Filip Novotny Last Friday, a US jury ruled that Samsung knowingly copied Apple and awarded it billions in damages. How does the tech world view the verdict?
We brought you just a few hours after the verdict article with all the important information and also with the comments of the parties involved. Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton commented on the result as follows:
“We are grateful to the jury for their service and the time they invested in listening to our story, which we were excited to finally tell. A large amount of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung went much further with the copying than we thought. The whole process between Apple and Samsung was about more than just patents and money. He was about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and dedicate our lives to creating the best products in the world. We create these products to please our customers, not to be copied by our competitors. We commend the court for finding Samsung's conduct intentional and for sending a clear message that theft is not right.”
Samsung also commented on the ruling:
"Today's verdict should not be taken as a victory for Apple, but as a loss for the American customer. It will lead to less choice, less innovation and possibly higher prices. It's unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly on a rectangle with rounded corners or a technology that Samsung and other competitors are trying to improve every day. Customers have the right to choose and know what they are getting when they buy a Samsung product. This is not the last word in courtrooms around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer the customer a choice.”
As in its defense, Samsung used the generalization that it is not possible to patent a rectangle with rounded corners. It is sad that the representatives of Samsung are not able to make a proper argument, and by repeating the same weak phrases over and over again, they insult their opponents, the judges and the jury, and finally us as observers. The nonsense of the statement is confirmed by the fact that competing products from companies such as HTC, Palm, LG or Nokia were able to differentiate themselves sufficiently from Apple's model and thus did not encounter similar problems. Just look at the mobile phones designed by Google, the developer of the Android operating system itself. At first glance, its smartphones differ from the iPhone: they are more rounded, do not have a prominent button under the display, work with different materials, etc. Even on the software side, Google usually has no problems, which the company finally confirmed in this bold statement:
“The Court of Appeals will review both patent infringement and validity. Most of them are not related to the pure Android operating system, and some of them are currently under review by the US patent office. The mobile market is moving fast, and all players – including newcomers – are building on ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to bring innovative and affordable products to customers, and we don't want anything to limit us."
While it's certain that Google took a strong stand against Apple with the launch of Android, its approach is not as reprehensible as Samsung's blatant copying. Yes, Android was not originally designed for touch phones and underwent a radical redesign after the introduction of the iPhone, but it is still quite fair and healthy competition. Perhaps no sane person can wish for a monopoly of one manufacturer over the entire industry. So it is somewhat beneficial that Google and other companies have come up with their alternative solution. We can argue about various details as to whether or not they are plagiarism of the original, but that is quite irrelevant. Importantly, neither Google nor any other major manufacturer has gone as far with "inspiration" as Samsung. That is why this South Korean corporation has become the target of legal proceedings.
And it's no wonder the court battles are as heated as we've seen in recent weeks. Apple came up with a real revolution in 2007 and simply asks others to acknowledge its contribution. After years of hard work and huge investments, it was possible to bring a completely new category of equipment to the market, from which many other companies could also profit after a certain time. Apple perfected multi-touch technology, introduced gesture control and completely changed the way mobile operating systems were viewed. The request for licensing fees for these discoveries is therefore completely logical and is also nothing new in the world of mobile phones. For years, companies such as Samsung, Motorola or Nokia have been collecting fees for patents that are absolutely necessary for mobile phones to function. Without some of them, no phone would connect to a 3G network or even Wi-Fi. Manufacturers pay for Samsung's expertise in mobile networking, so why shouldn't they also pay Apple for its indisputable contribution to mobile phones and tablets?
After all, it was also recognized by former rival Microsoft, which avoided court battles by agreeing with the manufacturer of iOS devices made a special deal. Thanks to it, the companies licensed each other's patents, and also stipulated that neither of them would come to market with a clone of the other's product. Redmond commented on the outcome of the trial with a smile (perhaps no need to translate):
Windows Phone is looking goooood right now.
— Bill Cox (@billcox) August 24
One important question remains for the future. What impact will the Apple vs. Samsung to the mobile market? Opinions differ, for example, Charles Golvin, a leading analyst at Forrester Research, believes that the ruling will also affect other mobile device manufacturers:
"In particular, the jury ruled in favor of Apple's software patents, and their decision will have implications not only for Samsung, but also for Google and other Android device manufacturers such as LG, HTC, Motorola, and potentially for Microsoft, which uses pinch- to-zoom, bounce-on-scroll etc. Those competitors will now have to sit down again and come up with significantly different proposals — or agree on fees with Apple. As many of these functions are already automatically expected by users from their phones, this is a major challenge for manufacturers.”
Another well-known analyst, Van Baker from the company Gartner, admits the need for manufacturers to differentiate themselves, but at the same time believes that this is more of a long-term problem that will not have an impact on currently sold devices:
“This is a clear victory for Apple, but it will have little impact on the market in the short term, as it is very likely that we will see an appeal and start the whole process all over again. If Apple persists, it has the ability to force Samsung to redesign several of its products, putting strong pressure on all smartphone and tablet manufacturers to stop trying to emulate the design of its newly launched products.”
