22 ms·

This is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless as there will be an appeals process that will last for months and possibly years. You don't have to be a roc

This is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless as there will be an appeals process that will last for months and possibly years. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Samsung made their products to look like Apple products. They changed their icon styles and other UI elements away from Android standards to match the Apple style. Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom and so on Samsung used or copied via Android and or their own UI skin on top of Android. You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Samsung is much closer with the Galaxy S3, too bad they are still cranking out iPad clones with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the like.

paranoiacblack 14y ago
> You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point?
- untog 14y ago
  Smartphones != OS Have you ever used Windows Phone or WebOS? I assure you, they are not 'bad'.
  - paranoiacblack 14y ago
    Ok, but AndroidOS didn't copy iOS for mobile so that's not what we're talking about. If we're talking about OSes only, then I agree, there's nothing wrong with either of those phones or really the blackberry themselves. They all have functionalities that fit different userbases. Similarly, neither of these OSes are absolutely 'better' than one another in that context. Obviously, the point of contention here is with the design of the phones themselves, and how similar they look and feel to consumers. In that argument, the phones that have supported WebOS, Blackberry, and the WindowsOS have a lower quality overall, and I like WebOS. I'm talking about hardware, durability, and application ecosystem. This is my claim that smartphones of these types are 'bad'. The iPhone and Android would not be as popular if they were similar to the older Blackberry phones.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      Android was on course to build something like BB until the iPhone released. They quickly changed gears (maybe even before the release if Jobs is to be believed) to follow Apple's lead. Samsung took it the next step. I think the competition has been good for all involved, but revisionism fails to tell the real story.
- programminggeek 14y ago
  Well WebOS and Blackberry Playbook and Windows Phone 7 might not be of the same calibur in terms of hardware, but they are proof that Samsung didn't need to try and ape Apple so closely to make a good product.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point? The hardware for Windows Phone and Web OS might have sucked, but the OS's are quite nice in my opinion. I would seriously consider either of those two over an iPhone if they (well WP at least) had better hardware. Regarding the Blackberry, well, I don't have any defence for them.
- goggles99 14y ago
  Tell me something. If you took all the apps and app developers from the IOS App Store and traded them for all that WebOS, BlackBerry, Or windows 8 has... How would sales change in the next year??? Throw in Apple's marketing crew to trade as well. Isn't that an interesting notion? Is suggestion that these are "bad smartphones" coming from their lack of sales? This is a false dichotomy. If not - please provide data that suggests otherwise (rather than your own heavily influenced personal opinion either). It is not the phones or OS that makes IOS outsell the other companies mentioned - It is the apps and the marketing.
  - paranoiacblack 14y ago
    I agree with this as well by the way. But you can't throw in an "interesting notion" theoretical to solve this problem. What Apple and Android devices have is not only a developer ecosystem and a better application suite, along with good marketing. They have a dedicated userbase. They have both convinced users in their quality by staying on the edge of technology and strongly competing. My argument is that these smartphones are 'bad' in the same way that IE is a 'bad' browser in the eyes of most users in comparison to Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. However, I can't just assume that IF IE had the apps and app developers as the Chrome and FF that everything would change. There's something to be said about context, reputation, and history. However, I'll concede that calling thse smartphones 'bad' is ambiguous and seems to imply a false dichotomy. The point was that it is kind of ridiculous to point to products with a bad reputation for developers or users (regardless of the reality of their quality) as a shining example of how Samsung didn't have to copy Apple. I agree that they didn't, but those aren't good examples.
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    > It is not the phones or OS that makes IOS outsell the other companies mentioned - It is the apps and the marketing. So nobody buys an iPhone because of how responsive iOS is or how well the iPhone is designed? Give me a break. Also, it's "iOS". IOS is the Cisco router OS.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      By that metric, OS X and Linux are bad operating systems because they don't sell/run anywhere as much as Windows does. Windows must be superior in every way because it sells more, the other OSes are just bad?
fsniper 14y ago
You must be blind.
lawdawg 14y ago
and all those phones have pinch to zoom. Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other doesn't mean that an OS like WP is somehow the solution.
- shreyansj 14y ago
  Licensing patents is not called collusion. Edit: Source http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-de...
  - electromagnetic 14y ago
    No it's not called collusion, but when you have reciprocal agreements on licenses then it might as well be.
