Last week's verdicts in California and South Korea along with previous
rulings in Europe mean the two companies must eventually sit down and
work out a compromise. That won't happen soon, but eventually cooler
heads will prevail. A cross-licensing deal remains a good bet.
Apple isn’t getting much backing in the blogosphere. In fact, the
majority of comments I have seen opposed last Friday’s verdict, and
that's the greater danger Apple faces as consumers digest its verdict.
Indeed, the victory over Samsung has reinforced the impression of Apple
as industry "bully”. Many of the comments in a BBC were critical of the verdict
without actually praising Samsung. Some said the decision would allow
Apple to patent concepts that shouldn’t be protected by patent law.
some contend that Apple can use its patent victory to whittle down
Samsung's dominance of the smartphone market, I don't see it happening.
Android OS devices won't fall off the map (its 68 percent market share
may dip a bit) and Microsoft's Windows OS is unlikely to move much
higher than its current 5.4 percent market share. Any Samsung devices
banned as a result of the decision will be quickly replaced. Samsung
rolls out new devices must faster than Apple, which has so far shifted
to a roughly 10 month iPhone replacement cycle.
aftermath of the patent decision may be short-lived, what will remain
are irritated consumers, an equally disappointed supply base and a
royally ticked off rival-partner in Samsung. As a critical component
supplier to Apple, Samsung is unlikely to shoot itself in the foot. Look
for the two power houses to continue to thrust and parry in court while
looking for ways to live with one another.
But the patent awards have nothing to do with the OS from what is written in this rag.
So the whole MS upside is BS.
If I'm wrong spell out the patent infringments that have something to do with the OS.
Perhaps, but every company makes decisions on where they do parts of their work. There is no doubt in the fact that Apple products, regardless where they are made, has cost many US jobs. All you have to do is look at their profit margins and you can see that they had choices, they chose greed.
Just my opinion.
"...and bringing attention to their destruction of US centric jobs."
Erebus, I have pondered this plenty and I've come to the conclusion that China being what it is, it was innevitable that low-end manufacturing jobs would go over there. And that the ~42000 jobs that Apple (and/or others who use the same business model) has created over here to be a sign of success in these changing times.
I know this may be a bit off topic, but what is the meaning of the famous Apple logo - the apple with the bite out of it?
The two famous myths that have an apple with a byte from it are Eve and the serpent and Snow White and the witch.
No doubt Apple products are tempting. Who is the snake or witch supposed to be?
Apple is presenting the image of "The Ugly American" to the world. It is not insignificant that the trial was in the backyard of Apple headquarters and the jurors were all from Silicon Valley where foreign competition means job threat. Apple did not clean up in any of the other similar court cases in the world where there was far less conflict of interest. To many in the rest of the world, the trial has all the appearance of an American lynch mob.
Let's face it, Apple did not invent the smartphone. Apple stole a lot more from Xerox Park and RIM's Blackberry than Android stole from Apple. There's few that can challenge the legal might of the world's wealthiest American corporation.
i am one of those disappointed at the verdict. i do believe one company should not have monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners and a bezel (which i believe is prior art in itself). All the utility patents are basically 'user interface' patents and it's the implementation of those that should have been granted patents, not the feature itself.
i do believe this verdict will cost the consumer, and that too for patents that are not valid in my opinion.
I would agree that there were many different styles, however it seemed like every major company offered a phone of each type. I could hardly tell my LG flip phone apart from my wife's Samsung, both silver, both had almost identical keypads, etc.
The Apple iPhone5 is going to be the first Apple smartphone with a 16:9 display, and yet Samsung has been selling that aspect ratio for some time now. So are we going to see a big rukus about that in the near future? I would think everyone would have migrated to 16:9 by now, simply because that has become the new normal, ever since the first digital TVs. And yet, how does that not constitute "trade dress"?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.