What's new

Apple on lawsuit spree again-

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samsung makes 26% of the iPhone 4's components, says infographic

Samsung makes quite a share of the bits and pieces that go into Apple's high-margin iPhone 4, and the infographic on the right shows exactly how much of the handset is manufactured by the Koreans.

The RAM and internal memory chips, as well as the A4 chipset, i.e what makes the handset tick and remember stuff are all done by Samsung, and these make for 26% of all iPhone 4 components' cost. The silicon is Apple's own design, based on the ARM Cortex-A8 architecture, bearing a lot of similarities with the Hummingbird chipset, since both were developed based on intellectual property by Intrinsity, a company that Apple bought.

The 3.5" Retina Display is marked as made by "unknown manufacturers" in the infographic, but it's been widely suggested that the 640x960 pixels LCD screen is manufactured by LG, with possible support from Toshiba Mobile Display.

Samsung makes 26% of the iPhone 4's components, says infographic

Monopoly aspect had nothing to do with it. you can read the basis of the ruling here

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It clearly points out HP's involvement and the nature of the stuff apple wanted to protect as not legally protectable. The law suit was filed in 1988 and didn't get a verdict till 1992. Most of the delay was caused by HP lawyers. I personally know the know the paralegals who worked on this case on behalf of HP.

the windows market share came about becos of commodity hardware. The rest of the hardware makers no longer has that advantage beocs Apple locks up supply for 3-4 years ahead of time and get a great price on it. the quintessential example of this is the "ultra books". do you know why windows based aluminum body ultra books are 3 years late to the party?



Thanks for the comedic input. I guess you don't what it is to be the brains behind an effort ......


the day samsung stopped supplying the components apples will turned into oranges :lol: by the way Iphone looks more like a Samsung products cz major components in Iphone are by samsung and retina disply by LG a korean company :lol:

Apple to spend $11bn on Samsung parts in 2012 claims exec


Apple may be attempting to reduce its reliance on Samsung components, but its bill from the Korean firm is likely to be the largest to-date according to one exec: up from $7.8bn in 2011 to as much as $11bn by the end of 2012. “The amount of the current contract is around $9.7 billion” a Samsung executive told The Korea Times on understanding of confidentiality, but “is expected to rise to $11 billion by the end of this year .

Apple to spend $11bn on Samsung parts in 2012 claims exec - SlashGear
 
Monopoly aspect had nothing to do with it. you can read the basis of the ruling here

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia isn't the only source available for this case, neither is it the most reliable one. You are focusing too much on the term monopoly. Had Apple won that case; competition would have undoubtedly declined. This loss of competition would without doubt have had a major impact on Apple's market share. Assuming Apple had won the case; once the copyrights would have expired Apple would have continued to retain its dominance in the GUI market & it would take considerable time for competition to come up with something half as good as Apple offerings. I have also read that the court felt that Apple wanted to keep the GUI to itself & restrict competition. The primary reasons Apple lost the case were already presented by me in post #73.

It clearly points out HP's involvement and the nature of the stuff apple wanted to protect as not legally protectable. The law suit was filed in 1988 and didn't get a verdict till 1992. Most of the delay was caused by HP lawyers. I personally know the know the paralegals who worked on this case on behalf of HP.

When exactly did I deny HP's involvement in the trial? Didn't I state in post #73 that the courts decided that the concept of the GUI was not copyrightable because Microsoft Windows wasn't virtually identical to Mac OS? The rest of the information you posted in the above quoted paragraph is clearly from Wikipedia based on what I read on the Wikipedia page over here. There are other sources you should refer to for information. It is a well known fact that one of the reasons behind Apple filing a lawsuit for protecting the GUI was to simply destroy competition.

Here is an interesting article published some time back.

**********​
Thom Holwerda​
30th Aug 2012​

We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Digital Research, Inc. is a hallowed name in the industry. The company was founded by Dr. Gary Kildall to sell and further develop his CP/M operating system. In the first half of the '80s, DRI developed an implementation of the ISO standard Graphical Kernel System, a low-level system for 2D vector graphics, called Graphics System Extension. GSX eventually formed the basis for GEM.