For the users themselves, it will be especially important how Samsung itself will deal with the current situation. Either it can follow the example of Microsoft in the nineties and continue its brutal pursuit of sales numbers and continue to copy the efforts of others, or it will invest in its design team, it will strive for real innovation and thus free itself from the copying mode, which unfortunately a significant part of the Asian market is in switched. Of course, it is possible that Samsung will first go the first way and then, like the already mentioned Microsoft, undergo a fundamental change. Despite the stigma of a shameless copier and somewhat incompetent management, the Redmond-based company managed to bring several unique and high-quality products to the market in recent years, such as the XBOX 360 or the new Windows Phone. So we can still hope that Samsung will follow a similar path. This would be the best possible outcome for the user.
“As in its defense, Samsung used the generalization that it is not possible to patent a rectangle with rounded corners. It is sad that the representatives of Samsung are not able to make a proper argument, and by repeating the same weak phrases over and over again, they insult their opponents, the judges and the jury, and finally us as observers."
i say LOL you watcher.
samsung appealed and nothing is definitive.
Samsung certainly didn't argue with just that one sentence. As an observer, such an article offends me.
Your nickname HULMIHO says it all... offended by observers.
However, the article does not say that Samsung would argue only with this sentence. It's just a poor argument. So hulsi himself.
How does the appeals process relate to the fact that Samsung and its supporters keep throwing around the phrase with a rounded rectangle? Yes, Samsung has used other arguments in its defense, but this one is really mundane and comes up repeatedly.
quote from the article:
“As in its defense, Samsung used the generalization that it is not possible to patent a rectangle with rounded corners. It is sad that the representatives of Samsung are not able to make a proper argument, and by repeating the same weak phrases over and over again, they insult their opponents, the judges and the jury, and finally us as observers."
should I add something?
Better not deliver anything.
but calm down:
"Sadly, Samsung representatives are unable to make a proper argument, and by repeating the same weak phrases over and over again, they insult their opponents, the judges and the jury, and ultimately us as observers."
Mr. Hulmi, I would like to warn you that if you try to start a flame or troll the discussions again, we will delete your posts and ban you.
Mr. Kubin, you already deleted one of my posts where I convinced you of lying, so I would be careful in this matter if I were you.
flame is caused by similarly stupid articles. nothing else.
and until now I insist that you find me the only relevant source for the fact that Microsoft will pay fees for each device and that this was not covered by a standard cross license agreement.
I'll help you: you won't find anything like that. it's your invention.
Do you know Google? Great stuff. Resources: mobilmania.cz, tabletnet.cz The documents show that Microsoft has agreed to pay royalties from every Microsoft Surface tablet sold. Further: techspot.com, ...
I wrote about the floods in English sources. verge, mashabe, reuters.
if you don't understand the word indicate, I recommend English lessons. you wrote about it as a fait accompli.
he who eats, he goes, libor.
Good for them, finally the Korean copier got what it deserved. Exactly as you write in that article, what will attract from Asia and does not have a western license is a mixture of copies, from cars to mobile phones.
"Samsung will continue to innovate and offer the customer choice."
Freely translated:
"Samsung will continue to copy whether you like it or not."
:D
Nevertheless, he tries to keep a critical distance at least as much as possible. Where is the gap??? :-))
As long as Tamtungs, Kias, and Hyundais are produced, at least we can differ with Apple phones.
I only buy samsungs - that's a brand that everyone buys only once……
It's rubbish like KIA, HUNDAI, etc
Just a small detail...only the "box" is different with the apple phone and of course the most important thing is the ios, but the HW is partly the Samsung that you buy once :-) Just for info, I have both things from Apple and Samsung and I don't have that's the problem :-)
I admit it too, I have 2 samsung televisions and I can't watch them... but the last one... apple .-)
is it true with those 30 trucks full of 5 cents worth of that fine?:D
that's probably definitely not... imagine if apple would pay samsung like this exactly for deliveries... 1000 a truck? and in the next phase it would be good luck Samsung, we have another supplier, you are now getting the billions from some other ox...
It's fake.
You can definitely see the critical distance in that article :-))
Maybe one more note and response to the comment:
Troublemaker "Exactly as you write in that article, what is pulled from Asia and does not have a western license is a mixed copy"
It would be interesting to see what components the iPhone is actually made of
(Samsung, Infineon, Murata, etc.) yes, you are right...most of the iPhones come from the big copying Asia. And let's be honest, without it, Apple wouldn't have built anything today.
Since Apple doesn't make the iPhone itself, it doesn't even make the components for it, and it doesn't even assemble it itself. It's all that bad copying of Asia.
But the best way to describe the situation between Apple and Samsung is this:
Apple is one of Samsung's largest customers, and Samsung is one of Apple's biggest suppliers.
And that says it all.
