# [OSNEWS] Samsung reveals its pre-iPhone concepts: 10 touchscreen devices



## Totimoshi

Quote:


> Seems like an open and shut case to me. Samsung didn't have to look very far for prior art - it created it itself. Doesn't that just boggle the mind? Samsung is being accused of stealing, even thought the company was clearly working on what it supposedly stole before the iPhone was even released. Samsung's phones bear more resemblance to its own pre-iPhone designs than to the iPhone, yet Apple and its supporters still insist Samsung is a thief.


Source


----------



## Domino

LOL! That's all I can really say.

Apple just needs to learn how to compete.


----------



## CaptainChaos

And this proves two things

1. There should have never been a case to begin with and

2. The patent process is an absolute joke.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


----------



## Foolsmasher




----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


Seems to be the other way around with the adults. Everyone likes to defend Apple and make Samsung look like the bad guys. Apple needs to grow up.


----------



## The Mad Mule

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


God, enlarging a picture should not be this complicated.


----------



## The Mad Mule

I'm a terrible person.


----------



## F1Seb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


My Asus usb connector and power connector also look like that. Is Asus copying Apple as well? If yes then why aren't they being sued?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *F1Seb*
> 
> My Asus usb connector and power connector also look like that. Is Asus copying Apple as well? If yes then why aren't they being sued?


Because Asus is no threat to Apple and will never be.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


Motorola has always had similar boxes, the charger is pretty much evolutionary (How much can you really change a USB charger? You make it as small as possible, they've both done that.) and the rest...Eh, probably.


----------



## linkdiablo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> IMG]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/984035/width/500/height/1000[/IMG[/SPOILER]]





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



If you want to patent packaging, patent packaging worth something ... like the fire resistant, shock absorbant rice packaging foam. I saw this on Daily Planet a year ago or maybe more. THAT's something useful and innovative.


----------



## Georgevonfrank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


Is it just me or does the bottom picture for the voice recorder look completely different.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because Asus is no threat to Apple and will never be.


Lol A company that makes way better products will never be a threat eh?


----------



## HK_47

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


----------



## F1Seb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because Asus is no threat to Apple and will never be.


So then it's safe to say that this lawsuit is not about Samsung infringing on Apple's patents.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Who else would love to see a huge countersuit filed against Apple now?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Mad Mule*
> 
> God, enlarging a picture should not be this complicated.


He's on his lil' Mac







Probably on Safari.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *F1Seb*
> 
> So then it's safe to say that this lawsuit is not about Samsung infringing on Apple's patents.


I would think so. Obviously Apple sees Samsung as a threat.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Lol A company that makes way better products will never be a threat eh?


That's your opinion but financially no they won't be a threat to Apple.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


Really? That hard to decide, huh?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Really? That hard to decide, huh?


Yes it's really really hard to decide.


----------



## aroc91

Open and shut, indeed. That's damning evidence against Apple.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


Ehhh, that's pretty ironic considering most high school kids absolutely adore Apple.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I would think so. Obviously Apple sees Samsung as a threat.
> That's your opinion but financially no they won't be a threat to Apple.


Specs and price point aren't an opinion


----------



## Stealth Pyros

ASUS at the very moment probably isn't much of a threat competition-wise to Apple. The Nexus 7 and other upcoming Nexus devices will probably change that. I think Apple is in for some steep competition once all the manufacturers get in on a Nexus device of their own.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


I'm no highschool kid, but I'm also no fan of Apple. It used to be because I found their products oversimplified and missing features I enjoy using. However I always applauded their sleek design and ui elements. However ever since they've become the biggest patent troll of this generation I can't help but feel a little hate (a term I use loosely) for them. That's not to say I "hate" on them without reason though. They are attempting to stifle competition by "defending" patents that are as obvious as a pen being an instrument you write with...

and please don't give me the "everyone does it" argument. No other big time company is doing what Apple is doing and more importantly to the extent Apple is doing it at. Just because the patent system is weak it doesn't mean you *have* to take advantage of it. They are choosing to be the bully at this point.


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Really? That hard to decide, huh?


For him the choice is simple. Notice he doesn't implicate Apple in any way.


----------



## grunthunter123

It's really Apple trying to sue Google for Android. It's just Samsung makes a lot of the Android market.


----------



## tompsonn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Quote:


> *Patent troll is a term used for a person or company called Apple* who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.[1]


----------



## kskwerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> And this proves two things
> 1. There should have never been a case to begin with and
> 2. The patent process is an absolute joke.


----------



## alick

they should just throw the patent system out the window they might as well at this rate!


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunthunter123*
> 
> It's really Apple trying to sue Google for Android. It's just Samsung makes a lot of the Android market.


It's really just Apple not providing the best option to consumers, allowing competitors to flourish.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *The Mad Mule*
> 
> God, enlarging a picture should not be this complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> He's on his lil' Mac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably on Safari.
Click to expand...

It's purely huddler, when you click it to go full screen because it wants to be all shiny and awesome it opens it in page which for some reason limits the max size that you can show. That's why Chrome can be useful, right click > Open Image in new Tab.


----------



## doomlord52

Well, that should solve that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/984035/width/500/height/1000


1. My bet it is was Photoshopped.
2. Its a generic USB to wall adapter. Nothing big there.
3. Same image
4. Same image
5. So apple invented the white box?
6. Same image
7. My Motorola Droid came in that style box, as did my Zune HD. What's your point.
8. Same image
9. My Zune HD has a similar connector. Also, I've never seen a Samsung connector like that. All android devices use MiniUSB
10. Same image
11. Really? A mic to represent recording audio!? You dont say. The default microsoft audio recorder icon is ALSO a mic!


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Well, that should solve that.
> 1. My bet it is was Photoshopped.
> 2. Its a generic USB to wall adapter. Nothing big there.
> 3. Same image
> 4. Same image
> 5. So apple invented the white box?
> 6. Same image
> 7. My Motorola Droid came in that style box, as did my Zune HD. What's your point.
> 8. Same image
> 9. My Zune HD has a similar connector. Also, I've never seen a Samsung connector like that. All android devices use MiniUSB
> 10. Same image
> 11. Really? A mic to represent recording audio!? You dont say. The default microsoft audio recorder icon is ALSO a mic!


Delusional I see. Samsung may or may not have infringed on some patents, that is for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Samsung was not influenced by the Apple designs, their huge sales, and tried to mimic their success? C'mon man...


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Well, that should solve that.
> 1. My bet it is was Photoshopped.
> 2. Its a generic USB to wall adapter. Nothing big there.
> 3. Same image
> 4. Same image
> 5. So apple invented the white box?
> 6. Same image
> 7. My Motorola Droid came in that style box, as did my Zune HD. What's your point.
> 8. Same image
> 9. My Zune HD has a similar connector. Also, I've never seen a Samsung connector like that. All android devices use MiniUSB
> 10. Same image
> 11. Really? A mic to represent recording audio!? You dont say. The default microsoft audio recorder icon is ALSO a mic!


the first image is actually taken from a retail store in italy(?) that carries all kinds of mobile phones and that is just a Samsung section. The wall graphic is part of the larger retail store and not Samsungs.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Delusional I see. Samsung may or may not have infringed on some patents, that is for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Samsung was not influenced by the Apple designs, their huge sales, and tried to mimic their success? C'mon man...


I agree with you to a certain extent but was Apple not influenced by other companies as well?


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Delusional I see. Samsung may or may not have infringed on some patents, that is for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Samsung was not influenced by the Apple designs, their huge sales, and tried to mimic their success? C'mon man...


Samsung inspired some things based on Apple's. Yep, that's right.

But Apple inspired almost everything on other companies, deliberately copying some and silently stealing from others.

That is the whole argument.

Meanwhile, I've got a SE phone, which imo look much better than any Apple or Samsung device


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> I agree with you to a certain extent but was Apple not influenced by other companies as well?


I guess I'll agree if you can dig up Apple clones of the Motorola Razr, I believe it was pretty popular before the iPhone launched.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> I guess I'll agree if you can dig up Apple clones of the Motorola Razr, I believe it was pretty popular before the iPhone launched.


Why does it have to be clones of the Razr?

Pretty biased statement right there.


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Delusional I see. Samsung may or may not have infringed on some patents, that is for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Samsung was not influenced by the Apple designs, their huge sales, and tried to mimic their success? C'mon man...


Well, of course every company took inspiration from another - that's generally how tech works. There's no truly original idea in the tech industry. But basically all of those images are irrelevant.

As someone else said, that first pic was from a multi-vender store. They probably sold Apple products, so they're gonna have apple icons on there. That's basically selective bias, where in only the information you want to be shown, is shown. I could find some inverse thing were a multi-vendor store had android app icons or google logos near iphones or apple logos.

