09-04-2012 07:32 PM
161 12345 ...
tools
  1. Ricky Babalu's Avatar
    Yikes, have not looked at this since posting yesterday. All good points! I guess I had a brief lapse in judgment. We all have our moments, better lay off the beer.
    dmmarck and Johnly like this.
    08-28-2012 03:02 PM
  2. Scythe55's Avatar
    I don't really feel bad for Samsung, but I do think they got the short end of the stick. From an outsider looking in, it appears that the outcome was predetermined.
    08-28-2012 03:12 PM
  3. Ry's Avatar
    Let's not forget that Steve Jobs was one of the only billionaires that was not a philanthropist.

    He closed the Steve P. Jobs foundation 1 year after opening it, and only after his death, did Tim Cook open Apple back up to offering donations.

    He was a greedy person who ran a greedy/shady company based on do as I say, not as I do morals and took prior art, merged it into functionality and claimed no one else could do the same.
    I always found it hilarious that people basically worship Steve Jobs while mocking Bill Gates.

    Apple created ideas based on inspiration from other companies. Why is it OK they do it and not Samsung?
    I see a difference between being inspired and blatant copying.


    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 03:31 PM
  4. mfriedman79's Avatar
    It is patently absurd to think that the Apple would absorb a $28 billion profit hit just to manufacture their products in the US. US wages whether unionized or not would be several times higher and you would expect Apple to absorb this impact to their profit? They also do not control their part sourcing which drives costs even more. Samsung controls part sourcing which gives them an advantage.

    Sent From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Handheld Device
    Part of the problem here is the shift in priorities of companies starting at the end of Reagan/Bush era. While every company is entitled to make a profit their priorities used to be ordered as follows.
    1) Customer - build a reasonably priced quality product
    2) Employee - pay a fair wage and good benefits
    3) Country - pay taxes, hire Americans workers to keep the economy strong
    4) stockholder - be profitable to the point you can pay out dividends and reward investors with increased value.

    Sadly it now reads as :
    1) Profit
    2) Stockholder
    3) Profit some more
    4) Stockholder
    5) F everything else
    Syrous44 likes this.
    08-28-2012 04:03 PM
  5. dmmarck's Avatar
    Part of the problem here is the shift in priorities of companies starting at the end of Reagan/Bush era. While every company is entitled to make a profit their priorities used to be ordered as follows.
    1) Customer - build a reasonably priced quality product
    2) Employee - pay a fair wage and good benefits
    3) Country - pay taxes, hire Americans workers to keep the economy strong
    4) stockholder - be profitable to the point you can pay out dividends and reward investors with increased value.

    Sadly it now reads as :
    1) Profit
    2) Stockholder
    3) Profit some more
    4) Stockholder
    5) F everything else
    With all due respect, the priority has always (more or less) legally been shareholder profits. It has been since the 1919 case Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. However, what shareholders have demanded and what the consumer has demanded has radically shifted, in addition to a variety of other economic pressures (governments, political climates, international economics, etc.) so we see it a bit differently now because corporations have, for better or for worse, adapted. No offense meant, just clarifying .
    08-28-2012 04:07 PM
  6. 534n's Avatar
    No. apple is a terrible company and Samsung is not. Regardless of where they originated from, Samsung is a better company and deserves the support. I could go on for a long time with details of why apple is that bad.

    Neglecting the fact that apple doesn't really make that great of devices or software, they depend on the lawsuits to make profits, which is why they have a huge legal department and sue everyone they can get their hands on.

    See the attachment, source: Google Images.
    08-28-2012 04:13 PM
  7. Ry's Avatar
    No. apple is a terrible company and Samsung is not. Regardless of where they originated from, Samsung is a better company and deserves the support. I could go on for a long time with details of why apple is that bad.
    Because there have been no reports of Samsung using places that use child labor to make their stuff..



    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 04:39 PM
  8. mfriedman79's Avatar
    I always found it hilarious that people basically worship Steve Jobs while mocking Bill Gates.



    I see a difference between being inspired and blatant copying.


