3 ms·

Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this po

Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this point, or is trying to goad Apple on to attack them. I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized, like mini/microUSB... By the way, the clenching feature was two bumps at the ends of the charger that, I think are used for holding the charger in place. A question of course is, "should this be patentable". I'm not arguing that right now, and haven't thought about it enough to have a position, but it is awkwardly similar, and when there are already a fair amount of already-existing standards they could have chosen, they went with an Apple-specific one. ... that's all I'm saying.

Terretta 15y ago
You are not the only one. What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page views.[1,2,3] Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better, except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the pool). Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would really use. As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered. When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their rights to the undefended points. The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?" Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different now is that we're talking about it. (Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.) 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit 2. http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1252039209 3. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/ 4. http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/
Mordor 15y ago
Just don't understand why this matters, Apple should take this as a complement and come up with the next cool thing. Apple's litigation just pushes everyone else to innovate, while killing off their own enthusiasm.

Terretta 15y ago

You are not the only one. What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page views.[1,2,3] Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better, except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the pool). Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would really use. As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered. When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their rights to the undefended points. The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?" Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different now is that we're talking about it. (Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.) 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit 2. http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1252039209 3. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/ 4. http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/

Mordor 15y ago

Just don't understand why this matters, Apple should take this as a complement and come up with the next cool thing. Apple's litigation just pushes everyone else to innovate, while killing off their own enthusiasm.