- fbuilesv 14y ago
  Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other Do you have facts that support this or is this your opinion?
  - nikcub 14y ago
    The fact is that there is no lawsuit between Microsoft and Apple despite almost everybody else in the mobile industry suing everybody else[1] [1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/53157-image/Web-of-Lawsuits.jpg http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/53157-image/Web-...
    - nsp 14y ago
      The more plausible reason Apple doesn't sue Microsoft is their lack of success in the space. Windows Phone has negligible marketshare and almost certainly loses money given the huge upfront costs of building an operating system and software ecosystem. It'd be hard for Apple to claim they lost a significant amount of revenue or sales from Windows Phone IP theft.
timdorr 14y ago
I'm actually pretty shocked that the Tab 10.1 was spared from the design charges, especially considering they lost that battle in Germany (and released the Tab 10.1N).
- mikeklaas 14y ago
  probably hasn't sold enough to make the damages worthwhile
  - timdorr 14y ago
    That's irrelevant. The question was asked before damages were assessed.
saurik 14y ago
WebOS had many of the same UI elements; they actually copied the tactile feel quite closely. At the time of the Pre launch, the speculation was that Palm could afford to piss off Apple as their patent chest included some real gems from their work on the Palm Pilot and on Treo smartphones; I have a vague recollection that they had some key patents required to build a smartphone address book that Apple was already likely infringing.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Doesn't the phrase "patents required to build a smartphone address book" alone make you think that the patent system is broken?
  - saurik 14y ago
    On a similar note, I find the idea that future non-Apple devices might have been required to be triangular absolutely hilarious. > The only patent the jury found that Samsung didn't infringe relates to the design of a tablet as having a rectangular shape and rounded corners. Throughout the trial, Samsung's lawyers frequently remarked that Apple shouldn't be given a monopoly on a rectangle with rounded corners. -- online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html
    - 37prime 14y ago
      Triangular Tablets? Two Words: Dunder Mifflin
kapnobatairza 14y ago
I think it is fair to say that Samsung may have crossed some lines as far as "trade dress" goes. But did Apple really invent pinch to zoom? Jeff Han demonstrated pinch to zoom gestures at TED in 2006, Microsoft Surface in 2007 before the iPhone was released, and I've seen various forms of "pinch to zoom" on different tablets and smart board applications. I think that Apple did a good job developing some multi-touch input standards, like pinch to zoom as an OS standard rather than just a feature specific to an application. I don't think you should be able to patent a standard and it is counter-intuitive to developing a standard to begin with. If we had patents on desktop GUI user input standards like right click, ctrl key modifiers like ctrl-scroll to zoom, etc. then using computers would be a much bigger PITA. EDIT: Many have rightly pointed out that Apple was first to file and that Jeff Han's work was too close to the filing date to qualify as prior art - However, I was simply asking whether he truly believed Apple "invented" pinch to zoom. Legally you can argue that Apple holds a valid patent as demonstrated by them winning this case - but I think it is invalid to say they "invented" anything as intuitive as pinch to zoom which has been demonstrated in a variety of prototypes, tablets, and applications over 2 decades. Also
- josephlord 14y ago
  The Apple Patent #7,812,826 seems to have been applied for in December 2006 and under US rules at the time the priority date could be 12 months earlier. This makes it quite possible that TED 2006 would be too late to be prior art.
- danudey 14y ago
  Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent was filed on December 29, 2006, and covers a multitouch display that a) detects two contacts; b) which perform a gesture; c) which affects an image; d) and then the contacts disconnect; e) after which a second set of contacts is detected; f) which perform another operation within a set period of time. In other words, patent #7,812,826 only applies when you pinch to zoom and then pinch to zoom again within a predefined amount of time.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    Wouldn't it be great to just program things without worrying about patenting what you've done or whether someone else has patented it?
josephlord 14y ago
If Samsung get away without an injunction (decided by the judge I think) then just paying and ending the issue and embarrassing press may be the wise course. It is only a billion dollars which Samsung can definitely afford. It could be seen as a cost of business and particularly the cost of becoming the number 2 smartphone manufacturer in the world and the only one really able to put products at the same price as Apples and still sell large quantities.
- cageface 14y ago
  Don't imagine that this ruling will be the end of Apple's war on Android. An emboldened Apple is going to go on the legal warpath like never before.
  - panacea 14y ago
    You make an assertion about future ctions by Apple as if it was fact. I tend to think Apple was particularly butt-hurt specifically over the trade dress stuff (rightfully so IMO). Why would this ruling lead to other flavours of Android being targetted so intensely?
    - cageface 14y ago
