Seeking Alpha

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has granted Apple (AAPL) a preliminary injunction on U.S. sales of...

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has granted Apple (AAPL) a preliminary injunction on U.S. sales of Samsung's (SSNLF.PK) Galaxy Nexus phone, which it co-developed with Google (GOOG). The ruling comes two days after a preliminary injunction was granted on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. A recent William Blair report claimed the Galaxy Nexus has been Verizon's #3 phone in June. An Apple patent covering unified voice and text search drew the injunction.
Comments (106)
  • pagreen1966
    , contributor
    Comments (571) | Send Message
     
    Little by little Apple is eating the Google elephant!
    29 Jun 2012, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12717) | Send Message
     
    More like getting eaten: http://bit.ly/QC5yuZ
    1 Jul 2012, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • GSlusher
    , contributor
    Comments (1279) | Send Message
     
    @Tack:

     

    The information that goes into charts like that varies in reliability. Apple announces iPhone sales; Samsung does NOT announce phone sales, at all. What you have are guesses by analysts that could be off by 10-25%.
    1 Jul 2012, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • sawchain
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    Chalk one up for the little guy! ;)

     

    Eric Schmidt's treachery is rearing its ugly head.
    29 Jun 2012, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Apple is the little guy? You have a strange definition of little. :)
    29 Jun 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • jbfiacco
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    Steve Jobs refuses to die. He made a vow and he is sticking to it.
    29 Jun 2012, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • podmeister
    , contributor
    Comments (54) | Send Message
     
    Interesting to see how this will play out in court. I get the feeling that Apple is playing chess while Samsung & Google are playing checkers.
    29 Jun 2012, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • noidea2
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    finally, why does it take so long?
    29 Jun 2012, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • GSlusher
    , contributor
    Comments (1279) | Send Message
     
    Do note that this relates to Samsung, NOT to Google. There's more to it than Android, as the suit relating to the Galaxy Tab showed.
    29 Jun 2012, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • consultnick
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    I love how all of the conspirators/idea thieves are running uphill into machine-gun fire. We are witnessing their fragmentation as they begin to work against each other, and try to eat each other’s lunch while Apple eats them all: Nokia and Microsoft's liaison has come to naught, Google is wobbling off to do battle with Amazon's Kindle--a fool's errand for sure, and if Apple introduces a 7" I Pad it will eat both of them, too; Samsung is now showing that it is really more of a competitor than an ally with its entries into phones and tablets that rely on Apple's ideas, for which it is being "disciplined" in serially punitive court decisions; Google has a new competitor in the tablet and phone world with Microsoft closing in on it....It's getting rather messy out there in the bushes of Wild land, beyond Apple's peaceful walled garden burgeoning with contented and transfixed users. Even RIM, which has showed no predatory or unseemly behavior, is caving in, and may well fall into Microsoft’s arms—and they will both rub out In a mutually destructive spiral as they only extend the labyrinthine Microsoft operating system further into the phone community….arrrrgggghhh.

     

    No informed consumer is going to buy anything from any of them as they shoot it out at the OK Corral of the Marketplace. No IT manager in his/her right mind is going to spec any of these new devices that are probably destined to become distant Zune/zombie-like memories within a year, especially when they can be replaced with a proven and tightly integrated cost-effective information and communication ecosystem that has proven to have enabled their employees to be outrageously productive, while dealing with none of the vexing daily torture of endless violations, forced upgrades and policing inherent in dealing with Microsoft. And it’s a discussion as to just exactly who is a more unwelcome invasive kudzu vine of infiltration--Microsoft or Google. Meanwhile, Samsung is looking like a completely untrustworthy partner in device manufacturing, which will no doubt lead Cook to deploy some portion of Apple's $100,000,000,000 in cash to replace them with either their own manufacturing capability, or to acquire a cluster of capable and trustworthy allies in the semiconductor and sub-assembly space--who's defining characteristic will be loyalty.

     

    At last we see Schmidt's conspiratorial trespass against Apple yielding the fruit of hubris--Google will fail to beat Apple at its own game. They will be punished. They may well succeed in many endeavors where they have strength--such as advertising--but they will never penetrate Apple's core of satisfied customers.
    29 Jun 2012, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • pollyserial
    , contributor
    Comments (1055) | Send Message
     
    I hate to break it to you, but Apple isn't really the lovable little guy that gives its users freedom any more.
    30 Jun 2012, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. Knowitall
    , contributor
    Comments (7367) | Send Message
     
    @consultnick

     

    Apple invented hubris! What are you talking about?

     

    I love how a post like this with no content that just loves on Apple and hates on {fill in the blank of Apples competitors} gets 16 likes.

     

    Look, Apple is Jim Dandy and all, but Apple's entire industry is built upon two products, iPhone & iPad. And when you realize they are really the same device with just different form factors and the entire Apple ecosystem is also inextricably tied to Apple's product singularity, you may come to appreciate the Samsungs and Microsofts of the world that are built upon a pyramid of successful products.

     

    So by all means, keep cheering the the Apple ever-faithful, but keep in mind, Apple's 15 minutes of fame will one day run out, and as of today, they have no fallback position.

     

    I do like Apple products, and I very much like the direction they are taking their iTunes and iCloud http://bit.ly/LYKZFs but I also have no delusions about Apples precarious position.
    Apple must, and I cannot stress this enough, diversify their product offerings and stabilize their product foundation.
    Did you know samsung makes ovens and washing machines too?!!

