# [CNBC] Apple targets more Samsung products in patent suit; Galaxy SIII



## AMDPhenomX4

Quote:


> Seeking to capitalize on a major legal victory over its rival Samsung Electronics Ltd, Apple Inc has asked a federal court in a separate case to find that four additional Samsung products, including the Galaxy S III, infringe Apple's patents.


Source
Apple's amended complaint
And that's that.


----------



## B-rock

The patents everyone talks about

Patent Number/Title

*5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent")* - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
*6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
*8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent")* - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
*8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent")* - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
*8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent")* - Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
*5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent")* - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
*7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent")* - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
*8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
Quote:


> Apple will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Samsung's infringement
> of the '647 Patent.


You're not suffering in any way Apple...


----------



## xoleras

I pray to Jesus for the untimely death of Apple.









Kidding aside, apple can go screw themselves. Patent/trademark law is beyond screwed up in the US, I hope Apple reaps what they sow one day.


----------



## CULLEN

I am so sick of these nonsense patents wars..


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CULLEN*
> 
> I am so sick of these nonsense patents wars..


----------



## DrDarkTempler

lol, dont worry people, by the time Judge get on this, Galaxy SIV will be out and GSIII was be soo last year, so getting S3 Ban will be not a problem. apple can try all they want but banned the current gen isn't happening

Beside, GS3 was Build by lawyer remember?

so either Samsung Lawyer sucks, or Apple is getting desperate


----------



## ElementR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CULLEN*
> 
> I am so sick of these nonsense patents wars..


QFT


----------



## Shpongle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B-rock*
> 
> The patents everyone talks about
> Patent Number/Title
> 
> *5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent")* - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
> *6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> *8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent")* - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
> *8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent")* - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
> *8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent")* - Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
> *5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent")* - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
> *7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent")* - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
> *8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> You're not suffering in any way Apple...


That's it.
I quit.

All of my hope in humanity just vanished after reading "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" and "Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device". Seriously could that first one be any more vague, and is the second one not one of the most basic functions of a cell phone? AFAIK every cell phone has a system to let you know who called and when. Does the iPhone have some sort of magical system that's totally and completely different from every other company's methods?

I can't wait until all of these *flavor word* patents to expire so technology can continue to progress.

/end rant.


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shpongle*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *B-rock*
> 
> The patents everyone talks about
> Patent Number/Title
> 
> *5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent")* - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
> *6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> *8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent")* - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
> *8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent")* - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
> *8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent")* - Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
> *5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent")* - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
> *7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent")* - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
> *8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> You're not suffering in any way Apple...
> 
> 
> 
> That's it.
> I quit.
> 
> All of my hope in humanity just vanished after reading "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" and "Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device". Seriously could that first one be any more vague, and is the second one not one of the most basic functions of a cell phone? AFAIK every cell phone has a system to let you know who called and when. Does the iPhone have some sort of magical system that's totally and completely different from every other company's methods?
> 
> I can't wait until all of these *flavor word* patents to expire so technology can continue to progress.
> 
> /end rant.
Click to expand...

That is just the description of the patent, the actual meat of the patent is a lot more words, but probably just as vague.

Seriously, how can you patent broad actions? The code should be copywritten, but saying "being able to do things with recognizable numbers/addresses" is ridiculous. First of all, smartphones are a type of computer, and computers have been doing that for ages. The idea is not new.

Second of all, how does this happen?
1. Company A takes idea that already exists, adds to it (other ideas that already exist) to make it better. Gets a patent for the "look and feel" of basically the pool of ideas brought together into a device.
2. Company B takes idea that already exists, adds to it (other ideas that already exist) to make it better. Gets sued by company A.


----------



## Usario

This is ridiculous. NVIDIA should add Kepler support to driver release 196.75 and send that to Apple for inclusion in the next OS X update.


----------



## steelbom

If anyone thinks these types of patents are exclusive to Apple then you should have a read over here: http://www.latestpatents.com/category/samsung/. You can have a look at what Samsung's patenting, and on the right side of the page you can look at the latest patents from Google and other companies. Lots of them are just as vague as they are here.


----------



## apass

Doesn't this invalidate a lot of claims of Apple patent 8074172 on word completion? It is absolutely ridiculous that Apple is suing for such a basic function of modern computing.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8074172


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> If anyone thinks these types of patents are exclusive to Apple then you should have a read over here: http://www.latestpatents.com/category/samsung/. You can have a look at what Samsung's patenting, and on the right side of the page you can look at the latest patents from Google and other companies. Lots of them are just as vague as they are here.


The patent office is filled with them. That is definitely a big problem.


----------



## Mach 5

The 172 patent is ridiculous, how did they get a patent on predictive text?


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Samsung has systematically copied Apple's innovative technology and products,
> features, and designs, and has deluged markets with infringing devices in an effort to usurp
> market share from Apple. Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung
> slavishly copied Apple's innovative technology, with its elegant and distinctive user interfaces
> product design, in violation of Apple's valuable intellectual property rights.










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Honorable Lucy H. Koh on July 30, 2012 (hereinafter the "Earlier Case").


Honorable








But this also says this was sent to the courts in July or June...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because
> Samsung transacts business within this District and offers for sale in this District products that
> infringe the Apple patents. In addition, venue is proper because Apple's principal place of
> business is in this District and Apple suffered harm in this District.


No that's cos you want Lucy Koh...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document261 Filed08/31/12 Page4 of 15


Wait a sec I thought you filed BEFORE the other case finished Apple?







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Moreover, a substantial part
> of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.


Umm... not really.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Apple has protected its innovative designs and cutting-edge technologies


Innovative designs? Maybe. Cutting-edge technology? Hella no.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style
> for its smart phone and tablet computer products, Samsung has chosen to copy Apple's
> technology, user interface, and innovative style in its phone, media player, and tablet computer
> products.


Hmm... so making a bigger screen wasn't Samsung's idea... right? And neither was a 7inch tablet... right? And what about rounded corners, with the evidence Samsung couldn't provide, or its designer be at the case... Hmm... how weird...







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Samsung continues to choose to infringe Apple's patent rights through the design
> and promotion of its mobile phones, tablet computers, and media players to trade upon the
> goodwill that Apple has developed in connection with its Apple family of mobile products.


lolwut? They have never said some crap like resolutionary.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> 21. Apple is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Samsung has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of the '647 Patent.


Products sell better with an operating system








Note: that crap carries on with all the rest of the patents, so I'm gonna skip that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> A judgment that each of Apple's asserted patents is valid and enforceable;


99% of Apple's patents are not valid







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> A judgment awarding Apple all of Samsung's profits,


Are Apple on DAMN CRACK?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Actual damages suffered by Apple


None.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> A judgment that this is an exceptional case and an award to Apple of its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred


Not like they can't afford it...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Apple hereby demands
> trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.


Demands? Jeez, you can;t just call in your Apple-lovers... but then again that's better for Samsung than damn Lucy Koh.

My don't-know-much-about-lawyer-talk overview of this document.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Amended Complaint*
> Specifically, Samsung has imported into, offered for sale, or sold in the United States at least the following products, each of which infringes Apple's patent rights: *the Galaxy S III, Galaxy S III - Verizon, Galaxy Note,* Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II - T-Mobile, Galaxy S II - AT&T, *Galaxy Nexus*, Illusion, Captivate Glide, Exhibit II 4G, Stratosphere, Transform Ultra, Admire, Conquer 4G, and Dart smartphones, *the Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0* media players, and the *Galaxy Note 10.1, Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus and Galaxy Tab 8.9* tablets.
> 
> 
> 
> I've bolded the interesting ones.
> First 3 look nothing like Crapple producs due to hella bigger screen (AND S-Pen), the G-Nex is already unbanned, iPods don't have 4 or 5 inch screens, G-Note 10.1 looks nothing like the iPad, and no-one could confuse 7 or 8.9 inch tablets wit an iPad.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed it this law suit doesn't have anything to do with looking like an iPhone. All the claims have nothing to do with trade dress.


----------



## 3930K

You're right. I'll delete that bit. But that's still a very long list of valid points.


----------



## manolith

I never like apple but now i wish that apple goes to hell along with their legal team.


----------



## Balsagna

I'm going to laugh when all the manufacturers for Apple (including Samsung) just stop selling to them after getting a lot of their products banned that were big money makers.

Remember when Intel/Nvidia was teamed up a bit and some sort of lawsuit happened.... Nvidia got punished that's for sure


----------



## ryboto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Unless I missed it this law suit doesn't have anything to do with looking like an iPhone. All the claims have nothing to do with trade dress.


so they're taking them to court over their implementation of Android....which is touchwiz, which isn't exclusive to the GS3, so how can they specify the GS3? How can the software violations be cause to ban a device when the software can be removed??!?!?!?!


----------



## Rookie1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> I'm going to laugh when all the manufacturers for Apple (including Samsung) just stop selling to them after getting a lot of their products banned that were big money makers.
> Remember when Intel/Nvidia was teamed up a bit and some sort of lawsuit happened.... Nvidia got punished that's for sure


Take your example and substitute Apple for Intel and others for Nvidia. (If your example is correct). Apple is in the power position because like any great marketing/branding corporation if pays far less for putting it's name on a product than it receives when people buy that product. If Samsung and the others were truly getting a worse deal than they could get at without Apple's branding then they wouldn't supply Apple. At the very least they're probably putting more value on the supposed certainty of cash flows coming in from doing business with Apple if they are a supplier. Businesses hate nothing more than uncertainty so while Apple may be upsetting them...I guess Apple hasn't done enough to make them change their evaluation of doing business.


----------



## adamkatt

Apple is mad because the iPhone is dying with it's small ass screen and boring flow... why buy a iPhone when you can get a S3??? Seriously though, iPhone is such an old fashion it's like the Blackberry craze


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rookie1337*
> 
> Take your example and substitute Apple for Intel and others for Nvidia. (If your example is correct). Apple is in the power position because like any great marketing/branding corporation if pays far less for putting it's name on a product than it receives when people buy that product. If Samsung and the others were truly getting a worse deal than they could get at without Apple's branding then they wouldn't supply Apple. At the very least they're probably putting more value on the supposed certainty of cash flows coming in from doing business with Apple if they are a supplier. Businesses hate nothing more than uncertainty so while Apple may be upsetting them...I guess Apple hasn't done enough to make them change their evaluation of doing business.


I know. I'm saying watch it effect them in the future will these ridiculous patents. Just like the Intel/Nvidia lawsuits way back when -- Intel said screw you to Nvidia and kicked them out the door from a refusal on Nvidia's side.

Samsung and other companies can do the same -- though, it greatly just affects Samsung


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B-rock*
> 
> The patents everyone talks about
> 
> Patent Number/Title
> 
> *5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent")* - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
> *6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> *8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent")* - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
> *8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent")* - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
> *8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent")* - Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
> *5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent")* - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
> *7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent")* - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
> *8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Apple will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Samsung's infringement
> of the '647 Patent.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not suffering in any way Apple...
Click to expand...

Even their amend sounds histarical. I hope Apple burns.


----------



## GrizzleBoy




----------



## xlink

I was considering an iPhone 5... I'm swinging closer to the SIII now.


----------



## Rubers

This is just ridiculous.

Here's the thing, if Samsung had copied word for word, the OCDE used to do these things I'd be for Apple. But they aren't. They're just doing stuff that's expected ina smartphone adn Apple are suing them for not licencing the act of doing soemthing.

Samsung, threatening t sue over LTE, an actual technology. Apple, actually suing over the way something is worded.


----------



## hollowtek

i want to find an apple product and destroy it with hulk-like intensity right now.


----------



## 161029

I just want to fire an RPG into an Apple Store now.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*


That needs to be a billboard


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hollowtek*
> 
> i want to find an apple product and destroy it with hulk-like intensity right now.


All you have to do is drop it, even the side that lands face up craks because of the "high quality" materials


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mad0314*
> 
> All you have to do is drop it, even the side that lands face up craks because of the "high quality" materials


Aka my sister dropping her 4s last month.

Make the back out of glass, that way it'll last longer!

Also make it proprietary. That'll ensure you don't accidentally replace it with a cheaper piece of glass not purchased from Apple.

Apple lawyer:
Quote:


> We make these products to delight our customers


*Ha*.

/Mrs Crabapple.


----------



## PCSarge

i know apple cant boogie but samsung can:




cmon apple, we know your mad cause you cant dance with the big boys.

i want samsung to whip out the high speed smartphone data patent, then apple is so done they need to be turned over.

this song was brought to you by Warn-A-Brother records. walla walla, washington.


----------



## joshd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> I just want to fire an RPG into an Apple Store now.


Please do!


----------



## jonespwns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> I just want to fire an RPG into an Apple Store now.


May I join you? We can get rid of the "Apple Geniuses" once in for all..


----------



## joshd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonespwns*
> 
> May I join you? We can get rid of the "Apple Geniuses" once in for all..


Wonder how they would handle that lol.

"Apple care will fix this mess... right?"


----------



## Flames21891

Apple seems bound and determined to win the 'Douchebag of the Year' award. You can tell they're not even doing this because it's in any way hurting them, they just don't like having to compete with another product. Now that Android has been polished and smartphones/tablets have moved forward at breakneck speeds, Apple's 'basically like your old one but shinier' approach to pumping out new iPhones and iPads hasn't kept them ahead of the pack.

Instead of doing the logical thing like, I dunno, innovating a more competitive product, they're basically calling out the other companies for 'cheating' and trying to get them reprimanded. Their patents are stupid (seriously, you have a patent on call logs? My very first cell phone had that) and intentionally vague in an attempt to sue anyone who implements a basic function in their smart phone or tablet, but does it better.

I agree all these stupid patents need to go, but it's Apple, mostly, being an asshat trying to capitalize on them. I really hope they get their comeuppance. I never really cared for Apple much before, but these days I have a very negative viewpoint towards them. May they all choke on their iPod Nano's in a hilarious twist of fate.


----------



## 99Cookies

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Apple seems bound and determined to win the 'Douchebag of the Year' award. You can tell they're not even doing this because it's in any way hurting them, they just don't like having to compete with another product. Now that Android has been polished and smartphones/tablets have moved forward at breakneck speeds, Apple's 'basically like your old one but shinier' approach to pumping out new iPhones and iPads hasn't kept them ahead of the pack.
> Instead of doing the logical thing like, I dunno, innovating a more competitive product, they're basically calling out the other companies for 'cheating' and trying to get them reprimanded. Their patents are stupid (seriously, you have a patent on call logs? My very first cell phone had that) and intentionally vague in an attempt to sue anyone who implements a basic function in their smart phone or tablet, but does it better.
> I agree all these stupid patents need to go, but it's Apple, mostly, being an asshat trying to capitalize on them. I really hope they get their comeuppance. I never really cared for Apple much before, but these days I have a very negative viewpoint towards them. May they all choke on their iPod Nano's in a hilarious twist of fate.


Word.
I'll never buy apple product again. Period.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryboto*
> 
> so they're taking them to court over their implementation of Android....which is touchwiz, which isn't exclusive to the GS3, so how can they specify the GS3? How can the software violations be cause to ban a device when the software can be removed??!?!?!?!


I think it covers more than just TouchWiz though. I'm not sure if they can ban the device if it removes the infringing content, but if they don't they can still try.


----------



## Azrail

I just hope I can see the fall and utter destruction of Apple...


----------



## smash_mouth01

No point defending them now steelbom .....They made the bed, let them lie in it...

More and more people are starting to see that Apple isn't innovating they are just stagnating.


----------



## jellis142

I am upgrading to an SIII soon. It is NO WAY similar on the outside. I guess their going for functionality now too? To the point of a mobile monopoly over Samsung?

Sure there are other contenders, but Samsung was a pretty big one.

Then there's this:

8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent") - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations

Better start suing SwiftKey X then


----------



## 2010rig

Can Apple be sued for Patent Trolling?


----------



## Socks keep you warm

I knew this would never stop, there was yesterday saying they are in talks to stop new that would NEVER happen.


----------



## chrisguitar

One day we will look back on this and say how silly this was. Oh wait, that's today.

I hope apple one day is bitten in it's ass for all of this. I can't keep up any more.

die apple die


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> No point defending them now steelbom .....They made the bed, let them lie in it...
> 
> More and more people are starting to see that Apple isn't innovating they are just stagnating.


They are innovating though. Or constantly improving and producing better products. Whatever you want to call it.


----------



## xoleras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> They are innovating though. Or constantly improving and producing better products. Whatever you want to call it.


If you say so, whatever you want to call it.

A friend of mine pointed to a USB power cable for an iphone and pointed to a similar one for a samsung phone and claimed that samsung was copying apples USB cable. Thats how stupid most apple fans are, they think everything is innovation or an apple invention







. Apparently apple invented USB.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> If you say so, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> A friend of mine pointed to a USB power cable for an iphone and pointed to a similar one for a samsung phone and claimed that samsung was copying apples USB cable. Thats how stupid most apple fans are, they think everything is innovation or an apple invention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Apparently apple invented USB.


It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.

Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


----------



## mark_thaddeus

Wow it's steelbom in another apple thread!


----------



## leo5111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


not to be rude, but are you on crack? the samsung F700 was out BEFORE the first Iphone so who copied who?


----------



## xoleras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


Yeah its not like 99% of USB cables look similar or anything. Definitely not that right?

I get it. You think the phones look similar. Guess what, the shapes of phones being patented is mind numblingly stupid - all land line phones are similar shape, as are cars, televisions, houses, etc. The madness has to end. Apple is trying to control the marketplace through vague software patents and trademarks that should NOT be upheld, shapes and vague software patents are not legitimate.

Software patents need a major overhaul, period.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> If you say so, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> A friend of mine pointed to a USB power cable for an iphone and pointed to a similar one for a samsung phone and claimed that samsung was copying apples USB cable. Thats how stupid most apple fans are, they think everything is innovation or an apple invention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Apparently apple invented USB.
> 
> 
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> 
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.
Click to expand...

How is micro USB a copy of the stupid proprietary dock connector?

I know what you're referring to and that type of packaging was around long before Apple.

You shouldn't really be looking at before and after the iPhone; you should be looking at before and after the LG Prada. The iPhone definitely was a great, innovative device... but the innovation had less to do with Apple and more to do with the advancement of touchscreen technology in general. And today the iPhone is outclassed by tons of other devices at the same price point. The last thing I missed about my iPhone was how refined the intercace was; thanks to ICS, in my opinion there is absolutely nothing Apple has going for them. Patents should not stagnate progress or grant monopolies.

Apple's unwillingness to license their vague and illegitimate patents further proves that they are not out for justice; they are out to stop technology from advancing because they'd rather have computers be judged solely on how shiny they are and be designed for consumption rather than creation.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> Software patents need a major overhaul, period.


Software patents should not exist, period.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leo5111*
> 
> not to be rude, but are you on crack? the samsung F700 was out BEFORE the first Iphone so who copied who?


That is a bit rude... but anyway you're incorrect. The iPhone was announced on the 9th of January 2007, the F700 wasn't seen until February.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> Yeah its not like 99% of USB cables look similar or anything. Definitely not that right?
> 
> I get it. You think the phones look similar. Guess what, the shapes of phones being patented is mind numblingly stupid - all land line phones are similar shape, as are cars, televisions, houses, etc. The madness has to end. Apple is trying to control the marketplace through vague software patents and trademarks that should NOT be upheld, shapes and vague software patents are not legitimate.
> 
> Software patents need a major overhaul, period.


It's pretty clear you've not seen it either. Have a look:





Can they look any more alike?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> How is micro USB a copy of the stupid proprietary dock connector?


I'm not talking about micro USB or the dock connector. I'm talking about the cable. See above.
Quote:


> I know what you're referring to and that type of packaging was around long before Apple.


Was it? Why didn't Samsung use it before Apple then?



This shows it pretty clearly.
Quote:


> You shouldn't really be looking at before and after the iPhone; you should be looking at before and after the LG Prada. The iPhone definitely was a great, innovative device... but the innovation had less to do with Apple and more to do with the advancement of touchscreen technology in general. And today the iPhone is outclassed by tons of other devices at the same price point. The last thing I missed about my iPhone was how refined the intercace was; thanks to ICS, in my opinion there is absolutely nothing Apple has going for them. Patents should not stagnate progress or grant monopolies.
> 
> Apple's unwillingness to license their vague and illegitimate patents further proves that they are not out for justice; they are out to stop technology from advancing because they'd rather have computers be judged solely on how shiny they are and be designed for consumption rather than creation.
> 
> Software patents should not exist, period.


