Not sure myself if this is for the best or not. A lot of good for sure but a lot of bad. People are so distracted wether they are driving, working, socializing, etc. It's becoming a problem for employers. We have contract electricians that now spend more time texting than running conduit. If I have to sit behind another woman at a green light that isn't moving because her head is in her lap looking at her phone!!!
not too long ago, i was lost in a foreign country after a night of drunken debauchery. the only reason i found my way back to where we were staying was because of my phone and Google maps. smartphones have improved our lives far more than the few negatives of people acting like ######s (and they will act like ######s regardless if they have a shiny new phone or not)
not too long ago, i was lost in a foreign country after a night of drunken debauchery. the only reason i found my way back to where we were staying was because of my phone and Google maps. smartphones have improved our lives far more than the few negatives of people acting like ######s (and they will act like ######s regardless if they have a shiny new phone or not)
And the reason this ticks me off is because I think the competition between Samsung & Apple is the reason we're seeing such amazing phones. Our whole world has changed in the past 5 years because of smartphones.
If Apple is able to get rid of the competition because of 'rounded corners' it sets a pretty bad precedent for any other company making smartphones.
Apple isn't getting rid of the competition through these lawsuits though - look at the Note and Note 10.1 - interesting and differentiated products. Same with the Nexus 7, Microsoft's offerings, RIM's, etc. I still maintain that a lot of this patent arms war is working as intended - companies can license or protect their innovation and product dressage as they see fit, and it keeps the products and designs from heading too much towards homogeneity.
Meh you are just butthurt. I like Samsung but wether it be Apple or Sony they have copied a lot of companies best ideas to get where they are now and it's a fine line that gets crossed by a lot of companies. It's not like this will cripple them or anything as it's still business as usual and won't be the last time they are sued.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether there was a perhaps some excessive inspiration in some of Samsung's designs, but any decision made should be fair, impartial and will not limit future innovation. What is becoming more and more evident is this doesn't seem to be the case.
Apple isn't getting rid of the competition through these lawsuits though - look at the Note and Note 10.1 - interesting and differentiated products. Same with the Nexus 7, Microsoft's offerings, RIM's, etc. I still maintain that a lot of this patent arms war is working as intended - companies can license or protect their innovation and product dressage as they see fit, and it keeps the products and designs from heading too much towards homogeneity.
All the while greatly increasing costs to consumers.
No real evidence of that - everything is getting progressively cheaper, or more capable for the same price.
Actually there is and it has to do with the IP related costs as a percentage of a cell phone price. The more IP costs the producer, the more the costs are passed to the consumer as a cost of doing business. Business have to maintain a certain margin to have products become economically viable. If the cost is too high the project will not get approval during the Business Opportunity Assessment. Right now the consumer pays 15-20% the selling price of a cell phone in patent costs because of litigation. More on this here. http://www.economist.com/node/17309237
Historically this was at close to 10% a decade earlier, what will it be in the next decade given this sort of litigation? I'd say we're looking at a increase given the overall increase in the rate of litigation... 25-30% is possible and not unreasonable. Given Apple is asking for a $30 license fee and the costs of the license fees will be passed directly onto the consumer as an additional cost of doing business. At a 15%(conservative) of $699 (SGSII MSRP) the consumer pays ~$105 in legal costs. Passing the additional $30 fee on to the consumer we now pay $135 on a $739 cell phone or 18%, 3% more than you originally had to pay in unseen legal fees. Without all this litigation you'd be even paying less for your goods. Litigation is extremely bad from a consumer perspective because of increased Cost of Goods or COGs (or limitation of consumer choice through cancelled projects) and taxes you pay for the courts to run these court cases that could be much better spent, I don't know... prosecuting some felons for example.
So yes, litigation = real harm to consumers not in the future but right now, its going up even more given the precedent set by this case encouraging more litigious behaviour and there's plenty of proof if you bother to look.
Actually there is and it has to do with the IP related costs as a percentage of a cell phone price. The more IP costs the producer, the more the costs are passed to the consumer as a cost of doing business. Business have to maintain a certain margin to have products become economically viable. If the cost is too high the project will not get approval during the Business Opportunity Assessment. Right now the consumer pays 15-20% the selling price of a cell phone in patent costs because of litigation. More on this here. http://www.economist.com/node/17309237
Historically this was at close to 10% a decade earlier, what will it be in the next decade given this sort of litigation? I'd say we're looking at a increase given the overall increase in the rate of litigation... 25-30% is possible and not unreasonable. Given Apple is asking for a $30 license fee and the costs of the license fees will be passed directly onto the consumer as an additional cost of doing business. At a 15%(conservative) of $699 (SGSII MSRP) the consumer pays ~$105 in legal costs. Passing the additional $30 fee on to the consumer we now pay $135 on a $739 cell phone or 18%, 3% more than you originally had to pay in unseen legal fees. Without all this litigation you'd be even paying less for your goods. Litigation is extremely bad from a consumer perspective because of increased Cost of Goods or COGs (or limitation of consumer choice through cancelled projects) and taxes you pay for the courts to run these court cases that could be much better spent, I don't know... prosecuting some felons for example.