     

    In conclusion, both Microsoft and Samsung could totally lose their mobile business and survive with gusto.. Apple on the other hand would likely go back owning 2% of the desktop market and the stock would probably drop to $12.
    1 Jul 2012, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    The point of the business is not the hardware it is the software and offerings coupled with it. The vision and creating value for users that users want is what Apple has accomplished.

     

    If they can protect this vision with patents that hold up they have a lock on the market. If not anyone can just make a knock off product and sell it for less, what is the value in that!

     

    Until a company steps up and takes the leadership they are just following Apple, no creativity. This is not Iphone, Ipad, Ipod, mac discussion this is stealing intellectual property. What was the cost to Apple to make this design and create this value? This is intellectual property that they paid for and have exclusive rights to. Good for them.
    2 Jul 2012, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    @Luke
    Apple's philosophy is to keep themselves focused on a small number of profitable and integrated products. Even then, there is more than just one product. The Apple product line was Mac personal computers, then the iPod, prior to the iPhone success, then we have the iTV. Because of the out-sized success of the iPhone and the iPad, the business does indeed look lopsided, but it really comes from the huge success of those products rather than a faulty strategy on Apple's part.

     

    In comparison, Samsung and Microsoft have not been able to garner the profits in mobile, so of course they can survive the loss. Could Microsoft survive losing Windows? or Office?

     

    As for vulnerability, the moat of Apple in the form of brand loyalty, their developed ecosystem, and integrated products, there is a relatively solid future for the products.

     

    http://bit.ly/LMDiky

     

    Of course, there are always risks to any company, and they must be balanced against the strengths. No company, even Apple is without faults or vulnerabilities...
    2 Jul 2012, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Knowitall
    , contributor
    Comments (7367) | Send Message
     
    @Ronin

     

    Good reply ronin.
    Apple does have other products, but they are a minuscule part of their revenue; I don't see iTV or iPod helping them much in case of iPhone collapse. Sure Apple might survive, but people in at $500-$600 would be hurting bad.

     

    As far as the moat, I don't believe it as deep as many think. I use much of iCloud and I've found I can move fluidly (at least portions) to other cloud offerings fairly easily, in some cases drop-dead easy.
    Take music for instance. I subscribe to Apple's iTunes Match, it costs me $25 per year. All of my music is now available on all my registered computers. However I also installed Google Music. Google Music automatically and in the background uploads all of my iTunes library to it's free 20,000 song cloud storage so now all my music is available on any computer and streamed to my Android device. So this at least does not provide any depth to Apple's Mote.

     

    I rent Movies on iTunes, but I also rent Movies on Amazon. Again, no real depth to Apple's moat.

     

    I contend that Apple's ecosystem is the best out there, but there is little lock (save the investment in apps) that can keep me there should I jump ship for another device.

     

    WRT the App moat, this is real. Apple does have a pretty good lock on customers because of the time and money investment in App store apps.
    There are a couple aspects to this particular lock I find interesting. One is that should someone decide to switch handsets, say a Galaxy or Lumia, etc, then they would likely be pi**ed off that there was zero portability of these apps. Everything is fine as long as you're happy with your handset! The other interesting aspect would be if Samsung/Microsoft etc gave you app store credits for their app store for any apps you purchased from Apple. This would almost completely wipe out the only moat I see Apple as having.
    2 Jul 2012, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Luke, I agree that it would be catastrophic to loose iPhone profits, fortunately, that would not be an overnight process. As an investor in tech, I don't recommend that anyone invest in these companies without maintaining a close eye on the landscape. It is a fast-moving sector, to be sure. Even though I'm bullish, I am always watching. Tech stocks aren't like utilities, you can't "buy and forget". There is a lot of profit to get a piece of, though. You don't trust Apple's business enough to invest, Luke?
    2 Jul 2012, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Knowitall
    , contributor
    Comments (7367) | Send Message
     
    @ronin,

     

    I *want* to trust Apple's business enough to invest! That's why I care enough to complain. I'm often long INTC, MSFT because I believe they have a sustainable business model. I'm also long NOK in a speculative way - but a position in which I believe I can articulate.
    Apple on the other hand bothers me greatly in that while I currently own several iPhones (me and my kids) and subscribe to at least one of their cloud services, I have serious doubts that they can sustain let alone advance this insane trajectory.

     

    In a nutshell, I believe:
    1. Apple had a marketing genius in Steve Jobs
    2. This trait cannot be passed along
    3. Steve's brilliance coupled with perfect timing totally owned the mobile market
    4. Apples technological lead position is eroding quickly
    5. Middle schoolers don't care about Apples glam or history

     

    These things taken together spell trouble for Apple in the next 2-3 years. I can see Apple as a short term position, day traded, or even shorted.. but I cannot bring myself to go long when they have proven with the last several ho-hum upgrades to iPad and iPhone that they are simply another mobile device manufacturer now (and quite expensive.)
    3 Jul 2012, 03:34 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Well, nothing is wrong with enjoying them as a consumer, while avoiding their stock. I have the exact same attitude toward Amazon. I love to buy things through their business, but I avoid the stock like the plague... Personally, I've made a lot long AAPL, and recently short NOK and RIMM... I closed out my RIMM, and am watching to possibly exit NOK too...

     

    Good luck out there Luke!
    3 Jul 2012, 05:40 AM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1037) | Send Message
     
    You're way off target here, Luke, regarding kids' preferences. Middle school kids do indeed care about Apple's "glam." The iPod Touch is one of the hottest commodities among middle schoolers in 2012. They aspire to own an iPad, but the iPod Touch is more affordable to them.
    