    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    Blatant copying would the KIRF products by goophone or gooapple or any of the other exact replicas. Drawing influence from a competitor is normal and expected in the business world. Now on the first version of the Galaxy S Samsung may have gone a bit overboard on the icon backgrounds that "copied" Apples icons a bit too closely, but those were thankfully gone with the release of the S2. I would even accept Samsung having to pay for the combination of the use of the grid+icon look of touchwhiz that was used on the S1's, but the fact that both the S1 and S2's used 4 capacitive buttons and had a different styled back and edges throws out the idea of a blatant copy.
    All TV's/Cars/Motorcylces/shoes/monitors/traincars/rollerskates/jeans/keyboards/telephones/etc all share very similar designs based on the direction that products became popular and recognizable in their respective industries. They differentiate themselves with logo's and minor design variances and differences in internals vs price point to stay competitive. the mobile space should be no different. When Nokia ruled the mobile space all phones were bricks, then flip phones were all the rage and the Razr brought on thin flip phones. Then Samsung (or some other company) started the bigger screen (for the time) with slideout keyboard and eventually RIM's success caused all mfg's to start making full keyboards on phones. Design follows the trends that are popular making minor changes to how they look. this is no different then what is happening now. Apple should be applauded by taking advantage of the technology that was becoming cost effective to use (ie capacitive touch screens) and making a device that people liked using. They should not be awarded design patents or otherwise on the look and features that evolved from the devices they strived to replace.

    Grid based icon layouts have been around in mobile since the palm pilot days if not earlier, double tap to zoom is an obvious evolution on a touchscreen base don what you would do with a mouse on images/maps in desktop operating systems. Movies/TV shows go back decades showing the concepts of using to points to expand or collapse an image or screen. Slide to unlock is the digital representation of the chain locks on doors that have been around for ages. these are not new ideas. If Apple were patenting their exact implementation on how they do these things then that would be fine, but they are patenting the idea and not the execution and trying to force any other company evolving into the current competitive landscape to not be able to compete with the simplistic ideas.

    It is for that reason I have no qualms about supporting Samsung or any other company that challenges Apple. Apple want to abuse a broken system and lock out competition which is not what America is supposed to be about. No matter how nice the aesthetics of their products may be I will never buy or recommend an Apple product to anyone I know until they change their practices, which is not likely to ever happen.
    ynomrah, Johnly and Syrous44 like this.
    08-28-2012 04:41 PM
  9. Johnly's Avatar
    Blatant copying would the KIRF products by goophone or gooapple or any of the other exact replicas. Drawing influence from a competitor is normal and expected in the business world. Now on the first version of the Galaxy S Samsung may have gone a bit overboard on the icon backgrounds that "copied" Apples icons a bit too closely, but those were thankfully gone with the release of the S2. I would even accept Samsung having to pay for the combination of the use of the grid+icon look of touchwhiz that was used on the S1's, but the fact that both the S1 and S2's used 4 capacitive buttons and had a different styled back and edges throws out the idea of a blatant copy.
    All TV's/Cars/Motorcylces/shoes/monitors/traincars/rollerskates/jeans/keyboards/telephones/etc all share very similar designs based on the direction that products became popular and recognizable in their respective industries. They differentiate themselves with logo's and minor design variances and differences in internals vs price point to stay competitive. the mobile space should be no different. When Nokia ruled the mobile space all phones were bricks, then flip phones were all the rage and the Razr brought on thin flip phones. Then Samsung (or some other company) started the bigger screen (for the time) with slideout keyboard and eventually RIM's success caused all mfg's to start making full keyboards on phones. Design follows the trends that are popular making minor changes to how they look. this is no different then what is happening now. Apple should be applauded by taking advantage of the technology that was becoming cost effective to use (ie capacitive touch screens) and making a device that people liked using. They should not be awarded design patents or otherwise on the look and features that evolved from the devices they strived to replace.

    Grid based icon layouts have been around in mobile since the palm pilot days if not earlier, double tap to zoom is an obvious evolution on a touchscreen base don what you would do with a mouse on images/maps in desktop operating systems. Movies/TV shows go back decades showing the concepts of using to points to expand or collapse an image or screen. Slide to unlock is the digital representation of the chain locks on doors that have been around for ages. these are not new ideas. If Apple were patenting their exact implementation on how they do these things then that would be fine, but they are patenting the idea and not the execution and trying to force any other company evolving into the current competitive landscape to not be able to compete with the simplistic ideas.

