's products--Android, Google Docs--are shit." Though Jobs received criticism for his tight control over the iPhone ecosystem, which contrasts sharply with Android's "open" approach, he told Isaacson that Apple's approach stemmed from the company's desire to "make great products, not crap like Android."

Isaacson writes that Jobs had attempted to persuade Google not to develop a mobile operating system to rival Apple's own by promising the company it would have access to the iPhone and prime real estate on the device.

Steve Jobs Said He'd 'Go Thermonuclear War' On Google Over iPhone 'Theft'