    Source: Middle school kids who are relatives.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1335) | Send Message
     
    Thou shall not steal (unless you are Google).
    29 Jun 2012, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Sock Hunter
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    "Do no evil" (unless you are stealing).
    30 Jun 2012, 05:54 AM Reply Like
  • fAncap
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Intellectual "property" is not property.
    30 Jun 2012, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Sock Hunter
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    "Don't be evil" (unless you're taking someone else's Intellectual property)
    30 Jun 2012, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Someone take a bite of the forbidden fruit...lol
    1 Jul 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Why only against the galaxy nexus when this is for the integrated Voice and Search?

     

    Why does apple even get a patent for that given people have been talking to computers in movies for decades?
    29 Jun 2012, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    Patent law is a bit more complicated than having an idea. You need to draw up the documentation such that when the patent expires, a moderated skilled person in that field should be able to replicate its design. So while people may have been talking to computers in movies for decades, Apple may have patented the techniques that the computer uses to process the request.

     

    This is also why many companies are afraid of patenting their ideas at all. They fear foreign companies using the patents to reverse engineer the products and flood the market with cheap knockoffs because intellectual property is simply not valued in some countries.
    30 Jun 2012, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I'm thinking those countries might be right. It's pretty obvious now that patents are being used by the likes of apple to help in limiting choice for consumers. These features are not that difficult to implement so it's not like anyone can even claim they're a big r&d investment for those companies.

     

    Those countries will copy everything and while apple and samsung fight it out in court, the others will stop copying and add more features. That's the history of developing industrial countries. Copy, then improve, then lead. Britain, the US, Japan, soon China?
    30 Jun 2012, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Its not a matter of cost the difference is innovation. Clearly some cultures find it perfectly acceptable to copy the work of others. It can go as far as making products using the same source code with all the same errors.

     

    Fact is they can't do it from scratch, only imitate. Name a product made in these countries that is the leader in the space for technology from the starting point not the price point. This is why patents are so important.

     

    Apple also faces many patent issues they have to deal with to be fair. Look at the history of the stock VHC and current area they look to make money. Patents provide protection.
    30 Jun 2012, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    You're confusing your IP. Source code is copyrighted.

     

    Reverse engineering, which is what the chinese have done for most hardware tech, is perfectly acceptable and US companies do it.

     

    Siri's not even new functionality. People have been using voice control for new computers for years.

     

    Patents are preventing people seeing something, thinking "hey, that's pretty cool, we should do that" or even coming up with an idea completely independently, but at the same time, and then implementing it.

     

    It reduces competition and that's bad for everyone. Apple create some of the best integrated experiences out there, and they need to base their market presence on that, not on wiping out the competition using the force of law. Keep the customers happy, don't make it so they have no other choice.
    1 Jul 2012, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    Reverse engineering = copying. Yes totally acceptable (except maybe when there is an enforceable patent - damn those patents).
    3 Jul 2012, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for repeating the same thing I said.
    3 Jul 2012, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Your entire ending supports what apple is doing with the exception of using the law to protect their investment. You would prefer them to give it away for free... Not good business sense at all.
    3 Jul 2012, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I have no expectation of apple giving away anything for free.

     

    They produce integrated systems which they sell. That is their product.
    3 Jul 2012, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    ...and everyone is copying that model, along with their product concepts, touch screens, icons, apps, apps stores, multi touch, etc. It is legal, but not ethical...a company should reap the rewards of their innovation without the whole industry ripping off their ideas. Only after a number of years should competitors be free to blatantly copy like they have...
    3 Jul 2012, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    So only apple should be allowed to provide a good user experience? If apple think of an idea, file it, and never use it, only they should have the *right* to use it?

     

    That's idiotic, and sadly, that's patent law.
    3 Jul 2012, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    "So only Apple should be allowed to provide a good user experience?"

     

    No, competitors should generate their own ideas to produce a good user experience...if they can't do that, they still shouldn't be stealing it. There should be a time limit on restrictions, allowing innovators to capitalize on what is their insights and ideas. After that time, there could be required licensing policies or even a free for all, public domain kind of thing.

     

    If I am a famous painter, and I produce my finest work ever, I will be using and combining techniques and materials from masters preceding me, but in a way that is unique to me and I still consider my creation. Should another artist be allowed to see my unique style and its success, photograph my work...then go and paint very similar works? It would be legal, but unethical.

     

    Competitors should have to rely on their own creativity and insights for 4 or 5 years, before copying ideas. If consumers want a Porche...then they have to buy one...not expect Mitsubishi to replicate the design the very next year and sell it for half the price...
    3 Jul 2012, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    You're confusing your IP law. That's copyright, not patents.

     

    Clothes designers have no IP protections so you'll see walmart copy expensive designs within months. What do the clothing designers do? Make new designs and improve upon each others' work.

     

    Maybe you can't hack a competitive market place but there are plenty of people who quite happily will. Please don't get in their way.
    3 Jul 2012, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    I am speaking about general principles of ethics, not distinctions in patent or copyright law. By your posts, losing paper, it is obvious that even as a matter of principle, your opinion is diametrically opposed to my own, with no middle ground. Therefore, we probably need to agree to disagree on this issue...
    3 Jul 2012, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    "If apple think of an idea, file it, and never use it, only they should have the *right* to use it?"

