Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

What is your point? That some 20-year-old interview should have some bearing on the company some years later? Where are you really going with this?

What do you think, when did they stop to shamelessly stealing ideas? The next day? 5 years later? 10 years? Never? Is it unreasonable to assume that a company, who always shamelessly stole ideas, up to at least that point, continues to do so? That it became some kind of company culture? After all, Jobs was quite proudly boasting about that in public.

But i tell you what. Stealing ideas from other was pretty much always the case, especially in that field. And boy, did the computer industry flourish and grow quickly back then. A time, mind you, when we did not have those crappy, useless software patents. We had loads of manufacturers, software companies, etc. Then came the software patents. From which, if looked closely, only the lawyers have a real benefit.

Where would Apple be without that shameless stealing of ideas? Would they even have survived at all?

And don't you think it's quite hypocritical that a company that once boasted about shamelessly stealing ideas now goes thermonuclear on something they allege to be stolen?

What do you think Apple has "stolen" and then patented? Be specific and cite patent numbers.

Why should i? For one, quite some examples of what they have stolen have been given in this very thread. Then, do you really want to listen to that broken record of "read the patent, read the patent, ..." again, that some seem so happily throw around? Of course combined with that other broken record: It ain't obvious until everyone uses it.

Seriously, get over it. They were proud of stealing ideas, and there is exactly zero reason to believe, and evidence that shows, that they stopped doing so. They are a bunch of hypocrites, no more, no less, when it comes to stealing ideas.

Greetings,

Chris
 
The "broken record" is happily thrown around because several posters in this thread consistently fail to read the patents, or at least fail to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of what they do and do not say.
 
The "broken record" is happily thrown around because several posters in this thread consistently fail to read the patents, or at least fail to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of what they do and do not say.

Repeat that as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.
 
Google chief executive Larry Page and Apple CEO Tim Cook have been conducting behind-the-scenes talks about a range of intellectual property matters, including the mobile patent disputes between the companies, people familiar with the matter said.
[...]
One possible scenario under consideration could be a truce involving disputes over basic features and functions in Google's Android mobile software, one source said. But it was unclear whether Page and Cook were discussing a broad settlement of the various disputes between the two companies, most of which involve the burgeoning mobile computing area, or are focused on a more limited set of issues.
http://afr.com/p/technology/google_apple_chiefs_hold_secret_KZij54fn9INZoomG18UvnI
 
It's in their best interests to cross-license, rather than force a court battle that may very well toss out all those competition-crushing patents as unpatentable.

Keep the ridiculous patents in place and they can sue any new market entrants out of existence, but if they get tossed then there wouild be more competition in the marketplace, something none of the entrenched tech companies want.

And that's what such patents are all about, stifling competition and gouging the consumer. Just like the Constitution intended. :boggled:
 
Wait...did you read the patent?

Did you?

:D



Pfft....It says right in the title, "Zoom lens system"!


Don't go going "broken record" on me! This patent could destroy the camera industry! Think of the LoLCats we'll be missing out on!
 
Which of those are software patents?


How is that relevant? People are patenting zoom lenses, automobile brakes, and printers, but that's okay, because "it isn't software"?

WTF kind of standards are those? :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:covereyes:crowded:
 
Last edited:
How is that relevant? People are patenting zoom lenses, automobile breaks, and printers, but that's okay, because "it isn't software"?

WTF kind of standards are those? :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:covereyes:crowded:
You really don't understand the difference?

Note nobody here is arguing against hardware patents, but keep building that strawman if you'd like. The issue is patenting the very uses for which the hardware is designed.
 
You really don't understand the difference?

Note nobody here is arguing against hardware patents. The issue is patenting the very uses for which the hardware is designed.



Please! That zoom lens guy is patenting a zoom lens that uses "lenses" to "manipulate light"! WTF else do you do with lenses? That's what lenses are for!

Issac *********** Newton knew that, how is that patentable?
 
Please! That zoom lens guy is patenting a zoom lens that uses "lenses" to "manipulate light"! WTF else do you do with lenses? That's what lenses are for!

Issac *********** Newton knew that, how is that patentable?

More evidence why you don't know why some of the complaints in this thread are valid...
 
There's another Apple vs Samsung court decision from the last day or so. This one in South Korea.

The ruling was that Apple and Samsung both infringed each other's patents on mobile devices. Apple had infringed two patents held by Samsung relating to telecom standards and making information transfer more efficient. Samsung violated one of Apple's: the bounce-back function.

The court ruled against the design similarities, arguing that there's only so much variation that's possible with touch screen devices, and previous products show the similar features, as well as the Galaxy S having three buttons on the front and other things that sufficiently differentiated it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19364875

And now a ruling from Japan:

Samsung wins over Apple in Japan patent case

That's 1 for Apple, 1 for Samsung, and 1 Tie.... for August 2012 (I'm so not counting the hundreds of other trials between Apple and Samsung over the past couple of years).
 

Back
Top Bottom