Apple Demands $40 Per Phone From Samsung

The Gonz said:
Here's to hoping the majority of the jurors have a Samsung phone (Galaxy S3 or Note, etc) and realize that a $40 "TAX" per phone would only serve to increase their next phone purchase.

I have no faith that they will actually judge the case based on merits. :(
Click to expand...

lol you realize the FIRST question during jury selection will probably be show me your phone.
 
XvMMvX said:
Your Apple butthurt has begun to make you say things that are utter bullshit.

Apple's sales numbers have grown, each iphone and ipad breaks the previous record.

http://www.macworld.com/article/206...d-adjusts-to-a-changing-tablet-landscape.html

The love for Samsung on this forum for being almost exactly like Apple is the epitome of double standards.
Click to expand...


What he's talking about is "as a percentage of the market they are each in" all of Apple's products have lost significant market share. And that's an unarguable fact. Apple's share of the tablet market is barely moving while Samsung's is blasting into orbit. See links below...

If you limit your numbers to strictly iOS versus Android, Apple is getting royally clobbered by any measure--Apple is *lucky* when the competition considered is only Samsung (instead of the entire Android market.)

Here's a quote from the third link below that illustrates what is happening with tablets:

Apple has retained its top spot in 2013 with 70.4 million sales as mentioned above, Samsung lies in second place with 37.4 million units sold. However it is important to remember that Samsung’s sold just 8.5 million tablets in 2012, that’s over a four fold increase, whereas Apple only sold 9 million more iPads in 2013 than 2012.
Click to expand...

Does anyone with half a brain believe that millions of people have been buying Samsung tablets thinking they were buying iPads? I sure don't. That's absurd and ridiculous. Only in a technically ignorant jury or courtroom might such a notion gain traction. It's normal for people to get upset at Apple for alleging such stupid and patently false notions. People naturally grow weary of it.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/29/apples-ipad-market-share-chopped-in-half-as-android-takes-over/

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-apple-smartphone-market-share-2013-11

http://computingforever.com/2014/03/05/android-vs-ios-tablet-2013/


First, Apple has always had this giant chip on its corporate shoulder. While it was OK for Apple to copy anything it wanted anytime it wanted to (like Apple using the Apple trademark for music when his deal with the Beatles said he couldn't do it, and Jobs said he ripped off the trademark to *honor* the Beatles(!))--but it was not OK for anyone to ever challenge Apple in any market. And of course it was unthinkable that any company should dare to beat Apple at one of its own games without *cheating and stealing.* Jobs (RIP) stole a lot himself, imo, but like all good hypocrites, had a convenient rationale for it.

So I think that what you see in these forums isn't Samsung "love"; it's disgust with Apple, primarily. Apple often acts the immature Prima donna--which doesn't exactly inspire anyone else unless you, too, are also an immature Prima donna....;)

Second, Apple is a company that historically has been unable to compete with other companies over the long haul. You might even better say that Apple is congenitally unable to compete. The inability to compete is in the company DNA. The pattern is clear: on those few occasions wherein Apple has created a product that the market liked enough to give Apple huge initial market share advantages and profits, when competitors come in and create better products at lower prices and take market share away from Apple, Apple's response is two-fold. First, it begins suing its strongest competitors in court to try and stem the bleeding caused by Apple's inability to compete on price and value, which Apple idiotically says is "copying"; when that fails, as it inevitably does, Apple gradually withdraws from the competitive markets in order to try and start up a new market with some other product that it hopes will allow it to enjoy a competition-free market for as long as possible. In this way Apple bounces from product to product.

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider this: the fledgling Apple clone companies that were started by a Jobs-less Apple in the belief that providing an impetus for the Mac market to grow was a *good thing* for Apple; but it didn't take Jobs (RIP) long to kill all the cloners off (after a scant two years after he came back to an Apple no one else wanted to run), even though the clone companies had to buy 80% of all their hardware from Apple itself! IE, even though the cloners were bound by very strict contracts as to what they could and could not do, as to what they had to buy from Apple in order to be allowed to clone the Mac--Apple still could not compete with these companies!

Indeed, Jobs in his "secret" mind had already decided to begin deviating away from the Mac as Apple's only and primary product line to go to things like MP3 players & cell phones/tablets. And so Jobs killed off the only Mac clone companies in history, because, he said, Apple was unable to successfully compete with them...! They were, he said, "cannibalizing" Mac sales even at the same time that Apple was selling all of these cloners 80% of their hardware! If that's not proof of Apple's complete inability to compete I can't imagine what might be. There you have the reason(s) for most people's sensible and understandable thorough dislike of Apple.
 
The Gonz said:
Here's to hoping the majority of the jurors have a Samsung phone (Galaxy S3 or Note, etc) and realize that a $40 "TAX" per phone would only serve to increase their next phone purchase.

I have no faith that they will actually judge the case based on merits. :(
Click to expand...

Actually I hope the opposite. The jurors should rule based on USPTO rules and how the patents are presented. Hopefully Apple wins the decision so it can help show why the USPTO is broken and why you can patent such ridiculous things. Only then will there be more of a push to reform the way patents are filed and enforced.
 
Haha, I love how people come into threads and claim there is an abundance of love for Samsung on this site. Especially since no one proclaimed any love for them!

Poster 1: screw Apple!
Poster 2: omg get off of Samsung's nuts!
 
Clearly Apple is butthurt over it's competitor (in this case Samsung).

Maybe Google should sue Apple for using the drop down notification list after X ios update.

Thank god I don't use a Samsung.
 
We used to be a prior art but a bunch of corps which patented stuff with prior managed to change the system so anything patented after a certain date is under the first to file system. That said all the patents that are the issues were done under the old pre existing art and it is only the large companies lawyers that let them get away with it. Personally I think there is some ethical issues since I have since apple patent stuff that was already patented, just not enforced anymore...

But then again ever since apple started they have been claiming others work as their own. The mouse they bought from Xerox, and selling creative's design for the original ipad. That one is still my favorite. Apple's most iconic item was designed by creative. Creative then went to apple about working to together on it mostly for apple ability to spin things. Steve Jobs said let us look at the device and work on it. Six months later they return the device to Creative and tell them they are not interested. Before Creative can launch their product Apple releases the Original iPad and says they developed it. Creative spoke up and apple fans laughed at them. Creative won the law suit as they had patented the design before talking to apple, and the design docs looked exactly like the apple device. But the story got buried even through creative won the law suit.
 
I'm surprised HP hasn't sued that Apple patent troll for copying its trademark (iPaq -> iPad) and the fingerprint technology from early 2000's:

84859-hp-ipaq-hx2750-fingerprint-scanner.jpg
 
Well, given that Samsung's devices are often as exorbitantly priced as Apple's (if not more), it shouldn't be that tough to find the money, should the damages amount be upheld.

That being said, all of this is ridiculous. We know that Samsung copied the look/feel/appearance of Apple's devices. Lots of companies did. That's called observing the commercial success of your competitors and trying to produce products that the customers like. It's just absurd that many of these things are patentable, moreover under the current first-to-file system (rather than first-to-invent), with most patents simply granted until someone wishes to challenge them; of course Apple has an edge given their billions in the bank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top