     

    No, I don't agree with just locking away ideas merely to prevent competitors from innovation. "Use it or lose it", the clock should start ticking upon approval...then a company has a limited time to profit from their idea.
    3 Jul 2012, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Right, because those time tickers never get extended...

     

    Just ask Disney.

     

    Companies need to hack it in the marketplace or leave it to people who will, not use legislative protection.
    3 Jul 2012, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Markets don't exist without rules and structure. When you talk about extensions, you have problems with some of the specifics. Yet, other things you say are far more sweeping than that, such as:

     

    Losing Paper: "Yes, I am saying copying is good."

     

    So, if I am a movie studio and I spend $100M to produce a movie, it's fine that someone bootlegs it and sells it on the Internet, or if people just make it available for free on the Internet? That is wrong!

     

    Losing Paper: "The US built its industrial strength in the late 1800s and early 1900s on ignoring British copyrights."

     

    Past examples of wrong don't justify further wrongs. Syrian Al-Assad can't say civilian massacres are okay because Saddam did it too! My example is extreme, but it illustrates the fault in the logic.

     

    Technological progress is not a worthy enough goal to trump all other values and all other considerations. Consumers are expected to pay for products they want, not just get them as cheap as possible regardless of how they came about. Neither is it okay that someone takes a trailer, steals goods then sells it for cheaper. Good for the buyer, right?...but the good of the consumer is to be balanced against other principles of right and wrong.

     

    You think copying is good...I think it is oftentimes unethical...that probably sums it up...
    3 Jul 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    "So, if I am a movie studio and I spend $100M to produce a movie, it's fine that someone bootlegs it and sells it on the Internet, or if people just make it available for free on the Internet? That is wrong!"

     

    Again, there's a confusion of copyright and patents.

     

    That's the sad thing about laws. The people who think they should be making them are the same people who don't understand them. Unintended consequences be damned.

     

    Nice way to load the argument, introduce "massacres".

     

    I've already explained how competition, part of which is copying features and technologies, drives specifically technological progress and fashion industries, and you've refrained from responding to that. You can ignore that patents retard development and competition all you want. It won't make it any less true.
    3 Jul 2012, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    I ignored the tech progress because that is a given as the flip side of the argument. I never disputed that, my point has always been that there is an injustice that is the other side of the coin. I've given you situations to illustrate this concept, but you don't seem to be understanding that side at all, you're just focusing on differences between patents and copyrights, rather than trying to comprehend the argument being made.

     

    You didn't even seem to understand my point that past wrongs don't make current wrongs okay...you simply interpret the example as a gross hyperbole, rather than conceding the point. I don't see any common understanding developing...

     

    ...Therefore I have to conclude that, like you said, "copying is good" is your stance, and my stance is that it is frequently unfair. That reflects a stark contrast in our value system...one that apparently cannot be resolved...
    4 Jul 2012, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • Insurance Bull
    , contributor
    Comments (357) | Send Message
     
    Once AAPL eliminates the competition via injunctions they can charge twice as much for their products. One step closer to an AAPL monopoly.
    30 Jun 2012, 03:09 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff Jackries
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    The idea that Apple is going to put everyone else out of business and the jack up prices is a little ridiculous. The DOJ would be on them so quickly they wouldn't be able to think.
    1 Jul 2012, 02:03 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    JJ, AAPL is in a dog e gog world and they don't want everybody else out,but, AAPLs success to date over all else is margins. The constant law suits is allowing them to keep their margins high. When all the patent suit are settled an everyone gets down to full business AAPL will have to lower prices an compete. IMHO that is what all this is about ! DL
    1 Jul 2012, 05:16 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Anyone have a link to see the Apple patents?
    30 Jun 2012, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/yrBMeN
    4 Jul 2012, 01:00 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Good for AAPL ,but, The Hawaiian Island owner tried to suit GOOG with ORCLs patent war chest an kinda lost ! Similar patents IMHO.

     

    How long was big ERIC on AAPLs Board.. I guess tooooooo long ! DL
    30 Jun 2012, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • Canadian Red Neck
    , contributor
    Comments (332) | Send Message
     
    This is only a temporary setback for Samsung in particular and Android in general. Worst case scenario is that Samsung will abandon Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus in their current design and come out with a new model. These new designs may already in the work. You always have Plan B, C, etc.

     

    Per IDC report of workdwide market, Apple now have about 20% of smartphone and 60% of tablet computer. Non-Apple smartphones and tablets are coming out everyday and not everyone likes and can afford Apple products. Eventually, market will settle down and the history of Mac computer may repeat itself. Time will tell.

     

    By the way, I know that Apple is making most of the profits in these two markets because there are enough people willing to pay Apple's asking price.

     

    I don't use Apple products for various reasons. My children use them. I have tried them and found them no better than the MS OS based laptops and Samsung Nexus smartphone that I use. These devices serve me well at the right cost. I wonder how many of us are out there in the market.
    30 Jun 2012, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • Growtheport
    , contributor
    Comments (227) | Send Message
     
    For the last 15 yrs+ I've been a MS OS user. Tech savy, but a laggard. Within the last year I've picked up the iPhone and iPod Touch. I'm going Apple now and won't return. Value is key here, not cost. If you can show me MS OS products have higher value, I'd stay. They dont'.
    2 Jul 2012, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • iYawn
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    @Growtheport

     

    What's tech savvy about anything/everything Apple? Clearly the demographics indicate AAPL patrons do not care about underlying technology, just 'what works'. Technical specifications or esoteric functionality are not welcome. Dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

     

    Suit yourself limiting your options.