GEM, or Graphical Environment Manager, was to serve as DRI's graphical user interface on top of CP/M and later DR-DOS and other versions of DOS. GEM's star shone particularly bright as the user interface for the Atari ST, a computer that competed with the Amiga, the original Macintosh, and earlier versions of Windows.

Apple wasn't happy with having to deal with competition, so the company started to sue everyone it thought it could get away with. We all know the lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, which Apple eventually lost because Microsoft had actually licensed much of the GUI technology from Apple - Cupertino claimed this only covered Windows 1.0, but the courts disagreed. Ten elements were not covered by Microsoft's license, but the courts ruled that these were not worthy of protection.

Interestingly enough, Apple didn't just sue Microsoft over look and feel - two other companies were sued as well: Hewlett-Packard and Digital Research. The suit against HP was about NewWave, an object-oriented desktop system that ran on top of Windows. This lawsuit was part of Apple vs. Microsoft, and Apple lost it as well. The lawsuit against DRI, however, never fully materialised, because DRI wasn't looking for a prolonged legal battle, and as such, decided to make several alterations to GEM/1.

This resulted in GEM/2. The trash icon was altered, the desktop was replaced by two permanently open, fixed file manager windows, scrollbar blobs were made narrower, and animations were removed from the system. The goal was to please Apple into not suing the heck out of DRI, and this strategy eventually succeeded. A few small cosmetic changes, and GEM continued to exist in several forms for years and years to come.

The cool thing is that GEM had several advantages over the Macintosh, and two of those are pretty damn huge: GEM supported colour interfaces, and, more importantly, it could multitask. In other words, it had two high-profile features the Macintosh didn't offer, much like Windows 2.0 and NewWave.

However, that's not the common thread between Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft, HP, and DRI. You may wonder why Apple never sued Commodore for the Amiga, which also sported a graphical user interface containing several of the elements Apple claimed ownership over. It's actually quite simple: unlike AmigaOS and its Workbench, Windows, NewWave, and GEM all ran on DOS... And more importantly, on IBM-compatible PCs. Considering IBM was Apple's biggest competitor, the company was adamant in ensuring the graphical user interface did not find its way to IBM-compatible machines.

That's why the argument about copying/stealing/whatever is laughed away by those of us with an understanding of history. Apple sued Microsoft, DRI, and HP not because they felt wronged, but because they were afraid of the competition that would result from these companies bringing credible user interfaces to IBM-compatible hardware. Since the Amiga was a separate and unique hardware platform, Apple knew Commodore would not be able to compete in the long term, so it didn't bother to sue Commodore. Apple's fears became reality - the Amiga withered away into irrelevance and the IBM PC took over the industry - and it nearly killed Apple.

You can easily draw a parallel to today. Apple didn't sue over WebOS or Bada (which looks virtually identical to TouchWiz, I might add); they sued Android, because it's basically today's IBM-compatible platform. You'll also note that the focus of Apple's legal actions used to be HTC, but when Samsung rose to prominence in the Android space, the South-Korean company became the focus instead. Anyone even only slightly versed in pattern recognition can see the obvious.

You know what the irony is of all this? One of the main developers behind GEM was Lee Jay Lorenzen, and get this: before joining DRI, he worked at Xerox PARC on the very same user interfaces upon which the Macintosh was built. In other words, Apple took what was partially his work, implemented it for the Macintosh, and then sued over Lorenzen's own post-Xerox interface!

The irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

**********​

the windows market share came about becos of commodity hardware.

Everyone knows that the reason Microsoft Windows became popular is due to deals Microsoft made with original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of bundling Windows with their hardware. Besides that Microsoft Windows could be legally installed on any IBM compatible or Intel PC, clearly it was Microsoft's business model combined with a bunch of anti-competitive practices that resulted in them receiving a dominant market share. Apple's business model combines the hardware with the software, this results in a premium product & a slightly enclosed ecosystem that some customers do not wish to be a part off. This is why people always tend to complain about Apple limiting freedom.

The rest of the hardware makers no longer has that advantage beocs Apple locks up supply for 3-4 years ahead of time and get a great price on it. the quintessential example of this is the "ultra books". do you know why windows based aluminum body ultra books are 3 years late to the party?

Apple probably does make deals with suppliers for the purpose of exclusively supplying them. However, that does not mean that the competition isn't free to search for other suppliers that may provide them with the raw materials to produce a unibody aluminium laptop.