      Read Jobs' comments about going nuclear on Android and you can see this is just an execution of a strategy he set in place. If there are no more suits by Apple against Android vendors in the next year I will buy you a case of beer.
      - thronemonkey 14y ago
        Even in the talk where he introduces the iPhone, Jobs says something along the lines of "we have over 200 patents for technologies that went into this device . . . and we aim to protect them!" and then everyone applauds. Kind of eerie looking back on it.
- dkrich 14y ago
  Interesting, because I see this from exactly the opposite side. Apple hardly needs a billion dollars, but I don't think this does anything to strengthen their image or their power in the marketplace, but I do believe it emboldens people who already dislike Apple, and begins to alert people who do that Apple doesn't put innovation and consumers first. That is to say they are no longer viewed as a company that out-innovates everyone else, but rather one that wants to hoard the mobile market. I think consumers are pretty sharp and realize this. I love Apple products, but I sure as hell don't want them limiting my choice when I go to buy a new phone. Lest we forget that Microsoft was getting sued under the antitrust act just fifteen or so years ago. At that time, Apple was a joke and people who used MS software regularly began to resent them. How silly that seems now that they are relegated to owning only the shitty, bloatware enterprise productivity market.
cageface 14y ago
Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing proxy war on Android. They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android seeking ridiculous damages for non-essential details of mobile UI design. However, I strongly suspect Apple is going to regret these tactics in the long run. Once the tiger is out of the cage there's no telling who he will bite.
- lotu 14y ago
  While Apple may only have 30% of the smart-phone market, they make around 70% of the profit in the that market. I hardly call that punishing.
  - cageface 14y ago
    I think they realize that this position is no more sustainable than their position was in the desktop market and they're acting out of fear. If you've used a recent, high-end Android phone you know that the quality gap is mostly gone and that the apps that most people care about are now available on both platforms. Apple is not going to be able to sustain their astonishing profit margins without the help of the courts.
    - masry 14y ago
      What profit margins? The iPhone has stayed at $200 while those high quality android phones typically sell for >= $250. The iPhone also outsells all androids combined on every carrier in the US where the iPhone is available. I think apple is doing fine.
    - gurkendoktor 14y ago
      Don't forget that Apple has a mountain of cash and an insane advantage in the tablet market. Macs are on the rise too. All this can be used to keep people in the Apple ecosystem. (iCloud is surprisingly meh, though.) Not saying that Apple will succeed, but the future doesn't seem so clear to me.
zmmmmm 14y ago
> somewhat meaningless It's not meaningless if it means a large cross section of the most popular Android phones are banned, even for a short time. Hopefully Samsung has already got software workarounds ready to deploy. > Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom Please don't say rubbish like that. It is so clearly obvious that Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, and even if they didn't, it's so dumb and obvious that it wouldn't be patentable anyway (hence why the various people who demonstrated it over the last 2 decades didn't bother). Apple patented some refinements to pinch-to-zoom and other gestures.
pinaceae 14y ago
On a greater scale this is the clash of 'Western', as in US/Europe, and East-Asian mindsets and culture. If you look into other areas like pharma, the same battles are being fought, with India and China essentially ignoring 'our' patent laws for their domestic markets (see their recent changes in laws). China has forced manufacturers to build factories in China in order to be able to sell products there, regardless of industry. Siemens managed to build one Maglev train in Shanghai - all the others are being build the Chinese themselves, now that they have the tech. Airbus? Same thing, China is jumpstarting their aircraft business. Big picture is that this KILLS true Western style innovation as there is no reward for being first. If you're a founder you should be scared of the copy machines in East-Asia. For now they only focus on their own markets, but once big enough they will come after you. Look at what 800App is doing with salesforce.com - they copy the shit out of it, pixel by pixel, essentially destroying the Chinese market for SFDC. SFDC chose an interesting tactic, they invested in 800App: http://salesforcerumors.com/2011/09/25/salesforce-com-investing-in-china-crm-800app/ http://salesforcerumors.com/2011/09/25/salesforce-com-invest... Google can't come after Baidu. Facebook couldn't do much against vKontakte, their Russian 1:1 clone (the chuzpe is breathtaking).
- mchanson 14y ago
  If this ever effects the US or Europe to to great an effect I'm pretty sure WTO can help. China is not selling these sorts of products to the world yet so it's a pretty meaningless threat so far.
  - pinaceae 14y ago
    China represents on of the largest markets for potential growth right now. VW and BMW see the Chinese market as their number one. BRIC is where the future money is. (Third biggest market for SAP is Brazil already). There is no growth left in the US/EU.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      Specific companies and even specific markets can still have substantial growth in US/EU. However for something saturated like the car market you are almost certainly correct.