Actually before and after the iPhone is exactly where I should be looking. Just because the technology is there doesn't mean anyone is going to do anything with it. Apple innovated with the iPhone -- the design, hardware and software was great. Samsung said it themselves -- they compared the iPhone to their smartphones and referred to the difference as "heaven and earth".


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *leo5111*
> 
> not to be rude, but are you on crack? the samsung F700 was out BEFORE the first Iphone so who copied who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bit rude... but anyway you're incorrect. The iPhone was announced on the 9th of January 2007, the F700 wasn't seen until February.
Click to expand...

this is true and the misinformation regarding the f700 is idiotic
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> Yeah its not like 99% of USB cables look similar or anything. Definitely not that right?
> 
> I get it. You think the phones look similar. Guess what, the shapes of phones being patented is mind numblingly stupid - all land line phones are similar shape, as are cars, televisions, houses, etc. The madness has to end. Apple is trying to control the marketplace through vague software patents and trademarks that should NOT be upheld, shapes and vague software patents are not legitimate.
> 
> Software patents need a major overhaul, period.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear you've not seen it either. Have a look:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can they look any more alike?
Click to expand...

What device(s) is that cable meant for use with and how does a similar-looking but probably completely different electrically cable mean that phones have to be banned?
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> How is micro USB a copy of the stupid proprietary dock connector?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about micro USB or the dock connector. I'm talking about the cable. See above.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you're referring to and that type of packaging was around long before Apple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it? Why didn't Samsung use it before Apple then?
> 
> 
> 
> This shows it pretty clearly.
Click to expand...

It was around long before Apple, regardless if Samsung used it or not. and that means that they can't patent it.
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't really be looking at before and after the iPhone; you should be looking at before and after the LG Prada. The iPhone definitely was a great, innovative device... but the innovation had less to do with Apple and more to do with the advancement of touchscreen technology in general. And today the iPhone is outclassed by tons of other devices at the same price point. The last thing I missed about my iPhone was how refined the intercace was; thanks to ICS, in my opinion there is absolutely nothing Apple has going for them. Patents should not stagnate progress or grant monopolies.
> 
> Apple's unwillingness to license their vague and illegitimate patents further proves that they are not out for justice; they are out to stop technology from advancing because they'd rather have computers be judged solely on how shiny they are and be designed for consumption rather than creation.
> 
> Software patents should not exist, period.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually before and after the iPhone is exactly where I should be looking. Just because the technology is there doesn't mean anyone is going to do anything with it. *Apple innovated with the iPhone* -- the design, hardware and software was great. Samsung said it themselves -- they compared the iPhone to their smartphones and referred to the difference as "heaven and earth".
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with the bold part. But come on. Don't tell me that the LG Prada doesn't invalidate Apple's look and feel claims as far as hardware goes. Don't tell me that the Prada doesn't look quite a bit like the iPhone. And it was released the year prior to the release of the iPhone.

Now if Apple wants to sue Samsung because both of their calling applications have pictures of freaking telephones on them, and because both of their mail applications have pictures of freaking envelopes on them... they've gone way too far. And these patents that they're suing over are incredibly vague and some arguably have been used in virtually every personal computing device.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> What device(s) is that cable meant for use with and how does a similar-looking but probably completely different electrically cable mean that phones have to be banned?


I don't know what device it's meant to be paired with. And I never said anything about what should be done about it -- I'm only saying Samsung has copied them.
Quote:


> It was around long before Apple, regardless if Samsung used it or not. and that means that they can't patent it.


Do you have any proof of that? I haven't seen what you're talking about but knowing what the trade dress would cover I doubt it's the same -- don't forget that the design covers the inside of the box as well.
Quote:


> Not disagreeing with the bold part. But come on. Don't tell me that the LG Prada doesn't invalidate Apple's look and feel claims as far as hardware goes. Don't tell me that the Prada doesn't look quite a bit like the iPhone. And it was released the year prior to the release of the iPhone.


Actually I don't think it does. The LG Prada and the iPhone are actually quite different if you compare them -- the front, back, sides, buttons, embellishments, dimensions, etc.

As much as Samsung fanboys or haters like to think, Apple's trade dress law suit isn't just over a rectangle with rounded corners -- there's a lot of other elements to it which is why smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy S and S2 have been found to infringe on Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
Quote:


> Now if Apple wants to sue Samsung because both of their calling applications have pictures of freaking telephones on them, and because both of their mail applications have pictures of freaking envelopes on them... they've gone way too far. And these patents that they're suing over are incredibly vague and some arguably have been used in virtually every personal computing device.


The thing is, they did copy those icons though.


----------



## 3930K

The F700 was announced earlier than the iPhone...


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> What device(s) is that cable meant for use with and how does a similar-looking but probably completely different electrically cable mean that phones have to be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what device it's meant to be paired with. And I never said anything about what should be done about it -- I'm only saying Samsung has copied them.
Click to expand...

Meaningless as far as the lawsuit is concerned. And I don't really see how different you can practically make it if you want an extremely thin but still highly capable connector, but whatever.
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It was around long before Apple, regardless if Samsung used it or not. and that means that they can't patent it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of that? I haven't seen what you're talking about but knowing what the trade dress would cover I doubt it's the same -- don't forget that the design covers the inside of the box as well.
Click to expand...

I recall others showing earlier examples of the design elsewhere. Dunno what that style of box is called so I can't google it for proof
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with the bold part. But come on. Don't tell me that the LG Prada doesn't invalidate Apple's look and feel claims as far as hardware goes. Don't tell me that the Prada doesn't look quite a bit like the iPhone. And it was released the year prior to the release of the iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't think it does. The LG Prada and the iPhone are actually quite different if you compare them -- the *front, back, sides, buttons, embellishments, dimensions, etc.*
> 
> As much as Samsung fanboys or haters like to think, Apple's trade dress law suit isn't just over a rectangle with rounded corners -- there's a lot of other elements to it which is why smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy S and S2 have been found to infringe on Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
Click to expand...

same goes for the iPhone and every other Samsung phone I can think of except the galaxy ace (that thing really is a blatant 3GS ripoff)
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if Apple wants to sue Samsung because both of their calling applications have pictures of freaking telephones on them, and because both of their mail applications have pictures of freaking envelopes on them... they've gone way too far. And these patents that they're suing over are incredibly vague and some arguably have been used in virtually every personal computing device.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they did copy those icons though.
Click to expand...

You can't claim someone stole from you because both of you use a universal symbol such as a telephone, and envelope, an address book... that's incredibly stupid.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> What device(s) is that cable meant for use with and how does a similar-looking but probably completely different electrically cable mean that phones have to be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what device it's meant to be paired with. And I never said anything about what should be done about it -- I'm only saying Samsung has copied them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless as far as the lawsuit is concerned. And I don't really see how different you can practically make it if you want an extremely thin but still highly capable connector, but whatever.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It was around long before Apple, regardless if Samsung used it or not. and that means that they can't patent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of that? I haven't seen what you're talking about but knowing what the trade dress would cover I doubt it's the same -- don't forget that the design covers the inside of the box as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I recall others showing earlier examples of the design elsewhere. Dunno what that style of box is called so I can't google it for proof
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with the bold part. But come on. Don't tell me that the LG Prada doesn't invalidate Apple's look and feel claims as far as hardware goes. Don't tell me that the Prada doesn't look quite a bit like the iPhone. And it was released the year prior to the release of the iPhone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I don't think it does. The LG Prada and the iPhone are actually quite different if you compare them -- the *front, back, sides, buttons, embellishments, dimensions, etc.*
> 
> As much as Samsung fanboys or haters like to think, Apple's trade dress law suit isn't just over a rectangle with rounded corners -- there's a lot of other elements to it which is why smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy S and S2 have been found to infringe on Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same goes for the iPhone and every other Samsung phone I can think of except the galaxy ace (that thing really is a blatant 3GS ripoff)
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if Apple wants to sue Samsung because both of their calling applications have pictures of freaking telephones on them, and because both of their mail applications have pictures of freaking envelopes on them... they've gone way too far. And these patents that they're suing over are incredibly vague and some arguably have been used in virtually every personal computing device.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, they did copy those icons though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't claim someone stole from you because both of you use a universal symbol such as a telephone, and envelope, an address book... that's incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

Wow just looked at the Galaxy Ace...


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> That is a bit rude... but anyway you're incorrect. The iPhone was announced on the 9th of January 2007, the F700 wasn't seen until February.


Mother of God. Like you can design a full smartphone in a month!

And 3930K, the Ace is a 3GS, yep. That's the only thing that could make you say 'hey that's a blatant copy, even hardware wise'. Others are 'similar', but in no way identical, starting because they have bigger, better screens, faster processors, bigger memories; and ending because all that's similar is that they have rounded corners and the home button is placed in the middle of the lower bezel (you don't say? Let's put it on the rear, yeah that's a good idea!)


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> The F700 was announced earlier than the iPhone...


Actually no it wasn't: http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Meaningless as far as the lawsuit is concerned. And I don't really see how different you can practically make it if you want an extremely thin but still highly capable connector, but whatever.


My comment had nothing to do with the law suit. You probably can make it differently but I think Apple's design is pretty efficient -- that's why Samsung copied it. Same for the packaging and so on.
Quote:


> same goes for the iPhone and every other Samsung phone I can think of except the galaxy ace (that thing really is a blatant 3GS ripoff)


I agree with you that a lot of Samsung's smartphones, but I do know a few do -- such as the Galaxy S and S2.
Quote:


> You can't claim someone stole from you because both of you use a universal symbol such as a telephone, and envelope, an address book... that's incredibly stupid.


The symbol is only a small part of it. Samsung used different icons before the iPhone and very similar icons after. They changed from what they used before to a similar shaped white phone on a green background with stripes. I mean really:





Originally I thought Apple was taking it too far... but after the court documents leaked showing that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone I changed my mind. Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent others from using shapes, or symbols, or whatever, but they should be able to defend themselves against copying.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Mother of God. Like you can design a full smartphone in a month!


No you can't. I never said that the F700 was an example of Samsung copying the iPhone.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> The F700 was announced earlier than the iPhone...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no it wasn't: http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Meaningless as far as the lawsuit is concerned. And I don't really see how different you can practically make it if you want an extremely thin but still highly capable connector, but whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment had nothing to do with the law suit. You probably can make it differently but I think Apple's design is pretty efficient -- that's why Samsung copied it. Same for the packaging and so on.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> same goes for the iPhone and every other Samsung phone I can think of except the galaxy ace (that thing really is a blatant 3GS ripoff)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you that a lot of Samsung's smartphones, but I do know a few do -- such as the Galaxy S and S2.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't claim someone stole from you because both of you use a universal symbol such as a telephone, and envelope, an address book... that's incredibly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The symbol is only a small part of it. Samsung used different icons before the iPhone and very similar icons after. They changed from what they used before to a similar shaped white phone on a green background with stripes. I mean really:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally I thought Apple was taking it too far... but after the court documents leaked showing that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone I changed my mind. Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent others from using shapes, or symbols, or whatever, but they should be able to defend themselves against copying.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Mother of God. Like you can design a full smartphone in a month!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can't. I never said that the F700 was an example of Samsung copying the iPhone.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry then. So it was a typo?
Still, they can't develop a phone in a month.

Just one S2 and one S has stripes...

Also, the F700 icons probably confused many people.

I bet Apple has such a document comparing the iPhone to the S3. And it is probably getting shredded soon.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Oh sorry then. So it was a typo?


Bit confused... what?
Quote:


> Still, they can't develop a phone in a month.


I know? I never said they could. They would've been working on it for at least six months if not (and more likely) much longer.
Quote:


> Just one S2 and one S has stripes...
> 
> Also, the F700 icons probably confused many people.


Yeah but still. Look what their phone icon looked like before. And then it's green with a white phone on it just like the iPhone.
Quote:


> I bet Apple has such a document comparing the iPhone to the S3. And it is probably getting shredded soon.


No way. Apple dislikes Samsung a lot -- no way they're looking up to them.


----------



## 3930K

It was a typo that it was said 2006 not 2007.

Therefore they couldn't have copied.

Just have a look at the F700 icons. They needed an overhaul.

Yet they ask them to make their SoCs and RAM and NAND









Yes way.


----------



## Kasp1js

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Actually no it wasn't: http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
> My comment had nothing to do with the law suit. You probably can make it differently but I think Apple's design is pretty efficient -- that's why Samsung copied it. Same for the packaging and so on.
> I agree with you that a lot of Samsung's smartphones, but I do know a few do -- such as the Galaxy S and S2.
> The symbol is only a small part of it. Samsung used different icons before the iPhone and very similar icons after. They changed from what they used before to a similar shaped white phone on a green background with stripes. I mean really:
> 
> 
> Originally I thought Apple was taking it too far... but after the court documents leaked showing that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone I changed my mind. Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent others from using shapes, or symbols, or whatever, but they should be able to defend themselves against copying.
> No you can't. I never said that the F700 was an example of Samsung copying the iPhone.


Are those icons from the original iPhone(has iOS changed at all in five years







visually)? If not I don't see a point comparing them with the f700. Also shouldn't prior art invalidate apples claims of copying?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> It was a typo that it was said 2006 not 2007.


I don't think it was a typo. There's images out there saying it's 2006.
Quote:


> Therefore they couldn't have copied.


And no Samsung didn't copy the iPhone with the F700.
Quote:


> Just have a look at the F700 icons. They needed an overhaul.


They did. But still they had a lot of other choices than exactly what Apple is using.
Quote:


> Yet they ask them to make their SoCs and RAM and NAND


Do you think Samsung would want that to change? They make billions off Apple.
Quote:


> Yes way.


Double no way. Why would they look at the software of a product they think is stolen from them?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kasp1js*
> 
> Are those icons from the original iPhone(has iOS changed at all in five years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> visually)? If not I don't see a point comparing them with the f700. Also shouldn't prior art invalidate apples claims of copying?


As far as I know yes. And yes it has changed somewhat over the years









Prior art... of? Icons? Shape? What are you referring to?


----------



## CaptainChaos

are we assuming that apple actually makes it's usb connectors and designs them from the ground up? I bet it's quite likely that they buy them from a OEM and brand them. Which is why we see similar chargers in pretty much every mobile device now.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> It was a typo that it was said 2006 not 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was a typo. There's images out there saying it's 2006.
> *All from that image.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore they couldn't have copied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And no Samsung didn't copy the iPhone with the F700.
> *There you go.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Just have a look at the F700 icons. They needed an overhaul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did. But still they had a lot of other choices than exactly what Apple is using.
> *Like? Please show me what other phone manufacturers are using and comepare them to Samsung's and Apple's.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they ask them to make their SoCs and RAM and NAND
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think Samsung would want that to change? They make billions off Apple.
> *Nope, but neither does Apple.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Double no way. Why would they look at the software of a product they think is stolen from them?
> *Because they have already copied. iPad Mini anyone? Please tell me who the smaller tablet idea came from. Hint: it's Samsung.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kasp1js*
> 
> Are those icons from the original iPhone(has iOS changed at all in five years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> visually)? If not I don't see a point comparing them with the f700. Also shouldn't prior art invalidate apples claims of copying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know yes. And yes it has changed somewhat over the years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior art... of? Icons? Shape? What are you referring to?
> *This, the F700's icons look nothing like Apple's (or whta they should look like for that matter)*
Click to expand...


----------



## xoleras

I cannot believe my freaking eyes. You people are arguing over icons. ICONS. ICONS. ICONS. So steelbom, you're saying that icons should be patented?







This is a prime example of why the patent system benefits no one except lawyers, and is a detriment to customers.

Furthermore, I can't believe people have the gall to state that people copied an apple USB connector. They look similar BECAUSE ALL USB CABLES look similar! Its an industry standard.



Seriously dude, some people here need to get their head OUT of their nether region. PDMI and USB are INDUSTRY STANDARD CONNECTIONS in which 99% of all cables look the same. I seriously cannot believe some apple fans, it really is unbelievable.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> All from that image.


Not sure what you mean.
Quote:


> There you go.


I've said that several times before now? In the last post or two.
Quote:


> Like? Please show me what other phone manufacturers are using and comepare them to Samsung's and Apple's.


I saw something a little while ago but I can't remember where to find it. They could have used another colour, a differentiating pattern, a different angle for phone. Anything really. It's not hard to come up with a different looking icon.
Quote:


> Nope, but neither does Apple.


I don't think they do but they have contracts in place to make sure neither of them can leave. Apple could shift to someone else but it would be a difficult transition.
Quote:


> Because they have already copied. iPad Mini anyone? Please tell me who the smaller tablet idea came from. Hint: it's Samsung.


That's not the same. Apple already has the iPad -- they're just making it smaller. Samsung didn't have any tablets that looked like the iPad before they brought out their range of tablets.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> I cannot believe my freaking eyes. You people are arguing over icons. ICONS. ICONS. ICONS. So steelbom, you're saying that icons should be patented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of why the patent system benefits no one except lawyers, and is a detriment to customers.


No I never said that. But it's a fact that they are patented.
Quote:


> Furthermore, I can't believe people have the gall to state that people copied an apple USB connector. They look similar BECAUSE ALL USB CABLES look similar! Its an industry standard.


That's not entirely true. And I'm not just talking about the cable either -- the charger is pretty much identical too. And then so is the packaging those things come in.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> All from that image.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> *All the images saying it was shown in 2006 were ased from the mistaken image.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said that several times before now? In the last post or two.
> *You have, just wanted to reinfirce it for some other people who think the F700 was a copy.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Like? Please show me what other phone manufacturers are using and comepare them to Samsung's and Apple's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw something a little while ago but I can't remember where to find it. They could have used another colour, a differentiating pattern, a different angle for phone. Anything really. It's not hard to come up with a different looking icon.
> *That is true... they DID use another pattern!*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but neither does Apple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they do but they have contracts in place to make sure neither of them can leave. Apple could shift to someone else but it would be a difficult transition.
> *Definetely.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have already copied. iPad Mini anyone? Please tell me who the smaller tablet idea came from. Hint: it's Samsung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the same. Apple already has the iPad -- they're just making it smaller. Samsung didn't have any tablets that looked like the iPad before they brought out their range of tablets.
> *Yes. It's not about that. It's about who thought of making the tablets smaller... 1... 2... 3... has it sunk in?*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> I cannot believe my freaking eyes. You people are arguing over icons. ICONS. ICONS. ICONS. So steelbom, you're saying that icons should be patented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of why the patent system benefits no one except lawyers, and is a detriment to customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I never said that. But it's a fact that they are patented.
> *This.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I can't believe people have the gall to state that people copied an apple USB connector. They look similar BECAUSE ALL USB CABLES look similar! Its an industry standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not entirely true. And I'm not just talking about the cable either -- the charger is pretty much identical too. And then so is the packaging those things come in.
> *Someone made a LONG post about this, in some other Apple v Samsung thread.*
Click to expand...


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> All the images saying it was shown in 2006 were ased from the mistaken image.


Okay, gotcha.
Quote:


> You have, just wanted to reinfirce it for some other people who think the F700 was a copy.


Oh okay.
Quote:


> That is true... they DID use another pattern!


I was thinking of something a little more noticeable. They still used white streaks lol. Even changing the colour a little bit as well as the design of the phone. It doesn't have to be that much to make it noticeably different.
Quote:


> Yes. It's not about that. It's about who thought of making the tablets smaller... 1... 2... 3... has it sunk in?


Apple considered the 7 inch size when making the original iPad. It's true Apple is making one now after everyone else has, but that's more following suit than copying. Even if you call it that though, it's still not copying the design of a product.
Quote:


> Someone made a LONG post about this, in some other Apple v Samsung thread.


When was this?

I'm off to sleep for now! Ciao! Good discussion


----------



## Rubers

I've never looked at an S or S2 and thought "Wow this looks like an iPhone"

Apple need putting down and shooing away form these patent suits. I like Samsung phones because they perform well and look great. Same for HTC (which I owned for 4 years prior to this July). I didn't buy either because they copied iPhones. I bought both because they did MORE than an iPhone.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> All the images saying it was shown in 2006 were ased from the mistaken image.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You have, just wanted to reinfirce it for some other people who think the F700 was a copy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh okay.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true... they DID use another pattern!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's not about that. It's about who thought of making the tablets smaller... 1... 2... 3... has it sunk in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone made a LONG post about this, in some other Apple v Samsung thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm off to sleep for now! Ciao! Good discussion
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Okay, gotcha.