Apple was also granted patents for the design of the unibody Macbook Pro. Could that be why Ultrabooks with Microsoft Windows are late to the market?

Apple Granted Design Patents for Unibody MacBook Pro/Air, Glass Trackpad

Apple Inc. has been granted design patents for the Unibody MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, as well as a separate design patent for the glass trackpad used in the current line of portable Macs. The patents were applied for in 2009 for the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, and in 2008 for the trackpad.

Design patents, as the name suggests, cover only the design of a product, meaning that Apple is protected against other company making a copycat portable laptop that looks like Apple's MacBook Pro or Air. Design patents do not cover, for instance, the manufacturing processes or other technologies that may have gone into actually making the devices.

All three design patents list Steve Jobs and Jonny Ive, along with several other engineers and designers at the company. All three were issued March 2nd, 2010.

Thanks to Patently Apple for the heads up on the patents. You can find the patents in the above links.

The article quoted above clearly explains why competitors still hesitate from blatantly copying Apple's designs. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason Samsung's Android phones are the target of these latest lawsuits is because they present the greatest threat to the iPhone at the moment.
 
God speed @ Apple patent lawyers. Squash the cheaters and copycats! :sick:


Open source my hiney! Those conniving pi** @ Mountain View, make **** loads of money on everything you even touch. :angry:
And I thought there was finally a member who agreed with me on everything, too good to be true :P APPLE IS THE BIGGEST CHEATER ON EARTH STEALING OTHER'S **** AND BURYING THEM IN MONEY AND PAPERWORK :PPPP
 
And I thought there was finally a member who agreed with me on everything, too good to be true :P APPLE IS THE BIGGEST CHEATER ON EARTH STEALING OTHER'S **** AND BURYING THEM IN MONEY AND PAPERWORK :PPPP

:angry::angry::angry:


Let's not let this one disagreement hurt our trolling style on other threads, what say you? :D

Here we can be ruthless enemies, let's define territories, we are not arab-berbers, we be civil about it!

Let's call it "PDF convention on FairPlay and trolling rights"? :police:

PCOFATR :pop:
 
Monopoly aspect had nothing to do with it. you can read the basis of the ruling here

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It clearly points out HP's involvement and the nature of the stuff apple wanted to protect as not legally protectable. The law suit was filed in 1988 and didn't get a verdict till 1992. Most of the delay was caused by HP lawyers. I personally know the know the paralegals who worked on this case on behalf of HP.

the windows market share came about becos of commodity hardware. The rest of the hardware makers no longer has that advantage beocs Apple locks up supply for 3-4 years ahead of time and get a great price on it. the quintessential example of this is the "ultra books". do you know why windows based aluminum body ultra books are 3 years late to the party?



Thanks for the comedic input. I guess you don't what it is to be the brains behind an effort ......
There was no brains behind the iPhone, they made a shitty product on purpose. Until the dual core androids came out with better screen i used to be a fan

Nice try, apple fan :triniti:
 
One week to iPhone 5 launch..............
 
Wikipedia isn't the only source available for this case, neither is it the most reliable one. You are focusing too much on the term monopoly. Had Apple won that case; competition would have undoubtedly declined. This loss of competition would without doubt have had a major impact on Apple's market share. Assuming Apple had won the case; once the copyrights would have expired Apple would have continued to retain its dominance in the GUI market & it would take considerable time for competition to come up with something half as good as Apple offerings. I have also read that the court felt that Apple wanted to keep the GUI to itself & restrict competition.

It is beyond the courts jurisdiction to worry about monopoly. That is department of commerce/justice territory.


The primary reasons Apple lost the case were already presented by me in post #73.



When exactly did I deny HP's involvement in the trial? Didn't I state in post #73 that the courts decided that the concept of the GUI was not copyrightable because Microsoft Windows wasn't virtually identical to Mac OS? The rest of the information you posted in the above quoted paragraph is clearly from Wikipedia based on what I read on the Wikipedia page over here. There are other sources you should refer to for information. It is a well known fact that one of the reasons behind Apple filing a lawsuit for protecting the GUI was to simply destroy competition.

