5 ms·

The result feels a bit like David vs. Goliath, but only because it pits one of the most talented and influential software and hardware firms against one of the

The result feels a bit like David vs. Goliath, but only because it pits one of the most talented and influential software and hardware firms against one of the least talented and least influential. But it's important to remember first that Samsung is a massive, massive company. They are the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, and made $6 billion in profit last quarter. It will take them two weeks to pay off the damages from the lawsuit. Second, it's important to remember that Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products, and they have a reputation of doing just that to their competitors in the mobile industry. They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings. That's how we got to this point. Third, it's important to remember that Samsung is a terrible software company. Companies like Palm, RIM, Microsoft, and Apple have made real and important innovations and contributions that have moved the state of the art forward and have inspired countless new innovations. What the hell has Samsung done? I've been following the mobile software industry for over 10 years, and all Samsung is known for is selling other people's work and piggy-backing on others' brands. Finally, I believe Samsung's inevitable fall from the top of the smartphone industry will come not as a result of this lawsuit but will instead be driven by the carriers, who still control most of the cards and have a long history of moving against manufacturers that become too big and assert too much power. Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia.

vog 14y ago
> Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products Maybe I'm missing something here, but if Samsung really copied from Apple, I'd have expected a lawsuit about copyright infringement, not about patents.
- jonhohle 14y ago
  It included trade dress[0] claims. > Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from > packaging or appearance of products that are designed to > imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying > one product under the belief that it is another. In some cases Samsung's lawyers's couldn't tell Samsung devices apart from Apple's devices[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress [1] http://variado.net/mobil/?p=27157
  - pfedor 14y ago
    At a ten feet distance. Do you seriously believe that anyone actually bought a Galaxy Tab by mistake, thinking it was an iPad?
- mythz 14y ago
  When Samsung copies how Apple does something (that they've patented), it's a Patent infringement - which has the potential for more damages, so is generally preferred. Copyright would apply if they had stolen or copied source code or original artwork and were using it verbatim.
patrickaljord 14y ago
> They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings. You missed the part of the verdict where it says Google stock Android phone is infringing too. Also if Samsung is one of the less innovative and influential tech company, how come every iPhone is built with many Samsung parts including the retina screens?
- sahaj 14y ago
  The only stock Google phone that was on the list was Nexus S 4G, the Sprint variant. All other variants have been upgraded to Android >4.0 which removes the infringing features.
- thought_alarm 14y ago
  We're talking about Samsung's hapless consumer product design, not their ability to manufacture LCD screens. Furthermore, Samsung had every opportunity to stop this trial from getting as far as it did. They obviously didn't give a damn about the potential repercussions for other Android manufacturers or Android users.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  If we're going to complain about "obvious" innovations, an LCD screen, but with higher resolution, surely qualifies.
mmanfrin 14y ago
You had me until here: >> or perhaps even Nokia. I don't see a future for Nokia (or RIM) other than being acquired. They're both bleeding money and have no real rockstar products any more, but have big, big warchests of patents.
mcantelon 14y ago
>Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia Nokia? The one that's focussing on Microsoft as an OS? Huh. Seems way more likely that Motorola would be the more likely alternative to a Samsung successor seeing as they are owned by Google.

vog 14y ago

> Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products Maybe I'm missing something here, but if Samsung really copied from Apple, I'd have expected a lawsuit about copyright infringement, not about patents.

jonhohle 14y ago
It included trade dress[0] claims. > Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from > packaging or appearance of products that are designed to > imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying > one product under the belief that it is another. In some cases Samsung's lawyers's couldn't tell Samsung devices apart from Apple's devices[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress [1] http://variado.net/mobil/?p=27157
- pfedor 14y ago
  At a ten feet distance. Do you seriously believe that anyone actually bought a Galaxy Tab by mistake, thinking it was an iPad?
mythz 14y ago
When Samsung copies how Apple does something (that they've patented), it's a Patent infringement - which has the potential for more damages, so is generally preferred. Copyright would apply if they had stolen or copied source code or original artwork and were using it verbatim.

patrickaljord 14y ago

> They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings. You missed the part of the verdict where it says Google stock Android phone is infringing too. Also if Samsung is one of the less innovative and influential tech company, how come every iPhone is built with many Samsung parts including the retina screens?

sahaj 14y ago
The only stock Google phone that was on the list was Nexus S 4G, the Sprint variant. All other variants have been upgraded to Android >4.0 which removes the infringing features.
thought_alarm 14y ago
We're talking about Samsung's hapless consumer product design, not their ability to manufacture LCD screens. Furthermore, Samsung had every opportunity to stop this trial from getting as far as it did. They obviously didn't give a damn about the potential repercussions for other Android manufacturers or Android users.
tedunangst 14y ago
If we're going to complain about "obvious" innovations, an LCD screen, but with higher resolution, surely qualifies.

mmanfrin 14y ago

You had me until here: >> or perhaps even Nokia. I don't see a future for Nokia (or RIM) other than being acquired. They're both bleeding money and have no real rockstar products any more, but have big, big warchests of patents.

mcantelon 14y ago

>Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia Nokia? The one that's focussing on Microsoft as an OS? Huh. Seems way more likely that Motorola would be the more likely alternative to a Samsung successor seeing as they are owned by Google.