# Apple wins . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 25, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548 "2012-08-25T00:03:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Krouget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b38774/32.png) [@Krouget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krouget)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/81 "2012-08-28T14:52:50Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Really? Apple’s global market share for smartphones has declined from 18.8% to 16.9% [snip] It seems to me that Samsung (and the other Android manufacturers) are hurting Apple plenty. This doesn’t refute what I’ve stated, and actually, market share only tells part of the story, as Apple turns a larger profit for their segment of the market…more so than any other company. This also misses the fact that the Android proliferation, as listed in your link, includes every Android OEM…versus iOS, which is _only_ Apple. So yes, Apple is doing fine, but of course they must protect their interests. Within context, my idea states that minor features aren’t responsible for any real losses or gains of this type, anyway. There is a longer list of more critical market forces to consider, and I’d say more likely, Android has been able to gain a foothold and the lead in market share, largely due to entry-level devices which are cheaper, followed by heavy carrier influences (at least in the US), and what I’m sure are a number of other factors. However, if you asked your average user what “local search” was or whether or not they’d purchase an Apple device vs a Samsung one, due to “uniformly rounded corners”, you’d likely be met with a confused look, as most consumers are oblivious. So no, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. don’t bleed due to the sharing/“copying” of minor features like these in competing devices-- no more than an automotive company would lose a car sale, because two cars shared the same radio dial. The only reason such frivolous details are called into question, is for the specific intent of an eventual product ban. That’s where most people are taking issue. This hurts the consumer, since we receive less features, less choices, and more expensive products. Meanwhile, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. continue to turn in billions of profits, each year. I think the loser here is very clear. > [@cmyk](#): > > I don’t disagree that their patents are bogus. If anyone’s at fault, it’s the patent office that awarded them these things, and perhaps the jury who voted in favor of Apple. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Apple’s suit can be seen as a dirty move in that light, but that’s why I say this whole patent business is just a smokescreen for the real issue at hand: Attempting to maintain as much hold on the mobile user base for iOS as they can, in any way they can. I agree here, as well. And actually, I don’t fault Apple for legally doing what is within their power. I’ve actually sided with them on multiple issues regarding Samsung. However, I feel they can choose better battles, at times, as this sets a dangerous precedent. > [@](#): > > Also, Apple may or may not eventually come out with a bigger phone, but I doubt it. It’s the size it is because they determined that was the most comfortable size to hold when making calls. In fact, to the contrary, there’s rumors now of an iPad Mini… but that’s neither here or there. They’ve already made that determination, and it was a 3.5 inch display. If/when that changes, we can’t really ignore the fact that it was due to market pressure, brought on by consumer reception to the wide range of competing devices with bigger displays. This will be similar to how they’ve continued to compete at the OS level, by introducing/improving on features from rivals. They’ll adapt in order to stay relevant, or fade…they really don’t have a choice, because they can’t sue their way to victory. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/82 "2012-08-29T04:20:24Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Really? Apple’s global market share for smartphones has declined from 18.8% to 16.9% in [the last year](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-android/2012/08/24/7d51fe0c-ee4a-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html). Apple ranks 7th in the chinese smartphone market [(7.5% vs Samsung’s 20.8%)](http://www.pcbdesign007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=86156&artpg=1), having seen their market share halve in just one year. And China’s the biggest mobile market by far, with over [1 billion subscribers.](http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#subscribers). > > It seems to me that Samsung (and the other Android manufacturers) are hurting Apple plenty. Well, Apple’s sales at their employee store are plummeting. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/83 "2012-08-29T04:20:38Z")
Haven’t seen anyone else’s response yet, as I want to give my opinion unspoiled. I’ve wanted to for a little while, but never saw a thread on the subject here. I do think that Samsung did some wrong things, but I do agree that the curved corners and low amount of frame should not in any way be patentable. Allowing that bullshit is going to keep the blatantly anti-competitive patent war continuing–where every big company files for a bunch of small, useless patents to prevent other big companies for suing them for breaking their small but useless patents. Thus smaller upstart companies can’t break into the market, as the patents are for things essential to that marketing segment. It’s bad enough that Apple can sue you for using their product in a way they don’t want (Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer), they don’t need to be able to patent rectangles, too. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/84 "2012-08-29T16:12:27Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > No. Apple is not obligated to license the patents to them, and can request that sales of the infringing devices be halted in the US. True, but I think Samsung should and will appeal. And in any case, this decision is just one of a multitude of pending global litigation between the two. So Apple won in the US. What’s going to happen in Asia? And how will that switch things up? I’ll be interested to see how it resolves. > [@BigT](#): > > Allowing that bullshit is going to keep the blatantly anti-competitive patent war continuing–where every big company files for a bunch of small, useless patents to prevent other big companies for suing them for breaking their small but useless patents. Thus smaller upstart companies can’t break into the market, as the patents are for things essential to that marketing segment. I don’t think it’s so straightforward as that. Under the present system, smaller upstart companies can get in the game if they have something new to bring to the market, and it doesn’t have to be groundbreakingly new. Alternatively, even if they don’t have anything new to bring to the market, if they can do it cheaper/better than current players, then they can get in the game too via partnerships, free licenses etc. Or alternatively again, they can be in a geographic location not subject to the effect of the patents or design patents in question. There are many possibilities for innovation. On the other hand, if you were to shift it too much back the other way, where only major breakthroughs in innovation were patentable, then you might face the situation where … “So you want to manufacture a new type of mobile phone? Sorry, but Bell Labs still has the current monopoly on all mobile phone devices.” _That’s_ when consumers suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/85 "2012-09-01T00:15:03Z")
