The Apple v. Samsung verdict come in too late for the Macalope to speak about it last week , but that just means we have a whole hebdomad ’s Charles Frederick Worth of crazy coverage to discuss . You ’d think it would n’t be at matter who gain , but some people think that everyone was a winner . Well , everyone except you . But copying ? Really ? Is it really copying to make a headphone that appear just like an iPhone ? Or a laptop computer that looks just like a MacBook Air ? Is it ? Is it really ? ( Yes , it is . ) And , finally , our opinions are all well and good , but what do the Apple trolls have to say about this verdict ?
Winners and losers
Well , the visitation of the millenium is all over except for the appeals process ( so we should only be hearing about it for eight or nine more years ) , and it ’s backbreaking to hold it anything buta win for Apple .
Unless you go to one of those novel - age gradation schools where everyone ’s a success , likeRobert ScobleandFarhad Manjooapparently do .
Now , the melodic theme that it was still better for Samsung to have copied Apple and be forced to pay over a billion buck than to have tried to innovate on its own may not be completely without virtue . Is a billion dollar a muckle for R&D over five years ? Depends on how much the troupe spent themselves or what it could have done otherwise . These guys sure seem to have a low opinion of Samsung ’s power to come up with an original estimation .
Whatever the case , it does n’t appear that Samsung ’s precisely allbackslaps and rounds of champagne over the verdict(tip oxygen ’ the antler to Lessien ) .
“ It ’s absolutely the regretful scenario for us , ” a senior Samsung executive said as he look sharp into the society ’s chemical compound in southern Seoul .
Maybe Scoble and Manjoo ’s rich thought just have n’t been interpret into Korean yet . The Samsung folks will probably be all smiles once they get the dear news .
Andy Ihnatko recollect “ the biggest also-ran here are consumers ” , who will be forced to pay more for any phone that looks like an iPhone , because iPhone written matter political machine like Samsung ( feels good to say that with legal financial backing ) will just pass the costs on to consumer .
The Macalope ’s no cock-a-hoop fan of these patent of invention suits , but he ’s much more of a mind withMarco Arment .
Smartphone and “ tablet ” maker will keep doing what they always do : betray us their product at the highest prices they can possibly charge for them to maximize full gross .
AsJean - Louis Gassée notes :
Last year , Apple and Nokia settled an IP “ misunderstanding ” that also resulted in a “ Tax” … but it was Nokia that play the T - Man role : Apple paid Nokia more than $ 600 M plus an reckon $ 11.50 per iPhone sold . Where were the handwringers who now accuse Apple of clapperclaw the patent organisation when the Nokia settlement take place ?
In other words , while this might not be thebestthing for consumer — and it certainly is n’t just for competitor who have n’t already follow to terms with Apple — this is scarcely the phonepocalypse .
Life imitates Apple
You Apple wonk , you think everything revolves around your favorite company . As if .
See , this whole Samsung thing can be well explained with two words : natural phylogeny .
That ’s correct , say it again aloud : instinctive phylogenesis . That ’s the musical phrase executives have latched onto like an Alien font - hugger , essay to posit their Apple - copied ball into it . ( Sometimes these metaphor get off from the Macalope . )
Samsung wasn’tcopyingApple , it ’s just that smartphonesnaturally evolveinto plane touchscreens with minimum button on the front and swoop to unlock and a virtual keyboard and an Apple logo on the back and oops we went too far .
But it ’s not just Samsung that ’s sussed out the lifelike phylogenesis of things . No , no , no , no , no . A humanity of five nos . Take Ultrabooks for example . Lenovo ’s COO Rory Readtold us a year ago that the fact that Ultrabooks all lookexactlylike the MacBook Air was …
“ … just a natural phylogenesis of the infinite . ”
raw . Evolution . See ? It ’s unproblematic . And natural . And evolutional .
Formsevolveover meter and they justnaturallyevolve into designs Apple happen to not necessarily invent but sure enough popularize . See ? What could be more natural ? Or evolutional ?
Another good example : the Maingear Solo 21 all - in - one personal computer . Now , to the uneducated oculus of the typical Apple straw man nerd , it might look almost exactly like an iMac . In fact , it really does look almost exactly like an iMac , but with the obligatory quarrel of additional port . But the point is , while laptop forms just naturally evolve over time to look like the MacBook Air and smartphone forms just naturally develop over time to look like the iPhone , desktop form …
Yeah , you ’re getting it .
Desktops evolve into forms that have an all - in - one envelopment around the cover with an aluminum stand supporting the gadget from the back and curving around to the bottom with a hole in the back for transmission line and … well , just seem at an iMac .
Or , if you do n’t have an iMac , maybe you could look atthe HTC tab that looks just like an iMac . See , sometimes in natural evolution there are mutations that ca n’t be explained . See also : lozenge that look like the MacBook Air .
Finally , to drive this point home , when computer software pattern evolve beyond outdated metaphors of the 1990s into metaphors that Apple does n’t even use — like , say , Microsoft ditching the Start carte for a tile - free-base interface — they naturally immediately evolve into something that Apple does use . by nature . Likethe Dock .
See how that works ?
It ’s all very understandable and totally natural .
So please , Apple dork , part with us your cry of “ Copycat ! ” because they only show how small you understand both nature and phylogenesis .
Saturday Special: The man knows lame
Well , as long as we ’re at it , let ’s scrape the bottom of the barrel by hopping on over to Business Insider to see what Henry Blodget spew up onto the Internet about the display case .
“ permit ’s Be Honest — Apple ’s Patent Lawsuit Was Totally Lame ” ( no link for Blodget because of his many atrocities against effective taste , but tip o ’ the antler tow Kroesbergen ) .
Totally . I mean , did you see what juror identification number five was wear out on her metrical foot ? Toe shoe ! So lame !
So , why does Blodget think it was ♫ Lame ! A shame ! No one else to pick buuut Apple ! [ clap - clap , clap ] Apple ! [ clap - clap , clap ] ♫
It ’s bad for consumers .
Terrific . The guy whocommitted securities fraudis lecturing Apple on what ’s unspoilt for consumers .
Because to the extent that Apple run in pursuing this lame - o …
“ Lame - o. ” He spell that . A big gentleman .
… ( and totally un - Apple - comparable ) competitive strategy , it will result in consumer having few excellent non - Apple smartphone choices .
Right . Because the only way to make excellent smartphones is to copy Apple . Sucks to be you , Apple !
Actually , the Macalope does n’t buy this for a second . You do n’t have to look any far than Windows Phone 7 to see that you do n’t have to slavishly copy Apple to make a nice smartphone . Is it as overnice as the iPhone ? No , the Macalope does n’t think so , but he does n’t think Samsung ’s pizza pie box - sized phones are that swell , either .
The rich and most powerful caller in the domain — a company that generates more cash in a sidereal day than most companies generate in a twelvemonth — is suing a competitor for imitating some coolheaded features , features that , arguably , should n’t have been patentable in the first plaza .
What are these features ?
And now , as with Dvorak , we ’ve reached the reductionist part of the argument where Blodget will venture the case was about less than it was really about . Blodget lists four items , reducing them to trivialities , and calls it a mean solar day .
You get the approximation .
We do . You ’re a tremendous jerkweed .
Sorry , but even file for letters patent on these feature of speech , let alone enforce them , is beyond lame
♫ Lame ! A disgrace ! No one else to blame buuut Apple ! [ clap - bam , clap ] Apple ! [ eruption - bam , bang ] ♫
… especially for a caller that is already so productive and potent .
So , only weak companies should get patent ? And , hey , whatever the Korean Good Book for “ flash ” is : Samsung isahugecompanyin its own rightfulness . So spare the Macalope your weeping for bad ol’ Apple beating up on the poor lil’chaebol . Samsung has a artillery division for squall out aloud .
Apple , of course , was not granted patents specifically on the slightness that Blodget complains about ( with the potential exception of the iPad intention patent , which was the one that Samsung was found to have not conflict ) . All of the design and trade frock patent were more broadly on how thing look and are done on the iPhone .
Again , believe Windows Phone . None of these aim patents could be used against it because , shocker , Windows Phone is unique . Apparently expecting companies to amount up with unique designs is “ lame . ”
Apple suing challenger for copying minor features is not about “ loveliness ” or “ justice ” or “ innovation ” or even money ( $ 1 billion is chump alteration ) .
It ’s just gimpy .
It ’s just about lameness . go it .
The Macalope ’s not naive enough to cerebrate that Apple ’s targeting of Samsung has nothing to do with it being the other big Pisces in the water . But , really , the level of copying here was laughably gross . Andthey’re still at it ! It is almost not hyperbole to say that if Apple had not taken action mechanism , Samsung would soon have shipped a twist with Jony I ve ’s smoldering glare .
Almost .
