QUOTE(seantang @ Sep 25 2012, 06:41 PM)
Not all models. There are some models where the court has stopped Samsung from selling. What's happening in most cases, is that the appeal is pending. But the are some models which have injunctions against them.
More importantly, it's not hard to imagine that Samsung will scale back their efforts in the US, minimise inventories... so that they don't get caught out with an appeal being lost and they have millions of phones in inventory they can't sell.
The threat of litigation is an impediment to free trade as it is an artificial barrier to entry. It is very telling that courts in the rest of the world did not agree with the US.
It's not their pie.
Apple does not have a monopoly on touch screens, rectangle candy bar phones or icons etc. Smartphones already evolved there much earlier. Palm had it, even my old HTC Touch had it earlier. Symbian had icons way before Apple did. Microsoft Windows perfected screen navigation via icons, buttons and menus. Apple copied these concepts and improved upon it. Google etc copied the concept after Apple copied it, and improved it even further. Windows 8 is doing it now.
The market for candy bar phones with touch screens and icons may have taken off after Apple's iPhone. They really expanded the pie. But does that mean that the pie/market/consumers got candy bar phones with touch screens and icons are now owned by Apple and anybody who wants a candy bar phone with touch screen and icons must buy it from them?
If that were the case, Henry Ford would be able to patent motorised cars that are rectangular with a wheel at each corner. Rectangular with a wheel at each corner is the natural form for a car. Or else the car will fall over. If one day, GM decides to use magnetic levitation in cars. Are all other car manufacturers not allowed to use magnetic levitation in cars? Cars are not new. Maglev is not new. But maglev in cars, is that a concept you can own and nobody else can use?
The way of the world has always been that once the first mover introduces a market concept that successfully creates a market, other entrants will follow and capitalise on that market. Apple is trying to change the game... in that the first mover also owns the market. The market is not allowed to source from anybody else besides the first mover. We see this with inventions, scientific research like pharmaceuticals etc... but this is the first with a marketing concept.
Good morning.
At this rate, this discussion is never going to end, we are just going around in circle. I am aware Apple is not the first one that come out with Touch Screen, Icons and everything else. I clearly do not know on what ground Apple is suing Samsung for and on what ground Samsung is countersuing Apple. Bear in mind, this is not just Party A suing Party B. So, if one day the court rule in favor of Samsung, does that justified FREE TRADE? Samsung is doing what Apple is doing exactly (trying to stop their model going on sales- whether the court is being impartial is another issue here).
I see your point of view, people should just focus on being competitive to enhance their products instead of trying to monopolize and have sole authorisation on particular technology they allegedly owned. This is on a bigger picture.
If you read my posts again, I am not siding any party, maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough that those court cases do not interest me at all. I am just buying the products because I like the experience.
We are really OUT-TOPIC, I am afraid both of us will get the boot. If you wish to continue further, I suggest we take it elsewhere.
Sep 14 2012, 08:36 AM
Quote
And if everything is so perfect, there won't be room for improvement..
Will probably switch to an iMac once my current laptop goes kaput. Not being an iFag, just that they complement each other wtf.
like fried meehoon for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
0.0517sec
0.62
7 queries
GZIP Disabled