Who is stealing from whom? It depends on which court case is under discussion since Apple and Samsung are busy suing each other in various courts around the world, with similar allegations going in both directions.
The tablet case got tossed in England: judge said the Samsung was not cool enough. However, the phones are pretty competitive since Apple's marketing department won't let them release a unit with the latest features--have to hold some back for the next release.
Apple will next need to sue HTC, Huawei, and even Nokia if they hurry before Nokia fades away: they all have touch screen smart phones; maybe even use the users of those phones: I'm probably violating Apple's patents by using another brand of smartphone.
Perhaps Motorola should sue Apple for using the cell phone concept.
Check out how many lawsuits Apple has filed of late.
What is stealing? Tablets were invented as far back as the 1960s, and featured prominently in the original Star Trek series. As were cell phones. Is Apple compensating Gene Roddenderry?
This lawsuit is all about fashion statements. One guy rounds the corners and finishes his toys in shiny white, suddenly only they can develop toys with rounded corners and shiny white finish? Come now.
Fashion always works this way. It's in one day and out the next. You shouldn't expect to hire legions of lawyers every time some of your fashion ideas are imitated to some degree.
Is it in reality about Android vs iOS? That would make these law suits even more absurd.
Many of you seem to be missing the point. Stealing is illegal. Just as you can't drive somebody's car around when they are at work and not using it, and you can't live in their house when they are on vacation, you can't use somebody's intellectual property. AND, if Samsung really believed any of Apple's patents were invalid, they could ask to have them reexamined by the Patent Office. The cost of a reexamination is a lot less than they pay their lawyers for the preparation and appearance in just one hour of court time. Rather than taking their invalidity arguments to the Patent Office which has the necessary technical and legal experience to decide validity their lawyers are hoping to hoodwink a jury that doesn't have those skills.
Well put: from a user standpoint, it is a waste of resources of both companies, but "someone" (the atorneys & support staff) will benefit greatly. When I walked into the AT&T store to upgrade my phone it was pretty hard to confuse the S2 with the iPhone: oh, wait, they are both white, how confusing!! Good thing Samsung made the S3 larger to minimise that confusion.
Well lawyers need to make a living right and with companies like Apple, Samsung and the likes willing to spend big bucks on such trivial pointless cases, I would say lawyers take the opportunity to send their kids to great schools. One man's foolishness tends to benefit others now, doesn't it?!
The Apple testimony about users being confused and buying a Samsung phone instead of an iPhone is an insult to anyone shelling out so much on a phone anyway. Whether right or wrong, people turn against this type of nonsense. MIPS had 64-bits and multicore long before ARM, but the headlines are ARM vs Intel, with no mention of MIPS. Why? My guess is people avoid them due to the past patent nonsense about unaligned instruction access. Apple's iSheep (me included there) will think twice about another Apple purchase as the products are really much of a muchness. Being locked into the iTunes ecochain also needs a rethink if you care to read the agreement about Apple being able to use your technology in light of their appetite for court time.
I think too that the innovations talked about aren't real patents. They seem more like copyright material. Like the work of an artist.
But if this were copyright... would there be a difference in demands?
Perhaps in the fight to make the better product, is quite difficult not to make something similar to what others have made already.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.