The situation is reversed already, Samsung has stated that Apple uses many of their Apps also not to mention that Samsung manufactures almost as many parts for the Iphone and Ipad as Apple does. If Samsung were to freeze shipments of components to Apple there would be no more Iphones or Ipads for months while Apple looked for another vendor who would manufacture the Samsung patented components for them then we would have a real show. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=samsung%20components%20in%20apple&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashgear.com%2Fapple-to-spend-11bn-on-samsung-parts-in-2012-claims-exec-13218118%2F&ei=RTgrUIm4H8e9iwKAzYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNHlwDqvXqd4YHk6dM2GrBY0FgbaWw
A 3rd-party source conducted their own survey with a more comprehensive selection of features, and the relevant features that Apple contends were worth about $10 per device combined, not $100 like the Apple survey ridiculously suggests.
If we put it in terms of an app to make it do that, the only thing in my mind worth paying perhaps as much as a buck for would be the pinch/zoom and doubletap. That's cool and I first saw that on an iPhone. The bounceback stuff is not even worth a free app with advertisements. That being said, if you multiply the number of android phones times $1, I'm guessing that's a big number.
This supposed survey is a joke. Nobody will pay $100 extra for some UI features that are not valid patents. In the end, I suspect the court ruling in the case between Apple and Samsung to not be favorable to either party. The government will step in for anti-trust reasons and block everything once one side decides to appeal whatever ruling comes down. The government, whether it is the US, the EU, China, or whatever, will never allow one company to control the whole cell phone industry.
This is nonsense--I most definitely would not pay $100 for the privilege of reverse-pinching---I maybe could spare a hundred cents, if I didn't feel revulsed by this whole situation.
I think the study is self serving, and Apple should be ashamed as a technology company for playing this game. My personal take on their attitude is that they ran out of good ideas for the future, so they seek rent on competitors and ultimately end users. I support the IP rights for significant inventions, like the idea of multitouch--too bad Apple didn't invent that either, like they didn't invent the mouse or windows.
I can't believe those things actually were patented. Double tap to zoom? How is that non-obvious when we're been doing double-click to zoom for ages? Bounce-back? Of course you're going to have a moving thing bounce back if you're trying to emulate real-world behavior. It's a basic physics simulation. I'm sure someone must have done it before.
I am so sick of innovation being blocked at every turn by obvious stuff being patented left and right. It has to stop. Can we drop the last 10 years of patents and start over by patenting only real inventions please?
You're seeing the difference first hand between the "white box" model that IBM used in rolling out the PC vs the "feature ecosystem" approach of Apple with smartphones and tablets. Samsung walked into the difference in models as if head first into a buzz saw. It will be interesting to see if the "feature ecosystem" is defensible. If it is, bye bye white box forever and we'll have a lot of unlearning to do. This will usher in the era of differentiated user value, and out with technical data sheet superiority.
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.