     

    Others however see the inherent value proposition offered by MSFT, in that they are converging everything into 'Windows' regardless of form-factor platform, cloud, server, workstation, desktop, notebook, tablet, mobile phone, and set-top-box console.

     

    Meaning someone that develops any software for Windows 8 will also implicitly run on all platforms that also run Windows 8, using the industry standard ECMA-334-335 and ISO/IEC 23271:2012 and ISO/IEC 23270:2006 covering .NET and C#. These have been given royalty free license in perpetuity (but patented so no patent troll can claim 'invention' or take control by stealing it afterwards).
    [quote]http://bit.ly/KPp02O
    Standardization and licensing

     

    In August 2000, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel worked to standardize CLI and the C# programming language. By December 2001, both were ratified ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334). ISO followed in April 2003 - the current version of the ISO standards are ISO/IEC 23271:2012 and ISO/IEC 23270:2006.[16][17]

     

    While Microsoft and their partners hold patents[citation needed] for the CLI and C#, ECMA and ISO require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". In addition to meeting these terms, the companies have agreed to make the patents available royalty-free.
    [/quote]

     

    Is there value in market share? For instance, Windows 8 Pro becomes a no-brainer to adopt for existing users of earlier Windows, at a very competitive price: Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for $39.99
    http://bit.ly/OeFxCj

     

    Given the current state of OS market share, that may put a nail in the coffin of AAPL regarding market acceptance as evidenced by the realtime stats all over the world.

     

    Here is an example: http://bit.ly/KPoXUJ

     

    [quote]
    Windows XP 39.61%
    Windows 7 38.43%
    Windows Vista 6.10%
    iPad 2.94%
    Mac OS X 10.7 2.85%
    Mac OS X 10.6 2.35%
    iPhone 2.22%
    Android 2.3 0.99%
    Linux 0.99%
    Java ME 0.86%
    Mac OS X 10.5 0.71%
    Android 2.2 0.22%
    Pike v7.8 release 517 0.21%
    Android 4.0 0.18%
    Mac OS X 10.4 0.17%
    Windows 8 0.16%
    BlackBerry 0.15%
    iPod 0.14%
    Symbian 0.12%
    Android 3.2 0.09%
    Windows 2000 0.07%
    Windows Phone OS 7.5 0.05%
    Android 2.1 0.05%
    Unknown 0.05%
    [/quote]

     

    Is that the only market penetration AAPL could achieve in over 36 years since inception on April 1st 1976?

     

    Q. What lasting value is there in a captive market?
    A. The only constant is change.

     

    Mark my words, now that viable competition abound, things are going to change rapidly. That is good for the consumers. That is why monopolies are not illegal, but anti-competitive behavior is, everywhere around the world.

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too.
    ~ Marcus Aurelius
    2 Jul 2012, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    "Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too. "
    ~ Marcus Aurelius

     

    iYank, good post and great quote !

     

    Are you sure it is an old quote ?
    Sounds like Brutus Corsine ( the former everything)
    2 Jul 2012, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • iYawn
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    @DaLatin

     

    Hello & thanks for the kind words. Actually, I Yawn, but I can also Yank...? LOL!

     

    This is how I find my quotes:
    http://bit.ly/P27K1S

     

    and verify their sources:
    http://bit.ly/P28iEZ

     

    And apparently, this one came from Marcus Aurelius (26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD, was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD), the original.

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The fact that I can plant a seed and it becomes a flower, share a bit of knowledge and it becomes another's, smile at someone and receive a smile in return, are to me continual spiritual exercises.
    ~ Leo Buscaglia
    2 Jul 2012, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    iYawn ! oops lo siento
    2 Jul 2012, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Lol...for some reason some of the funniest jokes are the unintentional ones...thanks for that one...
    3 Jul 2012, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    Samsung should change the user interface. I think that might be the major issue, as to some it looks too much like Siri. If the ruling is made based on broad voice and search capability, then Samsung must fight that, as no patent can cover all implementations of those broad functionalities, including basic machine learning interoperability.
    30 Jun 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Samsung should only have to change the interface if there's a better interface possible. The interface is currently this way because they think that's the best user experience.

     

    This is one of the reasons why patents are stupid. They make people do things in a way that don't necessarily make the most sense.

     

    Users will pick up their phone and ask "why do I have to do X when on the other devices I can just do Y?". It's reducing competition and is bad for all of us.
    1 Jul 2012, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    Not sure you have seen Samsung's S Voice interface and compared it to Siri. It's a pure unadulterated rip off.

     

    On the other hand Google Now took things further and actually offered an alternative.

     

    Thing is if every thing can be copied then how can any Person or company create true value. This is a serious issue which affects people's livelihoods.
    2 Jul 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    No it's not. What affects many many more peoples' lives is a lack of competition. Imagine if attaching a motor to a chassis atop of four wheels had been patented. Auto development would be decades behind where it is. Competition is good.
    3 Jul 2012, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    "Don't be Evil"...unless you are stealing ideas in the name of profit...where have I heard that? ...i suppose Gorden Gecko: Greed is good! Wall Street's mascot.

     

    The automobile? Google would have taken the Benz wagon drawings, added a wheel or two and published it for everyone else to copy, then claimed there is no problem because they stole the ideas, then gave it away...no direct profit..."We are actually Robin Hood!!!"
    3 Jul 2012, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Evil? People have been talking to computers in movies for decades?