So yes, litigation = real harm to consumers not in the future but right now, its going up even more given the precedent set by this case encouraging more litigious behaviour and there's plenty of proof if you bother to look.
That assumes that hardware costs and market size remain fixed - with hardware costs always decreasing, and the market expanding (at at an enormous pace right now), you can realize sustained, or even increased profits despite a margins decrease. Declining margins are pretty much the norm for the IT hardware business.
The other thing is that the patent licensing is a two way street - the cross-licensing involved by all parties helps to level the field. The parties with more patents obviously come out a bit ahead, since its not a perfect zero-sum game, but this stands to reason since more patents means more spent on R&D (or on acquisitions), so the costs are incurred elsewhere. I suppose we could argue that the cross-licensing model isn't working, and that's why companies are going to court, but with billion dollar settlements being handed out I'm not convinced that is a trend that will continue for long.
And the reason this ticks me off is because I think the competition between Samsung & Apple is the reason we're seeing such amazing phones. Our whole world has changed in the past 5 years because of smartphones.
If Apple is able to get rid of the competition because of 'rounded corners' it sets a pretty bad precedent for any other company making smartphones.
Not to mention the stupidity on which the jury acted.
We have great phones because Apple made the iphone and everyone started to copy it.
First they laughed at it, then they copied it.
If it weren't for Apple we'd still be using BBs with a scroll wheel and physical keyboard phones. Give a little credit to Apple, they changed the smartphone industry. What has Samsung brought to the table? What did they innovate exactly?
Samsung can stuff it. Same for all the other Korean copy cats.
We have great phones because Apple made the iphone and everyone started to copy it.
First they laughed at it, then they copied it.
If it weren't for Apple we'd still be using BBs with a scroll wheel and physical keyboard phones. Give a little credit to Apple, they changed the smartphone industry. What has Samsung brought to the table? What did they innovate exactly?
Samsung can stuff it. Same for all the other Korean copy cats.
That assumes that hardware costs and market size remain fixed - with hardware costs always decreasing, and the market expanding (at at an enormous pace right now), you can realize sustained, or even increased profits despite a margins decrease. Declining margins are pretty much the norm for the IT hardware business.
The other thing is that the patent licensing is a two way street - the cross-licensing involved by all parties helps to level the field. The parties with more patents obviously come out a bit ahead, since its not a perfect zero-sum game, but this stands to reason since more patents means more spent on R&D (or on acquisitions), so the costs are incurred elsewhere. I suppose we could argue that the cross-licensing model isn't working, and that's why companies are going to court, but with billion dollar settlements being handed out I'm not convinced that is a trend that will continue for long.
You're missing the point, even if hardware costs decreased and market size expanded, the consumer is still paying more in litigation costs that he/she would otherwise not have had to pay without litigation or fair cross licensing deals that were previously considered norm. Even if the overall price of a smartphone decreases (which it has not with SGS BOM costs of $200 and SGSII BOM costs of $209 vs MSRP of $649 and $699 respectively... seems to indicate they just packed more in at the roughly the same price), the price would have dropped more had the legal fees not played a factor in the overall costs. That is harm to the consumer.
What makes you think the trend will stop? I'd also argue that billion dollar settlements will set the precedent of increasing consumer costs that otherwise not have be paid by the consumer with either increasing royalty fees in lopsided licensing deals or larger/more numerous settlements. This settlement has set the precedent that non-essential design patents are worth more than entire corporations and their patents. Lawyers and corporations will go to where the money is. Until there is real patent reform in the States, the trend is likely to continue. It has for the past two decades and with continued bipartisan bickering I doubt any meaningful reform will come in the next.
Steve Jobs' last wish starting to come into fruition.
You can stick me in the Apple camp. (obvious to people that follow the Stock thread)
1. This sets a bad precedent for the patent war. Arm yourself with a chest of patents, hire the best lawyers and go at it. Tech patents are already out of hand, the US government needs to fix their patent system.
2. Samsung is a good copier, this is a drop in the bucket for them. It was cheaper for them to copy than to spend money on R&D like Apple did. Copy, then improve on the phone.
3. The ruling itself should create more innovation, which in the long run is bad for Apple. On the other hand, you have a better ROI by buying up patents and creating patents on ideas rather than creating an end product.
So you have a personal vendetta against Jobs and Apple....figures.
BTW, here is how that quote is interpreted by some.
“Picasso hardly meant that great artists steal popular designs whose original source is known to everyone. What Picasso did mean was that great artists rummage through the great junk heap of lost, bypassed, and forgotten ideas to find the rare jewels, and then incorporate such languishing gems into their own personal artistic legacy.”
If it weren't for Apple we'd still be using BBs with a scroll wheel and physical keyboard phones.
Hm....
Quote:
Jobs was furious.... "You're ripping us off!" he shouted. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!" Gates just sat there coolly, looking Steve in the eye, before hurling back, in his squeaky voice, what became a classic zinger. "Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
I really don't get why people idolize all these figures so much. If anything Gates deserves much more credit for what he's doing in the world with his money. Jobs by contrast was just good at packaging things and refining things that appeal to the broader consumer. While Gates has been doing stuff much more morally and socially beneficial. http://www.businessweek.com/manageme...rss_topStories http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...taxes-justice/
We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.
Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.
However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.
The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.