    It is for that reason I have no qualms about supporting Samsung or any other company that challenges Apple. Apple want to abuse a broken system and lock out competition which is not what America is supposed to be about. No matter how nice the aesthetics of their products may be I will never buy or recommend an Apple product to anyone I know until they change their practices, which is not likely to ever happen.
    nice
    nice
    08-28-2012 04:44 PM
  10. 534n's Avatar
    Because there have been no reports of Samsung using places that use child labor to make their stuff..



    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    What makes you think apple doesn't? I am not aware of any documented cases of Samsung doing this, however I would not say it is not possible seeing as that is prevalent in that area of the world. However, those children are going to have to work twice as hard now on double shifts thanks to apples recent endeavors.
    08-28-2012 04:44 PM
  11. Ry's Avatar
    Blatant copying would the KIRF products by goophone or gooapple or any of the other exact replicas. Drawing influence from a competitor is normal and expected in the business world. Now on the first version of the Galaxy S Samsung may have gone a bit overboard on the icon backgrounds that "copied" Apples icons a bit too closely, but those were thankfully gone with the release of the S2. I would even accept Samsung having to pay for the combination of the use of the grid+icon look of touchwhiz that was used on the S1's, but the fact that both the S1 and S2's used 4 capacitive buttons and had a different styled back and edges throws out the idea of a blatant copy.
    All TV's/Cars/Motorcylces/shoes/monitors/traincars/rollerskates/jeans/keyboards/telephones/etc all share very similar designs based on the direction that products became popular and recognizable in their respective industries. They differentiate themselves with logo's and minor design variances and differences in internals vs price point to stay competitive. the mobile space should be no different. When Nokia ruled the mobile space all phones were bricks, then flip phones were all the rage and the Razr brought on thin flip phones. Then Samsung (or some other company) started the bigger screen (for the time) with slideout keyboard and eventually RIM's success caused all mfg's to start making full keyboards on phones. Design follows the trends that are popular making minor changes to how they look. this is no different then what is happening now. Apple should be applauded by taking advantage of the technology that was becoming cost effective to use (ie capacitive touch screens) and making a device that people liked using. They should not be awarded design patents or otherwise on the look and features that evolved from the devices they strived to replace.

    Grid based icon layouts have been around in mobile since the palm pilot days if not earlier, double tap to zoom is an obvious evolution on a touchscreen base don what you would do with a mouse on images/maps in desktop operating systems. Movies/TV shows go back decades showing the concepts of using to points to expand or collapse an image or screen. Slide to unlock is the digital representation of the chain locks on doors that have been around for ages. these are not new ideas. If Apple were patenting their exact implementation on how they do these things then that would be fine, but they are patenting the idea and not the execution and trying to force any other company evolving into the current competitive landscape to not be able to compete with the simplistic ideas.

    It is for that reason I have no qualms about supporting Samsung or any other company that challenges Apple. Apple want to abuse a broken system and lock out competition which is not what America is supposed to be about. No matter how nice the aesthetics of their products may be I will never buy or recommend an Apple product to anyone I know until they change their practices, which is not likely to ever happen.
    Yet there was also evidence in Samsung's own interntal documents where they directly compare their phones to the iPhone and how to copy things from the iPhone and implement them on their devices. Damning evidence.

    Even if Samsung submitted their prior art/Apple design exercise evidence in time, allowing it to be used in that trial, it shows no evidence that Apple copied a commercially available device.

    With regards to trade-dress, I am in total agreement about the early KIRFing going on with Samsung's early enteries in the Galaxy series. It really isn't that hard for a logical person to see- you've seen it yourself. I would be SHOCKED if Apple went after phones like the Galaxy S III and Galaxy Nexus on the grounds of trade-dress. I doubt they will. The G1, the original DROID- none of them looked remotely close to the iPhone. Samsung just took it too far. And if the same team that designed the Galaxy S III worked on the original Galaxy, it shows they didn't have to go the KIRF route.



    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 04:48 PM
  12. Ry's Avatar
    What makes you think apple doesn't? I am not aware of any documented cases of Samsung doing this, however I would not say it is not possible seeing as that is prevalent in that area of the world. However, those children are going to have to work twice as hard now on double shifts thanks to apples recent endeavors.
    I'm not saying Apple doesn't. I'm just saying Samsung is no angel either.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 04:49 PM
  13. sniffs's Avatar
    I always found it hilarious that people basically worship Steve Jobs while mocking Bill Gates.



    I see a difference between being inspired and blatant copying.