     

    Evil is, rather than keeping your customers happy, you prevent your customers from having any other choice. Evil is supporting that.

     

    Google gives quite a lot to free development, amongst many others, android as well their summer of code programs.
    3 Jul 2012, 01:37 AM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    What you are really saying is copying is good. Please don't call sugar coat it by calling it competition. My point is there are consequences of embracing the copycat model.

     

    Indeed the race to the bottom had began and soon the smartphone and tablet markets will go the way of the commoditized PC market with no room for innovation due to slim margins. But it's good for the consumer - right?
    3 Jul 2012, 06:54 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    What about the investment made by a company to make it in the first place, who pays for this? Your comment states it's perfectly acceptable to steal other peoples work so long as it's the best way.

     

    The bottom line is patents are intended to allow a company that invested in an idea to get rewarded for making the investment.

     

    If you want real competition let them come up with a better idea and patent it.
    3 Jul 2012, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I am saying copying is good. The US built its industrial strength in the late 1800s and early 1900s on ignoring British copyrights. Why do so many of you think people are entitled to profits solely because they managed to get some papers filed first?

     

    The computer industry is a massive industry, with continually dropping prices and improving technology. Why? Because people have to compete. I wish everything worked liked that. My cellphone is more powerful than my desktop computer from 10 years ago, that's innovation in my eyes. Thank you for seeing my side of things.

     

    Patents do not promote innovation, they stifle it, or at best merely allow people to rest on their laurels. Many patents are filed by people who come up with the idea and never implement it.
    3 Jul 2012, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    copying or stealing???? I can go buy a wallet that looks like yours but will you let me steal your wallet....
    5 Jul 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    You keep twisting the core issue ....
    I am not on your side of this debate.

     

    Your way of thinking is illogical. Your whole debate is stealing is ok so long as you benefit from it.

     

    Try taking all the money you have and build some new widget. Now make samples of the widget and do some field tests which costs money. Now after spending perhaps 5 years and every penny you have on this great new thing you finally are ready to go to market.

     

    You now borrow money using your great new widget and start selling it to the mass market. This widget is so good the products it displaces are hurt with your sales. In fact they don't have a chance, your is twice as good and a little more money. Everyone is really happy with your product.

     

    Now the folks you are hurting see the idea, buy one, and take it to China and make copies of it. 6 months later they introduce your widget in their name for half the price, they spent nothing to create it just copied it. 6 months later your out of business but not out of debt, in fact it quadrupled.

     

    Patents and copyright are meaningless in your eyes they just get in the way of progress. Good luck with your future endeavors my friend, you will need it!
    4 Jul 2012, 06:53 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    "Copying" an idea is not uncommon or bad. It's the reason we have numerous companies providing the same service. You can buy cars, soft drink, computers, clothes, etc from a number of different companies. The products are usually very similar. Are they all "stealing"? It's a normal part of day to day business and most business people understand this.

     

    Someone creates an idea, benefits from higher margins for a short time. Someone else sees this idea, likes it and sees a potential to undercut rival by similar and/or better provision of the business. Competition reduces prices to close to the cost of production until such a time as it is almost commoditised.

     

    How can you honestly pretend that this is neither an understood or good thing? How can you fight that with laws and a sense of entitlement for that first business person?
    4 Jul 2012, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Because he invested in it to make it, Its bad when you don't pay for it AKA royalty.

     

    You obviously never paid a group of engineers to develop something and made the investment in this effort.... If you had and the idea of what you did was protected under a patent you would not be saying these things....In fact I guarantee you would be 100% for patent protection. A winner thinks outside the box and spends money on the idea, a loser steals it and hopes not to get caught.
    5 Jul 2012, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I guess we have a different viewpoint on this then. I'd say a winner makes their customers happy while a loser completely ignores all the potential improvements that could be made to their product in that regards.
    5 Jul 2012, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Your slowly getting to the heart of this. A company can negotiate and pay a royalty or develop something better that does not require it. I would be a really PO customer if I bought something that contained certain functionality only to lose it later in a SW update because the company stole it and got caught. What happens to the people that bought this product if they lose? Which is better for a customer a honest company or one that steals stuff at everyone's expense except theirs?
    5 Jul 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Without patents this wouldn't even be a problem as it wouldn't be considered "stolen" (there's continual misuse of the term by patent supporters), it's just recreating the functionality and using it elsewhere. There'd be no reason to remove the functionality.
    5 Jul 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    And a judge involved in these cases, who threw one out of court recently, agrees with my view:

     

    “It’s a constant struggle for survival. As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem."

     

    And: "It’s not clear that we really need patents in most industries. You just have this proliferation of patents. It’s a problem.” – Posner

     

    source: http://reut.rs/PkWxJZ
    5 Jul 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    You're correct that this one judge Posner has a similar anti-patent bias to your own, but less radical. He thinks the R&D investment in software is much less significant in tech as compared to Pharm. I wonder if he had more exposure to what these things take to make them work, whether his opinion would change. But frankly, this is certainly not his call to make.

     

    I don't think that a judge who is against the existance of tech patents should be residing over such cases. He probably is legislating from the bench...It is legislators who should be making the decisions about the existence of patent laws, not judges.

     

    I do agree that patents should not be used as weapons to bludgeon competitors out of business, and perhaps some reform OS warranted. However, I see blatant copying of so much that it makes it difficult to condemn the patent wars going on.