Simply saying that Samsung ripped off Apple because their box is white is dumb. The box HAD to rectangular, because of the shape of the device (also, its a BOX). It had to be a color as well. The fact that it's a white box has nothing to do with apple. I could find a billion products pre-apple that came in a white box with text on it. Same goes for the presentation. The device is going to be somewhere in the box - usually near the top, so you can quickly see the product after opening the box. My (absolutely ancient) Nokia 6265i (June 2006, iiirc), came in a black box (or white, depending on the color of the phone), and when you opened the box (the lid came off vertically), the phone was presented in the front. That was long before apple started packaging their stuff like that.

Same goes with a cable. USB is a rectangular cable-end, the Zune HD cable is a rectangular cable end, etc. Again, as above, you cant say "wow they ripped off apple because their cable ends with a rectangle". It makes zero sense. The only other choices are shorter or longer rectangles, or circles (which are reserved for media input/output, most of the time). Hence, the cable is going to be rectangular. Then it comes down to number of pins. Each ping is a certain size, and the number of pins and their size is going to dictate the size of the cable end.

The mic thing is so dumb I shouldn't even have to address it. Using a mic to represent a recording device. Who could have thought of that. Its amazing. Geeeee....

The only vaguely acceptable claim in that whole picture is the USB wall adapter, and even then, I'd chalk that up to design requirement rather than idea-copying. The wall sockets in most countries use two or three 'prongs'. North America (that's an NA plug) have two prongs. As a result, the end will likely be square. Just look at any ungrounded appliance cable. Then they need to addapt the power socket to a USB socket. You've now got very, very little choices in shape. A square of minimum size is the logical conclusion. True, they COULD have made a trapezoid, or sphere, but really. Its like saying Corsair copied Antec because both of their top-end cases are big and square-ish.

So no, im not "delusional". I just seem to be able to discern the difference between logic and copying products, which a lot of people dont seem to be able to do.


----------



## hollowtek

that's pretty damn indisputable. anyone who's been on gsmarena since 2001 would know this.


----------



## Kand

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Delusional I see. Samsung may or may not have infringed on some patents, that is for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Samsung was not influenced by the Apple designs, their huge sales, and tried to mimic their success? C'mon man...


Still living in that false illusion eh? Apple may or may not have actual inventions to patent, that's for the courts to decide. But to sit back and think Apple devices were not manufactured mostly by Samsung, whose larger sales thanks to phones that range from entry level to high end, and tried to squelch their success through lawsuits? O'k bro...


----------



## UnAimed

Haha how stupid can this get! Apple already showed it's prototypes come from around August 2005 predating all this junk.

Also what this Biased source did not cover is:

*Samsung angers judge by sending rejected evidence from Apple trial to the media*
Quote:


> The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, but Samsung's already causing trouble on the first day of testimony: Judge Lucy Koh is furious that the company sent the press rejected evidence after the court overruled repeated attempts to introduce it at trial.
> 
> Samsung has been desperate to tell the jury about its F700 phone - which was in development months before the January 2007 introduction of the iPhone - and internal Apple emails that show the company pursuing a "Sony-style" design for the phone. All of this information has been public for days, but Samsung's motions to include it at trial have been denied because the company produced it too late in the discovery process. (For what it's worth, Apple has vociferously denied that the iPhone was inspired by Sony, claiming the mockup was just a fun design exercise based on an existing idea.)
> 
> ""Don't make me sanction you. Please.""
> 
> Samsung has already appealed the rulings denying the evidence, but that didn't stop the company's lawyers from trying again today after Apple briefly showed the F700 on a slide during its opening statements. Claiming that Apple had "opened the door" to discussion of the F700, Samsung asked the court to reconsider. That didn't go so well with Judge Koh, who noted that "Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration," and asked Samsung lead attorney John Quinn to sit back down. At one point in the exchange Quinn told Koh that he was "begging the court," and desperately asked "what's the point in having a trial?" - but Koh simply wasn't buying it. "Don't make me sanction you," she said. "Please."
> 
> ""I want to know who authorized it.""
> 
> That woud have been the end of it - except Samsung immediately emailed its rejected slides regarding F700 development and the "Sony-style" prototype to the press with a statement saying "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." All Things D and several other outlets ran the slides and the statement, giving new public life to rejected evidence - and eventually Judge Koh found out.
> 
> In the words of Verge courtroom reporter Bryan Bishop, Koh was "livid" when she found out about the All Things D story and press release, and demanded to know if Quinn was involved. "I want Mr. Quinn's declaration as to what his role was," said Koh. "I want to know who authorized it." The trial eventually moved on, but Samsung's little gambit may have cost it one more ounce of goodwill from a judge who's clearly unhappy with both sides for failing to settle. Of course, with Samsung's repeated protestations entered into the court record, there's always the chance that the company's team is setting the stage for an appeal should Apple emerge victorious - but we'll have to see how the rest of the trial plays out first.


http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial

These guys are digging their own grave with their childish behavior


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> Haha how stupid can this get! Apple already showed it's prototypes come from around August 2005 predating all this junk.
> Also what this Biased source did not cover is:
> *Samsung angers judge by sending rejected evidence from Apple trial to the media*
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial
> These guys are digging their own grave with their childish behavior


LOL< childish behaviour? Apple brought up the F700 and then Samsung can't use it as evidence?

Also, the 2005 iPhone prototypes mean NOTHING. The case is that Samsung are copying Apple, the Samsung image proves they were NOT since they have prototypes of all their phones and amny predate the iPhone. Since companies generally don't share prototype information it PROVES that Samsung developed independantly.


----------



## Rotsae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because Asus is no threat to Apple and will never be.


Did you forget how Apple threaten Asus's manufacturer to stop making Asus Zen Book?


----------



## raiderxx

My Toyota and my wife's Ford look a LOT alike! I think Ford should sue Toyota!! They both have the head lights in the same location, same with ALL of their mirrors! For that matter, they even have two seats in the front! THE NERVE! Then Toyota even stole the circular device used to steer the car! I don't even want to get into the fact that both radios are even in the same place as the slot used to start the car... I smell a massive lawsuit against all car manufacturers!!!!


----------



## GermanyChris

This is a trade dress dispute. All of Apple's iToys look the same they're familial you generally pick them out from 10 feet. Apple is in essence saying that Samsung copied apples trade dress, this brings us the rectangle with rounded corners etc. stuff that gets bandied about on these threads is trying to describe trade dress. Describing trade dress is like trying to describe quality, it's difficult but you know it when you see it feel it.

Apple is contending they were the first phone to carry what is now Apple "trade dress" and that Samsung buy "copying" the iPhone was using apple trade dress. If they can prove that then they can ask for damages because of lost sales. It gets sticky because trade dress descriptions are vague and broad. I personally can't describe any phone or computer with out being vague and broad but you can tell a Lenovo from a from a Dell quite easily but yet if you were trying to describe them in words they sound fairly similar. The prior art is important because it quantifies the trade dress description and who was first with that style. The Prada that get brought up constantly is the same it fits the description well but looks nothing like an iPhone.

The TV argument doesn't really work yes all TV's are generally now 16:9 screens with black bezels but you can mostly tell the difference between them.

The other problem here is we're looking at the story but we know the end our villains are chosen/exposed the sales in this case are over the design has since diverged. In 03 - 06 the story was unfolding so they didn't get the benefit of hind sight.

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


----------



## GermanyChris

And this is still the best of all the GUI's

slider_fanboy.png 128k .png file


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> And this is still the best of all the GUI's
> 
> slider_fanboy.png 128k .png file


I absolutely love my windows phone. I have a friend that has a Android Nexus (maybe 6 months old?) and his brother has one too. Both say that my Windows 7 phone is faster...

Obviously the nexus has MUCH better specs, but the OS is just soo smooth and intuitive


----------



## Rubers

^ Try and S3 and say that again


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> ^ Try and S3 and say that again


There are obviously limitations to what it can do in browser and larger apps, but just on the OS, gliding around its interface, back and forth, up and down, clicking on contacts and having all their information roll out in its smooth animation...the screen is always alive, never jitters, just as smooth, if not smoother, than the iphones

(i'm talking purely interface)

PS:: If i wasn't stuck for another 1.5 years on contract, I would probably have a SG3, some of its features are just amazing, but at the same time, i kinda want to see what happens to Windows 8 phones


----------



## exnihilo

You know, I agree with much of the "Apple = Troll" crapola that's going on, but my girlfriend and I were in BestBuy yesterday, and I saw something that did confuse me. I thought, at first glance that it was an Apple product. I took a picture, but it's a bit blurry, so here's one from the net.



Now, I know that WE may know the difference, but mom and pop and granny, this would in fact fool them.

Crazy.

It's the Samsung Galaxy Player.

Yes, this is a newer product, but releasing something like this, I agree, it will cause confusion.

cg


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> LOL< childish behaviour? Apple brought up the F700 and then Samsung can't use it as evidence?
> Also, the 2005 iPhone prototypes mean NOTHING. The case is that Samsung are copying Apple, the Samsung image proves they were NOT since they have prototypes of all their phones and amny predate the iPhone. *Since companies generally don't share prototype information* it PROVES that Samsung developed independantly.


Shh, the bold part I don't think he comprehends.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *exnihilo*
> 
> You know, I agree with much of the "Apple = Troll" crapola that's going on, but my girlfriend and I were in BestBuy yesterday, and I saw something that did confuse me. I thought, at first glance that it was an Apple product. I took a picture, but it's a bit blurry, so here's one from the net.
> 
> Now, I know that WE may know the difference, but mom and pop and granny, this would in fact fool them.
> Crazy.
> It's the Samsung Galaxy Player.
> Yes, this is a newer product, but releasing something like this, I agree, it will cause confusion.
> cg


still invalid arguments. if somebody buys a phone, takes it home, and realizes it's not an apple, they can just walk right back in and exchange phones. BUT i doubt they'd do that because they'd realize..."hmm this isn't an apple phone, but sure is better than one"

PS: If that big "SAMSUNG" across the top doesn't detract them from buying it...I can see why they wanted apple in the first place...very "blind"


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> I absolutely love my windows phone. I have a friend that has a Android Nexus (maybe 6 months old?) and his brother has one too. Both say that my Windows 7 phone is faster...
> Obviously the nexus has MUCH better specs, but the OS is just soo smooth and intuitive


I haven't used one other than playing with them in the store, the UI is easy to understand as your playing with it. iOS is fine in the fact that it looks like my Mac a dock with a desktop on top (even though I keep my do on the side like unity). I was hoping that Apple would take some cues from Win Mo for iOS 6 but they haven't.


----------



## j0z3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


The newest blackberry chargers are also small and square.


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *exnihilo*
> 
> You know, I agree with much of the "Apple = Troll" crapola that's going on, but my girlfriend and I were in BestBuy yesterday, and I saw something that did confuse me. I thought, at first glance that it was an Apple product. I took a picture, but it's a bit blurry, so here's one from the net.
> 
> Now, I know that WE may know the difference, but mom and pop and granny, this would in fact fool them.
> Crazy.
> It's the Samsung Galaxy Player.
> Yes, this is a newer product, but releasing something like this, I agree, it will cause confusion.
> cg


Yep, that's exactly why Apple is suing. Samsung is trade dressing
Quote:


> You've probably never heard of trade dress before, but you encounter it every day: it's the elements of a product design that indicate it came from a certain brand or company. The classic example is the Coke bottle: the distinctive shape of the bottle is just as recognizable as the trademarked word "Coke" itself. (That's a vastly simplified explanation, but it's good enough for our purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are all about protecting consumers from being deceived in the marketplace - the idea is to clearly indicate the source of a product or service.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> I haven't used one other than playing with them in the store, the UI is easy to understand as your playing with it. iOS is fine in the fact that it looks like my Mac a dock with a desktop on top (even though I keep my do on the side like unity). I was hoping that Apple would take some cues from Win Mo for iOS 6 but they haven't.


yeah the front page is all customize able and what not, it certainly doesn't have ALL the functionality that these mega android phones have, but myself and a lot of tech sites agree that Windows 7 phone is a very good.....Phone, basically, phone first and foremost, then has some cool stuff. When I think of samsung galaxy 3, yeah you can talk and whatever, but the features that really stick out are everything else (apps/pictures etc..)

so a windows 7 phone is what i'd get for my dad, and samsung galaxy 3 is what i'd get for myself (tech savy) if it had been out when i was up for a new phone


----------



## exnihilo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> still invalid arguments. if somebody buys a phone, takes it home, and realizes it's not an apple, they can just walk right back in and exchange phones. BUT i doubt they'd do that because they'd realize..."hmm this isn't an apple phone, but sure is better than one"
> PS: If that big "SAMSUNG" across the top doesn't detract them from buying it...I can see why they wanted apple in the first place...very "blind"


This isn't an argument I am making. This was Apple's concern in the beginning. At first glance, it was confusing. Stylistically, they are the same. Again, this isn't my concern or battle, but this is a case, at the very least, of trademark infringement. "Apple's Claims Against Samsung for Infringement of Product Trade Dress". Folks are confusing patents with trademarks. This new device is clearly infringing. Not by my standards, but by the laws, which is what they are trying to prove.

"Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers".

As also pointed out by UnAimed.

cg


----------



## Sylon

What a waste of resources.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *exnihilo*
> 
> This isn't an argument I am making. This was Apple's concern in the beginning. At first glance, it was confusing. Stylistically, they are the same. Again, this isn't my concern or battle, but this is a case, at the very least, of trademark infringement. "Apple's Claims Against Samsung for Infringement of Product Trade Dress". Folks are confusing patents with trademarks. This new device is clearly infringing. Not by my standards, but by the laws, which is what they are trying to prove.
> "Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers".
> As also pointed out by UnAimed.
> cg


is a rectangular phone with a black face a trademark to apple?

(I'm not being cynical, just asking a question out of legitimate curiosity )


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> is a rectangular phone with a black face a trademark to apple?
> (I'm not being cynical, just asking a question out of legitimate curiosity )




Here is a rectangular phone with a black face that looks nothing like Apples or Sammy's..

This is what I was trying to get at in my long winded post on the same subject.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a rectangular phone with a black face that looks nothing like Apples or Sammy's..
> This is what I was trying to get at in my long winded post on the same subject.


my eyes! that's soo ugly lol

now how come each clothing company can make basically the same exact shirts then? Shirts with collars, colors, sleeves, no sleeves, material used, etc....

Or how come all cars from different companies can have 4 wheels, a steering wheel (rather than joysticks), rear view mirrors, etc....

Phones are in the same territory as those (for example, the car) Let's say apple was now incharge of building cars, they'd patent every color except for pink, say that the steering wheel is their invention and that other alternatives should be used by competitors, like remotes/joysticks (which is bs), and that only their car can have 4 wheels, or else, everybody will confuse another 4 wheel car for theirs. See what I'm getting at?


----------



## GermanyChris

and another one..


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> my eyes! that's soo ugly lol


Hey, Hey..That is what my iPhone replaced ..that girl has character and class









back when android was for real men


----------



## exnihilo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> is a rectangular phone with a black face a trademark to apple?
> (I'm not being cynical, just asking a question out of legitimate curiosity )


I feel you. I guess the simple answer is, if it causes confusion, then it's infringement. A number of things need to add up, the size, color, silver boarder, 4x4 layout, button placement, etc... If enough things are similar or identical, then it is infringement. In my opinion, none of what I have seen so far would cause that much confusion; other than what I have posted, and that was released much more recently than what is currently being disputed in court.

I feel you. I guess the simple answer is, if it causes confusion, then it's infringement. A number of things need to add up, the size, color, silver border, 4x4 layout, button placement, etc... If enough things are similar or identical, then it is infringement.
In my opinion, none of what I have seen so far would cause that much confusion; other than what I have posted, and that was released much more recently than what is currently being disputed in court.

Look at GermanyChris's example. That's not a great one (







), but it is nothing like the iphone, while still possessing some similar features (black, and square). The E4GT looks nothing like an iphone, and that's a better example.

cg


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *exnihilo*
> 
> I feel you. I guess the simple answer is, if it causes confusion, then it's infringement. A number of things need to add up, the size, color, silver boarder, 4x4 layout, button placement, etc... If enough things are similar or identical, then it is infringement. In my opinion, none of what I have seen so far would cause that much confusion; other than what I have posted, and that was released much more recently than what is currently being disputed in court.
> I feel you. I guess the simple answer is, if it causes confusion, then it's infringement. A number of things need to add up, the size, color, silver border, 4x4 layout, button placement, etc... If enough things are similar or identical, then it is infringement.
> In my opinion, none of what I have seen so far would cause that much confusion; other than what I have posted, and that was released much more recently than what is currently being disputed in court.
> Look at GermanyChris's example. That's not a great one (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but it is nothing like the iphone, while still possessing some similar features (black, and square). The E4GT looks nothing like an iphone, and that's a better example.
> cg


You give a lot of freedom when you say rectangle with a black face


----------



## lacrossewacker

Exnhilio, somebody else, can you answer this part please
:"now how come each clothing company can make basically the same exact shirts then? Shirts with collars, colors, sleeves, no sleeves, material used, etc....

