|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
I don't think it's loyalty, more just ignorance of the law/not seeing through
the holes in how the case was presented.
Samsung copied elements of the iphone. That's not really opinion or speculation
at this point. There's plenty of evidence that suggests samsung reviewed the
iphone extensively and chose bits they liked to incorporate into their own
products. That appears to be why the jury decided the way they did and was what
apple spent the bulk of the time presenting.
The problem: that has *nothing* to do with the patent claims apple asserted.
Everyone takes a look at competiting products and looks for ways to improve -
you'd be mad not to. Jobs himself was pretty openly acknowledging that before
the whole patent war started. There's no evidence that many of the cues samsung
took from the iphone were even original to apple either - they dug up quite a
lot of prior art.
Indeed apple hasn't been particularly original with any of their recent
products, they've just executed really well (and have some kind of reality
distortion field that seems to makes people irrationally want their products - I
know four people that "upgraded" from the iphone 4 to the 4S - wtf?).
I'm not saying they don't deserve their success or weren't *better* than the
competing products, but the idevices were hardly the first mp3 player,
smartphone or tablet.
And then the jury bought Apple's emotional "copycat" argument rather
than look at the actual case (or even read the instructions they were given...
really?) and they've created a serious mess.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- It was the perfect storm. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- Plus - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