The primary reason behind apple filing the lawsuit was that "windows" was blatant ripoff of the xerox/Apple work. apple didn't have a way to protect it back then. Now they do

Here is an interesting article published some time back.

**********​
Thom Holwerda​
30th Aug 2012​

We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Digital Research, Inc. is a hallowed name in the industry. The company was founded by Dr. Gary Kildall to sell and further develop his CP/M operating system. In the first half of the '80s, DRI developed an implementation of the ISO standard Graphical Kernel System, a low-level system for 2D vector graphics, called Graphics System Extension. GSX eventually formed the basis for GEM.

GEM, or Graphical Environment Manager, was to serve as DRI's graphical user interface on top of CP/M and later DR-DOS and other versions of DOS. GEM's star shone particularly bright as the user interface for the Atari ST, a computer that competed with the Amiga, the original Macintosh, and earlier versions of Windows.

Apple wasn't happy with having to deal with competition, so the company started to sue everyone it thought it could get away with. We all know the lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, which Apple eventually lost because Microsoft had actually licensed much of the GUI technology from Apple - Cupertino claimed this only covered Windows 1.0, but the courts disagreed. Ten elements were not covered by Microsoft's license, but the courts ruled that these were not worthy of protection.

Interestingly enough, Apple didn't just sue Microsoft over look and feel - two other companies were sued as well: Hewlett-Packard and Digital Research. The suit against HP was about NewWave, an object-oriented desktop system that ran on top of Windows. This lawsuit was part of Apple vs. Microsoft, and Apple lost it as well. The lawsuit against DRI, however, never fully materialised, because DRI wasn't looking for a prolonged legal battle, and as such, decided to make several alterations to GEM/1.

This resulted in GEM/2. The trash icon was altered, the desktop was replaced by two permanently open, fixed file manager windows, scrollbar blobs were made narrower, and animations were removed from the system. The goal was to please Apple into not suing the heck out of DRI, and this strategy eventually succeeded. A few small cosmetic changes, and GEM continued to exist in several forms for years and years to come.

The cool thing is that GEM had several advantages over the Macintosh, and two of those are pretty damn huge: GEM supported colour interfaces, and, more importantly, it could multitask. In other words, it had two high-profile features the Macintosh didn't offer, much like Windows 2.0 and NewWave.

However, that's not the common thread between Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft, HP, and DRI. You may wonder why Apple never sued Commodore for the Amiga, which also sported a graphical user interface containing several of the elements Apple claimed ownership over. It's actually quite simple: unlike AmigaOS and its Workbench, Windows, NewWave, and GEM all ran on DOS... And more importantly, on IBM-compatible PCs. Considering IBM was Apple's biggest competitor, the company was adamant in ensuring the graphical user interface did not find its way to IBM-compatible machines.

That's why the argument about copying/stealing/whatever is laughed away by those of us with an understanding of history. Apple sued Microsoft, DRI, and HP not because they felt wronged, but because they were afraid of the competition that would result from these companies bringing credible user interfaces to IBM-compatible hardware. Since the Amiga was a separate and unique hardware platform, Apple knew Commodore would not be able to compete in the long term, so it didn't bother to sue Commodore. Apple's fears became reality - the Amiga withered away into irrelevance and the IBM PC took over the industry - and it nearly killed Apple.

You can easily draw a parallel to today. Apple didn't sue over WebOS or Bada (which looks virtually identical to TouchWiz, I might add); they sued Android, because it's basically today's IBM-compatible platform. You'll also note that the focus of Apple's legal actions used to be HTC, but when Samsung rose to prominence in the Android space, the South-Korean company became the focus instead. Anyone even only slightly versed in pattern recognition can see the obvious.

You know what the irony is of all this? One of the main developers behind GEM was Lee Jay Lorenzen, and get this: before joining DRI, he worked at Xerox PARC on the very same user interfaces upon which the Macintosh was built. In other words, Apple took what was partially his work, implemented it for the Macintosh, and then sued over Lorenzen's own post-Xerox interface!

The irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

**********​



Everyone knows that the reason Microsoft Windows became popular is due to deals Microsoft made with original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of bundling Windows with their hardware. Besides that Microsoft Windows could be legally installed on any IBM compatible or Intel PC, clearly it was Microsoft's business model combined with a bunch of anti-competitive practices that resulted in them receiving a dominant market share. Apple's business model combines the hardware with the software, this results in a premium product & a slightly enclosed ecosystem that some customers do not wish to be a part off. This is why people always tend to complain about Apple limiting freedom.



Apple probably does make deals with suppliers for the purpose of exclusively supplying them. However, that does not mean that the competition isn't free to search for other suppliers that may provide them with the raw materials to produce a unibody aluminium laptop.

Apple was also granted patents for the design of the unibody Macbook Pro. Could that be why Ultrabooks with Microsoft Windows are late to the market?

Apple Granted Design Patents for Unibody MacBook Pro/Air, Glass Trackpad

It is worse than that. They developed and patented the aluminum machining process and told the suppliers no one else gets it for 3 years. Becos of that the Macbook airs are are still within 10-20% of the equivalent "ultrabooks"


The article quoted above clearly explains why competitors still hesitate from blatantly copying Apple's designs. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason Samsung's Android phones are the target of these latest lawsuits is because they present the greatest threat to the iPhone at the moment.

On the contrary, Samesung got this position by blatantly ripping off apple. Read this by a korean analyst

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/t...er-battle-with-apple.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

Look what has happened to companies like Nokia, Motorola and BlackBerry, which didn’t do as Samsung did,” Mr. Song added, referring to competitors whose failures to adapt quickly to the smartphone boom driven by iPhones have drastically reduced their market shares. “Samsung may lack in innovation, but right now, no one can beat Samsung in playing catch-up.”


Good chat BTW. Good quality posts that enjoyed reading.
 
On the contrary, Samesung got this position by blatantly ripping off apple. Read this by a korean analyst

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/t...er-battle-with-apple.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

Look what has happened to companies like Nokia, Motorola and BlackBerry, which didn’t do as Samsung did,” Mr. Song added, referring to competitors whose failures to adapt quickly to the smartphone boom driven by iPhones have drastically reduced their market shares. “Samsung may lack in innovation, but right now, no one can beat Samsung in playing catch-up.”


Good chat BTW. Good quality posts that enjoyed reading.
Samsung lacks in innovation? Do you have any idea how many samsung patents apple copied, and how many other companies apple ripped off?
And samsung makes many iphone components too
 
@ cricketrulez

You have inserted your own text in my post that you quoted. It's best to not do that, & avoid modifying other people's posts. When you want to respond to different parts of a post separately, do so by inserting the HTML tag that ends the quote at the desired portion of the post. After that, you can insert new HTML tags to resume quoting the rest of the post. The tags are "[ QUOTE ]" & "[ /QUOTE ]" without the space between the parentheses; the former is to start the quotation, while the latter ends the quotation.

I advise that people refer to my post #78 to read the original text of my post unmodified, because I did not get the time to review all of the modifications made in my quoted post by this member.

It is beyond the courts jurisdiction to worry about monopoly. That is department of commerce/justice territory.

As I said earlier, you are focusing too much on the term "monopoly". So let me repeat some of the points I made earlier. Had Apple won that case; competition would have undoubtedly declined. This loss of competition would without doubt have had a major impact on Apple's market share. I stated the main reasons for Apple's loss of that case earlier in post #73, go refer to that again. I discussed intellectual property laws, GUI licensing, patents, & copyrights on that post. I have also read that the courts felt that Apple wanted to keep the GUI to itself & restrict competition. That is why many analysts feel that it was a good thing that Apple lost. It's true that the courts & the defendants didn't accuse Apple of trying to monopolize, but they were all aware of the consequences of the outcome if it turned out that the "look & feel" of Mac OS was copyrightable.

This is why it's safe to assume that one of the reasons that motivated Apple to sue Microsoft, & now Samsung is because they desire to eliminate competition. That is a fact, it serves no purpose to deny that.

The primary reason behind apple filing the lawsuit was that "windows" was blatant ripoff of the xerox/Apple work. apple didn't have a way to protect it back then. Now they do

I already know that, Microsoft Windows had imitated the "look & feel" of Mac OS, but the "look & feel" was not patentable, it was copyrightable. Unfortunately, the copyright claims did not hold valid because the operating systems were not "virtually identical". Microsoft kept certain differences in Windows that differentiated it from Mac OS, that reason contributed to Apple's loss. To put it simply; Microsoft Windows wasn't an exact clone of Mac OS, but it did imitate its "look & feel" all the way till Windows 95.

