Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
If Apple wins, other companies will be less likely to steal original ideas created other companies.
|
Did you read the document linked in the post above yours by Scotia?
Quote:
OK, now let’s move on to the (Samsung) Blackjack II. This one had the familiar pre-iPhone Blackberry styling: a phone with a thumb keyboard, underneath an old-fashioned landscape color display, running Windows Mobile. It didn’t have a touchscreen: you navigated the UI via a jogwheel. It was released in late 2007, less than a year after the iPhone. But it was just a linear upgrade of the first Blackjack, which debuted in 2006.
Apple’s presentation breaks down the license fee thusly: the Blackjack earned a 20 percent discount because of the Samsung/Apple cross-licensing; a 40 percent discount because it used a Microsoft OS (Apple and Microsoft had an existing cross-license in place); and a 20 percent discount because it had a QWERTY keyboard.
So according to Apple, the Blackjack, a device that could hardly be more different from the iPhone, and which was initially developed before anybody outside of Apple had the slightest idea of what an iPhone would look like or behave like, is a ripoff of the iPhone to the tune of $6 per unit.
Let’s put it another way: Apple insists that the Blackjack is actually 80 percent ripped off from the iPhone, but hey, Apple’s willing to forgive $24 of the $30 Samsung owes.
And when you’ve finished wrapping your head around that one, you can check out the table on Page 18, in which Apple says that Samsung would owe $51,000,000 for licensing fees on Symbian-based and “Other” phones. On what planet is a 2006-era Nokia, or a 2005 “free with contract” 3G candybar phone, in any way a ripoff of the iPhone?
|
Apple's opinion of what's a rip off of their designs seems at odds with what I'd see as close copying of original design.
Graham