paranoiacblack 14y ago

> You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point?

untog 14y ago
Smartphones != OS Have you ever used Windows Phone or WebOS? I assure you, they are not 'bad'.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  Ok, but AndroidOS didn't copy iOS for mobile so that's not what we're talking about. If we're talking about OSes only, then I agree, there's nothing wrong with either of those phones or really the blackberry themselves. They all have functionalities that fit different userbases. Similarly, neither of these OSes are absolutely 'better' than one another in that context. Obviously, the point of contention here is with the design of the phones themselves, and how similar they look and feel to consumers. In that argument, the phones that have supported WebOS, Blackberry, and the WindowsOS have a lower quality overall, and I like WebOS. I'm talking about hardware, durability, and application ecosystem. This is my claim that smartphones of these types are 'bad'. The iPhone and Android would not be as popular if they were similar to the older Blackberry phones.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Android was on course to build something like BB until the iPhone released. They quickly changed gears (maybe even before the release if Jobs is to be believed) to follow Apple's lead. Samsung took it the next step. I think the competition has been good for all involved, but revisionism fails to tell the real story.
programminggeek 14y ago
Well WebOS and Blackberry Playbook and Windows Phone 7 might not be of the same calibur in terms of hardware, but they are proof that Samsung didn't need to try and ape Apple so closely to make a good product.
slantyyz 14y ago
>> Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point? The hardware for Windows Phone and Web OS might have sucked, but the OS's are quite nice in my opinion. I would seriously consider either of those two over an iPhone if they (well WP at least) had better hardware. Regarding the Blackberry, well, I don't have any defence for them.
goggles99 14y ago
Tell me something. If you took all the apps and app developers from the IOS App Store and traded them for all that WebOS, BlackBerry, Or windows 8 has... How would sales change in the next year??? Throw in Apple's marketing crew to trade as well. Isn't that an interesting notion? Is suggestion that these are "bad smartphones" coming from their lack of sales? This is a false dichotomy. If not - please provide data that suggests otherwise (rather than your own heavily influenced personal opinion either). It is not the phones or OS that makes IOS outsell the other companies mentioned - It is the apps and the marketing.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  I agree with this as well by the way. But you can't throw in an "interesting notion" theoretical to solve this problem. What Apple and Android devices have is not only a developer ecosystem and a better application suite, along with good marketing. They have a dedicated userbase. They have both convinced users in their quality by staying on the edge of technology and strongly competing. My argument is that these smartphones are 'bad' in the same way that IE is a 'bad' browser in the eyes of most users in comparison to Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. However, I can't just assume that IF IE had the apps and app developers as the Chrome and FF that everything would change. There's something to be said about context, reputation, and history. However, I'll concede that calling thse smartphones 'bad' is ambiguous and seems to imply a false dichotomy. The point was that it is kind of ridiculous to point to products with a bad reputation for developers or users (regardless of the reality of their quality) as a shining example of how Samsung didn't have to copy Apple. I agree that they didn't, but those aren't good examples.
- shinratdr 14y ago
  > It is not the phones or OS that makes IOS outsell the other companies mentioned - It is the apps and the marketing. So nobody buys an iPhone because of how responsive iOS is or how well the iPhone is designed? Give me a break. Also, it's "iOS". IOS is the Cisco router OS.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    By that metric, OS X and Linux are bad operating systems because they don't sell/run anywhere as much as Windows does. Windows must be superior in every way because it sells more, the other OSes are just bad?

fsniper 14y ago

You must be blind.

lawdawg 14y ago

and all those phones have pinch to zoom. Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other doesn't mean that an OS like WP is somehow the solution.

shreyansj 14y ago
Licensing patents is not called collusion. Edit: Source http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-de...
- electromagnetic 14y ago
  No it's not called collusion, but when you have reciprocal agreements on licenses then it might as well be.
fbuilesv 14y ago
Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other Do you have facts that support this or is this your opinion?
- nikcub 14y ago
  The fact is that there is no lawsuit between Microsoft and Apple despite almost everybody else in the mobile industry suing everybody else[1] [1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/53157-image/Web-of-Lawsuits.jpg http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/53157-image/Web-...
  - nsp 14y ago
    The more plausible reason Apple doesn't sue Microsoft is their lack of success in the space. Windows Phone has negligible marketshare and almost certainly loses money given the huge upfront costs of building an operating system and software ecosystem. It'd be hard for Apple to claim they lost a significant amount of revenue or sales from Windows Phone IP theft.

