Scoblelizer: Samsung loss to Apple actually a victory

Robert Scoble, the author of the popular 'Scobelizer' blog, has said that Apple's win over Samsung this week, is actually a 'sizeable' victory for the Korean tech giant.

Samsung has to pay $1.049 billion for infringing on seven Apple patents, but during the time it stole ideas, it became the largest mobile company in the world, and the second most profitable (behind Apple).

Says Scoble (via Twitter): "I think this is actually a sizable win for Samsung. Why? It only cost $1 billion to become the #2 most profitable mobile company. Remember how much Microsoft paid for Skype? $8 billion. So, for 1/8th of a Skype, Samsung took RIM's place and kicked HTC's behind.

Not too bad. Unless the judge rules Samsung can't sell its products. Even then I bet Samsung arrives at a nice licensing deal with Apple."

Scoble went as far as to say that other companies should have copied Apple, as well: "I bet that RIM wishes it had copied the iPhone a lot sooner than it did. So does Nokia, and HTC and a raft of other manufacturers I bet. Samsung is a much healthier company than any of those BECAUSE it copied the iPhone."

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 26 Aug 2012 23:38

shortybob

So... Stealing is good? I've been waiting to hear that for a long time. Goodbye, internet! Hello, Ferrari!

26.8.2012 23:42 #1

il2117

Well it looks like the jury in the Apple-Samsung case made a lot of obvious mistakes in their verdict:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

27.8.2012 00:13 #2

KillerBug

That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis. Samsung has done so well because they DIDN'T COPY APPLE. If they had, then they would have been slaughtered by every other android maker. You know who copied apple? Nokia...at least they copied the whole low quality hardware with high prices and proprietary software model...and they are "guilty" of the same patent violations as samsung (everyone makes rectangles with rounded edges). It didn't work out too well for Nokia, did it?

27.8.2012 01:50 #3

Morreale

I don't know anything about the blogger, but at first glance this seems sarcastic to me... Basically saying win or lose, true or false, what's it to Samsung given the position they're currently in.

As long as they are able to continue to sell goods, I guess :s

*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****

27.8.2012 01:57 #4

Interestx

None of the real innovative stuff in the phone was created by Apple.
Not the first camera phone, not the first GPS phone, not the first touchscreen phone, not the first icon grid phone, not the first phone with a notifications screen or multitasking, not the first music playing phone.
(Apple can thank Samsung for that last one)
and so on....

Long story short, the giants that Apple "borrowed" from were apparently not the petty losers that Apple have become IMO otherwise Apple would have been paying to use all of their real inventions in their phones.

Apple on the other hand "invents" a bounce effect and a black rectangle and goes on endlessly about how their product was stolen.

I'm surprised that the 2001 space odyssey clip didn't kill the ipad and iphone design patents. They really do look much like them and pre-date both by a long margin. I also liked finding out that the pinch to zoom effect that they went on and on about was demo'd to them in 2004... and they go on about theft?

27.8.2012 05:03 #5

xtago

It's a win in terms if Apple can't sue Samsung for coping their stuff anymore so Samsung is actually free to do what ever it wants now.

The problem is Apple didn't come up with all this stuff there was other companies and Nokia had UIQ which had all the stuff that iOS and Android proclaim to have well before both even existed but Nokia made the mistake of dropping it in favor of their more basic mobile OS.

I still have my A1000 mobile and it still works it was 3G when 3G just just coming out around the world, it runs UIQ.

very nice OS runs very smooth shame nothing much happened with it even though the company really wanted nokia to push it in all their phones.

27.8.2012 07:02 #6

Ripper

I disagree with this article entirely for the reasons KillerBug stated: Samsung didn't copy Apple. Most of their patents are off-the-charts absurd. It's undeniable there are similarities, but - to use a somewhat loose analogy - no different to the way that cars all have 4 wheels.

If Apple were really the technological innovators and forward thinkers that the majority of people applaud them for being, then they would be proud to have led the way in to the next generation of phone tech and design - rather than suing everyone who brings out a rectangular smartphone, with rounded corners and vaguely gimmicky looking OS icons.

27.8.2012 07:36 #7

nbfreak2

Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.

27.8.2012 08:12 #8

dali

Originally posted by KillerBug: That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis. Samsung has done so well because they DIDN'T COPY APPLE. If they had, then they would have been slaughtered by every other android maker. You know who copied apple? Nokia...at least they copied the whole low quality hardware with high prices and proprietary software model...and they are "guilty" of the same patent violations as samsung (everyone makes rectangles with rounded edges). It didn't work out too well for Nokia, did it?
I disagree. The only innovation that Apple brought to the smartphone world is the multitouch interface. Prior to that, it was Apple which copied from Nokia and, less but also, some other companies, like Motorola.

In fact, the UI *EVERY* phone has nowadays from factory, with the only exception of WP7 ones, is based on the first graphical phone UI showing a grid of small colorful icons designed by some finnish company... What was their name?

Not only that: Before the massive arrival of the smartphones, nokias were using a stupid proprietary version of bluetooth which only worked from a Nokia terminal to another, the infamous PTT (push to talk), which gave their users walkie-talkie capabilities, flash messaging... (Does any of this sound familiar or what?) But, since the first iPhone was a newcomer until last year, the most popular mobile OS by far was Symbian, and it was NOT proprietary. So, reality is exactly the opposite of what you depicted here.

And, I almost forgot to mention it, but... I beg you pardon? Low quality hardware? Nokia? Are we talking about the same "Nokia" here? IMHO, they produce much better hardware than most current phone makers. The mistakes they made and keep on making may be (yet they are) many, most of them related to their lack of speed adopting new tech in a rapidly evolving market, but crappy hardware is positively not one of them.

Finally, returning to the original issue, how the hell can anyone be allowed to file patents for "gestures" or a "rectangle with round edges" anyway? It's a complete nonsense. Samsung shouldn't be paying anything. Apple should, for wasting their time. Weird world. Sigh! :(

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.

27.8.2012 10:29 #9

KillerBug

Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over. The first touch screen phone I know of is the IBM Simon, from back in the early 1990's. It wasn't much what you would think of as a smartphone, but it was touchscreen with basic PDA crap. I know that HP was making true smartphones as of 2003, and there are probably others before that. The first iPhone didn't come out until 2007, the same year that the first iPods started to look like smartphones (but without calling capabilities).

It isn't over...Samsung will appeal this, they will bring it to the Supreme Court if they can...and if they win in a lower court, Apple will bring it to the Supreme Court. Plus, this is just one android maker...if Apple can actually get away with blocking sales of anything that is rectangular with rounded corners, they will try to sue everyone else until they have a monopoly...not just on phones either. Just think of all the things that meet such a description...my laptop does, my desktop monitor does, my Sirius radio does, even my Zippo lighter does! Heck, they could sue Wyoming!

27.8.2012 10:43 #10

LordRuss

Getting back to Robert Scoble, I consider him to be a laser pin light spectacle of genius in the midst of a black hole at times & the rest, a full time blathering idiot. I'm sure there will be members here drawing similar conclusions to my candor as well, but this isn't about me.

Scoble's idea of 'spending money to make money' however quaint, is also juvenile at best. I can certainly think of much better & cheaper ways of spending advertising dollars than to drive a billion into the hands of my #1 competitor.

Hell, a murder scandal is still cheaper & could sell more product so long as Apple is made to look like the bad guy & Samsung somehow more victimized. Morally wrong on so many levels I couldn't begin to count them all, but we get the idea.

Nah, the Scobe want's people to believe he's a 'thinker'. He's outside the box. Well, if it's that one annoying cat that shits outside the box, then yeah, he's outside the box, because he's not original & fortune 100 companies DON'T gamble with Billions of their revenue.

Apple abused the US patent division & payed of the judicial system. They're looking for a monopoly, one way or another, despite what the constitution reads. And DON'T tell me it can't be done.

Remember not too long ago how a room full of congressional members almost immediately tore the knees out of their slacks sliding up to the groin of Bill Gates who was asking for more foreign visas? If the cameras hadn't been trained on them 110% of the time Billy Boy would have definitely had that "happy ending" grin on his face.

http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

27.8.2012 12:29 #11

mukhis

Originally posted by LordRuss: Apple abused the US patent division & payed of the judicial system. They're looking for a monopoly, one way or another, despite what the constitution reads. And DON'T tell me it can't be done.
+ unlimited

27.8.2012 13:02 #12

xboxdvl2

pretty sure my old nokia has rounded corners and was made in 2006.pretty sure our local libray back in the 90s has a touch screen computer.not sure if it was ibm or mac who made the touch screen computer but it was a touch screen.If samsung or any other company could prove they invented the technology before apple used and patented it couldnt they sue apple for copyright violations.

R.I.P. mr 1990 ford falcon.got myself a 1993 toyota corolla seems to run good.computers still going good.

27.8.2012 13:48 #13

Bozobub

Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over.
Touch-screen technology has existed since the mid to late '70s; I used an early model of PLATO myself. And no, it's NOT over, as the inevitable appeal already in progress proves.

It is what it is, but it ain't what you think, sorry.

Edit --> Much of touchscreen tech was purposefully put into public domain by its creators, to avoid exactly the shenanigans Apple is guilty of.

27.8.2012 17:20 #14

ThePastor

Quote:Heck, they could sue Wyoming!
Epic... I sense a meme in the making... :D

Oh, Im sorry... Did the middle of my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours?

27.8.2012 20:40 #15

xtago

28.8.2012 05:08 #16

KillerBug

Apple Claims:
7469381 & 7844915 - "Bouncing" - Even if Samsung did copy this, I doubt anyone would cry if they removed it. Personally, I turn this off on every phone I get right after rooting.
7864163 - "Single-tap zooming" - Samsung does not have this, nor have they ever had it. Samsung has double-tap zooming to prevent accidental zooming.
D504889 - A design patent that seems to be for the iPad, with almost no detail...it almost looks like an incomplete filing for one of the hundreds of tablet PCs that came before.
D593087 & D618677 - Design patents for iPhone, showing a single round button and a very wide dock connector, Samsung has neither.
D604305 - Design patent for layout of iPhone screen, where the physical buttons of Android are shown as on-screen icons, and other icons are shown in the same way as seen in Windows Mobile 2003.

Samsung Claims:
7675941 - Automatic compression and decompression of transmitted data
7447516 - Automatic selection & optimization of best radio signal
7698711 - Playing MP3s and controlling them while another window is open - Samsung did have this before apple, but it is so specific to MP3s that it is hard to defend.
7577460 - Allowing a phone that has a camera built in to act as both camera and phone - Filed 2006, long after the first camera phones were released.
7456893 - Allowing a phone with storage and display to store and display images - Filed 2005, long after this was on other devices.

So, Apple might have a half-legitimate claim on 7469381 & 7844915, but Samsung could just remove that (not that Samsung created it; it is part of Android). D504889 might also be halfway valid due to lack of detail...but then, it is also pretty much invalid for the same reason...I have an old HP iPaq sitting in a drawer at home that would infringe on it, and it was made in 2003.

Samsung's patents are not much better, but then they didn't start this whole mess; they are just trying to defend themselves.

28.8.2012 09:19 #17

aldan

28.8.2012 12:52 #18

KillerBug

Originally posted by aldan: Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it dosent matter anymore Apple won its over. touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"? LoL...doesn't even know what the case is about; just assumes that it was about the touchscreen, and even then assumes that Apple invented it! If apple sued Boeing because their doors were the same shape as the iPad, this guy would be up here saying, "Apple makes airplanes and then everyone copies, I wonder who made it first?"

28.8.2012 20:14 #19

Bozobub

Hrm. I should have said touch-screen technology has been available to the public since the mid-to-late '70s - lol...

28.8.2012 20:39 #20

robertmro

Originally posted by KillerBug: That is the wonderful thing about the internet...any moron can say anything without any basis. You just proved your own point.

31.8.2012 09:34 #21

Tarsellis

The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.

Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago?

The fact that you can patent any of this stuff, the fact that you can sue on it, the fact that these bogus restrictions can last so long is, I'll say it, patently absurd! To say nothing of the clearly biased and most likely purchased jury.

Stop letting them control the argument. Stop letting them abuse you. Stop accepting a false premise and letting them change the language and meaning of words, and start to question the very foundation of the corruption.

31.8.2012 09:48 #22

LordRuss

Originally posted by Tarsellis: The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.

Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago? Exactly... It's like trying to put a copyright on the word "And". It is truly absurd, but there are butt reaming assholes out there that will try that very thing & claim it as intellectual property; which can be said to be another absurdity in it own right.

http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

31.8.2012 10:48 #23

Bozobub

Well, your argument is pretty much covered in the "prior art" topic,. Tarsellis ^^' ...

31.8.2012 11:20 #24

KillerBug

Originally posted by LordRuss: Originally posted by Tarsellis: The biggest problem here is that this Yoskowitz guy and most of you are accepting a completely invalid premise. Whether or not Samsung and Apple did infringe on anything is completely moot. None of these things should even be remotely patent-able.

Seriously, you're telling me that I can patent a geometric shape I drew in pre-school, and that the Ancient Egyptians were playing with 4,000 years ago? Exactly... It's like trying to put a copyright on the word "And". It is truly absurd, but there are butt reaming assholes out there that will try that very thing & claim it as intellectual property; which can be said to be another absurdity in it own right. The problem isn't the system really; it works fine when massive corruption isn't in place...and no system will work with massive corruption. Think back to the 1930's when white guys would get tried for murdering black guys in the south...no amount of evidence could get a white jury to convict, even if they were all witnesses.

31.8.2012 11:24 #25

bmok

It's not stealing. Taking the source code is stealing. Copying the outside is not stealing. Apple may have come up with e.g. Pinch Zoom but nobody else can do Pinch Zoom? That's rewarding one guy way too much. Pinch Zoom is just an idea anybody can dream up. So are many UI elements and process flows. What's real expensive the research and development that implements the idea. One's implementation should be protected by a patent but not the idea. Let people compete on how they do the same thing better. That's where we human race get benefits, from real competition. Copy is totally ok because straight copy without improvement can't stand real test of consumers. But copy with improvement is how every product and technology evolves. No one company can do it all by itself. The fact that Android exists benefit Apple fans.

31.8.2012 12:42 #26

Mez

Originally posted by aldan: Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it doesn't matter anymore Apple won its over. touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"? Yes, what jobs was great at is stealing a cadre of technologies that were going no where and putting them together in a powerfully useful way then packaging it in a 'cool way' and marketing it masterfully. He has changed the world for the good and made Apple the biggest company in the world. Still he was a huge prick.

31.8.2012 19:44 #27

aldan

amen to that.

31.8.2012 20:21 #28

KillerBug

Originally posted by Mez: Originally posted by aldan: Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it doesn't matter anymore Apple won its over. touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"? Yes, what jobs was great at is stealing a cadre of technologies that were going no where and putting them together in a powerfully useful way then packaging it in a 'cool way' and marketing it masterfully. He has changed the world for the good and made Apple the biggest company in the world. Still he was a huge prick. Touch screen tech was not, "Going Nowhere". The first iPhone was very little more than the touchscreen phones that came before...same shape, same capabilities. Well, actually, the iPaq had better capabilities because there was a lot more software, the hardware was better, they had support for two forms of expanded storage, the battery could be changed, they offered SDIO, etc. Apple advertised and got AT&T to sell them with hefty contracts...that seems to be the real difference IMHO...because the first iPhones simply were not as good as the HP iPaqs of the time, but they outsold them in droves.

Don't get me wrong...I know I keep beating a drum about the iPaqs...but I'm no HP fan. I'm simply stating simple facts...the iPhone was an iPaq copy. I would call it a BlackBerry copy, but it didn't have a keyboard. All that leaves is the iPad...and there is currently a Chinese firm suing Apple because that firm was making tablets that looked almost identical to the iPad about two years before Apple...the only innovation Apple did there was to put an english-language OS onto a similar device and ship it over. I always thought of that Chinese firm as throwing a hissy fit, but I guess if Apple is going to do the same thing when they were not even the first, then I hope that Chinese firm wins.

1.9.2012 00:27 #29

pmshah

I wonder why no one is looking at circa 1998/99 Win CE based, Casio made mobile phone for Hutchison Whampoa of Hong Kong. This had full functionality plus touch screen, MS Office, IE, lugin digital camera, handwriting recognition and what have you. Especially the shape - Rectangular and Rounded corners !!!!!

1.9.2012 01:11 #30

xtago

Yes I know I have a HTC Titain Winmobile device it's version 6 by default has everything you say and I've upgraded the rom to winmobile 6.5

The Apple case in the US is really bad for the USA overall, even if companies decide to drop the US market and simply leave it as 100% apple devices only people will get fed up with Apple and want the rest of the world devices as they'll have much better spec than an Apple device.

I suspect many component makers may drop Apple.

You have that Memory maker that has banned Apple from using anything it has patented or makes, so no other company can even make stuff for Apple either.

I think Samsung are probably about to do this with Apple as well, then it's goodbye Apple devices overall.

2.9.2012 08:21 #31

Bozobub

Balderdash. No matter how the two companies feel about each other, Samsung simply makes too much money from Apple to simply drop them cold turkey. It'll take a lot more than this.

2.9.2012 10:45 #32

KillerBug

Originally posted by Bozobub: Balderdash. No matter how the two companies feel about each other, Samsung simply makes too much money from Apple to simply drop them cold turkey. It'll take a lot more than this. Samsung did just build a new factory to make the outdated chips for the next iPhone, and they won't cry if they are banned from selling phones they don't even make anymore...but $1.049 billion is a lot of money to recoup from selling chips at $15 a pop...let's just say they doubled the price to offset the fine for using a rounded rectangle...Apple would have to buy almost 70 million chips before it was paid back. Apple so far has sold about 90 million iPhones if you include all the models, although their numbers drop with every new release...so it would take at least 6 years to make up the money, assuming Apple didn't sue them again since there is no way Samsung is going to start making triangular phones.

What's more is the fine in this case is only relating to certain devices...of which Samsung sold 22.65 million total units...that's over $44 per device with no guarantee (or even any reason to think) that Apple won't do it again. If they were to build that into the price of their devices, it would hand their marketshare on everything except the Note 2 to their Android competition (The Note 2 has a monopoly on 5.5" phone display).

Samsung has to do something...and if they can't win in the courtroom they will have to get at Apple some other way. It is entirely possible that they will at least refuse to sell Apple chips unless Apple agrees to stop being patent trolls...and there is no way Apple would ever agree to that.

2.9.2012 12:36 #33

LordRuss

Originally posted by KillerBug: Originally posted by Bozobub: Balderdash. No matter how the two companies feel about each other, Samsung simply makes too much money from Apple to simply drop them cold turkey. It'll take a lot more than this.
Samsung has to do something...and if they can't win in the courtroom they will have to get at Apple some other way. It is entirely possible that they will at least refuse to sell Apple chips unless Apple agrees to stop being patent trolls...and there is no way Apple would ever agree to that. In one case I simply refuse to believe that Samsung makes that much per unit off of Apple for the manufacturing of parts. Apple obviously goes to the lowest bidder & slaves out the labor to get the lowest price they can in order to max out the minimum on their end product, so why would it be any different on Samsung? Other than they are the only one providing a service.

I'm most certainly behind KB on his assertion as well & throw in my earlier statement as an additional claim that Apple intends to find means of crushing manufacturers to their whims & how they WILL cower to their might.

This garish false bravado they seem to favor is almost like the pious self absorbed indignation you get from these assholes you see in the televangelists, which really does nothing more than further the cultist rumors floating around.

http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

3.9.2012 10:54 #34

Mez

Originally posted by KillerBug: Originally posted by Mez: Originally posted by aldan: Originally posted by nbfreak2: Hmmm Apple makes touch screen stuff then everyone else releases touch screen stuff?
I wonder who made it first?
It is what it is.
Reality is it doesn't matter anymore Apple won its over. touch screen technology has been around since the 1960s.anything else you think apple "invented"? Yes, what jobs was great at is stealing a cadre of technologies that were going no where and putting them together in a powerfully useful way then packaging it in a 'cool way' and marketing it masterfully. He has changed the world for the good and made Apple the biggest company in the world. Still he was a huge prick. Touch screen tech was not, "Going Nowhere". The first iPhone was very little more than the touchscreen phones that came before...same shape, same capabilities. Well, actually, the iPaq had better capabilities because there was a lot more software, the hardware was better, they had support for two forms of expanded storage, the battery could be changed, they offered SDIO, etc. Apple advertised and got AT&T to sell them with hefty contracts...that seems to be the real difference IMHO...because the first iPhones simply were not as good as the HP iPaqs of the time, but they outsold them in droves.

Don't get me wrong...I know I keep beating a drum about the iPaqs...but I'm no HP fan. I'm simply stating simple facts...the iPhone was an iPaq copy. I would call it a BlackBerry copy, but it didn't have a keyboard. All that leaves is the iPad...and there is currently a Chinese firm suing Apple because that firm was making tablets that looked almost identical to the iPad about two years before Apple...the only innovation Apple did there was to put an english-language OS onto a similar device and ship it over. I always thought of that Chinese firm as throwing a hissy fit, but I guess if Apple is going to do the same thing when they were not even the first, then I hope that Chinese firm wins. Not EVERY thing he stole wasn't going anywhere. What he did steal may had gone places some time in the future. I was thinking more along the lines of GUI and the mouse. Pulling existing technologies together for the first ipad. Even with the iphone those technologies had not been used together like that before.

4.9.2012 22:15 #35

AfterDawn: News