    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    I'll leave you with this.

    [YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU[/YT]

    PS. This isn't Geesung Choi / Y.K. Kim saying this.(Samsung's CEO / Samsung USA's CEO)
    Johnly likes this.
    08-28-2012 04:59 PM
  14. 534n's Avatar
    Yet there was also evidence in Samsung's own interntal documents where they directly compare their phones to the iPhone and how to copy things from the iPhone and implement them on their devices. Damning evidence.

    Even if Samsung submitted their prior art/Apple design exercise evidence in time, allowing it to be used in that trial, it shows no evidence that Apple copied a commercially available device.

    With regards to trade-dress, I am in total agreement about the early KIRFing going on with Samsung's early enteries in the Galaxy series. It really isn't that hard for a logical person to see- you've seen it yourself. I would be SHOCKED if Apple went after phones like the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Nexus on the grounds of trade-dress. I doubt they will. The G1, the original DROID- none of them looked remotely close to the iPhone. Samsung just took it too far. And if the same team that designed the Galaxy S3 worked on the original Galaxy, it shows they didn't have to go the KIRF route.



    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    Just FYI, this happens in EVERY company, in EVERY industry.
    08-28-2012 05:08 PM
  15. VicVinegar's Avatar
    With all due respect, the priority has always (more or less) legally been shareholder profits. It has been since the 1919 case Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. However, what shareholders have demanded and what the consumer has demanded has radically shifted, in addition to a variety of other economic pressures (governments, political climates, international economics, etc.) so we see it a bit differently now because corporations have, for better or for worse, adapted. No offense meant, just clarifying .
    And those "shareholder" demands are really the Wall St. hedge funds and analysts who demand the quarter by quarter performance. Joe Sixpack with a few shares in his 401 would probably prefer a few percentage points a year for the next 20. Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg pundits are the guys who trash a CEO for "only" increasing revenue a little bit over a year.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    08-28-2012 07:20 PM
  16. sniffs's Avatar
    And those "shareholder" demands are really the Wall St. hedge funds and analysts who demand the quarter by quarter performance. Joe Sixpack with a few shares in his 401 would probably prefer a few percentage points a year for the next 20. Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg pundits are the guys who trash a CEO for "only" increasing revenue a little bit over a year.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    /offtopic

    It's Always Sunny in Philly is the best TV show ever made. I've seen every episode like 100 times.

    Where's Hue Honey!?

    /ok back on topic.
    08-28-2012 07:24 PM
  17. dmmarck's Avatar
    And those "shareholder" demands are really the Wall St. hedge funds and analysts who demand the quarter by quarter performance. Joe Sixpack with a few shares in his 401 would probably prefer a few percentage points a year for the next 20. Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg pundits are the guys who trash a CEO for "only" increasing revenue a little bit over a year.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    No doubt, I get your point, but to state that shareholder profits is a new thing completely disregards corporate law as it's stood for almost a century at this point. Bottom line is, if the directors don't gear their business to maximizing shareholder wealth, they breach their fiduciary duty of care and therefore are liable and at risk of a shareholder suit.
    Ry likes this.
    08-28-2012 07:24 PM
  18. Ry's Avatar
    Just FYI, this happens in EVERY company, in EVERY industry.
    I completely understand that companies research each other all the time. I've had to produce documents on competing products before (mobile/social games related) but I wasn't at Zynga so we weren't making blatant copies of the works of other companies.

    I feel EA vs. Zynga (or the guys who made Tiny Tower vs. Zynga, or Buffalo Studios, who made Bingo Blitz, vs. Zynga) is very similar to Apple vs. Samsung in this case.

    IMO, there was enough evidence to paint Samsung copying Apple vs. Samsung being inspired by Apple to earn Apple the win in this particular case.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 07:29 PM
  19. dmmarck's Avatar
    I completely understand that companies research each other all the time. I've had to produce documents on competing products before (mobile/social games related) but I wasn't at Zynga so we weren't making blatant copies of the works of other companies.

    I feel EA vs. Zynga (or the guys who made Tiny Tower vs. Zynga, or Buffalo Studios, who made Bingo Blitz, vs. Zynga) is very similar to Apple vs. Samsung in this case.