Quote:


> I was thinking of something a little more noticeable. They still used white streaks lol. Even changing the colour a little bit as well as the design of the phone. It doesn't have to be that much to make it noticeably different.


I liked the slight shading... now only if they made it a bit more noticeable...
Quote:


> Apple considered the 7 inch size when making the original iPad. It's true Apple is making one now after everyone else has, but that's more following suit than copying. Even if you call it that though, it's still not copying the design of a product.


A bit like Samsung.








Quote:


> When was this?


Few weeks ago, I'll try and find it before you get up.









G'night!


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Apple considered the 7 inch size when making the original iPad. It's true Apple is making one now after everyone else has, but that's more following suit than copying. Even if you call it that though, it's still not copying the design of a product.


Unbearable irony/hypocrisy tbh.

Especially when Apple have attempted to ban Samsung tablets on the basis of aspect ratios.


----------



## DiNet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Unbearable irony/hypocrisy tbh.
> Especially when Apple have attempted to ban Samsung tablets on the basis of aspect ratios.


You forgot color and background.

I wonder what will happen with Samsung ATIV.
From apple side it looks as theirs, as usual and everything. But it's more like asus transformer...


----------



## soth7676

I'll give you my Galaxy SIII when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> The F700 was announced earlier than the iPhone...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no it wasn't: http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Meaningless as far as the lawsuit is concerned. And I don't really see how different you can practically make it if you want an extremely thin but still highly capable connector, but whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment had nothing to do with the law suit. You probably can make it differently but I think Apple's design is pretty efficient -- that's why Samsung copied it. Same for the packaging and so on.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> same goes for the iPhone and every other Samsung phone I can think of except the galaxy ace (that thing really is a blatant 3GS ripoff)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you that a lot of Samsung's smartphones, but I do know a few do -- such as the Galaxy S and S2.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't claim someone stole from you because both of you use a universal symbol such as a telephone, and envelope, an address book... that's incredibly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The symbol is only a small part of it. Samsung used different icons before the iPhone and very similar icons after. They changed from what they used before to a similar shaped white phone on a green background with stripes. I mean really:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally I thought Apple was taking it too far... but after the court documents leaked showing that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone I changed my mind. Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent others from using shapes, or symbols, or whatever, but they should be able to defend themselves against copying.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Mother of God. Like you can design a full smartphone in a month!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you can't. I never said that the F700 was an example of Samsung copying the iPhone.
Click to expand...

OH NO! THEY BOTH HAVE GREEN BACKGROUNDS! I'M TOTALLY GOING TO MISTAKE A SAMSUNG FOR AN IPHONE BECAUSE OF THIS

What's next? Is Apple going to sue because a music player program has a couple eighth notes in it? Is Apple going to sue over their terminal icon being virtually identical to Linux terminal emulators? Is Apple going to sue because their competitor's calendar icon is also a calendar?

Why isn't Apple suing other companies over this? My HTC has a white and green phone as the call app icon.

oh and the F700 icons are painfully horrible


----------



## 2010rig

Only a patent troll patents and sues the competition over icons.

Thank you Steelbom for showing us how much of a Patent Troll Apple is. They really want to ban devices over the look of an icon? Really Apple, quit trolling and start innovating.


----------



## 7tronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soth7676*
> 
> I'll give you my Galaxy SIII when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!


Lol same thoughts exactly, let some rotten fruit lover try...


----------



## vinton13

Doesn't it have a thread somewhere with Apple and Google discussing to end the patent wars?


----------



## no1Joeno1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Bit confused... what?
> I know? I never said they could. They would've been working on it for at least six months if not (and more likely) much longer.
> Yeah but still. Look what their phone icon looked like before. And then it's green with a white phone on it just like the iPhone.
> No way. Apple dislikes Samsung a lot -- no way they're looking up to them.


It changed because THEY STARTED USING ANDROID.


----------



## PunkX 1

Apple turning into a regular Skynet?









And also, give it a rest Steelbom. Icons don't mean jackcrap to ban devices over over. I'm pretty certain I possess basic 2nd grade knowledge to differentiate between names regardless of "similar icons and design". I know what I'm buying.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Apple turning into a regular Skynet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also, give it a rest Steelbom. Icons don't mean jackcrap to ban devices over over. I'm pretty certain I possess basic 2nd grade knowledge to differentiate between names regardless of "similar icons and design". I know what I'm buying.


tbh some people are really ignorant. I know people who call all android phones "droids" and all tablets "ipads"


----------



## pcfoo

Patent lawyers that co-sign in any company's claims on pre-existed patents, inventions that had no patents and in general "application patents" that a vaguely cast proprietary blanket patents that are designed to lead to lawsuits that do nothing but drowning small firms in litigation paperwork and ofc make em tons of money, should be directly sue-able.

Google, Apple, Samsung - all have huge legal departments dedicated to patent exploits and trolling.
Independent "contractor" patent law offices do the same.

Since they have direct financial benefits from perpetuating this unhealthy environment for any true kind of innovation in revised application patenting etc, they should be directly responsible, just like any other professional that signs documents as a clients agent, trained consultant etc.


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


You are sad for trying to defend you're most obvious purchase of the iPhone. I was once like you, a small little lonely child drifting through the winds of change on the apple-bus, waiting for the next touch-screen device to waste time in my boring classes. But you know what i did? i tried the galaxy s2. It smoked the iPharce in speed and use. You are blatantly defending apple because from your point of view, they are correct. Because you love apple and own many apple products i can assume. So you ARE apple in a sense. They feed off you people for their strength and crush all those who oppose with their high class, douchebag lawyers and their patents in which each one has more douchebaggery than the last. They prey on the technologically stupid and defend their shortcomings with the term "ease-of-use". Apple are a plague, and it is spreading; infecting others with its diseases and building off of its own momentum. They must be destroyed.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


Copied how exactly?


----------



## 3930K

He meant the old one, which admittedly did look like Apples.


----------



## Heavy MG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*
> 
> Copied how exactly?


Nonetheless I still find it ridiculous how someone can patent a USB cable or packaging.








A Toyota Prius and a Honda Insight look similar but you don't see them suing each other.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> tbh some people are really ignorant. I know people who call all android phones "droids" and all tablets "ipads"


Everyone I know always calls my PMP a iPod,when it says "Samsung" on the device in large shiny letters.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> A bit like Samsung.


Nope. There's nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple -- that's following suit. When I say copying I'm talking about copying a device, software, packaging or whatever else. Nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple.
Quote:


> Few weeks ago, I'll try and find it before you get up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G'night!


Cheers =)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Unbearable irony/hypocrisy tbh.
> 
> Especially when Apple have attempted to ban Samsung tablets on the basis of aspect ratios.


There's no irony or hypocrisy here. There's nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple. When I say copying I'm talking about copying a device, the software, packaging, etc.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> OH NO! THEY BOTH HAVE GREEN BACKGROUNDS! I'M TOTALLY GOING TO MISTAKE A SAMSUNG FOR AN IPHONE BECAUSE OF THIS
> 
> What's next? Is Apple going to sue because a music player program has a couple eighth notes in it? Is Apple going to sue over their terminal icon being virtually identical to Linux terminal emulators? Is Apple going to sue because their competitor's calendar icon is also a calendar?
> 
> Why isn't Apple suing other companies over this? My HTC has a white and green phone as the call app icon.
> 
> oh and the F700 icons are painfully horrible


The point is Apple has patented their icons. And Samsung (not Android) uses an almost identical icon, and it's not just one, it's like a dozen or more. And in combination with other trade dress claims such as physical design, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Only a patent troll patents and sues the competition over icons.
> 
> Thank you Steelbom for showing us how much of a Patent Troll Apple is. They really want to ban devices over the look of an icon? Really Apple, quit trolling and start innovating.


It's a part of the trade dress. It's not just one icon either, it's like a dozen or more. On top of that it's also about the physical design of the device, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *no1Joeno1*
> 
> It changed because THEY STARTED USING ANDROID.


No. Neither ICS or JB use that icon. Samsung made that icon.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Apple turning into a regular Skynet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also, give it a rest Steelbom. Icons don't mean jackcrap to ban devices over over. I'm pretty certain I possess basic 2nd grade knowledge to differentiate between names regardless of "similar icons and design". I know what I'm buying.


When did I ever say devices should be banned over icons? I didn't. I'm simply stating that Apple has patented the icons and Samsung copied them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> You are sad for trying to defend you're most obvious purchase of the iPhone. I was once like you, a small little lonely child drifting through the winds of change on the apple-bus, waiting for the next touch-screen device to waste time in my boring classes. But you know what i did? i tried the galaxy s2. It smoked the iPharce in speed and use. You are blatantly defending apple because from your point of view, they are correct. Because you love apple and own many apple products i can assume. So you ARE apple in a sense. They feed off you people for their strength and crush all those who oppose with their high class, douchebag lawyers and their patents in which each one has more douchebaggery than the last. They prey on the technologically stupid and defend their shortcomings with the term "ease-of-use". Apple are a plague, and it is spreading; infecting others with its diseases and building off of its own momentum. They must be destroyed.


What's sad is resorting to insults because someone disagrees with you. Firstly I'm not a "small little lonely child" and I don't live for Apple products -- they're just my preference. Secondly I have no intention of buying the iPhone 5. I'm content with my 3GS -- I only use it for phone calls after I got my iPad.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*
> 
> Copied how exactly?


That isn't, I was talking about the other one -- and the wall charger too. And the packaging.


----------



## GrandMax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mad0314*
> 
> That is just the description of the patent, the actual meat of the patent is a lot more words, but probably just as vague.
> Seriously, how can you patent broad actions? The code should be copywritten, but saying "being able to do things with recognizable numbers/addresses" is ridiculous. First of all, smartphones are a type of computer, and computers have been doing that for ages. The idea is not new.
> Second of all, how does this happen?
> 1. Company A takes idea that already exists, adds to it (other ideas that already exist) to make it better. Gets a patent for the "look and feel" of basically the pool of ideas brought together into a device.
> 2. Company B takes idea that already exists, adds to it (other ideas that already exist) to make it better. Gets sued by company A.


Here is the full patent

http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647

edit: Wow. This is quite clear. Samsung is very much a copycat if I judge by the abstract. I could even think the SIII is an iPhone.
Quote:


> A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrandMax*
> 
> Here is the full patent
> http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
> edit: Wow. This is quite clear. Samsung is very much a copycat if I judge by the abstract. I could even think the SIII is an iPhone.


----------



## vinton13

Here is something I found on 9gag...


----------



## Djmatrix32

Well here is the next thing they sue

On topic it seems like every thing is already patented so why bother?


----------



## Master__Shake

motorola owns the patent on the so called "apple connector" fast forward to 5:40

heres a video i hope you all watch.


----------



## 2010rig

The Apple Way


----------



## townending

Edit: Nevermind, wrong info


----------



## rdrdrdrd

I can see where this is going....









Also, apple "stole" the 3.5mm headphone jack! how dare they use a longtime standard size and shaped connector to maximize device interconectivity!


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdrdrdrd*
> 
> I can see where this is going....
> Also, apple "stole" the 3.5mm headphone jack! how dare they use a longtime standard size and shaped connector to maximize device interconectivity!


Did you see that Samsung TV? They're such copycats.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Nope. There's nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple -- that's following suit. When I say copying I'm talking about copying a device, software, packaging or whatever else. Nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple.


OK then, so that's sorted.
Quote:


> Cheers =)


Found it. There are some points not about the charger, but points 4 and 5 are what you're looking for.


Spoiler: Long post!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Big wall-o-text
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I even reply to this crap. Anyway:
> 
> 1. The GUI as you know today, was invented by Xerox. Please do some research.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
> The MacOS was simply a newer version of an already existing invention. I.e. an evolution.
> 
> 2. The mouse was an evolution (you said this). It wasn't apple's invention. Next item.
> 
> 3. So when Google evolves the search engine, its OK, and when Facebook evolvoes the online social network, its also OK. But when Samsung evolves the PDA/Cellphone/Tablet its sudenly a rip-off / mimic of the iPhone. No, its an evolution. My GS2 has a bigger screen, a better camera (in every way), better reception (4g), better CPU, better GPU, more RAM, expansion slot (i.e. for SD Card), and so on. Its an evolution.
> 
> 4. Cool. One end is a USB. *UNIVERSAL* serial bus. SO we've got a USB end. That needs a shell on it of some sort, and you're going to want to keep the form SMALL. Also, the last time anyone anywhere released an item with sharp edges, they got sued into oblivion. OK, so the USB end is going to look identical, or very similar.
> 
> Next up, is the other end. Well, firstly, modern Samsung phones use a micro USB connector, so that's just false. Secondly, let's look at the form factor. The other end has got to both fit the phone (so it needs to be more thin than the phone), and be similar in size to the USB end. So we're limited to basically a USB end. Next, we want decent data rates, and due to size constraints, it cant be very 'tall'. So we're left with a wide connector. Geee, looks like that's what they did. My Zune HD has the same thing.
> 
> 5. The USB to wall adapter. Ok. So, again, as per required, one end needs to be a USB (so the thing can plug in), and the other needs to plug into a wall. Again, sharp-edges are basically out of the question (someone would sue because it cut them). So, we get a wall-socket shaped adapter with rounded edges. WOW. MAGICAL.
> 
> 6. I have a galaxy S2, and I can tell you for a fact that the image is Photoshopped. Really, search before posting. Android phones run Google maps. Apple holds absolutely ZERO ownership of google maps.
> 
> 7. Ok, two different phones side-by-side. I guess we're arguing the grid icon thing. But then you said this
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Excellent point. Where do you think they copied(legally) them from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and Samsung legally copied from the same place. Your point?
Click to expand...




Quote:


> There's no irony or hypocrisy here. There's nothing wrong with Samsung releasing tablets after Apple. When I say copying I'm talking about copying a device, the software, packaging, etc.


You didn't answer his question. The aspect ratio, why did they sue over it?
Quote:


> The point is Apple has patented their icons. And Samsung (not Android) uses an almost identical icon, and it's not just one, it's like a dozen or more. And in combination with other trade dress claims such as physical design, etc.


Yeah, they had a good idea with the shading, but it's so tiny and they're almost equal.
Quote:


> When did I ever say devices should be banned over icons? I didn't. I'm simply stating that Apple has patented the icons and Samsung copied them.


And they offered to license them iinm.
Quote:


> No. Neither ICS or JB use that icon. Samsung made that icon.


That's true, they use a blue phone icon on a transparent background.
Quote:


> What's sad is resorting to insults because someone disagrees with you. Firstly I'm not a "small little lonely child" and I don't live for Apple products -- they're just my preference. Secondly I have no intention of buying the iPhone 5. I'm content with my 3GS -- I only use it for phone calls after I got my iPad.


This is true. I prefer Android, plain and simple. However I can agree with some of these points, because they are TRUE and there is no way to debunk them. Steelbom states facts, not opinions. He has ben flamed for this many times. He has a preference, let him have one. Don't flame him over it. Yes, I have an iPhone; however I want a GNote. And am planning to upgrade to it. I am trying to defend some of his points, because most of them are FACTS. Facts cannot be false, no matter what. Facts are true else they would not be facts.


----------



## RX7-2nr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Apple considered the 7 inch size when making the original iPad. It's true Apple is making one now after everyone else has, but that's more following suit than copying. Even if you call it that though, it's still not copying the design of a product.


So following suit is OK, but making a rectangular phone with rounded edges and a fullscreen touchscreen is just massively out of line? Nevermind the fact that the general customer base was moving away from Blackberry style phones and qwerty keyboards. Nevermind the fact that people wanted the larger screens for better internet browsing and media viewing.

Apparently that is not just following suit, its "slavishly copying" and is "a stolen product".


----------



## Rubers

I don't even see why there should be a patent on "taking numbers and links form a device and displaying them" and all that crap.

I'll say this again, unless Samsung copied word for word the code used to do that then Apple have no case.


----------



## LuminatX

Samsung doesn't even care, the amount of money they make, and save on RnD is well worth the billion dollars they pay to apple lol.
that's like paying 1% of your annual income and having to do no RnD.
Seems like a smart idea to me!


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuminatX*
> 
> Samsung doesn't even care, the amount of money they make, and save on RnD is well worth the billion dollars they pay to apple lol.
> that's like paying 1% of your annual income and having to do no RnD.
> Seems like a smart idea to me!


What a piss poor comment, really. Samsung didn't copy Apple


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's what Apple has done and is doing that say so, not me.
> Uh no but Samsung did copy Apple's USB cable. And packaging. And everything else. Have you seen a comparison before the iPhone and then after? It's such a coincidence that those things happened to magically change to a Apple-like design after Apple released the iPhone.


bro, it has a usb connector on one end and iPod connector on the other. Theres only so many things you can do to a cable...


----------



## lacrossewacker

apple's way of beating competition.....legal


----------



## von rottes

Apple, the new cancer..................
Seriously though if they are going after just one company fro something ALL companies do? Like predictive text...even windows mobile did that.

Sent From My HTC Amaze 4G Via TapaTalk2


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> The Apple Way


The iPhone is sufficiently different from the LG Prada, particularly on the sides and back. That aside Apple have a prototype from 2005 that looks almost identical to it now. It would've been pretty hard to copy the Prada seeing that it wasn't released yet








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Found it. There are some points not about the charger, but points 4 and 5 are what you're looking for.


I read them but I don't agree. Perhaps with the cable, but the charger -- it's the exact same physical size as Apple's charger. There are different designs possible to exactly what Apple uses.
Quote:


> You didn't answer his question. The aspect ratio, why did they sue over it?


I'd have to see the law suit. It's definitely not fair suing over aspect ratio... unless it's patented, but that would be a pretty ridiculous patent to be granted.
Quote:


> Yeah, they had a good idea with the shading, but it's so tiny and they're almost equal.


I know, but a dozen or two of those icons plus a similar design to the iPhone and it's a lot bigger than just a few icons.
Quote:


> And they offered to license them iinm.


No they didn't offer to license it. The iPhone and iOS are Apple's signature, so to speak, so they're definitely going to vigorously attack anything that they think is copying it, so they won't ever license that.
Quote:


> This is true. I prefer Android, plain and simple. However I can agree with some of these points, because they are TRUE and there is no way to debunk them. Steelbom states facts, not opinions. He has ben flamed for this many times. He has a preference, let him have one. Don't flame him over it. Yes, I have an iPhone; however I want a GNote. And am planning to upgrade to it. I am trying to defend some of his points, because most of them are FACTS. Facts cannot be false, no matter what. Facts are true else they would not be facts.


Thank you =)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RX7-2nr*
> 
> So following suit is OK, but making a rectangular phone with rounded edges and a fullscreen touchscreen is just massively out of line? Nevermind the fact that the general customer base was moving away from Blackberry style phones and qwerty keyboards. Nevermind the fact that people wanted the larger screens for better internet browsing and media viewing.
> 
> Apparently that is not just following suit, its "slavishly copying" and is "a stolen product".


Making a rectangular smartphone with rounded edges is just fine, of course, but copying the iPhone and its software is not. Apple won't be copying any product with the iPad Mini -- it will for the most part look exactly as the iPad does, but smaller. It's not the same as if they released a tablet that looked like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, for the front, back and sides, and even copied some of the UI.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I don't even see why there should be a patent on "taking numbers and links form a device and displaying them" and all that crap.
> 
> I'll say this again, unless Samsung copied word for word the code used to do that then Apple have no case.


They probably shouldn't -- though it's probably a lot more detailed than the title.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> bro, it has a usb connector on one end and iPod connector on the other. Theres only so many things you can do to a cable...


By cable I mean the charger as well, perhaps with the cable there's not much they can do -- but the charger is like the exact same dimensions as Apple's charger. There are other ways to design a different charger, it's not hard to think up something which would differentiate it.


----------



## rainbowhash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> By cable I mean the charger as well, perhaps with the cable there's not much they can do -- but the charger is like the exact same dimensions as Apple's charger. There are other ways to design a different charger, it's not hard to think up something which would differentiate it.


With that said there's only so many dimensions before someone makes one identical to another, the unlucky fact that it's the same size as the Apple one makes it worse since they're (PROBABLY) the only company who would sue over something like that, or even bring it up for that matter.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I don't even see why there should be a patent on "taking numbers and links from a device and displaying them" and all that crap. I'll say this again, unless Samsung copied word for word the code used to do that then Apple have no case.