Hogan keeps digging that hole [Groklaw - The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/86 "2012-09-01T15:59:31Z")
Samsung has an incredibly strong case for an appeal. Samsung/Android users shouldn’t fret quite just yet, I dont think. And I say this as a pretty hardcore Apple user. This whole case was an unmitigated mess, now infamously so. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/87 "2012-09-06T06:36:53Z")
More Hogan goodness: > [@](#): > > […] when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn’t their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination. > > That is so wrong it’s not even just wrong. The verdict and the jury specifically asked them to address that very question. > **[Groklaw - Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj](https://www.groklaw.net/article_story-20120904190933195.html)** > > Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj \[…\] ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/88 "2012-10-03T15:28:46Z")
Reviving this for the latest in The Adventures of Velvin Hogan, Jury Foreman. [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770) Samsung are alleging jury misconduct. During voir dire he was asked to disclose any lawsuits he’d ever been involved with. Hogan insists now that he was only asked about cases from the last ten years, but the court transcript shows it was an open ended question. He failed to disclose that he’d been sued by Seagate in 1993, and had declared bankruptcy over that case. Samsung is the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. Revenge is a dish best served cold? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/89 "2012-10-18T18:46:08Z")
oh this is rich > **[Apple loses U.K. Samsung appeal; must run 'apology' ads](https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-loses-u-k-samsung-appeal-must-run-apology-ads/)** > > Apple has lost an appeal against Samsung in the U.K. after the first judge claimed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 could not have infringed the iPad because it wasn't "cool" enough. Birss also ruled in the original case that Apple must run “advertisements” in British newspapers and on its website stating that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s design patents and therefore did not break U.K. law. The notice on Apple’s U.K. website must display the banner for six months in order to “correct the damaging impression” left by Apple following the legal wrangling. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/90 "2012-10-19T15:25:37Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > Hogan keeps digging that hole > > [Groklaw - The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963) Ok, I’m a little late to the party, but just noticed this jury foreman stuff. What a fucking moron (regarding his “aha” moment about prior art). And this guy has a tech background? I love that he showed the world in that interview that he doesn’t have even a basic grasp of the issue. He doesn’t even realize he doesn’t understand, bad combo. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/91 "2012-10-29T10:54:51Z")
US Patent Office has invalidated the “rubber-banding” patent and Samsung have filed a motion informing the court of that decision. The USPTO determined that the claims in the patent are “obvious” and “anticipated” and do not represent a true invention that supersedes previous technologies. At this point their findings are non-final and could be overturned. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/92 "2012-12-20T03:14:19Z")
2nd Apple “patent” invalidated, this time the “pinch to zoom” feature: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/technology/patent-office-rejects-apple-patent-used-against-samsung.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/technology/patent-office-rejects-apple-patent-used-against-samsung.html?_r=0) ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/93 "2012-12-20T12:56:55Z")
Wow, it might restore my faith in the patent process - at least a little. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/94 "2012-12-20T15:39:35Z")
Reading this thread has me wondering: Did Apple sue Oppo Mobile too? > **[Oppo breaks boundaries with the 1080p, 5-inch Find 5 – Phandroid](http://phandroid.com/2012/09/15/oppo-breaks-boundaries-with-the-1080p-5-inch-find-5/)** You can’t tell me that doesn’t look as much like an iPhone as the Samsung does. More so, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/95 "2016-12-07T01:30:15Z")
Updating this old thread on this 5 year old lawsuit: > [@](#): > > A unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the almost $400 million in damages Samsung was ordered to pay Apple in a long-standing dispute over the patents of elements of smartphones. > > The justices ruled that Samsung does not have to pay Apple patent damages based on the profits for the entire device, only the components at issue, and reversed and remanded the case back down to a lower court. [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/308944-supreme-court-sides-with-samsung-in-patent-fight-with-apple](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/308944-supreme-court-sides-with-samsung-in-patent-fight-with-apple) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/96 "2016-12-07T02:34:13Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > Updating this old thread on this 5 year old lawsuit: > > [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/308944-supreme-court-sides-with-samsung-in-patent-fight-with-apple](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/308944-supreme-court-sides-with-samsung-in-patent-fight-with-apple) Man, they’re on fire! ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/97 "2016-12-07T04:38:03Z")
In spite of Apple’s innovations, I can’t use my iPhone as an incendiary weapon. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/98 "2016-12-07T12:16:53Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > In spite of Apple’s innovations, I can’t use my iPhone as an incendiary weapon. If the root cause findings of the Galaxy Note 7 are correct, if Apple keeps going thinner at the expense of all else you might be able to use the iPhone 8 as an incendiary weapon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548.md?page=4)