    IMO, there was enough evidence to paint Samsung copying Apple vs. Samsung being inspired by Apple to earn Apple the win in this particular case.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    I agree, to a certain extent. All you need to do is look at the Fascinate and shake your head.
    08-28-2012 07:30 PM
  20. kiwicarlos741's Avatar
    Does anyone ever feel conflicted supporting a foreign company (Samsung) vs. a home grown American Company (Apple). While I am a strong supporter of Android and always will be sometimes I feel Un - American not supporting an American Company. I think we can all agree that Samsung probably did copy to some degree. Nonetheless, I more than anyone do not like Apple and their culture/products. I guess my patriotism is tugging at me!

    BTW, I come from a 2 platform household. I am Android, my wife and 2 daughters are Iphone. I have tried to convince/sway them over to Android but they are not having any of that. In a way I am glad as the first sign of trouble I would be blamed for them going with Android.
    Homegrown? Maybe u should read what it says on the backs of iPhones and apple products, designed in California made in China hahahaha. Homegrown that's a good one

    Sent from my EVO using Android Central Forums
    08-28-2012 07:33 PM
  21. dmmarck's Avatar
    Homegrown? Maybe u should read what it says on the backs of iPhones and apple products, designed in California by a Brit made in China hahahaha. Homegrown that's a good one

    Sent from my EVO using Android Central Forums
    Added a bit more truth .
    08-28-2012 07:35 PM
  22. crackcookie's Avatar
    Does anyone ever feel conflicted supporting a foreign company (Samsung) vs. a home grown American Company (Apple). While I am a strong supporter of Android and always will be sometimes I feel Un - American not supporting an American Company. I think we can all agree that Samsung probably did copy to some degree. Nonetheless, I more than anyone do not like Apple and their culture/products. I guess my patriotism is tugging at me!

    BTW, I come from a 2 platform household. I am Android, my wife and 2 daughters are Iphone. I have tried to convince/sway them over to Android but they are not having any of that. In a way I am glad as the first sign of trouble I would be blamed for them going with Android.
    It is hilarious you say this because I was just talking about this with someone else about cars. Why do people have so much anger for non american cars, but not apply that to anything else?

    Why did Olympians wear Chinese clothing?

    Why do 99% of our products come from China and we complain about things being American? I think for every 2 trill we get from taxes, we owe China 5, I'm not sure.

    But all car talk aside, no.

    You know why the answer is no? Because the money Apple gets.....or GM for that matter, doesn't get reinvested back into the community, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Apple doesn't donate money at all anymore, how greedy and American is that right?

    Not to mention, both Android and Apple, or Mac and Microsoft devices are made in the same crappy place in Thailand or China....with the same parts, heck, Apple uses Samsung for some parts for the ipad.

    And if the ipad were American, it would cost 1400.

    Just like how American cars, aren't made in America, just assembled here.
    08-28-2012 08:10 PM
  23. KreepyKen's Avatar
    I will NVR buy an apple product. If someone gives me an iPhone. If I don't burst in flames first touching it. Lol. I will smash it with a hammer.

    Samsung all the wY

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Android Central Forums
    I will never understand statements like this.
    Me neither. I don't care for some of Apple's business practices, but you can't deny the excellent quality and usability of their products. I'm a long-time Mac user and my wife and I have three iPods between us...but I prefer Android phones/tablets. It's just a matter of preference and one product that better fits my needs than another. There's nothing wrong with iPhones. They're great little devices. Just not for me.
    08-28-2012 09:24 PM
  24. Johnly's Avatar
    Added a bit more truth .
    ha ha....Motorola was the last cell phone company manufacturing stuff here. In fact, don't they have some small prototype plants around.
    08-28-2012 09:29 PM
  25. Johnly's Avatar
    Me neither. I don't care for some of Apple's business practices, but you can't deny the excellent quality and usability of their products. I'm a long-time Mac user and my wife and I have three iPods between us...but I prefer Android phones/tablets. It's just a matter of preference and one product that better fits my needs than another. There's nothing wrong with iPhones. They're great little devices. Just not for me.
    Excellent quality? Not sure about that one. The speaker in the earpiece of my 4s dwindled in its first year. Never had a problem with an android set. My home button in my 4s was crooked to a small degree as well. The phone crashes, it isn't perfect. I actually think my sgs3 is of much higher quality as far as components are concerned.

    There is a lot wrong with iPhones, but that is just my experience, I am not speaking for anyone else.
    08-28-2012 09:33 PM
161 12345 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD