Apple vs Samsung
Via: Online MBA Guide

Hat tip Mac Daily News

Category: Digital Media, Technology, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

2 Responses to “Apple vs Samsung”

  1. Greg0658 says:

    blue cash doesn’t fight foreign trade patent wars (country boundry thing) since it didn’t invest overseas before turning green ….. submit or not .. ummmm

    1 more caveat then ok .. setup factories in China and then whine when they produce cloans outside of our rules .. waaa

    capitalism needs two fuels > cheap labor andor harvestable raw materials

  2. WaltFrench says:

    When a leading patent advocate for open source software calls this chart “misleading,” one should at least stop and think. Hard to do that when this chart omits so much useful information & includes a lot of extraneous info (e.g., the Nokia physical keyboard, since Apple’s mobiles explicitly claim LACK of a physical keyboard as an advantage) or even downright factual errors (Google committed to Android well before the iPhone, and its 2007 surprise was how quickly it had morphed to a touchscreen model, not that it became in any sense a “major player”).

    First, patent “wars” have been a feature of American business virtually since we’ve had a Constitutionally-backed guarantee of the owner’s monopoly on its use. Edison, the Wright Brothers, among others, featured in major disputes, with non-owners trying to gain the benefits of the inventions without paying the inventor’s price. Of course, the legitimacy of the patents have been disputed by the non-owners as part of their efforts.

    Apple had been negotiating with Samsung long before they filed the suits, trying to preserve ordinary competition with a major supplier and well-financed competitor. While Apple chose the Galaxy series as being their best example of wide-spread copying, Samsung had previously copied some of Apple’s most treasured user-interface patents (including the “over-scroll” behavior that was NOT part of other Android interfaces, making it obvious that Samsung was going out of its way to mimic the Apple approach).

    The fact that “Samsung is not the first company to be influenced by innovative design” is both so anodyne and so irrelevant to US and other nations’ laws. Various nations allow for protection of names, shapes of bottles, etc. For example, if I set up a web site called “OnLine M.B.A.” that featured the University of Pheonix and their trademarked appearances, it is reasonable to expect they would sue me as soon as I presented a threat of siphoning off its audience. Ditto, a Ritholz.Com blog (note the missing “t”) called The Big Picture and featuring copycat logos.

    Or is perhaps Barry and/or whoever’s behind OnlineMBA actually granting me permission by publishing their tolerance of being “influenced” by their unique designs?

    So let’s have some honest assertions of facts — facts about what’s actually being claimed, rather than a kiddy version of the fact that there’s a dispute. Be fine to talk about whether our courts are the appropriate place to handle commercial disputes, versus, perhaps, concern-trolling websites; also fine to talk about whether somehow business now moves so rapidly that patents should be shortened to 5 years, or otherwise modified. But not this bogus “info” graphic modeled after lowest-common-denominator USA Today junk.