16th Aug 12, 18:51 #41
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
Where car makers feel that a rival is bringing something to market that may confuse the customer as to its origin they sue. Hence why the 911 is not called the 901 as Porsche originally intended as Peugeot successfully brought a court case against them claiming they had the right to the x-0-x numbering system as a brand. Ditto Ford vs Ferrari over the F150 name. There have been numerous court cases in China against local makers that have blatantly copied Western manufacturers.
Another difference is that car manufacturers are less secretive and are far more likely to hire expertise and share information from rival companies although they do not want the public to know about this. Hence they trade patents or simply buy the completed product fully above board from rivals negating the need for companies to sue. Again where information is thought to have been stolen from a rival they will not hesitate to sue. Check out GM suing VW for Lopez taking his corporate secrets with him ending in a $100 million cash settlement and a further agreement that VW buy $1 billion worth of spares from GM. Puts this whole Apple vs Samsung tiff into perspective.
18th Aug 12, 04:27 #42
Once certain patents are recognized as industry standards, the license holders are compelled to offer them for a reasonable price under license agreements to competitors. The European version of this requirement is called FRAND: Fair and Reasonable Use Standards. In the U.S., it is RAND: Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms. These measures are meant to ensure a certain level of device and component compatibility. But it does not give OEM's free reign to copy or use a patented products or innovations at will, even when some attempt has been made to secure a license. When that happens, or one party feels that it has happened, there will be a legal dispute, as we're seeing throughout the high tech sector now. So they go to court. And a judge and/or jury decides who is in the right. That's just what (hopefully) happens in a civil society.
And speaking of the automotive industry, Caroll Shelby most certainly did go to court to protect the "look and feel" of the Cobra design, when various companies began making Cobra replicas years ago without his permission. And rather than steal the patented technology, Ferrari pays General Motors a licensing fee for the adaptive magnetic suspension technology that it uses. A little known fact (that just came out during the Apple vs. Samsung trial) is that Apple licenses certain mobile technologies to (wait for it)... Microsoft! But MSFT is prohibited from making iPhone or iPad clones. The same thing happens in the TV industry. If Sony owns a patent, and Samsung wants to use this innovation in its TV's, it can. But it has to secure a license to (legally) do it. I have a DirecTV TiVo box in my house. It just went through a major software upgrade a few weeks ago. Lots of cool new features. And as I was digging around in the support documentation deep in the software, I noticed that TiVo has licensed certain technologies from Apple, related to the Bonjour service. That's perfectly legal. But when EchoStar attempted to lift certain TiVo features, mostly related to the TiVo Time Warp feature, and use them without paying a fee, TiVo sued them and it cost EchoStar/Dish Network a cool $500 million.
If I had just bought a high tech company for a couple of billion dollars (still hoping that my bank loan will go through for my hostile takeover of Commodore Computer ), I would hope that I would call an attorney if I had a dispute with another company. Otherwise, I could do it the Mexican Zeta Way: have my henchman go over to the rival CEO's house and shoot his dog, his cat and his kid's pet hamster (I'm gangsta like that!).
Apple feels that it has been wronged, so they lawyered up. It was either that or call Luca Brasi...
"Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
18th Aug 12, 06:16 #43
What did Apple actually invent? Internet haters, trolling various forums to spew their dislike of a very popular brand/OS combination that most actual users find rock solid and a great interface. This also created a growth in the internet fanboi revolution, though initial credit for that is mostly owned by Microsoft.
18th Aug 12, 06:41 #44
Lol airshifterWhen you're tired of rallying...you're tired of life
19th Aug 12, 01:20 #45
19th Aug 12, 19:54 #46
I made the mistake of upgrading my phone to Ice Cream Sandwich at the end of the work week. While some love it, it just slowed down my productivity the end of that week. The interface changed just enough to slow things down and make me look for things I was previously familiar with. Thus is slowed down the human part of the interface.
I don't understand the haters on either side myself. I could buy all of us in my family new iPhones and iPads, as well as computers. But I don't hate anyone because I've made a choice not to do it. Nor will I hate any non Apple users if I finally get an iPad. It just makes no sense to me, and is juvenile. There are a lot of phone features that can still be done with pencil and paper. I wonder if those choosing to use a calculator or paper calendar hate all of us technology users?
19th Aug 12, 19:55 #47
19th Aug 12, 20:01 #48Useful F1 Twitter thingy: http://goo.gl/6PO1u
19th Aug 12, 21:00 #49"Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
20th Aug 12, 08:12 #50
Apple probably invented the iMarketing and iBS.
But as regards to everything else, not even close to invention
BTW, welcome back Denial
20th Aug 12, 10:06 #51
So, in short, I'll just say this as a non-Apple user. If there was anything even remotely appealing to me about an iPhone 4S, I wouldn't have spent more money on a Galaxy S3.
20th Aug 12, 10:15 #52
20th Aug 12, 10:31 #53
20th Aug 12, 10:35 #54
What's funny is that with all of these lawsuits going on, Apple remains Samsung's biggest customer:
As court drama heats up, Apple remains Samsung's biggest client; companies closely tied on components
So, the bottom line is Samsung supplies Apple with LCDs, mobile application processors and NAND flash memory chips, and I'm sure at quite a premium.
So, whenever you're buying an Apple product, what you're essentially buying is Samsung hardware with a fancy OS at a higher price.
20th Aug 12, 11:13 #55
Sony MDR are crap compared to Shure or even Klipsch image 4i and no mobile or Mp3 can match iPhone audio.When you're tired of rallying...you're tired of life
20th Aug 12, 11:28 #56
Top 10 Smartphones for Music Lovers
Besides, when I buy a $600 smartphone, "sound quality" is not really at the top of my features list. Call sound quality, yes, but I could really be bothered less about how it plays my songs.
20th Aug 12, 11:56 #57
Can't even imagine what a quad core iPhone with expandable memory would cost like!
As far as portable products like phones, tablets like your iPhone, iPad etc., you can thank Samsung.
In fact, Pino should thank Samsung for the "amazing" sound quality of his iPhone as well, as Apple used Samsung made microprocessors.
20th Aug 12, 12:07 #58
My bad. I actually did pay less for the Galaxy S3 32GB compared to the iPhone 4S 32 GB.
So yeah, I stand by my previous statement.
20th Aug 12, 12:09 #59
20th Aug 12, 12:16 #60
Sharp will provide the LCD for the iPhone 5, but I believe the A5 processors and NAND flash memory will still be manufactured by Samsung.