Or how come all cars from different companies can have 4 wheels, a steering wheel (rather than joysticks), rear view mirrors, etc....

Phones are in the same territory as those (for example, the car) Let's say apple was now incharge of building cars, they'd patent every color except for pink, say that the steering wheel is their invention and that other alternatives should be used by competitors, like remotes/joysticks (which is bs), and that only their car can have 4 wheels, or else, everybody will confuse another 4 wheel car for theirs. See what I'm getting at"

Is apple abusing the systeM?


----------



## exnihilo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> You give a lot of freedom when you say rectangle with a black face


True that!

cg


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I would think so. Obviously Apple sees Samsung as a threat.
> That's your opinion but financially no they won't be a threat to Apple.


Microsoft used to think the same thing about apple...


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> Exnhilio, somebody else, can you answer this part please
> :"now how come each clothing company can make basically the same exact shirts then? Shirts with collars, colors, sleeves, no sleeves, material used, etc....
> Or how come all cars from different companies can have 4 wheels, a steering wheel (rather than joysticks), rear view mirrors, etc....
> Phones are in the same territory as those (for example, the car) Let's say apple was now incharge of building cars, they'd patent every color except for pink, say that the steering wheel is their invention and that other alternatives should be used by competitors, like remotes/joysticks (which is bs), and that only their car can have 4 wheels, or else, everybody will confuse another 4 wheel car for theirs. See what I'm getting at"
> Is apple abusing the systeM?


The four wheels and a steering wheel are to broad, just like the shirt thing, and the rectangle with a black face.

To continue the car theme though, the VAG waterfall grill is trademarked. There is prior "art" for a grill the starts at the hood and ends below the bumper. I believe the double kidney from BMW is also.

The problem how do you write out what an iPhone looks like? Well it's a rectangle with a back screen and a metal band. I just described an iPhone but about a 1000 other phone few though that have any passing resemblance to an iPhone.


----------



## Affinity

Those Korean companies doing what they do best.


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Affinity*
> 
> 
> Those Korean companies doing what they do best.


Huh? Are you trying to say they look similar? Because they look completely different to me.


----------



## Georgevonfrank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> 
> Here is a rectangular phone with a black face that looks nothing like Apples or Sammy's..
> This is what I was trying to get at in my long winded post on the same subject.


Actually if you take off the bottom part with the buttons it looks like a fat gray iPhone


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *exnihilo*
> 
> You know, I agree with much of the "Apple = Troll" crapola that's going on, but my girlfriend and I were in BestBuy yesterday, and I saw something that did confuse me. I thought, at first glance that it was an Apple product. I took a picture, but it's a bit blurry, so here's one from the net.
> 
> Now, I know that WE may know the difference, but mom and pop and granny, this would in fact fool them.
> Crazy.
> It's the Samsung Galaxy Player.
> Yes, this is a newer product, but releasing something like this, I agree, it will cause confusion.
> cg
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly why Apple is suing. Samsung is trade dressing
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You've probably never heard of trade dress before, but you encounter it every day: it's the elements of a product design that indicate it came from a certain brand or company. The classic example is the Coke bottle: the distinctive shape of the bottle is just as recognizable as the trademarked word "Coke" itself. (That's a vastly simplified explanation, but it's good enough for our purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are all about protecting consumers from being deceived in the marketplace - the idea is to clearly indicate the source of a product or service.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That link and image are not even remotely similar. They aren't even the same product.


----------



## GermanyChris

This is probably the pic your looking for but still not so much the same.


----------



## Tehrawk




----------



## exnihilo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> That link and image are not even remotely similar. They aren't even the same product.


Que? I provided the link as a Google search so folks can decide for themselves. I will agree, there seems to be two different styles. The one I posted (the pic) is the one I saw in BB.

As an aside, I called an associate over and showed him the pic I posted, and asked, "What is this?" He responded with, "An iphone?" lol

cg


----------



## Affinity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> 
> This is probably the pic your looking for but still not so much the same.


I couldn't seem to fine a good side by side pic. But being a car guy and seeing those new Hyundais in person, there is no mistake they styled the front end after Mercedes.

Check out the Equus vs. the Lexus LS600 backend...





If you needed further proof, look no further than that BMW shark fin lulz.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*


Email that pic to Sammy, they should throw it up in the courtroom for the lulz.


----------



## voxox

I may sound biased and although I don't own an iphone, many companies are copying apple in some way.

iPhone's design/aesthetics is a like an icon and a benchmark for other companies.

Whether people acknowledge that or not, it's inevitable to a naked eye.

When first iPhone came out, there was nothing in the market that even came close to its complexities. Then slowly companies started coming up with similar looking phones.

my


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *voxox*
> 
> I may sound biased and although I don't own an iphone, many companies are copying apple in some way.
> iPhone's design/aesthetics is a like an icon and a benchmark for other companies.
> Whether people acknowledge that or not, it's inevitable to a naked eye.
> When first iPhone came out, there was nothing in the market that even came close to its complexities. Then slowly companies started coming up with similar looking phones.
> my


+1 to that


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Well, of course every company took inspiration from another - that's generally how tech works. There's no truly original idea in the tech industry. But basically all of those images are irrelevant.
> As someone else said, that first pic was from a multi-vender store. They probably sold Apple products, so they're gonna have apple icons on there. That's basically selective bias, where in only the information you want to be shown, is shown. I could find some inverse thing were a multi-vendor store had android app icons or google logos near iphones or apple logos.
> Simply saying that Samsung ripped off Apple because their box is white is dumb. The box HAD to rectangular, because of the shape of the device (also, its a BOX). It had to be a color as well. The fact that it's a white box has nothing to do with apple. I could find a billion products pre-apple that came in a white box with text on it. Same goes for the presentation. The device is going to be somewhere in the box - usually near the top, so you can quickly see the product after opening the box. My (absolutely ancient) Nokia 6265i (June 2006, iiirc), came in a black box (or white, depending on the color of the phone), and when you opened the box (the lid came off vertically), the phone was presented in the front. That was long before apple started packaging their stuff like that.
> Same goes with a cable. USB is a rectangular cable-end, the Zune HD cable is a rectangular cable end, etc. Again, as above, you cant say "wow they ripped off apple because their cable ends with a rectangle". It makes zero sense. The only other choices are shorter or longer rectangles, or circles (which are reserved for media input/output, most of the time). Hence, the cable is going to be rectangular. Then it comes down to number of pins. Each ping is a certain size, and the number of pins and their size is going to dictate the size of the cable end.
> The mic thing is so dumb I shouldn't even have to address it. Using a mic to represent a recording device. Who could have thought of that. Its amazing. Geeeee....
> The only vaguely acceptable claim in that whole picture is the USB wall adapter, and even then, I'd chalk that up to design requirement rather than idea-copying. The wall sockets in most countries use two or three 'prongs'. North America (that's an NA plug) have two prongs. As a result, the end will likely be square. Just look at any ungrounded appliance cable. Then they need to addapt the power socket to a USB socket. You've now got very, very little choices in shape. A square of minimum size is the logical conclusion. True, they COULD have made a trapezoid, or sphere, but really. Its like saying Corsair copied Antec because both of their top-end cases are big and square-ish.
> So no, im not "delusional". I just seem to be able to discern the difference between logic and copying products, which a lot of people dont seem to be able to do.


Sorry broheim, I'm just trying to stand back and look at the big picture here.

Open your mind to a contrarian view once in a while instead of blindly following the sheep on this site who refuse to see things for what they are, solely because they don't prefer Apple's products.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Well, of course every company took inspiration from another - that's generally how tech works. There's no truly original idea in the tech industry. But basically all of those images are irrelevant.
> As someone else said, that first pic was from a multi-vender store. They probably sold Apple products, so they're gonna have apple icons on there. That's basically selective bias, where in only the information you want to be shown, is shown. I could find some inverse thing were a multi-vendor store had android app icons or google logos near iphones or apple logos.
> Simply saying that Samsung ripped off Apple because their box is white is dumb. The box HAD to rectangular, because of the shape of the device (also, its a BOX). It had to be a color as well. The fact that it's a white box has nothing to do with apple. I could find a billion products pre-apple that came in a white box with text on it. Same goes for the presentation. The device is going to be somewhere in the box - usually near the top, so you can quickly see the product after opening the box. My (absolutely ancient) Nokia 6265i (June 2006, iiirc), came in a black box (or white, depending on the color of the phone), and when you opened the box (the lid came off vertically), the phone was presented in the front. That was long before apple started packaging their stuff like that.
> Same goes with a cable. USB is a rectangular cable-end, the Zune HD cable is a rectangular cable end, etc. Again, as above, you cant say "wow they ripped off apple because their cable ends with a rectangle". It makes zero sense. The only other choices are shorter or longer rectangles, or circles (which are reserved for media input/output, most of the time). Hence, the cable is going to be rectangular. Then it comes down to number of pins. Each ping is a certain size, and the number of pins and their size is going to dictate the size of the cable end.
> The mic thing is so dumb I shouldn't even have to address it. Using a mic to represent a recording device. Who could have thought of that. Its amazing. Geeeee....
> The only vaguely acceptable claim in that whole picture is the USB wall adapter, and even then, I'd chalk that up to design requirement rather than idea-copying. The wall sockets in most countries use two or three 'prongs'. North America (that's an NA plug) have two prongs. As a result, the end will likely be square. Just look at any ungrounded appliance cable. Then they need to addapt the power socket to a USB socket. You've now got very, very little choices in shape. A square of minimum size is the logical conclusion. True, they COULD have made a trapezoid, or sphere, but really. Its like saying Corsair copied Antec because both of their top-end cases are big and square-ish.
> So no, im not "delusional". I just seem to be able to discern the difference between logic and copying products, which a lot of people dont seem to be able to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry broheim, I'm just trying to stand back and look at the big picture here.
> 
> Open your mind to a contrarian view once in a while instead of blindly following the sheep on this site who refuse to see things for what they are, solely because they don't prefer Apple's products.
Click to expand...

Huge wall of common sense and pwn.

Re: Sorry bro, open your mind.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


It's not cool to hate on Apple, it's just easy. They just keep shooting themselves in the foot, eventually there will be nothing left to stand on.


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Huge wall of common sense and pwn.
> Re: Sorry bro, open your mind.


Maybe it was an attempt at irony?


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Huge wall of common sense and pwn.
> Re: Sorry bro, open your mind.


It's the sum of the parts, the "big picture" if you will. All those little similarities are not by accident in my opinion. They just didn't think Apple would call them on it.


----------



## Axon14

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *voxox*
> 
> I may sound biased and although I don't own an iphone, many companies are copying apple in some way.
> iPhone's design/aesthetics is a like an icon and a benchmark for other companies.
> Whether people acknowledge that or not, it's inevitable to a naked eye.
> When first iPhone came out, there was nothing in the market that even came close to its complexities. Then slowly companies started coming up with similar looking phones.
> my


Copying is one thing, borrowing elements from a design is quite another. It may sound like a euphemisim, but the standard is could a person confuse the two products...and I don't think that's the case with these high profile (and ultimately different) products. I don't think Apple is bringing this one home.


----------



## quakermaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> It's the sum of the parts, the "big picture" if you will. All those little similarities are not by accident in my opinion. They just didn't think Apple would call them on it.


You could add this to the big picture as well


----------



## Wazige

I am waiting for the day that Apple will file a patent for a Sphere, get it approved than start a lawsuit against everyone that doesnt buy apple products and demands those people to removed from the earth cause they own the Sphere design.


----------



## Bosniac

Apple could care less about Samsung if they only had %10 of the martket.


----------



## KOBALT

So should Ford sue everyone that followed in the footsteps of having something with 4 wheels and a motor?

I know Ford didn't invent the car. They were the first to patent it.

Apple and Samsung should both burn in Hell.


----------



## Doomtomb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*


Finally. People, pull your head out of the sand and accept the truth. Samsung sees the only way of beating Apple is to copy them. It's pretty damn obvious.


----------



## KOBALT

Everything we have today was invented using one prototype. Now there's countless amounts of the same product using the same technology.

Microwaves, sunglasses, TVs, speakers, keyboards and even cell phones.

What the hell is the difference.

Sure Apple may have paved the way for the touchscreen style phone, but anything beyond that from other companies is called innovation. Especially when other companies do it better.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Doomtomb*
> 
> Finally. People, pull your head out of the sand and accept the truth. Samsung sees the only way of beating Apple is to copy them. It's pretty damn obvious.


Conveniently ignoring the picture this thread began with, huh?

Or what about this one?


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> Conveniently ignoring the picture this thread began with, huh?
> Or what about this one?












Nuff said


----------



## Electrocutor

I'll throw my dice on neither. Pretty much all companies nowadays make any and all claims that they can to try to screw every other company out of as much money as they can; regardless of whether they really think they have the right to. It's the same reason that Apple has tried to sue pretty much every company to have ever made a product containing a lower case i as the first letter: even if it was used more than 10 years prior to Apple having used it.

Money. Money. Money. Money. Money. We live in a world chuck full of people with no integrity.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KOBALT*
> 
> Apple and Samsung should both burn in Hell.


Not quite like that. Samsung was all fine until Apple put their nose in.

But since I do not support none of the companies (though I wouldn't touch an Apple product with a ten foot pole), I will keep buying Sony Ericsson phones, as they have top notch dev support, incredibly fast stock rooms, and they are sleeker than anything Samsung or Apple can offer.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Whats the suit actually over? the cosmetic design of the phone? lol every phone that's a touch screen is gonna look so similar. That's like Titleist patenting a golf ball then sueing every golfball maker...

The real thing Apple should be concerned with, bring it on, similar phone, who cares about the design. What apple should be more concerned about is develping a product that easily out performs all other products that look the same. If they know competitors can make something that looks the same and can perform the same, then they should be worried...like they are now.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Doomtomb*
> 
> Finally. People, pull your head out of the sand and accept the truth. Samsung sees the only way of beating Apple is to copy them. It's pretty damn obvious.












Are you sure?


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?


Lol, that was one good card you pulled.

Apple is just searching for the most horrid designs they can, to make the biased judge believe they changed the way makes shaped their products.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said


Erm, why is that prototype, of which the images and information were public as of a few days ago, 2012, in that image and what does that exact prove?

Nothing, that's what.

EDIT:

and half those innovations?







My Sony Ericsson C905 and w580i had GPS and an accelerometer long before the iPhone. Seriously? Multi-tocuh? Apple bought the patent for that meaning someone else had it first. AppStore? Sony Ericsson had one before them, too.

Apple popularised this stuff. They didn't invent it.


----------



## CaptainChaos

for those that are still going on with the trade dress argument, read the source once again. The trade dress Samsung seem to be copying is much more similar to their own prototypes than an iPhone. That's the argument Samsung was hoping to make if they were allowed to use this evidence in court.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Erm, why is that prototype, of which the images and information were public as of a few days ago, 2012, in that image and what does that exact prove?
> Nothing, that's what.


Yes that prototype does mean absolutely squatt? Unless your trying to say that Samsung copied a prototype that was probably kept behind closed doors. Unlikely.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> Yes that prototype does mean absolutely squatt? Unless your trying to say that Samsung copied a prototype that was probably kept behind closed doors. Unlikely.


Exactly. He's using that Prototype ot be all like "case solved, mother bro's Samsung are a bunch of copying craps" when really it proves nothing because that Prototype will have been under Apple lock and key since it's inception.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Erm, why is that prototype, of which the images and information were public as of a few days ago, 2012, in that image and what does that exact prove?
> Nothing, that's what.
> EDIT:
> and half those innovations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Sony Ericsson C905 and w580i had GPS and an accelerometer long before the iPhone. Seriously? Multi-tocuh? Apple bought the patent for that meaning someone else had it first. *AppStore? Sony Ericsson had one before them, too.*
> Apple popularised this stuff. They didn't invent it.


basically every phone has had some sort of "media mall" since at least my first phone in 2004. download ringtones/small games/wall papers...Basically the same thing as an App store, just limited to the tech of its time


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said


I was going to address your picture, but I figured anyone with any bit of common sense could see that you're comparing a prototype from 2005 with a final product revealed in December 2006 and released early 2007. Do you seriously think LG didn't have ANY Prada prototypes before 2006? Your calender must be really messed up if you think those weren't in prototype stages simultaneously.

Edit: Let's not forget the picture in the OP. The same principle applies to all of those, too. They were around before the iPhone, so logic tells us their prototypes were around either before or at the same time as the iPhone's prototypes.

'Nuff said.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Lol, that was one good card you pulled.
> Apple is just searching for the most horrid designs they can, to make the biased judge believe they changed the way makes shaped their products.


Someone made a graphic to counter the "samsung copies" packaging one thats been quoted many times throughout this thread (with checkmate samsung no less







) showing that the USB charger is a standard design, purchased from the same company, as is the 30 pin connector (that samsung has been using for ages, too) along with the mobile store point and others, but my google-fu is failing me.

The bias is strong, and it's where those images originate is most on apple biases sites that use the Q1 as the basis of the "first" samsung tablet, when in reality it was not.

This bias is what worries me about this case, it has shown clearly in what I've read about it so far.

Judge Lucy Koh "is just doing her job".

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> for those that are still going on with the trade dress argument, read the source once again. *The trade dress Samsung seem to be copying is much more similar to their own prototypes than an iPhone.* That's the argument Samsung was hoping to make if they were allowed to use this evidence in court.


If everyone even looked at the photo in the OP, they would see this with their own two eyes.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that apple has gotten the leeway that it has, but there will be an appeal if this doesn't go the right way and hopefully then the legal process wont be an issue.

Apple marketing at it's best.









One thing samsung *needs* to copy is apples collusion of their marketing/legal team.


----------



## Rubers

^ They did well with the GS3. It was everywhere I looked.

Also, as for trade-dress. There's the obvious fact that it has Samsung written on the front extremely clearly. That's going to confuse people?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> ^ They did well with the GS3. It was everywhere I looked.
> Also, as for trade-dress. There's the obvious fact that it has Samsung written on the front extremely clearly. That's going to confuse people?


This boggles my mind.

"Samsung" s on the front and back of every samsung device I have seen (-/+1 or 2).


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> This boggles my mind.
> "Samsung" s on the front and back of every samsung device I have seen (-/+1 or 2).


Exactly, adn the kind of people it will confuse are already confused. Like my Gran who confuses Xbox and Playstation, and also thinks a Dell is this:


----------



## PappaSmurfsHarem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> No other big time company is doing what Apple is doing and more importantly to the extent Apple is doing it at.


Just playing devils advocate here, but are you sure about that? Or is apple just a better newsworthy name (see foxxcon employee treatment news post)


----------



## chronostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because Asus is no threat to Apple and will never be.


Funny you would say that. Apple forced Pegatron to stop producing the ASUS Zenbook. Seems like ASUS was a threat to Apple.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chronostorm*
> 
> Funny you would say that. Apple forced Pegatron to stop producing the ASUS Zenbook. Seems like ASUS was a threat to Apple.


Yup. There was an thread here on OCN.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*


LOL!

I can't believe these would be considered legit arguments in court. It's practical a show in tell that gives no actual incentives to if or not one copied. However, Samsung sure made the right move by countering Apple's weak argument by showing their previous models. No wonder it was so easily refuted.


----------



## quakermaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said


Slide to unlock shouldn't be on there.

"The first patent involved unlocking a device by performing a gesture on the screen, or swiping your finger across the screen to unlock your phone. The judge ruled this was an obvious innovation, so Apple had no right to claim the idea as its own intellectual property.

The judge cited previous phones and technology that used similar sliders, including the Swedish Neonode N1, which showed a padlock on the screen way back in 2004 and was unlocked with a sweep of the finger."

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/apple-loses-slide-to-unlock-fight-with-htc-in-uk-court-50008508/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0

Go to 4 minutes in and watch the slide to unlock from a video that was made in 2007 and the phone was 2 to 3 years old at that point, making it around 2004/5


----------



## Tunechi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raiderxx*
> 
> My Toyota and my wife's Ford look a LOT alike! I think Ford should sue Toyota!! They both have the head lights in the same location, same with ALL of their mirrors! For that matter, they even have two seats in the front! THE NERVE! Then Toyota even stole the circular device used to steer the car! I don't even want to get into the fact that both radios are even in the same place as the slot used to start the car... I smell a massive lawsuit against all car manufacturers!!!!


I refuse to get in any car that isn't a Ford. 4 wheels? Nope.


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> I was going to address your picture, but I figured anyone with any bit of common sense could see that you're comparing a prototype from 2005 with a final product revealed in December 2006 and released early 2007. Do you seriously think LG didn't have ANY Prada prototypes before 2006? Your calender must be really messed up if you think those weren't in prototype stages simultaneously.
> Edit: Let's not forget the picture in the OP. The same principle applies to all of those, too. They were around before the iPhone, so logic tells us their prototypes were around either before or at the same time as the iPhone's prototypes.
> 'Nuff said.


Uhh don't you get it? People are saying that Apple copied the LG prada, hence the prototype predating the prada shows that it was not influenced by LG and vice versa. I thought you would be able to understand that









Furthermore the original picture states that the LG prada is from 2006 when in actual fact it was announced and released in 2007.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Erm, why is that prototype, of which the images and information were public as of a few days ago, 2012, in that image and what does that exact prove?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *quakermaas*
> 
> Slide to unlock shouldn't be on there.
> 
> "The first patent involved unlocking a device by performing a gesture on the screen, or swiping your finger across the screen to unlock your phone. The judge ruled this was an obvious innovation, so Apple had no right to claim the idea as its own intellectual property.
> The judge cited previous phones and technology that used similar sliders, including the Swedish Neonode N1, which showed a padlock on the screen way back in 2004 and was unlocked with a sweep of the finger."
> 
> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/apple-loses-slide-to-unlock-fight-with-htc-in-uk-court-50008508/
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
> 
> Go to 4 minutes in and watch the slide to unlock from a video that was made in 2007 and the phone was 2 to 3 years old at that point, making it around 2004/5
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, that's what.
> EDIT:
> and half those innovations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Sony Ericsson C905 and w580i had GPS and an accelerometer long before the iPhone. Seriously? Multi-tocuh? Apple bought the patent for that meaning someone else had it first. AppStore? Sony Ericsson had one before them, too.
> Apple popularised this stuff. They didn't invent it.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above it proves that Apple was not influenced by the LG Prada as the original picture tried to imply.
1. I did not mention GPS
2. Other devices may have had an Accelerometer but it was never utlized in the way that is it today in smartphones such as shaking the device to undo text.
3.I never said Apple invented Multi touch or the app store, I said they innovated in that field (hence the word innovated and not invented in the text). Also there have been marketplaces before like lacrossewacker mentioned but show me any app store model which at all resembles Apples App store or any other popular app store we have these days such as the Play store.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *quakermaas*
> 
> Slide to unlock shouldn't be on there.
> 
> "The first patent involved unlocking a device by performing a gesture on the screen, or swiping your finger across the screen to unlock your phone. The judge ruled this was an obvious innovation, so Apple had no right to claim the idea as its own intellectual property.
> The judge cited previous phones and technology that used similar sliders, including the Swedish Neonode N1, which showed a padlock on the screen way back in 2004 and was unlocked with a sweep of the finger."
> 
> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/apple-loses-slide-to-unlock-fight-with-htc-in-uk-court-50008508/
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
> 
> Go to 4 minutes in and watch the slide to unlock from a video that was made in 2007 and the phone was 2 to 3 years old at that point, making it around 2004/5


Again, I did not say they invented it or claimed it as their invention even though the second point is probably true








But they did innovate the original idea and it is now considered a norm on any touchscreen equipped device. I must admit though that Androids choice of different swipe to unlock methods are even cooler


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> Uhh don't you get it? People are saying that Apple copied the LG prada, hence the prototype predating the prada shows that it was not influenced by LG and vice versa. I thought you would be able to understand that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore the original picture states that the LG prada is from 2006 when in actual fact it was announced and released in 2007.


I didn't see anybody claim in this thread that Apple copied the Prada. That's not what I was getting at though. I thought you were implying the Prada was copying the iPhone prototype. My bad.

A 5 second Google search would tell you that the Prada was announced in December 2006, like I previously said.


----------



## Deanofski

I love apple







quality


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deanofski*
> 
> I love apple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quality


I love samsung







quality







.


----------



## Concept_357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *voxox*
> 
> I may sound biased and although I don't own an iphone, many companies are copying apple in some way.
> iPhone's design/aesthetics is a like an icon and a benchmark for other companies.
> Whether people acknowledge that or not, it's inevitable to a naked eye.
> When first iPhone came out, there was nothing in the market that even came close to its complexities. Then slowly companies started coming up with similar looking phones.
> my


This.

Although it doesn't give the right to Apple to have exclusiveness over the product even if they were the ones who started the whole "smartphone revolution".

And the LG Prada argument is completely invalid, Apple proved that they started developing the iPhone in 2005 and they were experimenting with capacitive touch screens as early as 2001. Also, unlike the iPhone, the LG Prada sucked, I don't think the people over at Apple were dumb enough to copy such a crappy phone.


----------



## Faraz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Georgevonfrank*
> 
> Is it just me or does the bottom picture for the voice recorder look completely different.


Oh, silly. Can't you see they both have a record button and a picture of a microphone?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

These lawsuits are silly on both sides. Apple and Samsung took inspirations from different products and vice versa. Instead of trying to ban products, they need to innovate instead.


----------



## DizzlePro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> These lawsuits are silly on both sides. Apple and Samsung took inspirations from different products and vice versa. Instead of trying to ban products, they need to innovate instead.


true but apple did start this


----------



## chronostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> Also, unlike the iPhone, the LG Prada sucked, I don't think the people over at Apple were dumb enough to copy such a crappy phone.


Have you used an LG Prada before? How do you know it sucked?


----------



## unfbilly11

Why wouldn't anyone be copying Apple nowadays?? I mean, honestly...I DESPISE Apple. I think they are the worst company that there has ever been. If I had a choice between sawing off my arm and having to use Apple products, I think I would seriously consider going on with 1 arm.

But Apple makes a lot of money (which is 100% why every company is around) and they are the "popular" choice nowadays for everything. I don't really think Samsung copied Apple, but they were certainly influenced by them. And, guess what? Apple was probably influenced by someone too! That's how everything works in life. Someone had to use the Zone defense first in sports. Should that person file suit against every sports team in the world that has ever used a zone defense?? No, of course not. It was a good idea, so others adopted it. Apple should stop being such a little cry baby and move on. That's how the world works. You have a popular product, prepare to be copied. The idea behind an mp3 player was around longgggg before the original iPod. Maybe that person should sue Apple for taking their idea of a portable music player that doesn't need a tape or disk....

Personally, I hope Samsung and Intel work out some deal and stop providing any hardware products to Apple. Everyone knows that Apple products have 0 proprietary parts in them. They're all outsourced to other companies.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chronostorm*
> 
> Have you used an LG Prada before? How do you know it sucked?


Most likely didn't, considering alot of people here like talking out of their butt


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric ****tonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.
> 
> Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)
> 
> Apple ain't making that mistake.


http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3017801&cid=40836821

Maybe this will make more sense.


----------



## Mygaffer

Apple is just terrible.


----------



## Mygaffer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3017801&cid=40836821
> Maybe this will make more sense.


But should this be allowed at all? Surely you can concede that Apple didn't invent the smart phone. So what are they litigating on? The candy bar shaped phone? Who does this help besides Apple? No one. Its not good for competition, it is not good for consumers and it really does nothing to foster innovation.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> But should this be allowed at all? Surely you can concede that Apple didn't invent the smart phone. So what are they litigating on? The candy bar shaped phone? Who does this help besides Apple? No one. Its not good for competition, it is not good for consumers and it really does nothing to foster innovation.


And Fender didn't invent the guitar.


----------



## R1VER5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And Fender didn't invent the guitar.


But they did perfect it.


----------



## jrbroad77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R1VER5*
> 
> But they did perfect it.


0/10


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R1VER5*
> 
> But they did perfect it.


They revolutionized the industry.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> They revolutionized *invigorated* the industry.


FTFY.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> FTFY.


Yep, that too.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

So nobody else but Apple is allowed to make a thin, black phone with a touch screen huh?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So nobody else but Apple is allowed to make a thin, black phone with a touch screen huh?


This is the goal Apple is trying to accomplish.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Just went to best buy, saw all these phones next to each other...

apple is small and fat. Samsung is big screen and slender. VERRRY different looking and not to mention, apple has their own separate kiosk. No way they're loosing business because of confusion


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3017801&cid=40836821
> Maybe this will make more sense.


That's all well and good, but as the pic in the OP shows, Samsung was already on the path of building their own sleek touchscreen devices. We all know other companies were as well. What Apple did with the design of the iPhone was not revolutionary it was evolutionary. That's the point here. Sure companies were influenced by the iPhones design, I don't think anyone can deny that, but not to the extent that Apple seems to believe. Apples argument is that Samsung infringed on the iPhones trade dress which in turn led consumers to purchase more Galaxy phones then they would have, and misled consumers into purchasing it over an iPhone.

In truth people:

a.) Wanted another option as they didn't all want to be tied to AT&T as a provider and
b.) People were willing to try something different that may have had a feature or two the iPhone didn't


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> In truth people:
> a.) Wanted another option as they didn't all want to be tied to AT&T as a provider and
> b.) People were willing to try something different that may have had a feature or two the iPhone didn't


c) People didn't want an iPhone.








d) People didn't want to be tied to a locked down ecosystem.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to address your picture, but I figured anyone with any bit of common sense could see that you're comparing a prototype from 2005 with a final product revealed in December 2006 and released early 2007. Do you seriously think LG didn't have ANY Prada prototypes before 2006? Your calender must be really messed up if you think those weren't in prototype stages simultaneously.
> 
> Edit: Let's not forget the picture in the OP. The same principle applies to all of those, too. They were around before the iPhone, so logic tells us their prototypes were around either before or at the same time as the iPhone's prototypes.
> 
> 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

No, _clearly_ after Apple had the iPhone prototypes designed internally LG and Samsung knew via Narnian logic and copied them, durr. No-one innovates except Apple.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> This.
> Although it doesn't give the right to Apple to have exclusiveness over the product even if they were the ones who started the whole "smartphone revolution".
> And the LG Prada argument is completely invalid, Apple proved that they started developing the iPhone in 2005 and they were experimenting with capacitive touch screens as early as 2001. Also, unlike the iPhone, the LG Prada sucked, I don't think the people over at Apple were dumb enough to copy such a crappy phone.


Point is, the entire industry was already moving in that direction. Apple just happened to be the first one to hit it big. Therefore, Apple should not be allowed to make these kinds of lawsuits, because everyone already had their own versions in the works, well before Apple released their iPhone.


----------



## poizone

I personally think that Judge Koh is biased for Apple in these cases. I disagree with much of Apple's litigation and in general the idea of design patents, but sometimes Apple does have a point. In this case I don't think they do, and the fact that this case has not been thrown out is because Judge Koh can't seem to believe that consumer technology companies could independently converge upon a very similar design. I'm sure if we got all the major manufacturers in play at that time together, they would be able to show similar prototyping as Samsung has.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Yep, that too.


There is distinction between the terms, they are not one in the same.


----------



## CrazyHeaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poizone*
> 
> I personally think that Judge Koh is biased for Apple in these cases. I disagree with much of Apple's litigation and in general the idea of design patents, but sometimes Apple does have a point. In this case I don't think they do, and the fact that this case has not been thrown out is because Judge Koh can't seem to believe that consumer technology companies could independently converge upon a very similar design. I'm sure if we got all the major manufacturers in play at that time together, they would be able to show similar prototyping as Samsung has.


It really does seem like Judge Koh is Apple bias. The rules of the case as I understand it have been setup to work against Samsung. Apple can use Steve Job quotes but Samsung can't because it isn't about Samsung vs Steve Jobs. Samsung tries to bring in some of their prototype pictures and that isn't allowed either. Apple's prototype pictures are but Samsung's came to late. Samsung releases this to the public and says they've been thrown out clearly pointing out how they feel mistreated and wanted everyone else to know. This makes Judge Koh mad.

I was hoping for a fair trial but this doesn't seem to be the case. It is probably impossible to get a unbias judge so lets just redo the patent system. If Apple has there way and I want a touch screen device with rounded corners my only option here is a iphone.

It is my belief that the patent system problem is going well beyond cell phone devices. It makes me wonder how much it is holding up advances in health and education. To me, the problem is clear and it isn't Apple. The problem here is the patent system itself.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyHeaven*
> 
> It really does seem like Judge Koh is Apple bias. The rules of the case as I understand it have been setup to work against Samsung. Apple can use Steve Job quotes but Samsung can't because it isn't about Samsung vs Steve Jobs. Samsung tries to bring in some of their prototype pictures and that isn't allowed either. Apple's prototype pictures are but Samsung's came to late. Samsung releases this to the public and says they've been thrown out clearly pointing out how they feel mistreated and wanted everyone else to know. This makes Judge Koh mad.
> I was hoping for a fair trial but this doesn't seem to be the case. It is probably impossible to get a unbias judge so lets just redo the patent system. If Apple has there way and I want a touch screen device with rounded corners my only option here is a iphone.
> It is my belief that the patent system problem is going well beyond cell phone devices. It makes me wonder how much it is holding up advances in health and education. To me, the problem is clear and it isn't Apple. The problem here is the patent system itself.


Well said, you forgot another piece of evidence not admissible, which is Apple taking inspiration from Sony. Regardless of when project purple started, they STILL asked the question "What would Sony do?" and built a prototype based on that question.

This only proves that Apple DOES take inspiration from others, but God forbid others do the same, let alone have that evidence admissible.