It is worse than that. They developed and patented the aluminum machining process and told the suppliers no one else gets it for 3 years. Becos of that the Macbook airs are are still within 10-20% of the equivalent "ultrabooks"

Are you implying that the reason Macbook Airs are so dominant in the market is because Apple patented the process of manufacturing the unibody Macbook? That may be true, but there are other reasons why the ultrabooks aren't that popular. Firstly, manufacturers are late to the market obviously so Apple benefits from the first mover advantages. The second reason is that other manufacturers focused on the netbook market for many years; that market ended up getting mutilated by Apple's release of the iPad. The third reason is that Microsoft Windows still isn't optimized too well for mobile platforms. For example; Windows 7 still has a horrible battery life on many laptops where as OS X's battery consumption is extremely efficient. That may change with the release of Windows 8. For now though, people choose the Macbook Air because it simply offers a better experience than Windows can. Microsoft's launch of the Surface tablet is the best attempt so far at fighting the iPad & the Macbook Air.

On the contrary, Samesung got this position by blatantly ripping off apple.

Samsung did copy Apple, but the TouchWiz UI isn't virtually identical to iOS even though it attempted to imitate its "look & feel" in the past. The latest version of TouchWiz UI seems to have differentiated itself from iOS, & this trend is continuing at the moment. That's similar to how every new release of Microsoft Windows further differentiated itself from Mac OS. If the Apple vs Samsung case involves imitating the "look & feel" then Apple will probably lose. However, as long as Apple only attempts to prove patent violations, then they are bound to win unless of course the courts feel that Apple shouldn't have been provided with those patents in the first place.

The problem here simply has to do with the US Patent Office. Their screening procedures to identify truly original ideas need to be stricter. Things such as "slide to unlock" for example are innovative, but I wouldn't consider this idea patentable simply because it seems that anyone could think of this.

Read this by a korean analyst

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/t...er-battle-with-apple.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

Look what has happened to companies like Nokia, Motorola and BlackBerry, which didn’t do as Samsung did,” Mr. Song added, referring to competitors whose failures to adapt quickly to the smartphone boom driven by iPhones have drastically reduced their market shares. “Samsung may lack in innovation, but right now, no one can beat Samsung in playing catch-up.”

I agree that Nokia & RIM's failure to consider the iPhone a major threat lead to their downfall. They are undoubtedly the architects of their own destruction. Many smartphone manufacturers' attempts at recovery can be simply be described as being "too little, too late". Samsung adopted the wrong strategy, they could have avoided this situation by using Android's stock interface & making minor improvements to that. Copying iOS was a big mistake & I agree that Samsung is at fault here.

I just don't want competition to be affected by this lawsuit, simply because as a consumer I appreciate the choices available to me when choosing a smartphone to purchase. Here are other interesting links regarding the extent to which Samsung copied iOS.

Apple’s court documents compare iOS icons with Samsung’s TouchWiz, show the striking similarities

The link below is extremely important & interesting, there is a file embedded on that link's webpage. I think people following the Apple vs Samsung trial would be interested in checking it out.

Samsung wanted its UI to look more like the iPhone's

Good chat BTW. Good quality posts that enjoyed reading.

Thanks.
 
Samsung lacks in innovation? Do you have any idea how many samsung patents apple copied, and how many other companies apple ripped off?

1) those are the Korean analysts words. I agree with them
2) all of Samesung's patents are part of SE and they are required to license them according to FRAND terms. Look up what that means.

And samsung makes many iphone components too

and your point is ...what?
 
The judge threw most of their defense away, seems like the whole court was stacked against Samsung.

A 15% surcharge on Samsung supplied parts will more than pay for the billion dollar deal.
 
The judge thru most of their defense away, seems like the whole court was stacked against Samsung.

Funny it seems that way when your own internal documents and your software partners emails implicate you

A 15% surcharge on Samsung supplied parts will more than pay for the billion dollar deal.

Yup, that should be pretty easy to do. Samesung should give that a try. Fro the next contract cycle maybe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom