71–80 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What phone does your friend use today?
He uses an LG Optimus V on Virgin Mobile because it's cheap, contract free, and is a solid little smartphone. If he was willing to drop $650 on a phone, he'd probably buy the iPhone on Virgin Mobile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Samsung Instinct?
Yep! That's the one.
Before that, Sprint was laughably selling the HTC Touch with WinMo6.5 and some crappy skin as their iPhone equivalent.
Maybe it's just hindsight bias, but as I recall, hardware manufacturers didn't seem to do nearly as much direct brand marketing before the iPhone as they do now.
From what I can see, that memo isn't anything that any company wouldn't produce internally when faced with such a strong competitor, and it doesn't imply that they wanted to outright copy the iPhone, but good luck convincing a judge of that... Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of how these things work.
It seems like the lawyer may have fucked up, or it may be some brilliant Perry Mason-eque trap. But if the latter, why fight the memo's introduction into evidence in the first place? So I'd guess it was a mistake. Anyway, the memo by itself doesn't damn Samsung, but in context with, oh, the radius of curvature of every corner of key products being changed to exactly match Apple's devices, the color and arrangement of…
Of course, Borders went on to screw the pooch all by itself later, but that's a different story.
From what I can see, that memo isn't anything that any company wouldn't produce internally when faced with such a strong competitor, and it doesn't imply that they wanted to outright copy the iPhone, but good luck convincing a judge of that... Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of how these things work.
From what I can see, that memo isn't anything that any company wouldn't produce internally when faced with such a strong competitor, and it doesn't imply that they wanted to outright copy the iPhone, but good luck convincing a judge of that... Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of how these things work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He uses an LG Optimus V on Virgin Mobile because it's cheap, contract free, and is a solid little smartphone. If he was willing to drop $650 on a phone, he'd probably buy the iPhone on Virgin Mobile.
So the market worked, right? Your friend bought a Samsung, didn't like it, and doesn't buy their products any more.
Whether or not Samsung is going through some sort of "crisis of design", the pernicious nature of what Apple is doing is quite underestimated. They are trying to claim minimalism, the lack of distinction, as their own. It is the minimalism and efficiency dilemma. Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up against. In…
"The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not." There are interesting points you make about IP law, but you lost me in the above sentence which is just plain wrong. Perhaps you forget what the pre-iPhone cellphone market was like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the market worked, right? Your friend bought a Samsung, didn't like it, and doesn't buy their products any more.
In a platform race, in a business where multi-year contracts are typical, and platform lock-in is strong, there is an argument to be made that the first device someone purchases is most important.
So, a friend of mine years ago after the iPhone came out purchased a Samsung pre-Android "smartphone". He bought it because it "looked like an iPhone" and did smartphone things like the internet and mp3's (sort of). He quickly realized that it was NOT an iPhone or even a very smart smartphone. Since you don't always get to use the phones in stores, you don't always know what you're buying. If it "looks like an iPhone…
If this was an argument for damages every car company would spend all its time litigating. What exactly is the difference between a Corolla and a Fusion? Why does every car have about the same shape? Is it because anything other than that isn't aerodynamic and will destroy highway mileage, or is everyone infringing on IP?