111–116 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a large percentage of the population, "mp3 player = ipod" and "smartphone = iphone".
An anecdotal example: a couple of years ago, I mentioned to my mother that I had bought an mp3 player. She sounded puzzled for a moment and asked 'is that like an iPod?'
"A judge said we must apology because we are cooler and so Samsung didn't copy because they aren't cool. But other judges said that we are cooler and Samsung still copied us! So we must be right!" Sincerely: a 6 year old.
One would think that a company with $.12 trillion in the bank could afford to be classy once in a while.
Is there a reason the OP thinks this is the apology? It isn't named as such, the URL doesn't help, and they don't apologise at all. It's just a summary of their legal battles with Samsung. How has the OP come to the conclusion this is the apology (am I missing something)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were truly told to write an apology, then people are down on them because this isn't one. You cannot really apologise for anything without using the words 'sorry' or 'apologise'.
This is B2B. Corporations do not apologise to each other. They may pay each other compensation, if ordered to. Apologies imply feelings, and corporations do not have feelings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a few things: 1) The order from the court was for the UK site only. This makes sense - it was a UK ruling from a UK court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries. There are separate cases in places like Germany. It make no sense for the UK courts to force Apple to make statements in other countries covering rulings made under laws that don't apply there and which may (and in some cases do) contradict ruli…
> The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not. " It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far Samsung only fights with Apple with whole slew of superior products. Well... also Samsung marketing makes fun of Apple marketing if that counts as a fight.
Oh, there was also the little incident where foreign phones were blocked from South Korea, including the original iPhone for two years.
So far I've found: http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-seeking-block-sales-up... Article claims it was just mirroring of Apple court strategy.
I don't know if that's the same thing here: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/south-korea-court-bans-both-ap... But if so then it didn't turn out particularly good for either of the companies.
There was also a bit of government protectionism in South Korea http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=... but I think you can't attribute this to Samsung offensive action.