View Single Post
Old 08-25-2012, 01:01 PM   #300
afv011
Captain Penguin
afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afv011's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,966
Karma: 2079999999
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Device: Kobo Clara BW, Kobo Libra 2, Nook Glowlight
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres View Post
Exactly.
Apple and Samsung will come to terms at some point and they'll move on to the serious business of making money.
But the point has been made that Apple will fight if you copy their product *successfully*. Let's not forget there's a zillion no-name iPxxx clones floating around. Most are just gnats so Apple ignores them. But if any of the gnats get big enough...

It isn't even terribly hard to design stuff to be different enough; even minor cosmetic tweaks will do. And cheaper than a big legal fight.

And it's not just Apple products that benefit from the extra protection; if the verdict and awards hold up the example will cover other vendors with distinctive designs like Sony and Microsoft. Not a totally bad outcome if you like diversity of choice. (If nothing else, we are spared a market where every smartphone looks like an Apple soap bar.)
I have no issues with Sammy being fined for copying the iPhone (the original Samsung S looked rather similar, though newer phones are radically different), but the Apple patents should have been tossed out due to prior art. The evidence was there.
afv011 is offline   Reply With Quote