And as they're based on fairly different structures, the code (if identical) wouldn't work. I Was actually unaware of this patent until now, and this makes the battle even dumber. If they are succesful this will be a dark case for technological advances.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainbowhash*
> 
> With that said there's only so many dimensions before someone makes one identical to another, the unlucky fact that it's the same size as the Apple one makes it worse since they're (PROBABLY) the only company who would sue over something like that, or even bring it up for that matter.


It's clear they copied Apple with the design of it. They could've adjusted the shape a little, or dimensions, added a pattern or embellishments, anything really. But it's identical. As is the packaging it comes in.


----------



## RX7-2nr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The iPhone is sufficiently different from the LG Prada, particularly on the sides and back. That aside Apple have a prototype from 2005 that looks almost identical to it now. It would've been pretty hard to copy the Prada seeing that it wasn't released yet


That is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that I was pointing out earlier. You try to make the point that the iphone is "sufficiently different" looking. The overwhelming majority of phones that Apple is trying to ban look "sufficiently different" from the iphone, yet they still bring trade dress infringement accusations against them.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RX7-2nr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The iPhone is sufficiently different from the LG Prada, particularly on the sides and back. That aside Apple have a prototype from 2005 that looks almost identical to it now. It would've been pretty hard to copy the Prada seeing that it wasn't released yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that I was pointing out earlier. You try to make the point that the iphone is "sufficiently different" looking. The overwhelming majority of phones that Apple is trying to ban look "sufficiently different" from the iphone, yet they still bring trade dress infringement accusations against them.
Click to expand...

How is it hypocrisy on my part? Where have I ever stated that every smartphone that Apple is claiming has infringed on their design patents is valid? I have not.

But you miss the key point in my post. Apple had a prototype of the iPhone *BEFORE* the LG Prada. Apple got the design for the iPhone from the iPad, and they had an iPad prototype back in 2002.

Quote:


> *D '677 patent*
> Switching to hardware, D '677 relates to the front face of an electronic device, as embodied by the iPhone.


The majority of devices that are claimed to have infringed this are the Galaxy S, S2 and variants of them.
Quote:


> *D '087 patent*
> Similar to D '677, the D '087 patent concerns the general outline or "ornamental" design of a phone.


Only three devices are claimed to infringe this patent, one is the Galaxy S and another is the Galaxy S 4G.

If you subtract the Galaxy S, S2 and their variants from the list of claimed infringements for the above two patents, only a total of six smartphones remain. The other nine are all Galaxy S, S2 and their variants. I do agree that the Galaxy S and S2 are copies of the iPhone. That's not unreasonable either considering the evidence against Samsung.
Quote:


> *D '305 patent*
> Jumping to the user interface, the D '305 patent centers on a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.


This is the *biggest* list of unique smartphone's that Apple has claimed are infringing on their patent. Only three of them are Galaxy S or S variants.


----------



## Master__Shake

did apple patent the white box??


----------



## noobhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> did apple patent the white box??


Probably. They are the corporation worldwide with the most patents and have some real nonsense as patents.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noobhell*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> did apple patent the white box??
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. They are the corporation worldwide with the most patents and have some real nonsense as patents.
Click to expand...

Uh no. Apple's patent collection is small comparatively. Check out latestpatents.com -- not related to my previous statement.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's clear they copied Apple with the design of it. They could've adjusted the shape a little, or dimensions, added a pattern or embellishments, anything really. But it's identical. As is the packaging it comes in.


They really didn't copy Apple. Nothing about it is like Apple.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> They really didn't copy Apple. Nothing about it is like Apple.


Are we talking about the same things? I posted a picture of the charger a few pages back, have you seen it? Aside from colour there's not really any difference between the two. And the packaging is practically identical as well.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Are we talking about the same things? I posted a picture of the charger a few pages back, have you seen it? Aside from colour there's not really any difference between the two. And the packaging is practically identical as well.


Did you get the memo?


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> The iPhone is sufficiently different from the LG Prada, particularly on the sides and back. That aside Apple have a prototype from 2005 that looks almost identical to it now. It would've been pretty hard to copy the Prada seeing that it wasn't released yet


Please tell me how, it doesn't seem very different to me.
They copied Sony on that one, what's your point?
Quote:


> I read them but I don't agree. Perhaps with the cable, but the charger -- it's the exact same physical size as Apple's charger. There are different designs possible to exactly what Apple uses.


The different colour is enough IMO.
Quote:


> I know, but a dozen or two of those icons plus a similar design to the iPhone and it's a lot bigger than just a few icons.


It is, but some of the icons are ridiculous. A calendar can't be the calendar icon? For god's sake.
Quote:


> No they didn't offer to license it. The iPhone and iOS are Apple's signature, so to speak, so they're definitely going to vigorously attack anything that they think is copying it, so they won't ever license that.


But the thing is that TouchWiz is not like iOS at ALL, apart from the icons. Also, those patents should be FRAND if valid.
Quote:


> Thank you =)


No problem


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Did you get the memo?


You must have missed my post where I pointed out that Apple has an iPhone prototype from 2005 which looks just like the original iPhone that was released.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Please tell me how, it doesn't seem very different to me.
> They copied Sony on that one, what's your point?


They most definitely did not copy Sony. Apple proved that by showing iPhone prototypes that were made before the "Sony" prototype. See above.

How is it different? The iPhone has more rounded sides, the back is curved, it has a silver border around the front, one button on the front. The Prada has less rounded sides, a flat back, gray-silver border in-between the front and back going around the sides, and several buttons on the front. It's pretty easy to tell they're very different smartphones.
Quote:


> It is, but some of the icons are ridiculous. A calendar can't be the calendar icon? For god's sake.


It can, but not in a way that is very similar to Apple.
Quote:


> But the thing is that TouchWiz is not like iOS at ALL, apart from the icons. Also, those patents should be FRAND if valid.


Yep. Those icons are Apple's "look" and they don't want to be copied. It shouldn't be difficult to change them.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> They most definitely did not copy Sony. Apple proved that by showing iPhone prototypes that were made before the "Sony" prototype. See above.
> 
> How is it different? The iPhone has more rounded sides, the back is curved, it has a silver border around the front, one button on the front. The Prada has less rounded sides, a flat back, gray-silver border in-between the front and back going around the sides, and several buttons on the front. It's pretty easy to tell they're very different smartphones.


Please link?

By Apple logic it's not... I mean it has rounded corners and edge-to-edge glass...
Quote:


> It can, but not in a way that is very similar to Apple.


How could they make it different? It's alreeady a different colour iirc...
Also why don't Apple make new icons? They could call their new iPhone Iconusonary.
Quote:


> Yep. Those icons are Apple's "look" and they don't want to be copied. It shouldn't be difficult to change them.


You're wrong there. Apple's "look" is a widget-less screen that can only be viewed in portrait with a normal-looking transition.


----------



## noobhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Uh no. Apple's patent collection is small comparatively. Check out latestpatents.com -- not related to my previous statement.


i read that in a german apple magazin (and I thiunk they know more) so no need of protecting apple just because a mbp is sitting on your desk


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Are we talking about the same things? I posted a picture of the charger a few pages back, have you seen it? Aside from colour there's not really any difference between the two. And the packaging is practically identical as well.


But they're not the only company (apple, I mean) to package their products like that. And a charger is a charger. That's starting to clutch at straws right there.


----------



## rainbowhash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's clear they copied Apple with the design of it. They could've adjusted the shape a little, or dimensions, added a pattern or embellishments, anything really. But it's identical. As is the packaging it comes in.


Read all of it. There is limited dimensions for something that small, i can guarantee that someone would have had the design for it if it were to be a slight amount smaller in serbia or some random country. The fact that someone's actually kicking a fit about something as insignificant as a charger which most companies give for free is pretty silly. Plus just because the dimensions ended up the same as the Apple charger, it does not imply that it's worse than copying any other brand or company.

EDIT: Also i doubt they would have added a pattern as it would never fit in with any of their current products and not sell if people were to lose them. As an Apple nazi i'm sure you're aware of companies maintaining a theme in their current product line


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Please link?
> 
> By Apple logic it's not... I mean it has rounded corners and edge-to-edge glass...


Here's the link: http://dottech.org/ios/75214/apple-proves-it-didnt-copy-sony-judge-wont-let-samsung-use-apple-copied-sony-evidence-apple-vs-samsung/

That's only one component of their trade dress -- they couldn't sue for that alone.
Quote:


> How could they make it different? It's alreeady a different colour iirc...
> Also why don't Apple make new icons? They could call their new iPhone Iconusonary.


Why would they? Apple's icons are familiar. Anything really, shape would probably be the easiest. They could alter it slightly. Here's some of Samsung's past chargers: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Samsung+charger. (I had to link it via lmgtfy because I couldn't get a direct link -- hit image search after it takes you to Google.)
Quote:


> You're wrong there. Apple's "look" is a widget-less screen that can only be viewed in portrait with a normal-looking transition.


Not quite. They may add widgets eventually. The look consists mostly of the dock, and icons.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noobhell*
> 
> i read that in a german apple magazin (and I thiunk they know more) so no need of protecting apple just because a mbp is sitting on your desk


I'm not protecting Apple and what Apple products I own has nothing to do with my posts on this forum.

And where did you think I read it? I read an article (which I can't find now) by a technology site which showed in numbers how many patents the current crop of companies have, and I was surprised to find that Apple was low on the list. Companies like HP, Dell, Amazon, and Nokia, have tens of thousands of patents, if I remember correctly. Apple was small fry in comparison. If you don't wish to believe me, then be my guest.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> But they're not the only company (apple, I mean) to package their products like that. And a charger is a charger. That's starting to clutch at straws right there.


Can you show me any products that use the same packaging before Apple started using it?

And no a charger isn't a charger: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Samsung+charger. (I had to link it via lmgtfy because I couldn't get a direct link -- hit image search after it takes you to Google.)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainbowhash*
> 
> Read all of it. There is limited dimensions for something that small, i can guarantee that someone would have had the design for it if it were to be a slight amount smaller in serbia or some random country. The fact that someone's actually kicking a fit about something as insignificant as a charger which most companies give for free is pretty silly. Plus just because the dimensions ended up the same as the Apple charger, it does not imply that it's worse than copying any other brand or company.


I'm not kicking a fit. I'm just pointing out that they copied it. No there's not limited dimensions for something that small. It isn't hard to make a charger that doesn't look exactly like Apple's charger, or packaging. Have a look here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Samsung+charger. (I had to link it via lmgtfy because I couldn't get a direct link -- hit image search after it takes you to Google.)
Quote:


> EDIT: Also i doubt they would have added a pattern as it would never fit in with any of their current products and not sell if people were to lose them. As an Apple nazi i'm sure you're aware of companies maintaining a theme in their current product line


That's a rather offensive title, I'm not an "Apple nazi". They could have done anything to differentiate it without breaking their "theme".


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> You must have missed my post where I pointed out that Apple has an iPhone prototype from 2005 which looks just like the original iPhone that was released.


I think you missed the point.

The iPhone design is NOT original, and is not deserving of a patent over it.


----------



## rainbowhash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm not kicking a fit. I'm just pointing out that they copied it. No there's not limited dimensions for something that small. It isn't hard to make a charger that doesn't look exactly like Apple's charger, or packaging. Have a look here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Samsung+charger. (I had to link it via lmgtfy because I couldn't get a direct link -- hit image search after it takes you to Google.) That's a rather offensive title, I'm not an "Apple nazi". They could have done anything to differentiate it without breaking their "theme".


All of the ones i see there are identical to the nokia ones i have at home, and my samsung one that i have at home is nothing close to the iPhone ones that i own. I will gladly get you a picture of my walkman charger which is what the apple one is based off, the only difference is that it's not USB, but a cable just so that the charger's modular and not a mess. Plus if it were simple enough to differentiate on a phone charger of the phone that's supposedly "un-sueable" and designed by lawyers, then they would have, except clearly the company wasn't picturing another company to be as agressive to actually sue over something that insignificant.

Also, as a small business manager and part owner, i know how stupendous this seems, our "cookie" recepie has been stolen and whored out to all of the cafes in the local reigon, and i'm not going to sue them because
a) I'm aware that it's a small proportion of proffit, and;
b) Unlike Apple, if i were to run around trying to kill-off other business with unreasonable patents then i would get the negative stigma with my company and go bust, they're lucky enough to have a consumer base who couldn't care less.

Plus Apple-Nazi is barely offensive, i'm trying to keep these titles SFW here


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I think you missed the point.
> 
> The iPhone design is NOT original, and is not deserving of a patent over it.


I don't see how I missed the point... yours was that the iPhone was a copy of the LG Prada from 2006, and then I showed you a prototype iPhone from 2005, which shows that it wasn't a copy. How isn't it original? Where is this iPhone-like design before 2005?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainbowhash*
> 
> All of the ones i see there are identical to the nokia ones i have at home, and my samsung one that i have at home is nothing close to the iPhone ones that i own. I will gladly get you a picture of my walkman charger which is what the apple one is based off, the only difference is that it's not USB, but a cable just so that the charger's modular and not a mess. *Plus if it were simple enough to differentiate on a phone charger of the phone that's supposedly "un-sueable" and designed by lawyers, then they would have*, except clearly the company wasn't picturing another company to be as agressive to actually sue over something that insignificant.


It's been proven that Samsung purposefully copied Apple. That was there intention. So no even if it was simple, they wouldn't necessarily do it. But you're correct -- they definitely didn't see Apple suing them over these things. Yeah I'll have a look at it if you can chuck it up.
Quote:


> Also, as a small business manager and part owner, i know how stupendous this seems, our "cookie" recepie has been stolen and whored out to all of the cafes in the local reigon, and i'm not going to sue them because
> a) I'm aware that it's a small proportion of proffit, and;
> b) Unlike Apple, if i were to run around trying to kill-off other business with unreasonable patents then i would get the negative stigma with my company and go bust, they're lucky enough to have a consumer base who couldn't care less.


But what if you had created an amazing cookie recipe which was drastically different from the current crop of recipes being used? And that it was pulling in 60% of all your revenue? And then someone copied it and started profiting off your hard work? Would that be okay? And what if your profit started to decrease because of this? I don't think anyone would be comfortable with that. It was proven that Samsung copied Apple -- that's why the charger and packaging are practically identical to what Apple made, and that's why a few of their smartphones resemble the iPhone.
Quote:


> Plus Apple-Nazi is barely offensive, i'm trying to keep these titles SFW here


Maybe not to you, but it's offensive to me. I take that word quite seriously and I don't need to tell you why.


----------



## SniperTeamTango

Nazi comments are not alright also this is a forum ergo we subscribe to the godwin law.
JS.


----------



## rainbowhash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's been proven that Samsung purposefully copied Apple. That was there intention. So no even if it was simple, they wouldn't necessarily do it. But you're correct -- they definitely didn't see Apple suing them over these things. Yeah I'll have a look at it if you can chuck it up.
> But what if you had created an amazing cookie recipe which was drastically different from the current crop of recipes being used? And that it was pulling in 60% of all your revenue? And then someone copied it and started profiting off your hard work? Would that be okay? And what if your profit started to decrease because of this? I don't think anyone would be comfortable with that. It was proven that Samsung copied Apple -- that's why the charger and packaging are practically identical to what Apple made, and that's why a few of their smartphones resemble the iPhone.
> Maybe not to you, but it's offensive to me. I take that word quite seriously and I don't need to tell you why.


Actually for the cookie it was a big game changer, increasing revenue in the sweets by a good 15-20%, so it is a significant increase. Also i would like to see a source or statement by a samsung representative, it's not unbelievable, except it would be handy, plus FIFO work at the moment, i'll be home this weekend (Hopefully). Plus packaging is a different issue and simple erganomics (spelt wrong) will tell you that the logical development for a box will be so that it's small enough to hold all that's needed.
/offtopic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Here's the link: http://dottech.org/ios/75214/apple-proves-it-didnt-copy-sony-judge-wont-let-samsung-use-apple-copied-sony-evidence-apple-vs-samsung/
> 
> That's only one component of their trade dress -- they couldn't sue for that alone.


Ah OK.
OK.
Quote:


> Why would they? Apple's icons are familiar. Anything really, shape would probably be the easiest. They could alter it slightly. Here's some of Samsung's past chargers: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Samsung+charger. (I had to link it via lmgtfy because I couldn't get a direct link -- hit image search after it takes you to Google.)


Hmm... that is interesting. However, Apple didn't have the first chargers that looked like that...
Quote:


> Not quite. They may add widgets eventually. The look consists mostly of the dock, and icons.


Guess who they would be copying then?


----------



## Rubers

A charger is a charger anyway. They weren't the first to have a charger like that and they won't be the last.

The packaging is the packaging, also. So, the phone is the first thing you see when you open the box. It's fine. The stupid thing is expecting to hammer down on anything remotely similar.

The way Samsung were "punished" (erroneously and against court orders, I might add) was ridiculous and the kind of thing you'd expect if they'd blatantly ripped code directly form the iPhone by reserve engineering and not even bothered to hide Apple's code comments... But instead it's all on pedantic and pathetic things like "trade dress" because it "looks similar to" and crap things like "look the chargers look the same.

Apple need to either die as a company (which can happen, don't think that 600bil can last if the stock shares plummet) or stop suing everyone for stupid things. Samsung's merit has been on the power and software of their phones, which function differently form iPhones. I personally bought my S3 because it's a quad core powerhouse.


----------



## sooyong94

This is my reaction to the lawsuit....


----------



## noobhell

Jut saying to the intel fans here that intel was also not always a good boy. They also went after cyrix saying they copied from them getting cyrix in financial trouble (even though that was wrong)


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noobhell*
> 
> Jut saying to the intel fans here that intel was also not always a good boy. They also went after cyrix saying they copied from them getting cyrix in financial trouble (even though that was wrong)


I have no idea how this pertains to the thread here...I was a amd fan before i switched to intel...I just go with what brings the best performance for the price...right now intel seems to be rolling in that direction(unless you are talking about intel's "extreme" chips)... do wish amd would catch up with intel for better competition...


----------



## Awk34

GAWD I'm so tired of apple's s**t


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainbowhash*
> 
> Actually for the cookie it was a big game changer, increasing revenue in the sweets by a good 15-20%, so it is a significant increase. Also i would like to see a source or statement by a samsung representative, it's not unbelievable, except it would be handy, plus FIFO work at the moment, i'll be home this weekend (Hopefully). Plus packaging is a different issue and simple erganomics (spelt wrong) will tell you that the logical development for a box will be so that it's small enough to hold all that's needed.
> /offtopic
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


Yeah I'm just saying, if you invented a recipe that became hugely popular you'd be pretty ticked if someone stole it and started profiting off it, and worse if you started making less. A source or statement from Samsung for what?

Yeah, it may be logical, but that's not what Samsung was doing before:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Hmm... that is interesting. However, Apple didn't have the first chargers that looked like that...


Do you have any proof of that? I don't think I've ever seen a charger that looks just like it.
Quote:


> Guess who they would be copying then?


Not Android









Apple's had widgets in Dashboard for a long time, it's only natural that they put them in iOS (which they have already somewhat) and on the home screen too. It's not as if Google came up with something Apple had never thought of and then Apple implemented it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> A charger is a charger anyway. They weren't the first to have a charger like that and they won't be the last.


But have you any proof of that? I don't think I've ever seen a charger that's almost identical to the Apple charger.
Quote:


> The packaging is the packaging, also. So, the phone is the first thing you see when you open the box. It's fine. The stupid thing is expecting to hammer down on anything remotely similar.


It's still Apple's IP. You can't just copy someone:


Quote:


> The way Samsung were "punished" (erroneously and against court orders, I might add) was ridiculous and the kind of thing you'd expect if they'd blatantly ripped code directly form the iPhone by reserve engineering and not even bothered to hide Apple's code comments... But instead it's all on pedantic and pathetic things like "trade dress" because it "looks similar to" and crap things like "look the chargers look the same.
> 
> Apple need to either die as a company (which can happen, don't think that 600bil can last if the stock shares plummet) or stop suing everyone for stupid things. Samsung's merit has been on the power and software of their phones, which function differently form iPhones. I personally bought my S3 because it's a quad core powerhouse.


The majority of devices that are claimed to be infringing on the two iPhone (hardware) design patents are the Galaxy S, S2 and their variants. The biggest is the software design patent.


----------



## rainbowhash

The Design on the boxes is fair enough, it's pretty obvious that there are slight modifications able on the boxes to make it less obvious, My Series 9 and HTC OneX came in similar box shapes. But i guess it's what the consumer would want in the end, which i comend Apple for doing, which is the placement of the product right when you open the box, instead of it being covered. Plus i forgot the quote thingy, i'll have a look over it later tonight if i remember


----------



## Rubers

You keep posting that image but it doesn't make any more sense the 100th time you do it.

It's packaging. It's not something you can claim you were copied on. That's just ******ed and clutching straws.

"yeah, well... erm, they copied our box and charger!! nur nur!!







"










Like the guy above me says, Samsung aren't the only ones to do this. I personally didn't know Apple got there first with this kind of packaging. But it's not something they can claim a monopoly on. My first encounter was HTC doing this 2 years ago. Then, it was my Galaxy S3. Just seems to have been the way things have gone.

Remember GI Joe toys? Remember hojw they come in those packages? That, every single other toy comes in as well? It's not something you can copyright or patent. If you can, then that just shows a further broken system.

As for the charger. It's a box with a USB port on it. They don't come like that in the UK anyway, but it's a god damn box with a USB port on it. Not something to get fired up about.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> You keep posting that image but it doesn't make any more sense the 100th time you do it.
> 
> It's packaging. It's not something you can claim you were copied on. That's just ******ed and clutching straws.
> 
> "yeah, well... erm, they copied our box and charger!! nur nur!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the guy above me says, Samsung aren't the only ones to do this. I personally didn't know Apple got there first with this kind of packaging. But it's not something they can claim a monopoly on. My first encounter was HTC doing this 2 years ago. Then, it was my Galaxy S3. Just seems to have been the way things have gone.
> 
> Remember GI Joe toys? Remember hojw they come in those packages? That, every single other toy comes in as well? It's not something you can copyright or patent. If you can, then that just shows a further broken system.
> 
> As for the charger. It's a box with a USB port on it. They don't come like that in the UK anyway, but it's a god damn box with a USB port on it. Not something to get fired up about.


It's neither ******ed nor clutching at straws -- you can place as little value on the packaging as you want but that doesn't change the fact that Apple designed it, and that Samsung copied it, as is clearly shown by the image. Before they used substantially different packaging and after they use practically identical packaging -- it doesn't get much clearer than that. Apple has design patents on their packaging, and have already won a trade dress claim over it if I remember correctly.

And the only reason it's the "way things have gone" is because Apple designed this packaging. The fact that HTC (and whoever else) has copied them as well doesn't make it okay.

No one is getting fired up about it. I'm just pointing out that they've copied the charger, packaging, and both the iPhone and iPad. If you don't believe any of that then you need to take another look at the documents leaked in the Apple vs Samsung case.


----------



## Rubers

Yes, yes it does make it okay. You can't copyright packaging that's just ******ed.

Copyright and patents should be reserved for source code (IE, not just a patent on interial scrolling, but rather the exact code used ot do this... because it can be done another way just fine and not be infringing in my eyes so long as the code isn't stolen), not vague methods. Trade dress, yes, but only to the extent something is a complete rip off. For example, the GooPhone. Or a Sony TV that looks identical except the Sony writing is "Pony" or something. Aside from the fact that the S, S2 and S3 look and act nothing like iPhones, there is no case anyway since they aren't "complete rip offs" they have the Samsung logo emblazoned everywhere.

You aren't going to convince me that these lawsuits are justified. There is nothing that can be said that will make me change my mind. Apple are wrong for suing and wrong for going for bans. The products they're fingering just so happen to be the most successful and direct competition to Apple - that's no coincidence. No-one buys a Samsung phone because it's like an iPhone or because it copies an iPhone. No-one. (barring, of course, the layman/woman, who would assume any smartphone that does "stuff" is "like an iPhone" like my mother, for example, who referred to my aunties blackberry tablet as an "iPod" (LOL))


----------



## Xeio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Yeah, it may be logical, but that's not what Samsung was doing before:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1034589/width/500/height/1000


That's not really any less biased than the anti-apple pictures (most of he images flying around the internet are basically half-lies or just uninformed).

I mean, even from that picture the Galaxy S box shouldn't have a check under the "Features picture of product prominently on box". And neither the Tab nor the Galaxy S of them having "minimial" silver lettering. The color is silver, but Samsung provides ample amounts of it since they plaster their logo and device name everywhere unlike the Apple packaging.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Do you have any proof of that? I don't think I've ever seen a charger that looks just like it.


No, but I saw it somewhere...
Quote:


> Not Android
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple's had widgets in Dashboard for a long time, it's only natural that they put them in iOS (which they have already somewhat) and on the home screen too. It's not as if Google came up with something Apple had never thought of and then Apple implemented it.


Vista


----------



## Imglidinhere

The Razer's newest laptop, the Blade, uses the exclusive body design from Apple's Macbook Pro, despite being heavily modified...but does Apple care? Nope, they're only concerned that Android devices are ruining their profits... despite them having no debts... and profits in the BILLIONS mind you all. >.> Good work team.

By this point I want to see if Microsoft will ever acquire anything Android related.







Then you KNOW Apple will be screwed.


----------



## Master__Shake

you know who else is copying apple???

ASUS !!!!



i know! looks like they just opened a box and the product they bought was out in the open and look!!! they even had the balls to put the accessories in proximity to the product!!


----------



## SniperTeamTango

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> you know who else is copying apple???
> ASUS !!!!
> 
> i know! looks like they just opened a box and the product they bought was out in the open and look!!! they even had the balls to put the accessories in proximity to the product!!










omg so funny.


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> you know who else is copying apple???
> ASUS !!!!
> 
> i know! looks like they just opened a box and the product they bought was out in the open and look!!! they even had the balls to put the accessories in proximity to the product!!


You're right! I opened my Asus Zenbook case, and BAM - laptop was the first thing I see, with the accessories to the side! It's even made of metal, and its thing! Apple must sue now!
And when I opened my ZUNE HD box? Same thing! Sue sue sue!
And the WORST rip-off ever was with ALL my Intel CPUs. I open the box, and the first thing I see? THE CPU! And even worse, Apple MADE the CPU! All Apple computers have an Core i-series CPU, and then this other company comes along and rips of the name, and packaging. I cant believe it.

/edit

I dont know how the last bit of that sentence got cut off.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> you know who else is copying apple???
> ASUS !!!!
> 
> i know! looks like they just opened a box and the product they bought was out in the open and look!!! they even had the balls to put the accessories in proximity to the product!!
> 
> 
> 
> You're right! I opened my Asus Zenbook case, and BAM - laptop was the first thing I see, with the accessories to the side! It's even made of metal, and its thing! Apple must sue now!
> And when I opened my ZUNE HD box? Same thing! Sue sue sue!
> And the WORST rip-off ever was with ALL my Intel CPUs. I open t
Click to expand...

lmao


----------



## anujsetia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's neither ******ed nor clutching at straws -- you can place as little value on the packaging as you want but that doesn't change the fact that Apple designed it, and that Samsung copied it, as is clearly shown by the image. Before they used substantially different packaging and after they use practically identical packaging -- it doesn't get much clearer than that. Apple has design patents on their packaging, and have already won a trade dress claim over it if I remember correctly.
> And the only reason it's the "way things have gone" is because Apple designed this packaging. The fact that HTC (and whoever else) has copied them as well doesn't make it okay.
> No one is getting fired up about it. I'm just pointing out that they've copied the charger, packaging, and both the iPhone and iPad. If you don't believe any of that then you need to take another look at the documents leaked in the Apple vs Samsung case.


Few questions for you...

Does apple pay you to write such crap ? R u a lawyer representing Apple @ OCN ?

If not then from where do you get such ideas such as to justify suing a company because it has a similar charger or a similar packing ?

I've been reading this thread right from the start & I've not even seen even one logical post that you have made in this thread.....

Everyone knows how flawed US patent system is....

Apple is losing at every location where logic is being seen.......


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> Few questions for you...
> Does apple pay you to write such crap ? R u a lawyer representing Apple @ OCN ?
> If not then from where do you get such ideas such as to justify suing a company because it has a similar charger or a similar packing ?
> I've been reading this thread right from the start & I've not even seen even one logical post that you have made in this thread.....
> Everyone knows how flawed US patent system is....
> Apple is losing at every location where logic is being seen.......


Don't make accusations, please.

Steelbom is a good guy - he just prefers apple products.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Yes, yes it does make it okay. You can't copyright packaging that's just ******ed.


No it doesn't make it okay. You can't copy someone's design so closely, it's just wrong... at best you can use it as inspiration or a guideline. It's not copyrighted, the design is patented -- inside and outside. Apple designed this packaging and the reason it's popular today is because of that.
Quote:


> Copyright and patents should be reserved for source code (IE, not just a patent on interial scrolling, but rather the exact code used ot do this... because it can be done another way just fine and not be infringing in my eyes so long as the code isn't stolen), not vague methods. Trade dress, yes, but only to the extent something is a complete rip off. For example, the GooPhone. Or a Sony TV that looks identical except the Sony writing is "Pony" or something. Aside from the fact that the S, S2 and S3 look and act nothing like iPhones, there is no case anyway since they aren't "complete rip offs" they have the Samsung logo emblazoned everywhere.
> 
> You aren't going to convince me that these lawsuits are justified. There is nothing that can be said that will make me change my mind. Apple are wrong for suing and wrong for going for bans. The products they're fingering just so happen to be the most successful and direct competition to Apple - that's no coincidence. No-one buys a Samsung phone because it's like an iPhone or because it copies an iPhone. No-one. (barring, of course, the layman/woman, who would assume any smartphone that does "stuff" is "like an iPhone" like my mother, for example, who referred to my aunties blackberry tablet as an "iPod" (LOL))


Patents by nature are pretty vague.

Trade dress exists to protect companies from having their work copied. It's been proven that Samsung purposefully copied Apple -- so they deserve to lose. Look at the second reply from the bottom of this post. I go into more detail.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xeio*
> 
> That's not really any less biased than the anti-apple pictures (most of he images flying around the internet are basically half-lies or just uninformed).
> 
> I mean, even from that picture the Galaxy S box shouldn't have a check under the "Features picture of product prominently on box". And neither the Tab nor the Galaxy S of them having "minimial" silver lettering. The color is silver, but Samsung provides ample amounts of it since they plaster their logo and device name everywhere unlike the Apple packaging.


I'm not asking anyone to read what's written on the image. Just look at the packaging -- that's what I'm posting it for.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Vista


Haha... Apple had widgets before that though didn't they?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> Few questions for you...
> 
> Does apple pay you to write such crap ? R u a lawyer representing Apple @ OCN ?
> 
> If not then from where do you get such ideas such as to justify suing a company because it has a similar charger or a similar packing ?
> 
> I've been reading this thread right from the start & I've not even seen even one logical post that you have made in this thread.....
> 
> Everyone knows how flawed US patent system is....
> 
> Apple is losing at every location where logic is being seen.......


No need to be insulting. My posts are very logical.

It's simple, I'm summarise for you: Samsung's smartphones looked different before the iPhone. After the iPhone they look very similar, e.g the Galaxy S and S2. The same is true of Samsung's packaging: before the iPhone it was different and after it's practically identical. And it's been proven via three documents which are particularly damning that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone.

If anyone has trouble understanding this then try removing Apple from the picture and replace it with HTC or another smartphone company, and then ask yourself: if this company created a good different looking smartphone and then another company copied it very closely, is that fair?

It isn't. And that's why the patent system exists -- to protect the products companies design and produce. It's a flawed system, yes, but Apple's justified in suing Samsung over this. (That's not to say _all_ of Samsung's smartphones that Apple's claimed have infringed actually have or not, but the win is deserved.)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Don't make accusations, please.
> 
> Steelbom is a good guy - he just prefers apple products.


Thank you =)


----------



## anujsetia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Don't make accusations, please.
> Steelbom is a good guy - he just prefers apple products.


I have nothing against him....

Was just asking few questions...... I seriously wanted to confirm if he was from Apple or he simply endorses Apple....

@ Steelbom

Nothing against you, man. Everyone is entitled to have his own views & you are as well


----------



## anujsetia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> No need to be insulting. My posts are very logical.
> It's simple, I'm summarise for you: Samsung's smartphones looked different before the iPhone. After the iPhone they look very similar, e.g the Galaxy S and S2. The same is true of Samsung's packaging: before the iPhone it was different and after it's practically identical. And it's been proven via three documents which are particularly damning that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone.
> If anyone has trouble understanding this then try removing Apple from the picture and replace it with HTC or another smartphone company, and then ask yourself: if this company created a good different looking smartphone and then another company copied it very closely, is that fair?
> It isn't. And that's why the patent system exists -- to protect the products companies design and produce. It's a flawed system, yes, but Apple's justified in suing Samsung over this. (That's not to say _all_ of Samsung's smartphones that Apple's claimed have infringed actually have or not, but the win is deserved.)
> Thank you =)


Just one question for you.....

I think all mobile phones are similar & they perform similar functions like calling & sms etc.

If you think your logic is correct then, Don't you think that the first company that made a mobile phone should sue all other companies who make mobiles ?

Apple didn't invent anything they just modified existing things that were available & presented in a beautiful package called an Iphone.

That doesn't give any right to Apple, to sue companies just because they look similar to Iphone, although they perform differently.

Rather the win is deserved or not, just wait.... Everyone knows ruling is biased in US as Apple is a US Company & there are no two ways about it as Samsung was not allowed to presents their proofs by giving reasons that they were late...

Let some rulings come from Europe & true picture will emerge


----------



## Stalker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> I pray to Jesus for the untimely death of Apple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding aside, apple can go screw themselves. Patent/trademark law is beyond screwed up in the US, I hope Apple reaps what they sow one day.


I'm sick of this now, Apple lost another client.


----------



## noobhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> Let some rulings come from Europe & true picture will emerge


You can't sue a company in Europe so they can't sell in the US. The most Smartphones get sold in the US, not in China or in India so it's the best to sue Samsung there. Of course if you would sue Samsung in european countries Apple wouldn't win and it wouldn't be the risk worth it.


----------



## 2010rig

The court where the trial took place was 10 Miles from the Apple campus. There's no possible bias that could've taken place when they are suing a company all the way from South Korea.


----------



## Shrak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> The court where the trial took place was 10 Miles from the Apple campus. There's no possible bias that could've taken place when they are suing a company all the way from South Korea.


I like you better than my neighbor and he's only 15 feet away from me.

Location/Distance has what to do with any bios?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> I have nothing against him....
> 
> Was just asking few questions...... I seriously wanted to confirm if he was from Apple or he simply endorses Apple....
> 
> @ Steelbom
> 
> Nothing against you, man. Everyone is entitled to have his own views & you are as well


It didn't really seem like a question -- you did call what I wrote crap and said you haven't seen a logical post from me yet.

But no I don't work for Apple








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> Just one question for you.....
> 
> I think all mobile phones are similar & they perform similar functions like calling & sms etc.
> 
> If you think your logic is correct then, Don't you think that the first company that made a mobile phone should sue all other companies who make mobiles ?
> 
> Apple didn't invent anything they just modified existing things that were available & presented in a beautiful package called an Iphone.
> 
> That doesn't give any right to Apple, to sue companies just because they look similar to Iphone, although they perform differently.
> 
> Rather the win is deserved or not, just wait.... Everyone knows ruling is biased in US as Apple is a US Company & there are no two ways about it as Samsung was not allowed to presents their proofs by giving reasons that they were late...
> 
> Let some rulings come from Europe & true picture will emerge


If any one company was solely responsible for the development of the mobile phone then they are entitled to licensing fees from any company who wants to make a mobile phone. But I don't think that's how it happened -- I think people over the decades kept building upon what others had done until the mobile phone was born and I'd bet a lot of those people (in the latter years at least) would have patents on the technologies they invented to improve the mobile phone and they most definitely would sue (and have the right to sue) anyone who would use what they invented without licensing it from them.

They have design patents for the iPhone for both hardware and software which means they absolutely do have the right to sue companies who copy the iPhone. That's why trade dress exists, to protect companies products from being too closely copied. It's been proven that Samsung purposefully copied the iPhone -- so they deserve the loss. The majority of the claimed infringing smartphones for Apple's two hardware design patents are the Galaxy S, S2 and their variants -- and I agree with that. I've not seen many of the other smartphones listed so I can't comment on that.


----------



## 3930K

Afaik a version of Vista was leaked before Dashboard.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shrak*
> 
> I like you better than my neighbor and he's only 15 feet away from me.
> Location/Distance has what to do with any bios?


District would have something to do with it if apple paid taxes














.


----------



## Master__Shake

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

the s3 only violates 1 of apples trade dress...

and thats ok









and the s3 has sold 20 million devices in 100 days thats 2 a second

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_sales_skyrocket_20_million_sales_100_days


----------



## RX7-2nr

My next phone will be a Samsung...period.


----------



## Pings

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RX7-2nr*
> 
> My next phone will be a Samsung...period.


I've had them all. Samsung makes a great phone. But, I miss Motorola. I hope all Motorola's go the way of the Nexus now that they are owned by Google. Back to the OP Apple has screwed themselves in the long run. Just watch they opened the flood gates. There are patents they sued Samsung for that Apple did not invent. They companies that did I would think are pretty pissed off. I would be if some company sues another for what your company invented. Thanks Apple this will be the start the patent wars, and Apple won't be on the winning side. Rounded corners? Really! Multitouch? Really Apple....


----------



## SemperfiMorder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xoleras*
> 
> I pray to Jesus for the untimely death of Apple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding aside, apple can go screw themselves. Patent/trademark law is beyond screwed up in the US, I hope Apple reaps what they sow one day.


I agree


----------



## Djmatrix32

Well good thing I got the S3 2 days ago. Apple why you sue so much waht you gonna do next put touch to share with Iphone 6 and sue Samsung? Makes me feel like Apple really never makes any thing all they do is copy and sue. I also feel we as humans are running out of generic ideas so yes you will see copying in same way or fashion.


----------



## Nocturin




----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pings*
> 
> I've had them all. Samsung makes a great phone. But, I miss Motorola. I hope all Motorola's go the way of the Nexus now that they are owned by Google. Back to the OP Apple has screwed themselves in the long run. Just watch they opened the flood gates. There are patents they sued Samsung for that Apple did not invent. They companies that did I would think are pretty pissed off. I would be if some company sues another for what your company invented. Thanks Apple this will be the start the patent wars, and Apple won't be on the winning side. Rounded corners? Really! Multitouch? Really Apple....


I agree. Being a person that still uses a Motorola Razr2 V8 (the Russian Retail model) that is more than 3 years old at this point (and used when I bought it), I know what a well built device is like. I really think I am going to get the Motorola Droid Razr HD Maxx when it comes out... Just because I love my Motorola. (I only am getting a new phone because the battery is getting weak and the vibrate doesn't work from being dropped in a toilet).

Oh, and somewhere Apple complained that Samsung copied the idea of boxing the phone so that when you opened it, the only thing you saw a the phone surrounded by a "dramatic" black surrounding area. I know for a fact that my Motorola Razr2 V8 came packed just like that, and it came out before the iPhone.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*


Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Oh, and somewhere Apple complained that Samsung copied the idea of boxing the phone so that when you opened it, the only thing you saw a the phone surrounded by a "dramatic" black surrounding area. I know for a fact that my Motorola Razr2 V8 came packed just like that, and it came out before the iPhone.


I'm pretty sure the concept was that when you open the box all you see is the smartphone (or tablet) rather than anything else.


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*


Take a look at the original nano released in 2005 on and you can see that it evolutionized from that design and as steelbom mentioned, from the ipod touch/iphone.


----------



## SniperTeamTango

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> *Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.*
> I'm pretty sure the concept was that when you open the box all you see is the smartphone (or tablet) rather than anything else.


I've gotta be missing something because to me that offers no explanation.


----------



## Nocturin

Of course it is


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> If anyone thinks these types of patents are exclusive to Apple then you should have a read over here: http://www.latestpatents.com/category/samsung/. You can have a look at what Samsung's patenting, and on the right side of the page you can look at the latest patents from Google and other companies. Lots of them are just as vague as they are here.


Except most of them don't enforce it.
Unless some company *cough* sue them first.


----------



## Master__Shake

i understand what they are saying...its so obvious to anyone with half a brain...



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



two squares stacked on top of each other is a rectangle, so in essence apple had a rectangle years before anyone else especially when your first ipod nano broke you'd buy a second and glue them together.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SniperTeamTango*
> 
> I've gotta be missing something because to me that offers no explanation.


The explanation was that it's the natural evolution of the iPod. It's essentially a smaller iPod touch.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Of course it is


Of course it isn't






















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> Except most of them don't enforce it.
> Unless some company *cough* sue them first.


They're not patenting them for no reason. It's done so that they can sue if they want, or if necessary throw a large number of law suits against anyone who might sue them, even for legitimate reasons.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.


WOAH! BACK UP A SECOND!

You mean to tell me that technology evolves over time? You also mean that in essence eventually a "smart" design will win, such as cars having *4 wheels with an aerodynamic body*? Or perhaps a phone that has a front, back, and *rounded corners* that make it more difficult to damage when dropped? Perhaps there are more logical reasons as to why a phone would have a design like that than say... oh, just for the looks? Perhaps that design is functional, and without it, a phone would be easier to damage and harder to hold?

Let's think about this for a second.

Before phones had touchscreens, the phones were exclusively controlled by a *small number pad or slider-type keypad*. Sometimes that included a *small QWERTY keyboard*. HOWEVER, as soon as apple comes out with the iPhone, all of the sudden, it should be illegal for all other devices to naturally evolve into a device that uses a *full touch screen instead of a plethora of keys*, is that correct? BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT APPLE IS TRYING TO SAY TO THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW.

But it's ok if Apple comes out with a clone of the *Samsung YP-P2* or the *Microsoft Zune HD* that is the new nano. It's ok because.... they're Apple, and they invented the design right?









Take a step back and think about how silly the mud is that Apple is slinging all over the technology community right now. Quit blindly supporting a company that will *screw it's customers at every chance* and continue to provide products that are *merely good*, but sell them as if they are revolutionary, no matter the cost. It really is sad to see someone support a company without looking at the facts and seeing the big picture. Apple has gotten to where they are today because they have *sued the snot out of the industry over extremely petty reasons*. They are the highest valued company in the world because they have a bunch of *loyally-blind followers* that will take anything with an apple logo plastered on it because *Apple can do no wrong*, am I right?

Cool world we live in.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.
> 
> 
> 
> WOAH! BACK UP A SECOND!
> 
> You mean to tell me that technology evolves over time? You also mean that in essence eventually a "smart" design will win, such as cars having 4 wheels with an aerodynamic body? Or perhaps a phone that has a front, back, and rounded corners that make it more difficult to damage when dropped? Perhaps there are more logical reasons as to why a phone would have a design like that than say... oh, just for the looks? Perhaps that design is functional, and without it, a phone would be easier to damage and harder to hold?
> 
> Let's think about this for a second.
Click to expand...

That's right.
Quote:


> Before phones had touchscreens, the phones were exclusively controlled by a small number pad or slider-type keypad. Sometimes that included a small QWERTY keyboard. HOWEVER, as soon as apple comes out with the iPhone, all of the sudden, it should be illegal for all other devices to naturally evolve into a device that uses a full touch screen instead of a plethora of keys, is that correct? BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT APPLE IS TRYING TO SAY TO THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW.


Nope. It's perfectly fine for anyone to make a rectangle shaped smartphone with rounded corners. And if that's the only thing Samsung did then Apple would have no case.
Quote:


> But it's ok if Apple comes out with a clone of the Samsung YP-P2 or the Microsoft Zune HD that is the new nano. It's ok because.... they're Apple, and they invented the design right?


It's not a clone of either of those devices. It looks nothing like them -- it's nothing more than an evolution of the iPod design, it's literally a small iPod touch.
Quote:


> Take a step back and think about how silly the mud is that Apple is slinging all over the technology community right now. Quit blindly supporting a company that will screw it's customers at every chance


I'm not blindly supporting them. And that article is ridiculous. They've had the same dock connector for about a decade and they're changing it for valid reasons, and there's an adaptor so a lot of accessories will work fine.
Quote:


> and continue to provide products that are merely good, but sell them as if they are revolutionary, no matter the cost. It really is sad to see someone support a company without looking at the facts and seeing the big picture. Apple has gotten to where they are today because they have sued the snot out of the industry over extremely petty reasons.


I support them because I know the facts. And let me guess you looked through each and every one of those law suits and made sure that Apple was in the wrong? Yeah right. And do you really think Apple is the only one who has sued a lot over the years? Nah.
Quote:


> They are the highest valued company in the world because they have a bunch of loyally-blind followers


A few people on Google image search with an Apple tat? That's it? Yeah no. They're the highest valued company in the world because they create products which hundreds of millions of people like.
Quote:


> that will take anything with an apple logo plastered on it because Apple can do no wrong, am I right?
> 
> Cool world we live in.


It's a new mapping service... of course there's going to be some problems. Google has seven years under their belt, Apple has a day or so...


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not a clone of either of those devices. It looks nothing like them -- it's nothing more than an evolution of the iPod design, it's literally a small iPod touch.


I bet you said the exact opposite thing about the Galaxy S and S2 compared to the iPhone.









Wrong again. The design is a total knock off of other MP3 players that have been on the market for years. Clean off your glasses and really look this time.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm not blindly supporting them. And that article is ridiculous. They've had the same dock connector for about a decade and they're changing it for valid reasons, and there's an adaptor so a lot of accessories will work fine.


So charging $30 per adapter is ok, even after people have spent literally hundreds of dollars on cables and attachments alone? You're the reason why companies have no problem charging $70 for an HDMI cable that costs about 50 cents to manufacturer. It's sickening how greedy corporations have become, and you welcome them with open arms. Sheeple, indeed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I support them because I know the facts. And let me guess you looked through each and every one of those law suits and made sure that Apple was in the wrong? Yeah right. And do you really think Apple is the only one who has sued a lot over the years? Nah.


Here's the issue with your line of thought. Most companies go after other companies because there is a legitimate issue with intellectual property. The suing company has usually spent R&D costs in the millions of dollars and another company comes along, copies their research, and then profiteers off of it. The parent company usually offers a way to license their technology, but the copying company does not chose to accept the terms of that license, which by the way, are usually fairly reasonable.

Then you've got companies like Apple who patent anything and everything they can possibly patent, even the shape of their phone and a method for swiping to unlock the screen. Both of those items are industry standards by now, and it isn't because they "look cool." They are smart features. Apple doesn't offer licenses to its competitors, but companies like LG, Samsung, and Motorola are seen licensing their technologies to other companies every day. What is wrong with this picture? I'd be ok with the litigation if it was done for something that wasn't superficial, but I have yet to read about an Apple lawsuit that was over something Earth-shatteringly important. It's always these little pathetic quibbles, and somehow, Apple gets away with it. It's pretty pathetic how low the company has to stoop in order to make a few extra bucks.

Both Motorola and Samsung have legitimate technology patent suits against Apple now, and I have a feeling that Apple is about to get their butt handed to them in court. Even fast talking lawyers cannot talk their way out of such a blatant and critical infringement of wireless technology.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> A few people on Google image search with an Apple tat? That's it? Yeah no. They're the highest valued company in the world because they create products which hundreds of millions of people like.


That search took all of 2 seconds to type. I would actually try a little harder if I felt like it, but that would require effort, and as I'm sure you've realized at this point, you're not worth it.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's a new mapping service... of course there's going to be some problems. Google has seven years under their belt, Apple has a day or so...


Google has set the bar extremely high. It was Apple's decision to stop using Google's service in favor of their own, so at this point, Apple only has themselves to blame for this debacle. They'd better fix it quickly too, or it will cost them a lot of sales. I use my smartphone several times a month to find new places, and I would hate it if 30% of the time I was routed to the wrong location.


----------



## LTC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I bet you said the exact opposite thing about the Galaxy S and S2 compared to the iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The design is a total knock off of other MP3 players that have been on the market for years. Clean off your glasses and really look this time.
> So charging $30 per adapter is ok, even after people have spent literally hundreds of dollars on cables and attachments alone? You're the reason why companies have no problem charging $70 for an HDMI cable that costs about 50 cents to manufacturer. It's sickening how greedy corporations have become, and you welcome them with open arms. Sheeple, indeed.
> Here's the issue with your line of thought. Most companies go after other companies because there is a legitimate issue with intellectual property. The suing company has usually spent R&D costs in the millions of dollars and another company comes along, copies their research, and then profiteers off of it. The parent company usually offers a way to license their technology, but the copying company does not chose to accept the terms of that license, which by the way, are usually fairly reasonable.
> Then you've got companies like Apple who patent anything and everything they can possibly patent, even the shape of their phone and a method for swiping to unlock the screen. Both of those items are industry standards by now, and it isn't because they "look cool." They are smart features. Apple doesn't offer licenses to its competitors, but companies like LG, Samsung, and Motorola are seen licensing their technologies to other companies every day. What is wrong with this picture? I'd be ok with the litigation if it was done for something that wasn't superficial, but I have yet to read about an Apple lawsuit that was over something Earth-shatteringly important. It's always these little pathetic quibbles, and somehow, Apple gets away with it. It's pretty pathetic how low the company has to stoop in order to make a few extra bucks.
> Both Motorola and Samsung have legitimate technology patent suits against Apple now, and I have a feeling that Apple is about to get their butt handed to them in court. Even fast talking lawyers cannot talk their way out of such a blatant and critical infringement of wireless technology.
> That search took all of 2 seconds to type. I would actually try a little harder if I felt like it, but that would require effort, and as I'm sure you've realized at this point, you're not worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google has set the bar extremely high. It was Apple's decision to stop using Google's service in favor of their own, so at this point, Apple only has themselves to blame for this debacle. They'd better fix it quickly too, or it will cost them a lot of sales. I use my smartphone several times a month to find new places, and I would hate it if 30% of the time I was routed to the wrong location.


Sorry for quoting all of this, however I'm glad to see people like you, I fully agree on what you just said. The best thing about this, is that I'm sitting in a bus filled with Apple sheeps talking about this revolution of a phone called the iPhone 5 -.-


----------



## paulerxx

I think Apple and Samsung should just shake hands and call it even...They're just wasting their own time and money on this. I believe they will continue from years to come, going blow after blow. In the end...Waste of time, although all this news does give both of them a lot of advertisement.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.
> I'm pretty sure the concept was that when you open the box all you see is the smartphone (or tablet) rather than anything else.


And yet you if you look at past Samsung devices that were in development pre-iphone and pre-galaxy you can see that they share many similarities with the more recent Galaxy line of phones. Whats the difference?

Remove the keyboard from the f700 and you have a device that looks an awful lot like the Galaxy S.

Only a blind man would say that the new Nanos doesnt share a resemblance with that Samsung device and the Nokia Lumia.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I bet you said the exact opposite thing about the Galaxy S and S2 compared to the iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The design is a total knock off of other MP3 players that have been on the market for years. Clean off your glasses and really look this time.


Yes because it's true. Samsung's smartphones before the iPhone looked drastically different, and then after they go and release the Galaxy S and S 2 which look very similar on the front. Besides that, plenty of damning evidence against Samsung surfaced in court. Google said that they needed to differentiate the Galaxy S tablet and smartphone from Apple, so it's not just me.

Why don't you look again? The only thing that the iPod nano, YP-P2, and Zune have in common is that they're all rectangles.



Do I really need to list all of its differences?

The iPod nano has a coloured aluminium border around it, a much thinner black bevel, a clearly different home button, the location of the side buttons are different, and the UI is completely different, and it has a larger screen and a smaller black area at the bottom. *Not to mention... it's actually 25% shorter than the YP-P2*, that's about 1 inch. And you know what it looks like? This without the top black/white space:



And who had the iPod touch first?
Quote:


> So charging $30 per adapter is ok, even after people have spent literally hundreds of dollars on cables and attachments alone? You're the reason why companies have no problem charging $70 for an HDMI cable that costs about 50 cents to manufacturer. It's sickening how greedy corporations have become, and you welcome them with open arms. Sheeple, indeed.


Where did I say that? I thought the adaptor should cost about $10. And no I'm not the reason why they have no problem charging that, and no I don't welcome them with open arms, and I'm not a "sheeple".
Quote:


> Here's the issue with your line of thought. Most companies go after other companies because there is a legitimate issue with intellectual property. The suing company has usually spent R&D costs in the millions of dollars and another company comes along, copies their research, and then profiteers off of it. The parent company usually offers a way to license their technology, but the copying company does not chose to accept the terms of that license, which by the way, are usually fairly reasonable.


There's nothing wrong my line of thought. And you came to this conclusion after doing research on all the patent law suits over the last thirty or so years did you?
Quote:


> Then you've got companies like Apple who patent anything and everything they can possibly patent, even the shape of their phone and a method for swiping to unlock the screen. Both of those items are industry standards by now, and it isn't because they "look cool." They are smart features. Apple doesn't offer licenses to its competitors, but companies like LG, Samsung, and Motorola are seen licensing their technologies to other companies every day. What is wrong with this picture? I'd be ok with the litigation if it was done for something that wasn't superficial, but I have yet to read about an Apple lawsuit that was over something Earth-shatteringly important. It's always these little pathetic quibbles, and somehow, Apple gets away with it. It's pretty pathetic how low the company has to stoop in order to make a few extra bucks.
> 
> Both Motorola and Samsung have legitimate technology patent suits against Apple now, and I have a feeling that Apple is about to get their butt handed to them in court. Even fast talking lawyers cannot talk their way out of such a blatant and critical infringement of wireless technology.


Apple isn't the only one patenting lots of things. In fact, comparatively they patent very little in comparison to Samsung.
Quote:


> That search took all of 2 seconds to type. I would actually try a little harder if I felt like it, but that would require effort, and as I'm sure you've realized at this point, you're not worth it.


Wow you're a jerk. I'm not much interested in talking with you but you don't see me insulting you.
Quote:


> Google has set the bar extremely high. It was Apple's decision to stop using Google's service in favor of their own, so at this point, Apple only has themselves to blame for this debacle. They'd better fix it quickly too, or it will cost them a lot of sales. I use my smartphone several times a month to find new places, and I would hate it if 30% of the time I was routed to the wrong location.


Actually Apple wanted to continue using them (and gain the newer features of Google Maps on Android devices) but they weren't happy with Google's terms.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> And yet you if you look at past Samsung devices that were in development pre-iphone and pre-galaxy you can see that they share many similarities with the more recent Galaxy line of phones. Whats the difference?
> 
> Remove the keyboard from the f700 and you have a device that looks an awful lot like the Galaxy S.


The difference is that it was too similar to the iPhone. Even if they hadn't of used a silver/grey border around the front of the device like on the iPhone that would have been enough, but they did.
Quote:


> Only a blind man would say that the new Nanos doesnt share a resemblance with that Samsung device and the Nokia Lumia.


I'm not blind and I'll tell you they look nothing alike. The only similarity is that they're the same shape. And yes I do agree it looks like the Lumia somewhat, however it's just a smaller iPod touch. See what I wrote to the above poster about the Nano. It's an inch shorter, has a distinct coloured border and back. It's the same design as the iPod touch, but without the top black/white space.


----------



## paulerxx

They're quite similar...But it's such a basic design. I don't understand why people are QQing over it. Rectangle, with a rectangular sreen and circle shaped button. Woopy.







Oh yea, it has a headphone jack too.


----------



## geoxile

The new Nano is a direct rip off. Adding a colorized border doesn't distinguish it.


----------



## paulerxx

that was over 5 years over...Come on.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> They're quite similar...But it's such a basic design. I don't understand why people are QQing over it. Rectangle, with a rectangular sreen and circle shaped button. Woopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea, it has a headphone jack too.


Hmmmmm.....



But it's such a basic design...









QQ indeed.


----------



## CrazyNikel

Sounds good to me, once there is only 1 smart phone for sale (Apples that is) in the states it will quickly loose its iconic fad status.

And thus our problem will disappear on its own. Because in the states its not about what works right, but about what looks good > what everyone else wants.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I bet you said the exact opposite thing about the Galaxy S and S2 compared to the iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The design is a total knock off of other MP3 players that have been on the market for years. Clean off your glasses and really look this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's true. Samsung's smartphones before the iPhone looked drastically different, and then after they go and release the Galaxy S and S 2 which look very similar on the front. Besides that, plenty of damning evidence against Samsung surfaced in court. Google said that they needed to differentiate the Galaxy S tablet and smartphone from Apple, so it's not just me.
> 
> Why don't you look again? The only thing that the iPod nano, YP-P2, and Zune have in common is that they're all rectangles.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need to list all of its differences?
> 
> The iPod nano has a coloured aluminium border around it, a much thinner black bevel, a clearly different home button, the location of the side buttons are different, and the UI is completely different, and it has a larger screen and a smaller black area at the bottom. *Not to mention... it's actually 25% shorter than the YP-P2*, that's about 1 inch. And you know what it looks like? This without the top black/white space:
> 
> 
> 
> And who had the iPod touch first?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> So charging $30 per adapter is ok, even after people have spent literally hundreds of dollars on cables and attachments alone? You're the reason why companies have no problem charging $70 for an HDMI cable that costs about 50 cents to manufacturer. It's sickening how greedy corporations have become, and you welcome them with open arms. Sheeple, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say that? I thought the adaptor should cost about $10. And no I'm not the reason why they have no problem charging that, and no I don't welcome them with open arms, and I'm not a "sheeple".
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the issue with your line of thought. Most companies go after other companies because there is a legitimate issue with intellectual property. The suing company has usually spent R&D costs in the millions of dollars and another company comes along, copies their research, and then profiteers off of it. The parent company usually offers a way to license their technology, but the copying company does not chose to accept the terms of that license, which by the way, are usually fairly reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing wrong my line of thought. And you came to this conclusion after doing research on all the patent law suits over the last thirty or so years did you?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've got companies like Apple who patent anything and everything they can possibly patent, even the shape of their phone and a method for swiping to unlock the screen. Both of those items are industry standards by now, and it isn't because they "look cool." They are smart features. Apple doesn't offer licenses to its competitors, but companies like LG, Samsung, and Motorola are seen licensing their technologies to other companies every day. What is wrong with this picture? I'd be ok with the litigation if it was done for something that wasn't superficial, but I have yet to read about an Apple lawsuit that was over something Earth-shatteringly important. It's always these little pathetic quibbles, and somehow, Apple gets away with it. It's pretty pathetic how low the company has to stoop in order to make a few extra bucks.
> 
> Both Motorola and Samsung have legitimate technology patent suits against Apple now, and I have a feeling that Apple is about to get their butt handed to them in court. Even fast talking lawyers cannot talk their way out of such a blatant and critical infringement of wireless technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apple isn't the only one patenting lots of things. In fact, comparatively they patent very little in comparison to Samsung.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> That search took all of 2 seconds to type. I would actually try a little harder if I felt like it, but that would require effort, and as I'm sure you've realized at this point, you're not worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you're a jerk. I'm not much interested in talking with you but you don't see me insulting you.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Google has set the bar extremely high. It was Apple's decision to stop using Google's service in favor of their own, so at this point, Apple only has themselves to blame for this debacle. They'd better fix it quickly too, or it will cost them a lot of sales. I use my smartphone several times a month to find new places, and I would hate it if 30% of the time I was routed to the wrong location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Apple wanted to continue using them (and gain the newer features of Google Maps on Android devices) but they weren't happy with Google's terms.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> And yet you if you look at past Samsung devices that were in development pre-iphone and pre-galaxy you can see that they share many similarities with the more recent Galaxy line of phones. Whats the difference?
> 
> Remove the keyboard from the f700 and you have a device that looks an awful lot like the Galaxy S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that it was too similar to the iPhone. Even if they hadn't of used a silver/grey border around the front of the device like on the iPhone that would have been enough, but they did.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a blind man would say that the new Nanos doesnt share a resemblance with that Samsung device and the Nokia Lumia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not blind and I'll tell you they look nothing alike. The only similarity is that they're the same shape. And yes I do agree it looks like the Lumia somewhat, however it's just a smaller iPod touch. See what I wrote to the above poster about the Nano. It's an inch shorter, has a distinct coloured border and back. It's the same design as the iPod touch, but without the top black/white space.
Click to expand...

Just answering youre 1 inch shorter argument, that's what you did with the S2 too, amirite?


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm not blind and I'll tell you they look nothing alike. The only similarity is that they're the same shape. And yes I do agree it looks like the Lumia somewhat, however it's just a smaller iPod touch. See what I wrote to the above poster about the Nano. It's an inch shorter, has a distinct coloured border and back. It's the same design as the iPod touch, but without the top black/white space.


Size doesnt matter since that alone would mean no Samsung phone infringed, and in terms of the border the Nokia Lumia which the Nano resembles an awful lot has it. The back is also irrelevant. You clearly have a double standard if you don't think they look alike.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Just answering youre 1 inch shorter argument, that's what you did with the S2 too, amirite?


Did you have to quote the whole thing lol?









If you're talking about a recent instance where I posted a picture of the Galaxy S and iPhone at the same size, I didn't know it was photoshopped. But the size difference is much smaller. The iPod nano is 3 inches vs the YP-P2's 4 inches, whereas the iPhone 3G is 4.5 inches and the Galaxy S and S 2 are about 4.9 inches.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Size doesnt matter since that alone would mean no Samsung phone infringed, and in terms of the border the Nokia Lumia which the Nano resembles an awful lot has it. The back is also irrelevant. You clearly have a double standard if you don't think they look alike.


I don't have a double standard. And see above regarding the size. Did I not say it does look similar to the Nokia Lumia? But it's the same design as the iPod touch which has been around since 2007 (before the YP-P2 funnily enough). It's also similar to its own previous generations. The back isn't irrelevant and the front doesn't look like the YP-P2. It's much shorter, it has a coloured border and thinner black bezel, and it has a home button. The only thing they share in common is that they're both rectangular.


----------



## 3930K

4.5?
Anyways if that makes our argument invalid then your s + s2 arguments are invalid too.


----------



## SniperTeamTango

Screw all this phone nonsense.



I make calls and occasionally send texts, everything else is unnecessary.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Thats the point. Just because something looks similar it does not mean that it is a copy of something else. It's possible for two separate companies to come up with very similar designs.

Believe it or not, this


and this



look quite similar aesthetically.

Is it not plausible that the aesthetics of the Galaxy line were simply an evolution of the aesthetics we saw in hte f700? Or is that a distinction that only applies to Apple?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> 4.5?
> Anyways if that makes our argument invalid then your s + s2 arguments are invalid too.


It's not. The iPod nano has other distinguishable differences from the YP-P2 -- they literally share no similarities other than being rectangular and having a screen.

Nevertheless the iPod nano has 23% less height and width than the YP-P2... the Galaxy S and S 2 have about 5-6% more width than the iPhone, and about 8-10% more height.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Thats the point. Just because something looks similar it does not mean that it is a copy of something else. It's possible for two separate companies to come up with very similar designs.
> 
> Believe it or not, this
> 
> 
> and this
> 
> 
> 
> look quite similar aesthetically.
> 
> Is it not plausible that the aesthetics of the Galaxy line were simply an evolution of the aesthetics we saw in hte f700? Or is that a distinction that only applies to Apple?


You're right, they do share a lot of similarities such as the top and bottom area, home button, etc., but two key things the F700 lacks which the Galaxy S has: the first is that thick silver band around the iPhone -- without that they'd have much less of a case, and the second is a similar looking home screen -- which is no surprise seeing that they examined the iPhone's UI and modified their own to make it look better. If Samsung had of differentiated their dock somewhat, used different icons, and not used a thick silver band around the device then Apple would have squat for a case against it.


----------



## SniperTeamTango

Apple had no case that just doesn't matter in american courts.
Let the rage begin:


----------



## j3st3r

Wow so many legal experts here at OC. I didn't know 100% of you guys are certified and experienced patent lawyers who know the American patent system inside out. Glad you guys called this one like you called the previous case where Samsung wo... owait.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Do you assume that the jurors were legal experts?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not. The iPod nano has other distinguishable differences from the YP-P2 -- they literally share no similarities other than being rectangular and having a screen.
> Nevertheless the iPod nano has 23% less height and width than the YP-P2... the Galaxy S and S 2 have about 5-6% more width than the iPhone, and about 8-10% more height.
> You're right, they do share a lot of similarities such as the top and bottom area, home button, etc., but two key things the F700 lacks which the Galaxy S has: the first is that thick silver band around the iPhone -- without that they'd have much less of a case, and the second is a similar looking home screen -- which is no surprise seeing that they examined the iPhone's UI and modified their own to make it look better. If Samsung had of differentiated their dock somewhat, used different icons, and not used a thick silver band around the device then Apple would have squat for a case against it.


The F700 has a thick blue band, simply turning that into a silver band should not be enough to now make that device a copy of the iPhone.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> The F700 has a thick blue band, simply turning that into a silver band should not be enough to now make that device a copy of the iPhone.


Not by itself. The general design is similar to the iPhone, but it's nothing more than natural progression. However copying the thick silver band that almost wraps itself around the iPhone and some elements of the UI is enough to make it too similar. It's not as if they didn't have choices in this regard.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not by itself. The general design is similar to the iPhone, but it's nothing more than natural progression. However copying the thick silver band that almost wraps itself around the iPhone and some elements of the UI is enough to make it too similar. It's not as if they didn't have choices in this regard.


Im going to be frank with you. Have you ever thought about getting a law degree and applying to work for an apple patent law firm? I have to say you'd be really good at it.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Im going to be frank with you. Have you ever thought about getting a law degree and applying to work for an apple patent law firm? I have to say you'd be really good at it.


Haha lol. Not my cup of tea.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not by itself. The general design is similar to the iPhone, but it's nothing more than natural progression. However copying the thick silver band that almost wraps itself around the iPhone and some elements of the UI is enough to make it too similar. It's not as if they didn't have choices in this regard.


The UI elements I understand, I actually see an argument for that. I don't buy the thick silver band thing though. It's a pretty weak argument.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> The UI elements I understand, I actually see an argument for that. I don't buy the thick silver band thing though. It's a pretty weak argument.


It's a pretty iconic part of the iPhone. The iPhone is literally just that basic minimalist design (that I called natural progression not too long ago) with that thick silver band. The Galaxy S could have done done a different design for the band and changed its colour to something else which would distinguish it more from the iPhone.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Wow so many legal experts here at OC. I didn't know 100% of you guys are certified and experienced patent lawyers who know the American patent system inside out. Glad you guys called this one like you called the previous case where Samsung wo... owait.


if there were internet and forums, there would be threads like this calling edison a patent troll against tesla...its the american system, we gots the more money, you is foreign, out of a job yet? keep driving an import...... and it's really getting old wouldn't you say?


----------



## CaptainChaos

Again, it's still a weak (understatement of the year) argument. A silver band around a phone is not as iconic as you say. That is not an aesthetic feature that screams iPhone. It's ridiculous to think that Apple is allowed to claim silver bands as something unique to their product. As a matter of fact it's beyond ridiculous it's down right stupid.

You can clearly see that the F700 had a blue chrome band, all they did was change the color to silver. A color that appeals to a far larger audience.


----------



## jrbroad77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Again, it's still a weak (understatement of the year) argument. A silver band around a phone is not as iconic as you say. That is not an aesthetic feature that screams iPhone. It's ridiculous to think that Apple is allowed to claim silver bands as something unique to their product. As a matter of fact it's beyond ridiculous it's down right stupid.
> You can clearly see that the F700 had a blue chrome band, all they did was change the color to silver. A color that appeals to a far larger audience.


Glossy black.
Silver band around the perimeter.

Oh, you mean the Thinkpad Edge, released in April 2010 (2 months before the iPhone 4)?


Seriously these Apple fanboys are a bit delusional.. sorry, if your phone design is verbatim stolen from a laptop, you have no right to go after another phone design..

And before you boys say nonsense, suppose I designed a phone that looked exactly like a Macbook Air - aluminum, tapered very thin at bottom, thicker at top, like a wedge; with rounded corners? I'm just sayin.. if Samsung made a phone like that, they'd be sued on the spot..


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Again, it's still a weak (understatement of the year) argument. A silver band around a phone is not as iconic as you say. That is not an aesthetic feature that screams iPhone. It's ridiculous to think that Apple is allowed to claim silver bands as something unique to their product. As a matter of fact it's beyond ridiculous it's down right stupid.
> 
> You can clearly see that the F700 had a blue chrome band, all they did was change the color to silver. A color that appeals to a far larger audience.


What else about the iPhone's design screams iPhone other than the UI? It's literally just a black rectangle with rounded corners and a single button on the front. Nevertheless it's not just the fact that it's silver but also the design of the band.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jrbroad77*
> 
> Glossy black.
> Silver band around the perimeter.
> 
> Oh, you mean the Thinkpad Edge, released in April 2010 (2 months before the iPhone 4)?
> 
> 
> Seriously these Apple fanboys are a bit delusional.. sorry, if your phone design is verbatim stolen from a laptop, you have no right to go after another phone design..
> 
> And before you boys say nonsense, suppose I designed a phone that looked exactly like a Macbook Air - aluminum, tapered very thin at bottom, thicker at top, like a wedge; with rounded corners? I'm just sayin.. if Samsung made a phone like that, they'd be sued on the spot..


1. We're talking about the original iPhone/3G/3GS. Not the 4.
2. The 4 had been in development for at least six to eight months before it was released so I don't see your point about the Thinkpad. They certainly didn't decide to put the antenna externally in the last two months -- it would've been in production a month or two before release.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> What else about the iPhone's design screams iPhone other than the UI? It's literally just a black rectangle with rounded corners and a single button on the front. Nevertheless it's not just the fact that it's silver but also the design of the band.
> 1. We're talking about the original iPhone/3G/3GS. Not the 4.
> 2. The 4 had been in development for at least six to eight months before it was released so I don't see your point about the Thinkpad. They certainly didn't decide to put the antenna externally in the last two months -- it would've been in production a month or two before release.


SO you admit that nothing about the iphone is exclusively apple by nature besides the GUI?









Thanks for clearing that up super saiyan


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> SO you admit that nothing about the iphone is exclusively apple by nature besides the GUI?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up super saiyan


No. I said the basic design is natural progression. The silver band is not. And stop calling me that.


----------



## xPwn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not a copy. Natural evolution of iPod line. Looks just like a small iPod touch.
> I'm pretty sure the concept was that when you open the box all you see is the smartphone (or tablet) rather than anything else.


Well I guess The Galaxy S 1/2/3 all have 'evolved'. You think its ok when Apple does it, but if Samsung does it, oh no


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> No. I said the basic design is natural progression. The silver band is not. And stop calling me that.


So now apple owns incorporating anything silver onto their device?

Interesting Goku


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> No. I said the basic design is natural progression. The silver band is not. And stop calling me that.


That's easily one of the more ridiculous claims I've ever read. You can not honestly believe that the silver band was copied direct from the iPhone like it was some sort of signature. Silver bands have actually been on plenty of devices since the day people discovered that chrome looked cool. There is nothing about the silver band on the iPhone that sets it apart from any other silver band on any other device and even if there is, Samsung surely didnt copy it.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> That's easily one of the more ridiculous claims I've ever read. You can not honestly believe that the silver band was copied direct from the iPhone like it was some sort of signature. Silver bands have actually been on plenty of devices since the day people discovered that chrome looked cool. There is nothing about the silver band on the iPhone that sets it apart from any other silver band on any other device and even if there is, Samsung surely didnt copy it.


Now now, apple did invent chrome and the USB and cubic geometries and dramatic packaging.

Haven't you been listening to steelbom at all?


----------



## -Apocalypse-

Apple's abuse of the patent system shows that they don't respect their competition and have pure _disrespect_ for the consumer. If they cared, they'd be trying to encourage competition to push all sides and have better phones on the market. Instead, Apple's goal for the past few years has been to destroy the market by crippling Google.

Really, could you imagine where phones would be right now had Apple adopted Google's motto rather than donning horns and a pitchfork?

I don't see how anyone can still defend Apple at this point. I really don't. Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a long time, loyalty to them just confuses me.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-Apocalypse-*
> 
> Apple's abuse of the patent system shows that they don't respect their competition and have pure _disrespect_ for the consumer. If they cared, they'd be trying to encourage competition to push all sides and have better phones on the market. Instead, Apple's goal for the past few years has been to destroy the market by crippling Google.
> Really, could you imagine where phones would be right now had Apple adopted Google's motto rather than donning horns and a pitchfork?
> I don't see how anyone can still defend Apple at this point. I really don't. Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a long time, loyalty to them just confuses me.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPwn*
> 
> Well I guess The Galaxy S 1/2/3 all have 'evolved'. You think its ok when Apple does it, but if Samsung does it, oh no


The only two things those products have in common is that they're both rectangular. It's beyond grasping at straws to claim that Apple copied the YP-P2.

The iPod nano has a distinct coloured aluminium back and border which comes around on the front of the device. It has a thinner black bezel and less area around the home button. The side buttons are a different colour and in different positions and finally the nano has both 23% less width and height than the YP-P2 even though the image makes them look the same size, and it's half as thick. And the UI is absolutely nothing alike. The iPod nano is nothing more than a small iPod touch.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> So now apple owns incorporating anything silver onto their device?
> 
> Interesting Goku


Nope. Stop twisting my words, Frieza









(Haha... lol.)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> That's easily one of the more ridiculous claims I've ever read. You can not honestly believe that the silver band was copied direct from the iPhone like it was some sort of signature. Silver bands have actually been on plenty of devices since the day people discovered that chrome looked cool. There is nothing about the silver band on the iPhone that sets it apart from any other silver band on any other device and even if there is, Samsung surely didnt copy it.


It absolutely was. Samsung's smartphones before the iPhone didn't look like it at all, and then after some of them do. It's not a coincidence. It's not wrong for Samsung to make a similar device, but it is if it's too similar. They shouldn't have used that colour or design for the band, and they shouldn't have copied any of the UI elements of the iPhone. Without those two things Apple would have no case against them, and that's fair.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> 4.5?
> Anyways if that makes our argument invalid then your s + s2 arguments are invalid too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not. The iPod nano has other distinguishable differences from the YP-P2 -- they literally share no similarities other than being rectangular and having a screen.
> 
> Nevertheless the iPod nano has 23% less height and width than the YP-P2... the Galaxy S and S 2 have about 5-6% more width than the iPhone, and about 8-10% more height.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Thats the point. Just because something looks similar it does not mean that it is a copy of something else. It's possible for two separate companies to come up with very similar designs.
> 
> Believe it or not, this
> 
> 
> and this
> 
> 
> 
> look quite similar aesthetically.
> 
> Is it not plausible that the aesthetics of the Galaxy line were simply an evolution of the aesthetics we saw in hte f700? Or is that a distinction that only applies to Apple?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, they do share a lot of similarities such as the top and bottom area, home button, etc., but two key things the F700 lacks which the Galaxy S has: the first is that thick silver band around the iPhone -- without that they'd have much less of a case, and the second is a similar looking home screen -- which is no surprise seeing that they examined the iPhone's UI and modified their own to make it look better. If Samsung had of differentiated their dock somewhat, used different icons, and not used a thick silver band around the device then Apple would have squat for a case against it.
Click to expand...

Sneaky wording there... that's like a 15% difference which is very significant. And no there's many similarities, rectangle within a rectangle, home button, screen in the top 2/3rds...

They were using a black band in the F700, the silver one was just an "evolution". As you would say.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It absolutely was. Samsung's smartphones before the iPhone didn't look like it at all, and then after some of them do. It's not a coincidence. It's not wrong for Samsung to make a similar device, but it is if it's too similar. They shouldn't have used that colour or design for the band, and they shouldn't have copied any of the UI elements of the iPhone. Without those two things Apple would have no case against them, and that's fair.
> I am not...


You're absolutely ridiculous. By didn't look like it at all, what you're really saying is that the metal band around the phone wasnt silver. Earlier you said you can see that the Glaxy S was a natural progression from the F700, but because Samsung turned the metal band from blue to silver that invalidates everything and makes it a copy? Ridiculous.

EDIT:

No need to even let this go any further;

Here's another picture of the F700


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It absolutely was. Samsung's smartphones before the iPhone didn't look like it at all, and then after some of them do. It's not a coincidence. It's not wrong for Samsung to make a similar device, but it is if it's too similar. They shouldn't have used that colour or design for the band, and they shouldn't have copied any of the UI elements of the iPhone. Without those two things Apple would have no case against them, and that's fair.
> I am not...
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely ridiculous. By didn't look like it at all, what you're really saying is that the metal band around the phone wasnt silver. Earlier you said you can see that the Glaxy S was a natural progression from the F700, but because Samsung turned the metal band from blue to silver that invalidates everything and makes it a copy? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If he wants to invalidate our claims using natural evolution, sure, you can, as long as that is valid for us too.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> You're absolutely ridiculous. By didn't look like it at all, what you're really saying is that the metal band around the phone wasnt silver. Earlier you said you can see that the Glaxy S was a natural progression from the F700, but because Samsung turned the metal band from blue to silver that invalidates everything and makes it a copy? Ridiculous.


Like I said, Apple owns everything silver on a mobile device.

AmIriteSteelbom?


----------



## CaptainChaos

Put another picture of a different looking F700 with a metal band and different button design in my previous post.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Sneaky wording there... that's like a 15% difference which is very significant. And no there's many similarities, rectangle within a rectangle, home button, screen in the top 2/3rds...
> 
> They were using a black band in the F700, the silver one was just an "evolution". As you would say.


It's not meant to be sneaky. And if you add it up like that for the nano it's a 46% difference. The basic form is natural progression. Choosing to use a silver band over another colour or another more distinguishable design isn't.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> You're absolutely ridiculous. By didn't look like it at all, what you're really saying is that the metal band around the phone wasnt silver. Earlier you said you can see that the Glaxy S was a natural progression from the F700, but because Samsung turned the metal band from blue to silver that invalidates everything and makes it a copy? Ridiculous.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> No need to even let this go any further;
> 
> Here's another picture of the F700


I am not. And you know I didn't say that.

Now... that's... starting to change my mind. If they did have a silver band like that on the F700 then that's fair enough. I still believe they did copy Apple. But the design is still within the bounds of natural progression for the device. Nevertheless I still think they should've differentiated themselves more from Apple, even Google said that to them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> If he wants to invalidate our claims using natural evolution, sure, you can, as long as that is valid for us too.


I don't necessarily agree going to a silver band from another colour is natural progression, but if they had one on the F700... then that's different. See above.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The charger isn't generic and nor is the other end of the cable. Anyway it wouldn't really matter so much if it wasn't coming in the same packaging either. It's all cumulative.


MOTOROLA owns the patent on the 30 pin dock connector...

GOOGLE owns MOTOROLA

GOOGLE owns that particular plug.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> MOTOROLA owns the patent on the 30 pin dock connector...
> 
> GOOGLE owns MOTOROLA
> 
> GOOGLE owns that particular plug.


So what you're telling me is that Motorola had a 30-pin dock connector before Apple? Got any proof of that?


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> So what you're telling me is that Motorola had a 30-pin dock connector before Apple? Got any proof of that?


The patent... it's proof.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> So what you're telling me is that Motorola had a 30-pin dock connector before Apple? Got any proof of that?


yes, yes i do

http://www.google.com/patents/US6509659

took a while but i found it.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The patent... it's proof.


Not what I asked proof for.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> yes, yes i do
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/US6509659
> 
> took a while but i found it.


They do have a patent on a dock connector, but that wasn't what I was asking proof for. I wanted to see that this connector had been used before Apple ever did. What proof is there that Apple's dock connector is the same? Did they license it from Motorola? Or make their own? Etc.


----------



## PhantomTaco

I'm honestly sick of debating this whole thing. But because I hate seeing people go around and make bold claims based off a single article or patent filing without spending some time reading more pisses me off.

Something about this all doesn't make any sense. Motorola filed the patent in October of 2004. The same month and year the first iPod with that dock connector came out. The simple explanation is either a) they licensed it to Apple b) they made it so anyone could use it c) they made it at apple's request d) something else I don't know of. Clearly though this was some collaborative effort. Don't forget the Motorola ROKR also used the same 30 pin connector and it was their big partnership with Apple (for what turned out to be a **** product).

I'm going to say this again cause I think I've said it somewhere offshore of a hundred times today. Guys do you research before you start posting stuff.

Whoever brought up the idea that they look nothing alike just enough. Please. enough. Look at the phones before and after, something changed their minds. Look at the court evidence they blatantly said it. Look at the fact that on the software programming side Microsoft was smart enough to take Apple's licensing agreement while Samsung decided to go without it. You think that such a simplistic design shouldn't be patentable? Tough tits. You think because it was made of components that already existed it should not be classified as a new device and shouldn't be patentable. Tough tits. There was already a precedent from the early 1900s. Say hello to Robert Kearns vs. The American Auto Industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

Long story short this is what I'm looking at:
"The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these is that it be "non-obvious". Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns' intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns' position found unequivocal support in precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) ("It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a 'combination': that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.") (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007))."

Look at the fact that before the iPhone, phones weren't going for a more simplistic design, they were getting more and more complicated all the time. They were getting more buttons, more complex UIs more complex everything. What was the current top Samsung phone when the first iPhone at the time? The BlackJack:


Then Apple came along and all of a sudden things started getting simpler. Sound familiar? It's exactly what happened with the iPod. It just worked out of the box, no problems with crappy file transfer software, no problems with hard to navigate menus, no ridiculous buttons placed on all corners of the device. So naysayers jumped at every single issue they could find. It's Mac only. It doesn't support lossless formats. iTunes is too bloated. It scuffs too easily. It doesn't offer an FM radio. It doesn't blah blah blah. Guess what guys, it turns out that wasn't what the public wanted, or what the public cared about. It was all about simplicity. Then they turned their heads to the phone industry. Right there. Right when rumors started rumbling about that Apple was going into the phone game. That was when all these manufacturers should have sat down and said why did the iPod do so well? What made it so good? How can we try to prevent this from happening to us? Instead they sat. And waited. And when the iPhone was released they sat there and poured the **** talk on. Not enough storage space. It's too simplistic. No 3G. Blah Blah Blah. It sold. It destroyed. It recreated the phone industry.

And then it happened AGAIN. The iPad came out, everyone (including myself this time) said it was garbage. No keyboard? No full laptop functionality? Who would want such a thing. The same people went to work saying it would never take off. And again, they ate those words. And again, competitors rushed to find a way to emulate the iPad's success.

If you want to keep living in a hole covering your ears and screaming at the top of yours lungs so be it. But when there's that much evidence it's time to start thinking long and hard about why you're pissed off. They stifled innovation by doing this? Please, limitations are what create and exemplify creativity. Don't believe me? Watch a promotional video for almost any new age device and 90% of the time you're going to hear a variation of this:

"Well we had decided early on that we did not want our device to be this this this or this. We also decided that we would work within these boundaries to create our product"

So what's my point? This isn't the first time Apple has been emulated because they dared to take a jump. This isn't the first time that they were poo pooed by people who were so used to what was big at the time that they didn't look forward. This isn't the first time. Wanna know what's more? I'll bet you it won't be the last either.

It's how Jobs ran his business. It's how Lamborghini runs their business (our flagship cars must have a v12 engine, and must follow this design ethic), it's how Porsche developed and kept alive the iconic design of the 911 (we refuse to change the sillouhette of the 911 because it is a tribute to the heritage of our beloved brand). It's how Boeing designs planes. Whether or not these limitations are set for aesthetic, structural/engineering, or legal purposes they are limitations nonetheless which definitely put developers and manufacturers on the spot. But it's what defines a good developer/designer from a great one. A good designer will do things well as long as you don't sit there and place a lot of limitations. A great one will sit there and be pissed for hours about it but keep working to find a way to meet that requirement.

***** and moan until kingdom come. Blame the patent system. Blame Apple. Blame Jobs. Blame the "stupid" common purchaser for not knowing any better and buying Apple products. All you're doing is desperately grabbing at straws left and right to try and defend a brand and product that you love. Exactly what we're doing when we talk about Apple.


----------



## SniperTeamTango

I just want GPU/CPU news back.


----------



## Lost Prophet

This reminds me of the patent case Colt lost for its M4 rifle.


----------



## eternal7trance

So Apple can steal the iPhone design from Linksys and no one cares. But Samsung makes a design somewhat similar and Apple rages about it?

Edit: They stole the name mostly.


----------



## PhantomTaco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eternal7trance*
> 
> So Apple can steal the iPhone design from Linksys and no one cares. But Samsung makes a design somewhat similar and Apple rages about it?
> Edit: They stole the name mostly.


What are you talking about??

Is it this:

"On January 9, 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple Inc. would begin selling its own iPhone in June. The Apple iPhone is a mobile phone integrated with an iPod, featuring "desktop-class" applications like a web browser and email client. Cisco announced shortly after the announcement that Apple had been in negotiations to use the trademark that Cisco acquired with the purchase of Infogear. However, a day later they announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Apple.[7]
Apple and Cisco settled their dispute on February 20, 2007. Both companies will be allowed to use the "iPhone" name in exchange for "exploring interoperability" between Apple's products and Cisco's services and other unspecified terms. [8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone

The iphone name? srsly?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Not what I asked proof for.
> They do have a patent on a dock connector, but that wasn't what I was asking proof for. I wanted to see that this connector had been used before Apple ever did. What proof is there that Apple's dock connector is the same? Did they license it from Motorola? Or make their own? Etc.


Apple have patented things that were in use before them... come on man!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PhantomTaco*
> 
> What are you talking about??
> Is it this:
> "On January 9, 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple Inc. would begin selling its own iPhone in June. The Apple iPhone is a mobile phone integrated with an iPod, featuring "desktop-class" applications like a web browser and email client. Cisco announced shortly after the announcement that Apple had been in negotiations to use the trademark that Cisco acquired with the purchase of Infogear. However, a day later they announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Apple.[7]
> Apple and Cisco settled their dispute on February 20, 2007. Both companies will be allowed to use the "iPhone" name in exchange for "exploring interoperability" between Apple's products and Cisco's services and other unspecified terms. [8]"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
> *The iphone name? srsly?*


Rounded corners? srsly?


----------



## tompsonn

delete.


----------



## eternal7trance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PhantomTaco*
> 
> What are you talking about??
> Is it this:
> "On January 9, 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple Inc. would begin selling its own iPhone in June. The Apple iPhone is a mobile phone integrated with an iPod, featuring "desktop-class" applications like a web browser and email client. Cisco announced shortly after the announcement that Apple had been in negotiations to use the trademark that Cisco acquired with the purchase of Infogear. However, a day later they announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Apple.[7]
> Apple and Cisco settled their dispute on February 20, 2007. Both companies will be allowed to use the "iPhone" name in exchange for "exploring interoperability" between Apple's products and Cisco's services and other unspecified terms. [8]"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
> The iphone name? srsly?


It's a little more detailed than that, but yes.

I understand that Apple likes to bully everyone around with money, but that doesn't give them the right to start patent wars after they pretty much stole from others.


----------



## Mr Frosty

I pray to the stars every night that Apple would start on Google...... Google would rip them a new one....


----------



## Faraz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B-rock*
> 
> 
> *5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent")* - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
> *6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
> *8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent")* - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
> *8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent")* - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
> *8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent")* - Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
> *5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent")* - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
> *7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent")* - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
> *8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent")* - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system


What needs to happen is that all of these "ways of doing things" need to be deemed unpatentable. That's the problem. Ways of doing things shouldn't be patentable.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Ways of doing things shouldn't be patentable.


Wat.


----------



## Faraz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> Wat.


I'm assuming you meant "what", in which case I can further assume that you speak English and thus understood the very simple sentence I wrote.


----------



## Billy_5110

APPLE MUST DIE

Worse company i've seen. they make crappy stuff and think it's samsung's fault. HAHAHAHA


----------



## Faraz

Nah, they're just playing the game. It's the patent system that sucks.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> I'm assuming you meant "what", in which case I can further assume that you speak English and thus understood the very simple sentence I wrote.


No, I was using a term that has been around on the internet since forever as an appropriate response to what you said.

Wat.


----------



## Faraz

Depress pedal to speed up. Press snooze to postpone alarm. Slide to unlock.


----------



## bencher

The galaxy nexus being so old is superior to the iphone 5


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Depress pedal to speed up. Press snooze to postpone alarm. Slide to unlock.


lol? You're really sticking to the statement
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Ways of doing things shouldn't be patentable.


?

You can patent methods. Apple has patents for methods they came up with a long time ago. We're not talking about an alarm clock. We're talking about methods that was invented in the 21st century for a new way of using smartphones. Complaining about patent law just makes you sound like a crybaby in this scenario. "They shouldn't sue people because its not fair that they came up with that thing first!"

Patent _trials_ suck. They shouldn't be decided in courts (IMO). Patent _law_ is fine. Its been around since medieval times. Its in the US constitution. Its legally and logically sound.


----------



## Faraz

Nope, what you can do with your finger on a touchscreen is silly to patent. Sure a touchscreen should be patentable. But if Samsung and Apple are both allowed to have touchscreens and they're both allowed to have a lock mechanism, it's ludicrous to then place restrictions on what you can do with your finger on the screen to unlock it.

The analogy is perfectly sound. If every company is allowed to have pedals in their sedans, and every company has to have a way of speeding up the vehicle, it is then unreasonable to place restrictions on what can be done with the pedal to achieve that.

Perhaps repetition will drive home this point, which for some reason continues to elude you:

Ways of using identical things (touchscreen in this instance), should not be patentable.

On a related note, please tell me what you are supposed to do with your fingers on a touchscreen interface to unlock a device.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Ways of using identical things (touchscreen in this instance), should not be patentable.
> On a related note, please tell me what you are supposed to do with your fingers on a touchscreen interface to unlock a device.


That's your opinion. You do realize there are other ways to unlock a phone, right? The Treo had a touchscreen before the iPhone, but you didn't swipe to unlock. The samsung instinct, basically a year-after copycat of the iPhone didn't swipe to unlock. There are plenty of buttons on every smartphone, always have been.

You also realize there are patents on actual physical locks, and other stuff that seems identical like barbed wire?

Patent system has been around for hundreds of years. Its designed to advance inventions so everybody isnt just copying one thing and going nowhere. Its worked this whole time - just because you don't like one court case in 2012 doesn't mean the entire system is flawed.

dee dee dee


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Ways of using identical things (touchscreen in this instance), should not be patentable.
> On a related note, please tell me what you are supposed to do with your fingers on a touchscreen interface to unlock a device.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. You do realize there are other ways to unlock a phone, right? The Treo had a touchscreen before the iPhone, but you didn't swipe to unlock. The samsung instinct, basically a year-after copycat of the iPhone didn't swipe to unlock. There are plenty of buttons on every smartphone, always have been.
> 
> You also realize there are patents on actual physical locks, and other stuff that seems identical like barbed wire?
> 
> Patent system has been around for hundreds of years. Its designed to advance inventions so everybody isnt just copying one thing and going nowhere. Its worked this whole time - just because you don't like multiple court cases in 2010-2015+ doesn't mean the entire system is flawed.
> 
> dee dee dee
Click to expand...

ftfy

Yes it does.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> ftfy
> Yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Just no.
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## Nocturin

Can we claim stalemate already?


----------



## eternal7trance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can we claim stalemate already?


Apple might patent that.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eternal7trance*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can we claim stalemate already?
> 
> 
> 
> Apple might patent that.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes.


No. What you 'fixed' doesn't change my point at all. See: "hundreds of years"

I don't even know why I bother replying to you anymore you've just been going around trolling iPhone threads (very unsuccessfully I might add) with biased nonsense lol


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> No. What you 'fixed' doesn't change my point at all. See: "hundreds of years"
> 
> I don't even know why I bother replying to you anymore you've just been going around trolling iPhone threads (very unsuccessfully I might add) with biased nonsense lol
Click to expand...

I own an iPhone therefore I must not be biased.

/sarcasm + truth.

If the patent system doesn't work for OUR CURRENT ECONOMY then it is broken.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> I own an iPhone therefore I must not be biased.
> /sarcasm + truth.
> If the patent system doesn't work for OUR CURRENT ECONOMY then it is broken.


You're biased, and I can quote several posts of yours I saw recently where you displayed blatant biased ignorance, and some where you had to be corrected on certain falsehoods you were preaching as truths. I don't think we really want to go there. I really don't want to derail this thread with a personal argument.

Anyways,

The system isn't broken.
The problem is companies trying to use the system as an anti-competition tool. Whether Apple is or is not doing this is up for debate. No need to bring into question the legitimacy of patent laws.


----------



## 3930K

The system is broken.

Likewise I can find biased posts of yours.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> The system is broken.
> Likewise I can find biased posts of yours.


Okay, because you say its broken, without any logical reasoning as to why, I guess its true - because you said so. lol who are you kidding with that.
The only biased posts you're going to find from me involve nvidia, PC vs Consoles, and large breasts.









Now I think I'm done feeding the troll.


----------



## 3930K

I am not a troll.

If it is unsuitable for TODAY (THE PAST IS IRRELEVANT) then it should be overhauled.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> Okay, because you say its broken, without any logical reasoning as to why, I guess its true - because you said so. lol who are you kidding with that.
> The only biased posts you're going to find from me involve nvidia, PC vs Consoles, and large breasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I think I'm done feeding the troll.


http://www.dailytech.com/US+Patent+System+is+Broken+Declares+Judge+in+Android+v+Apple+Cases/article25116.htm

what does this old Judge know??

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/more-evidence-broken-patent-system

long live the patent system!


----------



## 3930K

FINALLY someone with sense comes here.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> I love when people post the "before the iPhone" pictures and choose phones like the Motorola Q, palm, blackberry, etc. and never show something like the Prada or the f700...
> http://www.dailytech.com/US+Patent+System+is+Broken+Declares+Judge+in+Android+v+Apple+Cases/article25116.htm
> what does this old Judge know??
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/more-evidence-broken-patent-system
> long live the patent system!


First of all, the iPhone did not copy the Prada. That's pretty common knowledge. Have you ever even used a Prada, or seen one in action? Its nothing like the iPhone in terms of the patents in question and OS usability. Its more of just a 'dumbphone' with a touchscreen. You had to use on-screen buttons to scroll. There was no homescreen with apps. There wasn't even a qwerty keyboard until a year after its release.

Furthermore, the Samsung F700 wasn't announced until one month after the iPhone. It also had Prada-like characteristics in terms of its OS.

I'm sure we can all just use our brains and think back to touchscreen phones before the iPhone. I'm not saying its the best thing ever, but I'm at least thankful for some of the iPhone's innovations because I seem to remember a whole lot of crappy touchscreen devices that were little more than Moto Razrs with 3" screens. You can't deny that the popularity of the iPhone has helped smartphones advance in a good way.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLOGUQouUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNN10UILi4g



Also, that judge you're talking about...if you actually take what he said about the Apple/Moto case into context, he was talking about the way both companies were being idiots over licensing and refusing to get out of a stalemate. His argument is that "It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries." Thats his opinion. He hasn't changed the system in any way.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-apple-google-judge-idUSBRE8640IQ20120705



I agree that patent trolling is ******ed and doesn't do anything but hurt.

TL;DR:
Apple innovated some great designs based off of existing basic touchscreen concepts. They patented their innovations, which is always a smart move.
We can all agree their patent trolling methods _are_ despicable.
But that doesn't give anyone free reign to spread misinformation around about them. Don't stoop to that level.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lost Prophet*
> 
> First of all, the iPhone did not copy the Prada. That's pretty common knowledge. Have you ever even used a Prada, or seen one in action? Its nothing like the iPhone in terms of the patents in question and OS usability. Its more of just a 'dumbphone' with a touchscreen. You had to use on-screen buttons to scroll. There was no homescreen with apps. There wasn't even a qwerty keyboard until a year after its release.
> Furthermore, the Samsung F700 wasn't announced until one month after the iPhone. It also had Prada-like characteristics in terms of its OS.
> I'm sure we can all just use our brains and think back to touchscreen phones before the iPhone. I'm not saying its the best thing ever, but I'm at least thankful for some of the iPhone's innovations because I seem to remember a whole lot of crappy touchscreen devices that were little more than Moto Razrs with 3" screens. You can't deny that the popularity of the iPhone has helped smartphones advance in a good way.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
> http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLOGUQouUI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNN10UILi4g
> 
> 
> Also, that judge you're talking about...if you actually take what he said about the Apple/Moto case into context, he was talking about the way both companies were being idiots over licensing and refusing to get out of a stalemate. His argument is that "It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries." Thats his opinion. He hasn't changed the system in any way.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-apple-google-judge-idUSBRE8640IQ20120705
> 
> 
> I agree that patent trolling is ******ed and doesn't do anything but hurt.
> TL;DR:
> Apple innovated some great designs based off of existing basic touchscreen concepts. They patented their innovations, which is always a smart move.
> We can all agree their patent trolling methods _are_ despicable.
> But that doesn't give anyone free reign to spread misinformation around about them. Don't stoop to that level.


This man, level-headed he is.

I really dislike Apple for their patent trolling (never really cared for them before, but it was more of an indifference) but it can't be denied that the original iPhone really changed the smartphone market. Bigger screen, sleek design, responsive touchscreen and apps galore. It's very unlikely the Android phones we have now would exist as they are without the iPhone setting the bar back then.

Obviously the iPhone has lagged behind the times a little bit, but what it did to shape the market cannot be denied. I also can't deny that the Galaxy S and Galaxy S2 designs hit a little too close to the iPhone design, which is why I'm sure the judge saw in Apple's favor. Stupid? Yes, but it was technically within Apple's rights to do so.

However, the fact that they're now targeting the Galaxy S3 kinda leaves me scratching my head. Samsung pretty much designed the S3 so it looks as little like an iPhone as possible. Also let's not get into the box and charger. I can (almost) understand suing over the devices themselves looking similar, but the box it comes in? Really? That shouldn't be an issue as you'd only see the inside of the box once and discard it, and only then AFTER you bought the product. On a list of reasons people buy expensive electronic devices, "The box was pretty" probably doesn't rank very high. Then there's the charger. Yes they look very similar, but suing over a charger design is beyond petty: it's pathetic.

All things considered, I'd say the S3 is safe considering the device itself is nowhere near an iPhone. The fact that Apple is targeting it pretty much confirms that they're just trying to off the competition. They're no longer suing because they feel Samsung's phone is similar, they're suing because they feel Samsung's phone is superior.


----------



## CaptainChaos

When did I ever say that the iPhone copied the Prada? That's not my point at all. The point is that it shows that multiple companies were already working on a similar form factor pre-Iphone. This is the point everyone loves to skip over when they show those pictures.
The F700 was announced a month after the iPhone, you don't honestly think that it was developed in one month, do you?
Also, why does the judge have to fix the patent system before we can admit that it's broken? I'm not even sure what your point was in that regard. The fact that we have judges saying the patent system is broken is pretty good proof that it is.

Just so you know, the App Store did no launch until the iPhone 3G was launched. It was not a part of the original iPhone. As a matter of fact the only thing the original iPhone did that other phones didn't do was offer a sleek ui and responsive touchscreen. It also lacked a large amount of features that any smartphone could do at the time.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> The point is that it shows that multiple companies were already working on a similar form factor pre-Iphone. This is the point everyone loves to skip over when they show those pictures.


Oh, well, you didn't make that very clear. You can't just bring up the Prada and not expect someone to think you're talking about the well-known iPhone/Prada copycat controversy.
So anyways, I don't think its accurate to call those similar. The F700 had a slide-out keyboard. That pretty much negates that. It was more related to the sidekick, or Windows Mobile phones of its time than to the iPhone.
The Prada phone may have looked similar, and was the subject of heated controversy, but in the end the next generation Prada also had a slide out keyboard. (first gen used T9) It went in its own different direction after the iPhone launch. So saying that samsung phones (or other phones too) would have naturally progressed from the F700 to the Galaxy S _without_ the iPhone's public influence doesn't make sense. They both featured wildly different design philosophy.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Also the points I previously made on the separate subject don't pertain to this in particular but remain valid.



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> Just so you know, the App Store did no launch until the iPhone 3G was launched. It was not a part of the original iPhone.


The original iPhone had stock apps. Like iPod, calculator, calendar, photos. They're still called apps without an app store.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Nice edit, but all smartphones already had all those apps minus the iPod. Anyways...

Of course the smartphone market was influenced by the iPhone I don't deny it. I'm sure that was part of the reason Samsung stopped making so many phones with hardware keyboards. The point about natural progression has more to do with the design elements though. The F700 shares many design elements with the Galaxy S. That's the point. Many design features that Apple says Samsung copied were already being used by Samsung as you can see by the F700, and the slide Samsung wanted to use as evidence in the recent patent dispute. It's also worth noting that the F700 was originally designed to be a keyboardless phone.


----------



## Lost Prophet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Nice edit, but all smartphones already had all those apps minus the iPod. Anyways...


Neither the F700 or the Prada had apps laid out on the home screen like the iPhone. Nobody said they invented apps. They *innovated*.

Edit:
Whatever about what Apple says copied what. No doubt Apple is mistaken about a lot of things. But I'm not.







huehuehue


----------



## CaptainChaos

What does that even mean and what exactly is your argument? Pre-Edit your post said something to the effect that the original iPhone offered apps that weren't seen on other phones. Now all you're saying is that they had those apps on the home screen? lol

I'm struggling to understand the point you're making.


----------