timdorr 14y ago

I'm actually pretty shocked that the Tab 10.1 was spared from the design charges, especially considering they lost that battle in Germany (and released the Tab 10.1N).

mikeklaas 14y ago
probably hasn't sold enough to make the damages worthwhile
- timdorr 14y ago
  That's irrelevant. The question was asked before damages were assessed.

saurik 14y ago

WebOS had many of the same UI elements; they actually copied the tactile feel quite closely. At the time of the Pre launch, the speculation was that Palm could afford to piss off Apple as their patent chest included some real gems from their work on the Palm Pilot and on Treo smartphones; I have a vague recollection that they had some key patents required to build a smartphone address book that Apple was already likely infringing.

nitrogen 14y ago
Doesn't the phrase "patents required to build a smartphone address book" alone make you think that the patent system is broken?
- saurik 14y ago
  On a similar note, I find the idea that future non-Apple devices might have been required to be triangular absolutely hilarious. > The only patent the jury found that Samsung didn't infringe relates to the design of a tablet as having a rectangular shape and rounded corners. Throughout the trial, Samsung's lawyers frequently remarked that Apple shouldn't be given a monopoly on a rectangle with rounded corners. -- online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html
  - 37prime 14y ago
    Triangular Tablets? Two Words: Dunder Mifflin

kapnobatairza 14y ago

I think it is fair to say that Samsung may have crossed some lines as far as "trade dress" goes. But did Apple really invent pinch to zoom? Jeff Han demonstrated pinch to zoom gestures at TED in 2006, Microsoft Surface in 2007 before the iPhone was released, and I've seen various forms of "pinch to zoom" on different tablets and smart board applications. I think that Apple did a good job developing some multi-touch input standards, like pinch to zoom as an OS standard rather than just a feature specific to an application. I don't think you should be able to patent a standard and it is counter-intuitive to developing a standard to begin with. If we had patents on desktop GUI user input standards like right click, ctrl key modifiers like ctrl-scroll to zoom, etc. then using computers would be a much bigger PITA. EDIT: Many have rightly pointed out that Apple was first to file and that Jeff Han's work was too close to the filing date to qualify as prior art - However, I was simply asking whether he truly believed Apple "invented" pinch to zoom. Legally you can argue that Apple holds a valid patent as demonstrated by them winning this case - but I think it is invalid to say they "invented" anything as intuitive as pinch to zoom which has been demonstrated in a variety of prototypes, tablets, and applications over 2 decades. Also

josephlord 14y ago
The Apple Patent #7,812,826 seems to have been applied for in December 2006 and under US rules at the time the priority date could be 12 months earlier. This makes it quite possible that TED 2006 would be too late to be prior art.
danudey 14y ago
Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent was filed on December 29, 2006, and covers a multitouch display that a) detects two contacts; b) which perform a gesture; c) which affects an image; d) and then the contacts disconnect; e) after which a second set of contacts is detected; f) which perform another operation within a set period of time. In other words, patent #7,812,826 only applies when you pinch to zoom and then pinch to zoom again within a predefined amount of time.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Wouldn't it be great to just program things without worrying about patenting what you've done or whether someone else has patented it?

josephlord 14y ago

If Samsung get away without an injunction (decided by the judge I think) then just paying and ending the issue and embarrassing press may be the wise course. It is only a billion dollars which Samsung can definitely afford. It could be seen as a cost of business and particularly the cost of becoming the number 2 smartphone manufacturer in the world and the only one really able to put products at the same price as Apples and still sell large quantities.

