Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   Apple sues Samsung and now HTC (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/99886-apple-sues-samsung-now-htc-4.html)

May be I'm biased, but then you are too

My comments are strictly on the technology side of things - in the context of this thread (patent battles) I think that is the right context to interpret. Yes Apple is doing something right - but that something is marketing, and perhaps technology execution (and I do give credit where that is due - Apple's execution is great in general though they do stumble spectacularly many a times). But not necessarily technology innovation.


I don't think you are right in this case. The hardware existed before Apple did it and the software to do it has nothing innovative in it. The only thing innovative is the feature itself (not its implementation).

If you somehow make Laser swords shown in movies like star wars (not that is is a good idea - but still) you get credit for actually developing technology that puts hollywood fantasy into practice.

If the technology already existed for something to be implemented (that too in earlier commercial products and prototypes) then the only credit due to the "inventor" is in the uniqueness of features - not in how those are implemented. If those features have be conceived by someone else then you add nothing.

Of course, marketing it is another thing and I do give Apple credit for that. I just don't want to call any product revolutionary because its marketers were clever and resourceful at their job.


I don't know about latest iPhones but the earlier generation iPhones (I used gen 2 for some time) could hardly multi-task and iPad still can't even today. There are numerous reports on the internet for this so I wont go into details.


Those are idealistic assumptions and you are underplaying the power of branding here. My sister bought an iPhone because her friends had it - still doesn't know how to use many features. Do you think her purchase decision was based on technological merits?

Also, I never said Apple products are not good - they are damn good and from what I know working in semiconductors I can tell you that Apple does make a bigger effort than the other guys to get consistently good quality into both their design and manufacturing (though they do slip sometimes when the focus is somewhere else - like in the signal strength controversy)

My claim is just that they are not revolutionary.


Regarding whether they will survive or not, Apple for most of its history has been moderately unsuccessful by and large. Its fortunes changed around the turn of the last century with iPod which was a well timed device with some nice features and "cool" interfaces. I can tell you some of the factors beyond Apple's control that played a role (read about the loosening of credit which meant you could buy not just overpriced Apple products but 0.5million dollar homes without actually having an income), but I do agree that Apple has shown an ability to time the markets right and manage consumer expectations and experience very well - these things are less technology and much more marketing.



There is no coincidence there - once something is successful people will imitate. You tell me is it co-incidence that after netbooks became a huge success, kindle created a niche, and Palm almost went belly up Apple found the "brilliant revolutionary idea" of iPad? I agree any day that iPad is a superior (and for once a VFM, compared to other tablets) product than every other one in the market, but revolutionary?! Come on.

Why Apple's law suit against Samsung is risky


LOL:D

I agree whole heartedly that Apple revolutionized smart phones. The Iphone was a game changer for the industry. But what i don't like is that Apple wants to root out competition by suing competitors instead of simply making better products than them.
My problem with them is that they didn't invent anything on the Iphone. Everything used in the Iphone were just elements from other phones/ products but they put them together into a great package and provided a great end user experience. So when they liberally copied from others, why do they have to sue others for copying them? Steve Jobs himself said that he copies a lot from others.
Another problem with Apple is that they get away with blatant lying in their marketing claims. Apple claims to invent everything while they simply copy from others and make it better and simpler for the end user. When the Iphone4 was launched, Steve Jobs made it seem like they invented video calling and everyone faithfully reported it as if it was true. Similary with the Iphone, they claimed they invented multitouch and that they were the first phone to have a full browser on the phone, ignoring the fact that Opera Mobile had been doing that before on other platforms.
When Safari 4 was launched, Apple claimed they had invented 150 new features, most of which were already present or had been invented by other browsers like Opera, Firefox etc. So why the double standards?
I think this is more to do with Apple getting scared of other companies stealing their bread and butter market ( Iphone and Ipad ). That is why they have gone after HTC and Samsung, who are their biggest competitors in this market.

@NewPunter: Corporate litigation esp. in the US is most of the time not about defending your IPR. It is about inconveniencing or slowing down the other guy. In fact I am surprised that Apple has not sued RIM till now.

Take the case of th3 Pharma industry. Most of the litigation is about delaying the launch of the generic. Now the same fellows are coming to India for contract manufacturing.

You are spot on sir, in fact your first post mentioned that between the lines - Apple suing others because (finally) others are catching up.

I do not agree with this article. Samsung is not doing charity here, if Apple withdraws from the processor deal, Samsung would lose that share of revenue. Anyway, I do not think that the legal team at apple are ignorant of this deal and they might have thought about all of this before suing.

Anyway apple has a weak case, I just see it as a marketing strategy to hinder the launch of Galaxy s2 and launch the iphone 5 before it.

Well while Samsung is not doing charity, Apple is dependent on Samsung in the short term to a good extent. Not only does Samsung manufacture the processors Apple uses, it also manufactures the flash memories. Given the Japan earthquake and the resulting bottlenecks in semiconductors, moving production away from Samsung will be tricky at best and more likely impossible without seriously disrupting apple's own products.

I do agree with you that Apple lawyers would have thought of all eventualities (for all you know they may have a backchannel negotiating with Samsung right now) and more likely than not this is just for the show.

Samsung has now counter sued Apple saying Apple is violating 5 of Samsung's patents. Seems like the lawyers are the only ones who will profit from this whole mess.

There is no point blaming Apple or Samsung. The whole patent environment is such(and software is the most messy). All companies would do similar things if they can.
Samsung should learn from other Android manufacturers and stop copying Apple.
Dont know what stage is the suit against HTC is.

How does all this suing affect us end users?

If Apple had its way completely, no other Companies could manufacture phones with rectangular shapes and rounded corners, multi touch screen, pinch to zoom gestures etc. :D , or if they did, they would be very costly as they would have to pay royalty to Apple for "inventing" these features.

Lots of presumptions here ,

This is just another suit. Time and again a mobile company sues another mobile company for some thing or the other. I have hardly seen any decisions in such cases.

Not much effect on end user in next two to five years. Such lawsuits take time to decide and during that time companies continue their business as usual.

Longer term also it is unlikely that Apple will win everything (or even anything) - more likely than not it'll end out of court.

1. You pay <del>for</del> the lawyers. (I will not buy products from a patent aggressor).

2. We <del>You</del> wait more for the new features / upgrades - the tech R&D team is spending more time talking with the lawyers than in R&D.

3. We will not get all the "best and attractive" features in one device. Each feature will be painted into its own corner.

4. Cross licensing - will drive up costs and raise barriers for new entrants - leading to oligopoly and cartel like situations.

5. Innovation will suffer. Actually, a corollary / rephrasing of #2.

6. Businesses hate uncertainty. Patents are, by definition, "defeasible rights". (that is what Salmond calls them in his book on Jurisprudence). Means - uncertain rights. Patents and successful businesses are mutually exclusive. When forced to co-exist, customers will end up feeling like kids whose parents are constantly at loggerheads.