     

    Competitors need to come up with their own ideas, not just mimick successful businesses and drain away the profits that emanated from their investment, efforts, and innovations.
    5 Jul 2012, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    A person whose entire career has been the law should have his opinion on law discarded while Ronin's is, of course, correct.

     

    That's comical.

     

    As for patents being used as weapons. That's the inevitable end result when this legislation is created, it's not even a case of unintended consequences. It's the entire point. Legislated protectionism for the patent holder.
    5 Jul 2012, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    @Losing
    I said my opinion, which everyone can evaluate for themselves.
    I said this, "I don't think that a judge who is against the existance of tech patents should be residing over such cases. He probably is legislating from the bench...It is legislators who should be making the decisions about the existence of patent laws, not judges. "

     

    I think that is logically correct. You can disagree with my statement, but you seem to be trying to use an intellectually dishonest tactic of arguing from authority; in other words because an authority says something, it doesn't have to be evaluated or questioned on its own merits. Even if the President of the United States says something, it still warrants evaluation, and my contrary opinions are not automatically useless merely on the basis of a title.

     

    Your tone may be suggesting that you want to engage on a less civil level?
    5 Jul 2012, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    That's not the case. You're not even responding to what I say but now the way I'm saying it.

     

    You're suggesting he should have no say in these matters, despite that being his career. If you've read the article then you saw that he went into the cases neutral and is no longer neutral on it.

     

    And no, this has nothing to do with authority and more to do with him being a person who from his experience in the line of his work has deemed patents unnecessary.

     

    He's even stating it's not the companies involved, they're doing what they can to gain an advantage, but specifically states it's a problem with the system itself.
    5 Jul 2012, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Posner says that it's a problem, and I concurred,

     

    "I do agree that patents should not be used as weapons to bludgeon competitors out of business, and perhaps some reform is warranted. "

     

    What I did also comment, that if you are a judge residing over patent cases, then it seems also problematic if you question whether patent law should exist for software.

     

    That seems to me that it can easily lend a judge to be biased against the plaintiff from the begining, and perhaps he should have been recusing himself.

     

    Then I get back to the point which still remains a problem:
    "Competitors need to come up with their own ideas, not just mimick successful businesses and drain away the profits that emanated from their investment, efforts, and innovations."

     

    If you don't use patents, then how do you propose to improve this problem which has been persisting. Rather than saying that it doesn't matter, can you come up with alternative solutions?
    5 Jul 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I don't see it as a problem. I see no real reason a business shouldn't adopt ideas it likes.

     

    One time just one site allowed comments, one site allowed ordering online, one site allowed you to download movies and videos. What if each of those had been patented? These are no less innovative than many of the patents that are now being contested. Do you think we should be limited in those?
    6 Jul 2012, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    I suppose there needs to be a balance that is struck; even WITH patents, just because you have one doesn't mean you win the lawsuit.

     

    Even though you don't recognize the downside of your idea of no patents...you can plainly see that many others have problems with such a proposal. There were examples, analogies, and explanations, none of which you seemed to be able to relate to... I can recognize your points, but I don't find it possible to help you understand the other side of the issue so that it moderates your view.
    6 Jul 2012, 01:32 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I also gave examples, none of which you responded to.
    6 Jul 2012, 01:56 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    I have made several comments indicating that I either understand some of the aspects and even agree, perhaps you skimmed over what I wrote instead of really reading. No matter, as you can tell, I think it is time for me to stop trying to explain the concept any further. You are fully entitled to your view...as am I, and I have stated it fully...
    6 Jul 2012, 02:24 AM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    That's all fine and dandy except patents do exist and if they are stopped from using it all software going forward would have to eliminate the conflict.

     

    A user when upgrading the software for bug fixes will have this functionality dropped or changed. They wont get away with supporting before and after sw loads and even if they did that means 2 software streams in development which is just ugly.
    6 Jul 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    They do exist, though to me, that they do is what causes the conflict.

     

    http://bit.ly/PqPwHi
    6 Jul 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • LarryWh
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    LP this is exactly what I was saying, now the users of this product will be very upset.
    They just lost the functionality....

     

    Users may have a right to return the product as well since it no longer functions as sold. That would be a real bummer for them to deal with don't you think? Next time I bet they cross the t's and dot their i's prior to doing this again....
    7 Jul 2012, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Yes, it's possible they'll be upset. I'm sure you've read the article so you'll see that they're having useful, non-innovative, functionality removed from their phones as a result of a patent, which are supposed to be issued for things that are innovative.
    8 Jul 2012, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    maybe a time frame parameter that is enforced on generic medicines should be implimented
    4 Jul 2012, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Why?

     

    Competition works, competition to traditional phones is what gave us phones like the iPhone. Apple are just using the legislative process to prevent competition now that they've gotten some market share. Allowing them to block their competition means they will no longer have the same necessity to innovate in order to secure market share.

     

    Has this site been taken over by people who are more afraid of competition than they are to actually compete in the marketplace?
    4 Jul 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Losing arguments while gaining comments...

     

    Apple has never existed in a vacuum without competition. just because no one agrees with your point of view has nothing to do with fear or Apple. Building and innovating on top of other innovations is generally how progress is made, but wholesale theft of ideas is not generally respected nor supported. Your position is far too extreme...
    4 Jul 2012, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Theft of ideas?

     

    This site is like numerous others, has articles, comments, likes. Have SA committed theft? What if facebook had been able to patent "like"?