cageface 14y ago
Don't imagine that this ruling will be the end of Apple's war on Android. An emboldened Apple is going to go on the legal warpath like never before.
- panacea 14y ago
  You make an assertion about future ctions by Apple as if it was fact. I tend to think Apple was particularly butt-hurt specifically over the trade dress stuff (rightfully so IMO). Why would this ruling lead to other flavours of Android being targetted so intensely?
  - cageface 14y ago
    Read Jobs' comments about going nuclear on Android and you can see this is just an execution of a strategy he set in place. If there are no more suits by Apple against Android vendors in the next year I will buy you a case of beer.
    - thronemonkey 14y ago
      Even in the talk where he introduces the iPhone, Jobs says something along the lines of "we have over 200 patents for technologies that went into this device . . . and we aim to protect them!" and then everyone applauds. Kind of eerie looking back on it.
dkrich 14y ago
Interesting, because I see this from exactly the opposite side. Apple hardly needs a billion dollars, but I don't think this does anything to strengthen their image or their power in the marketplace, but I do believe it emboldens people who already dislike Apple, and begins to alert people who do that Apple doesn't put innovation and consumers first. That is to say they are no longer viewed as a company that out-innovates everyone else, but rather one that wants to hoard the mobile market. I think consumers are pretty sharp and realize this. I love Apple products, but I sure as hell don't want them limiting my choice when I go to buy a new phone. Lest we forget that Microsoft was getting sued under the antitrust act just fifteen or so years ago. At that time, Apple was a joke and people who used MS software regularly began to resent them. How silly that seems now that they are relegated to owning only the shitty, bloatware enterprise productivity market.

cageface 14y ago

Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing proxy war on Android. They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android seeking ridiculous damages for non-essential details of mobile UI design. However, I strongly suspect Apple is going to regret these tactics in the long run. Once the tiger is out of the cage there's no telling who he will bite.

lotu 14y ago
While Apple may only have 30% of the smart-phone market, they make around 70% of the profit in the that market. I hardly call that punishing.
- cageface 14y ago
  I think they realize that this position is no more sustainable than their position was in the desktop market and they're acting out of fear. If you've used a recent, high-end Android phone you know that the quality gap is mostly gone and that the apps that most people care about are now available on both platforms. Apple is not going to be able to sustain their astonishing profit margins without the help of the courts.
  - masry 14y ago
    What profit margins? The iPhone has stayed at $200 while those high quality android phones typically sell for >= $250. The iPhone also outsells all androids combined on every carrier in the US where the iPhone is available. I think apple is doing fine.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    Don't forget that Apple has a mountain of cash and an insane advantage in the tablet market. Macs are on the rise too. All this can be used to keep people in the Apple ecosystem. (iCloud is surprisingly meh, though.) Not saying that Apple will succeed, but the future doesn't seem so clear to me.

zmmmmm 14y ago

> somewhat meaningless It's not meaningless if it means a large cross section of the most popular Android phones are banned, even for a short time. Hopefully Samsung has already got software workarounds ready to deploy. > Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom Please don't say rubbish like that. It is so clearly obvious that Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, and even if they didn't, it's so dumb and obvious that it wouldn't be patentable anyway (hence why the various people who demonstrated it over the last 2 decades didn't bother). Apple patented some refinements to pinch-to-zoom and other gestures.

pinaceae 14y ago

On a greater scale this is the clash of 'Western', as in US/Europe, and East-Asian mindsets and culture. If you look into other areas like pharma, the same battles are being fought, with India and China essentially ignoring 'our' patent laws for their domestic markets (see their recent changes in laws). China has forced manufacturers to build factories in China in order to be able to sell products there, regardless of industry. Siemens managed to build one Maglev train in Shanghai - all the others are being build the Chinese themselves, now that they have the tech. Airbus? Same thing, China is jumpstarting their aircraft business. Big picture is that this KILLS true Western style innovation as there is no reward for being first. If you're a founder you should be scared of the copy machines in East-Asia. For now they only focus on their own markets, but once big enough they will come after you. Look at what 800App is doing with salesforce.com - they copy the shit out of it, pixel by pixel, essentially destroying the Chinese market for SFDC. SFDC chose an interesting tactic, they invested in 800App: http://salesforcerumors.com/2011/09/25/salesforce-com-investing-in-china-crm-800app/ http://salesforcerumors.com/2011/09/25/salesforce-com-invest... Google can't come after Baidu. Facebook couldn't do much against vKontakte, their Russian 1:1 clone (the chuzpe is breathtaking).

mchanson 14y ago
If this ever effects the US or Europe to to great an effect I'm pretty sure WTO can help. China is not selling these sorts of products to the world yet so it's a pretty meaningless threat so far.
- pinaceae 14y ago
  China represents on of the largest markets for potential growth right now. VW and BMW see the Chinese market as their number one. BRIC is where the future money is. (Third biggest market for SAP is Brazil already). There is no growth left in the US/EU.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    Specific companies and even specific markets can still have substantial growth in US/EU. However for something saturated like the car market you are almost certainly correct.