Apple agrees to sign licensing agreement with SBB for iOS 6 Swiss Railway clock design
The design by watchmaker Mondaine was pretty clearly not Apple’s invention and the the SBB threatened to look for "an amicable agreement and compensation." And now, a month after the story broke, we have the agreement.
That licensing agreement is definitely costing Apple something, but none of the two companies would say how much. Well, at least we have one more issue settled.
source: SBB via TheVerge
1. dangerouscurves (Posts: 2; Member since: 12 Oct 2012)
What? Apple admitted it's mistake? No way!
3. ilia1986 (unregistered)
What? But I was certain that Apple invented the Swiss clock! And clocks. And Switzerland. And time.
10. Hammerfest (Posts: 369; Member since: 12 May 2012)
you me, and 7 other people so far (going by the thumbs up)
28. ph00ny (Posts: 604; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Apple has a patent on laugh. You're getting sued shortly or possible sued already
11. sheik (Posts: 249; Member since: 12 Sep 2012)
If they had stolen that, they wouldn't have gone for the agreement... You know, Some times companies like Arrogant Apple too behave gently...
15. ahomad (Posts: 152; Member since: 15 May 2012)
I don't think that this is a gentle behaviour, if they payed for it before being asked, then that was gentle. but they didn't until they got cought, then they payed. so they tried to steal but they got caught, is this gentle behaviour?
14. darkkjedii (Posts: 11842; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Licensing deal means they bought it dude. Not stolen.
17. chaoticrazor (Posts: 2347; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)
no they used it first, never made this deal before using it. they waited until they were caught and then decided to sign a licensing agreement
what ever way you try to look at it apple copied the design and used it regardless that it was someone elses
24. blade19 (Posts: 60; Member since: 29 Apr 2011)
yup they copied it first and Apple found out that SBB was going after them, which trademarked it back in 1944.I don't think they bought, however. As it still belongs to SBB. They may be paying some sort of licensing fees to use it. The terms of the deal were confidential and haven't been released.
6. yoyo93 (Posts: 34; Member since: 23 Sep 2012)
There's no pleasing Apple haters, they did the right thing. Also why didn't phone arena run the story about Samsung using underage kids to manufacture their phones.http://gizmodo.com/5932504/rep
Sent from my brand new HTC One X.
12. Hemlocke (unregistered)
Because they know that the majority of their readership is comprised of angry Android fanboys and that wouldn't fly well. It's the same reason they didn't run this:
You can't make Sammy look bad, or else the fanboys will throw tantrums. It's okay to do it to Apple, because they eat that up.
13. yoyo93 (Posts: 34; Member since: 23 Sep 2012)
Yeah, I agree with you. Brace yourself because we're going to be called ifags isheep and other insults just so insecure fanboys feel better about themselves.
16. CDGMobile (Posts: 29; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)
Not everyone that likes android feels that everyone who likes apple is some sort of i something, but you have to understand that between all the mishaps, slander campaigns, and patent litigation that all the phone manufacturers are apart of (yes all of them) apple has had the most of its competitors products banned from being sold and for what having similar corners...
23. yoyo93 (Posts: 34; Member since: 23 Sep 2012)
I'm in complete agreement with you, but I feel as if people think apple are satans spawn while samsung are saints. In the end they both want your money and will do anything to get it.
25. CDGMobile (Posts: 29; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)
That is true no one is in business for the people cause phones would be free in that case but, Apple my friend keeps making the headlines with the bans and injunctions this is where a majority of people start to get uncomfortable and fandom takes over. Apple tried to halt a number of Samsung's devices, whilst on the other hand apple had their iphone 5 released without problems, even though they had their own patent infractions going on
32. flamencoguy (Posts: 97; Member since: 04 Aug 2012)
No one said Samsung is a saint. We all take in one incident at a time. But so far it has been Apple that has been the instigator, bully and troll.
This judge agrees: http://newsandinsight.thomsonr
euters.com/New_York/News/2012/ 10_-_October/Federal_Circuit_picks _two_smartphone_winners__Samsu ng_and_Posner/
30. kingpet13 (Posts: 139; Member since: 02 Feb 2012)
I'm not saying that those articles are wrong but in PAs defense, they can't review your first article, as if you look at the actual sales number it appears to be against them and they cannot give news that could be mistaken as in accurate. And they can't review the 2nd link as it says that it could be wrong in the first two sentences. PA would not be considered an accurate source if they posted articles that are even say they may not be 100% accurate. I am not hating on your articles, simply defending PA.
19. tedkord (Posts: 4934; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
They were forced to do the right thing. There's a difference between doing the right thing because it's right, and being backed into a corner.
It's actually comical. Look at a Samsung phone, and iFans will claim that is a copy. When this whole clock issue came to light, they were making claims like, "the minute hand is a little bigger, and the tick marks are slightly fatter. And it's a clock, there's only do many ways you can make a clock look. (Because you can't make it digital, or a sundial, or a different color with just big 12, 3, 6, 9 and no tick marks. The only way you can make a clock look is the way Apple did.)
But use that argument for rectangles with rounded corners, and they don't want to hear it.
29. kingpet13 (Posts: 139; Member since: 02 Feb 2012)
Actually they did cover it. They also covered the story where SS investigated and disproved it.http://m.phonearena.com/news/S
7. networkdood (Posts: 6274; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
wow, this deal is ....un-Jobs-like...lol
18. tedkord (Posts: 4934; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Wow, what a unique concept. When someone crosses a silly patent you hold, you negotiate a small license fee rather than sue to have the product banned. Just a truly novel approach.
26. downphoenix (Posts: 2357; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
True, but if thsi company tried to get an injunction on it, the courts would be happy to deny them. Better to make a little scratch than to get scratched by Apple fanboy courts.
20. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
So yet another iNNOVATIOn Sham bites the dust finally :)
21. flamencoguy (Posts: 97; Member since: 04 Aug 2012)
"slavishly" copying to use Apple's own language.
22. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
Apple busted! hmmm over a clock design...
27. darkvadervip (Posts: 329; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
Some of y'all are stupid by far. Y'all act like y'all getting royalty fees and part ownership when in the end you all are just buying into there marketing scheme of companies acting like they are at war but holding hands to the bank laughing at the consumers.