A literal comparison of apples and pears and a completely empty argument - Samsung does supply Apple with some components, but it is also a manufacturer that objectively (s)imply steals years of development. Two completely different relationships between two companies. Dot.
There is probably no need to expect any kind of objectivity on an apple blog, so I'll put it like this: Just as the "observer" - the author feels offended by the Korean copying, I feel offended by this article. It's especially fun playing at objectivity while writing in a style worthy of Apple - Ugly Korean. They will definitely be amused by the unexplained labeling of Microsoft in the nineties as a copycat company. Perhaps this does not mean that MS copied Apple, which was teetering on the brink of collapse at that time? The greatest contribution of MS at that time was mainly the expansion of PCs into households thanks to Windows. What did Apple do then? And on the subject of Microsoft and its exchange of patent licenses with Apple, it might be worth pointing out that Windows Phone manufacturers cannot be sued by Apple over SW patents like individual Android device manufacturers, since Microsoft, unlike Google, takes responsibility for its operating system and if there was a lawsuit, Microsoft would represent its IHV directly to him.
MS managed to expand Windows into the home thanks to Internet Explorer - no other OS had a web browser... btw, what did Apple do in those days? I don't know what this is: He made a graphical interface for the OS and the mouse.. and today everyone can freely write their mistakes on the net :x ... Samsung has never been able to make advice phones, can't and never will be able to .. and at all - I don't know why all essay. Let everyone buy what they want and what they need.. God.. it's really embarrassing..
expand thanks to explorer? :-))) you don't think it's important... explorer was also for mac... and it was also one of the best netscape navigator for mac in my opinion and it was also for win...
win spread partly thanks to the fact that they were "free" for every cheap PC (I also started on a PiCick, win 3.11) but mainly because the system could always be installed anywhere..., win3.11, win 95, win 98, 2000, NT, XP ... they were all systems that did not have a problem with hacking. simply everyone installed them, everyone got used to them, everyone grew up with them and no one wanted anything else... the free system is always the best.
it was the most widespread among the people.
Yes, thanks to IE.. it is also taught in schools that focus on PCs
I definitely wouldn't want to throw all Asian manufacturers in one bag, I'm more inclined towards Asian culture myself, but unfortunately some companies still haven't decided to come up with their own idea and are playing it safe. And with Microsoft, I might have really given it a bit unlucky, it was more about the turn of the decade. Anyway, MSFT is somewhere else entirely today, and Samsung also has the potential to successfully differentiate itself. However, in my opinion, he should finally acknowledge that Apple was an important catalyst for him to start his mobile business.
Apple was making major innovations at the time.
Mr. Beban aka Vlastimile Waici,
unfortunately even the perfect Microsoft stole and copied, but as an expert on this company you should know that..
I don't know if the wiki will do for you as unbiased enough, but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation. Apple lost this GUI lawsuit against Microsoft.
Microsoft stole part of Apple's code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
These tug-of-wars ended in the mutual granting of cross-patents. With the arrival of Jobs back to Apple, the situation calmed down and Microsoft BOUGHT APPLE SHARES AND LIABILITIES
typical for applecart
to tax information only that is useful... the PowerPC was awarded by a consortium of 3 companies, of which Apple was only one
they are heavily based on the ibm power architecture from which it is based and is compatible (that is, it can be said that the processor was invented by ibm)... by the way, when the powerpc was sold, apple had to pay ibm's license... so it's probably an apple invention
he doesn't even talk about those other things, here it's throwing pearls to swine
well, but you also give it as it suits you.-) because no one here doubted that the main star in power PC is IBM, that's why Apple also had to deal with Intel when IBM said that it would not work on the further development of PPC for desktop computers...
and you don't talk about those other things... that you wouldn't know what to say? so saying something to you is like... well, you know about those pearls as you say :-)
"he was able, for example, to develop the PowerPC processor"
powerpc was developed by IBM as part of the AIM alliance based on the IBM power architecture.
it's about as true as the fact that apple developed thunderbolt
When I read the reactions in the discussion, I somehow don't understand why Samsung is becoming such a super company. Before Apple arrived with the iPhone, Samsung produced everything without any specific goal, just consumer electronics. Thanks to this, he had enough production capacities that could be easily adjusted for his eventual segmentation.
It is probably also for this reason that an agreement was reached between A and S when the first iPhone was to be introduced to the market, because S could offer A sufficient space for production and cheap production costs, which are due to the political/demographic situation in the localities where S has everything to produce racing.
So, in summary, if at that time someone else had to offer AND all the production capacities, it is quite possible that Huawei (or whatever it is spelled) would be the next market leader today.
Mainly because the production of the iPhone involved huge investments from A to S, to the production itself, to the production facilities, and also because this gave S a cash cow for any other investments, let's say, S grew over time to its size in this market segment.
So where is the right to defend S as a superior company and the victim, when they basically milked A, copied its products, because it is simpler and they already had the technology after all, and started this competition? And besides, as for the rest, they used Google's OS and tweaked it a bit.
nice article
dik
m