     

    And you say I'm the extreme one....
    4 Jul 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Yes, you seem extreme.
    "Copying" an idea is not uncommon or bad" ..."copying is good"
    You view patents as mere hindrances, failing to acknowledge that some ideas deserve some sort of protections or it would not only be unjust, but would discourage large investments in R&D. There seems to be no balance to your position...

     

    If we didn't have "like" on this site...it wouldn't affect you at all...
    4 Jul 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Yes, because they are hindrances. Go back as far steam engines for a great example of this. Their power was low and price were so high due to patent that they were hardly worth using.

     

    After the patents expired improvements came fast as competition grew and others could build on others and do things in the way that made the most sense rather than having to introduce workarounds to the ridiculous patents.

     

    Sometimes there is just one good way of creating something, and there's not even necessarily innovation involved. Amazon's one click purchasing is a great example of this. Patents limit who can do it that one good way.

     

    Maybe you're not from an industry where creating something is an engineering process rather than a business problem. I am, and when you're producing products you want to have the freedom to provide your customers with the best solution, not the solution which is the best workaround to a stupid patent system.
    4 Jul 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    That finally explains your frustration...

     

    Sounds like you face the frustrating side of patents on a daily basis...get back to us after you have dedicated a year to a wondrous concept, just to have someone like Google or HTC mimic it without all the problem solving and sweat...or your bosses steal all the credit and magazine covers, when you did all the work, like what happened to Mark Andreesson at U of Illinois...
    4 Jul 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    If you have a single idea and it can be that easily duplicated then you were on borrowed time anyway. Business is constant innovation and development.

     

    Google created google video before youtube and it was less successful.
    Facebook came after myspace and it blew myspace out of the water in every way possible, though the basic ideas were similar, allow people to communicate.

     

    Businesses come and go, I'll take my chances. Why can't people who want the protection of patents?
    4 Jul 2012, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Losing paper,
    Just about everything has good and bad aspects...take anything...stare at your face in the mirror...if you look hard enough, you will be able to recognize good and bad aspects about it, albeit highly colored by your self-perceptions...that is the nature of reality... ambiguity, ambivalence, shades of gray...
    4 Jul 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    if it can be stolen as fast as it is created then why spend all the money on r and d ....just wait for someone else,,,,,wouldn't this be counterproductive for bringing innovation to market???
    5 Jul 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Knowitall
    , contributor
    Comments (7367) | Send Message
     
    @losing

     

    I will try to articulate why I believe patents serve to spur on innovation.

     

    If Company-A can steal all of Company-B's ideas, IP etc without consequence, then Company-A will not hire the very expensive R&D team for the many man-years required to develop an idea.

     

    I think it's this simple. Innovation would be stifled by lack of patent protection, not the other way around.
    5 Jul 2012, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    Exactly the point I was trying to make. Look at any commoditized product with minimal margins and trace its evolution. Once it's a commodity, innovation stalls because there is no money to be made there.

     

    Talk is cheap but innovation is not.

     

    I am becoming increasingly convinced that commoditization is where we are headed with smartphones save for the deep pockets of a few players.
    5 Jul 2012, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    I've already explained in the comments that innovation is greatest in the industries where there are little or no IP protections. Companies are pushed to innovate by the demands of their customers.

     

    Innovation may not be cheap, but redeveloping software to work around silly patents (gestures, voice recognition?!) are even more expensive.

     

    Creating a product is not easy, nor is innovation, that's part of business. If it were easy everyone would do it. As I said before, maybe some people can't hack it but there are plenty who can, patents get in their way and are used by those who want to retain a weak advantage over their competitors.
    5 Jul 2012, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    Of course by competitors you mean copy cats :)..

     

    But anyway bygones - we can agree to disagree - I have never patented anything though I do hold stuff in copyright which I would hate to see misused.
    5 Jul 2012, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Sure, I'm not opposed to people calling them copycats, and even buying based on that being a consideration. Sometimes copying is as you implied, cheap and lazy, other times it's worth "copying" a feature because it makes sense and I'd like to have the option of using things that I see as cool in as many places as possible.
    5 Jul 2012, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    @losing what is your view on plagiarism???
    6 Jul 2012, 01:23 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    If you think it's dishonest, I'd agree with you completely. As I said earlier: "I'm not opposed to people calling them copycats, and even [people] buying based on that being a consideration"

     

    However, I think you'd probably agree that what we're talking about isn't all that comparable to plagiarism. I wouldn't support samsung/apple using their competitor's source code without the competitor's approval. Implementing an idea in their own way is not the same thing. Would you not agree?
    6 Jul 2012, 02:04 AM Reply Like
  • ItsAllGreek
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    I'm sorry but it's exactly plagiarism. Look up the definition. It's the act of taking someone else's work and ideas and passing it off as your own.

     

    PS - users look at the UI not the underlying code.
    6 Jul 2012, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    It's not "exactly plagiarism". The closest equivalent to plagiarism is covered by copyright. Patents is a more general idea, but not the literal implementation, about how to solve a specific problem.

     

    So many of the people who support patents really have no clue what they are.
    6 Jul 2012, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • scott trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4513) | Send Message
     
    @losing......the samsung aapl {slowly eroding} is not an in love relationship....more like an escort service... ....patents are supposed to protect intellectual property but lawyers find enough gray areas to allow unethical infriingement possible....I do wish some shelved ideas would be openly available for observation promoting innovation....ie SJ/mouse........
    6 Jul 2012, 11:05 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|