Coincidentally I just came across this video, I bet it wouldn't be admissible either.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyHeaven*
> 
> It really does seem like Judge Koh is Apple bias. The rules of the case as I understand it have been setup to work against Samsung. Apple can use Steve Job quotes but Samsung can't because it isn't about Samsung vs Steve Jobs. Samsung tries to bring in some of their prototype pictures and that isn't allowed either. Apple's prototype pictures are but Samsung's came to late. Samsung releases this to the public and says they've been thrown out clearly pointing out how they feel mistreated and wanted everyone else to know. This makes Judge Koh mad.
> I was hoping for a fair trial but this doesn't seem to be the case. It is probably impossible to get a unbias judge so lets just redo the patent system. *If Apple has there way and I want a touch screen device with rounded corners my only option here is a iphone.*
> It is my belief that the patent system problem is going well beyond cell phone devices. It makes me wonder how much it is holding up advances in health and education. To me, the problem is clear and it isn't Apple. The problem here is the patent system itself.


No, the phone just cannot look like an iPhone. There are thousands of phones that meet you criteria and look nothing like the iPhone and are therefore not in contention.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> No, the phone just cannot look like an iPhone. There are thousands of phones that meet you criteria and look nothing like the iPhone and are therefore not in contention.


Then what else is a phone dominated by a large touch screen supposed to look like from the front? People want the most screen real-estate in the smallest device possible.

And FYI, the devices Apple is putting forth in contention, they all have significant differences from the iPhone. iPhone has 1 button on the bottom, Android/Samsung has 3-5. The iPhone button is physical, the Android buttons can be physical or capacitive. The iPhone has speakers on bottom, Android has speakers on back (usually). iPhone has headphone jacks on top, Android usually has them on the bottom. Android phones often have removable batteries and expansion slots for microSD cards, iPhone doesn't. Android devices typically use microUSB, while Apple uses their proprietary connector.

And let's be honest, it's not really about Apple vs Samsung. It's about Apple vs Android as a whole. They win against Samsung, I guarantee they'll go after all the rest, like HTC and Motorola. And they'll probably go after Microsoft as well.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> *Then what else is a phone dominated by a large touch screen supposed to look like from the front?* People want the most screen real-estate in the smallest device possible.
> And FYI, the devices Apple is putting forth in contention, they all have significant differences from the iPhone. iPhone has 1 button on the bottom, Android/Samsung has 3-5. The iPhone button is physical, the Android buttons can be physical or capacitive. The iPhone has speakers on bottom, Android has speakers on back (usually). iPhone has headphone jacks on top, Android usually has them on the bottom. Android phones often have removable batteries and expansion slots for microSD cards, iPhone doesn't. Android devices typically use microUSB, while Apple uses their proprietary connector.
> And let's be honest, it's not really about Apple vs Samsung. It's about Apple vs Android as a whole. They win against Samsung, I guarantee they'll go after all the rest, like HTC and Motorola. And they'll probably go after Microsoft as well.


----------



## Tsumi

Okay, thanks, continue with your delusions. I see now it's pointless arguing with you. But I'll try to one last time.

The first picture wasn't a very popular form factor. Even the G2, which shared many qualities with the G1, miniaturized the bezels significantly, looking more like other smartphones while still retaining its keyboard. Like I said above, people want the most screen real-estate in the smallest form factor, so the screen will dominate as much of the front as it can while retaining the other features.

Second picture: Ohhh, they added some fancy coloring around the edge, that automatically makes it completely different








Pick black or white and it'll look like the same damn thing.


----------



## Kasp1js

If you would have to describe those two phones and the iphone in a few words, it would be the same.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Okay, thanks, continue with your delusions. I see now it's pointless arguing with you. But I'll try to one last time.
> The first picture wasn't a very popular form factor. Even the G2, which shared many qualities with the G1, miniaturized the bezels significantly, looking more like other smartphones while still retaining its keyboard. Like I said above, people want the most screen real-estate in the smallest form factor, so the screen will dominate as much of the front as it can while retaining the other features.
> Second picture: Ohhh, they added some fancy coloring around the edge, that automatically makes it completely different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pick black or white and it'll look like the same damn thing.


That windows phone looks nothing like any iPhone color or not, the edges are different the screen is different etc. but it meets your criteria. The G1 is the original Android phone meets the criteria you laid out.

This is why this is a court case, after the ruling and the appeals so figure 2015 we'll have a decision and president on what constitutes a trade dress violation in the smart industry. i.e. what is too similar.

**edit** this is what the G1 evolved into.


----------



## CaptainChaos

It seems you need to familiarize yourself with the picture and the source article. The point is that the iPhones trade dress was never violated because Samsung already had phones in development that had many similarities to their Galaxy line which is what this all stems from.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> It seems you need to familiarize yourself with the picture and the source article. The point is that the iPhones trade dress was never violated because Samsung already had phones in development that had many similarities to their Galaxy line which is what this all stems from.




none of those look like iPhone yet they all meet the:

iPhone Trade Dress

27. The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance-*a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments*, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple's innovative iPhone user interface.

As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple.

28. Each of these elements of the iPhone product configuration is distinctive and serves to identify Apple as the source of the iPhone products. Moreover, none of these elements is functional.

This is why were are in court.


----------



## Matt-Matt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> 
> 27. The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance-*a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments*, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple's innovative iPhone user interface.


That's so horrendously stupid.. Apple have just described the touch screen smart phone. I hope Apple Die.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> 
> none of those look like iPhone yet they all meet the:
> iPhone Trade Dress
> 27. The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance-*a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments*, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple's innovative iPhone user interface.
> As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple.
> 28. Each of these elements of the iPhone product configuration is distinctive and serves to identify Apple as the source of the iPhone products. Moreover, none of these elements is functional.
> This is why were are in court.


Are you making a point?
The picture and article describe why we shouldn't be in court. You cant claim someone is infringing on your trade dress when those products are clearly an evolution of what they already were developing pre iPhone.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> Are you making a point?
> The picture and article describe why we shouldn't be in court. You cant claim someone is infringing on your trade dress when those products are clearly an evolution of what they already were developing pre iPhone.


OK man..


----------



## JonnyFenix

You know, instead of these companies moaning and groaning over " who was the first for this" and " they are copying me" blah blah blah nonsense, they should be working and helping each other. Trade tech for tech and let the consumer decided on what they want. OCN used to be like this. You could sign on and ask any question you like and people would either give you an answer promptly, or refer to the search bar and idea's on where to search. Now it seems like all we do is complain over stuff we have no control over. This thread is the exact reason why my post count dropped. We can't seem to just have a civil conversation or even a friendly argument that comes down to a civil agreement. I miss the old OCN.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3017801&cid=40836821
> Maybe this will make more sense.


Apple do not have the right to try and own the shape of smartphones. People who want an Apple phone will get one. No-one will be confused.

Now Apple need to get some power stuff into their phones and compete. No-one is stealing from Apple. Steve Job's dying wish needs to die.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> Nuff said
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to address your picture, but I figured anyone with any bit of common sense could see that you're comparing a prototype from 2005 with a final product revealed in December 2006 and released early 2007. Do you seriously think LG didn't have ANY Prada prototypes before 2006? Your calender must be really messed up if you think those weren't in prototype stages simultaneously.
> 
> Edit: Let's not forget the picture in the OP. The same principle applies to all of those, too. They were around before the iPhone, so logic tells us their prototypes were around either before or at the same time as the iPhone's prototypes.
> 
> 'Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, _clearly_ after Apple had the iPhone prototypes designed internally LG and Samsung knew via Narnian logic and copied them, durr. No-one innovates except Apple.
Click to expand...

Yea, even IF it all blows over and it turns out that LG, Samsung, _and_ Sony ALL had similar designs months before the iPhone's unveiling, it would be obvious that each of those companies had a corporate spy within Apple leaking documents to them; at least obvious to Apple fans.







They know anything and everything when it comes to which company came up with X design first.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Okay, thanks, continue with your delusions. I see now it's pointless arguing with you. But I'll try to one last time.
> 
> The first picture wasn't a very popular form factor. Even the G2, which shared many qualities with the G1, miniaturized the bezels significantly, looking more like other smartphones while still retaining its keyboard. Like I said above, people want the most screen real-estate in the smallest form factor, so the screen will dominate as much of the front as it can while retaining the other features.
> 
> Second picture: Ohhh, they added some fancy coloring around the edge, that automatically makes it completely different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pick black or white and it'll look like the same damn thing.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> That windows phone looks nothing like any iPhone color or not, the edges are different the screen is different etc. but it meets your criteria. The G1 is the original Android phone meets the criteria you laid out.


Rofl, you're hilarious man. You say the Windows phone looks nothing like the iPhone. How can you say the Windows phone looks nothing like it yet say that the Samsung phone(s) do? By your logic that it "looks nothing like any iPhone," neither does any Samsung phone.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Rofl, you're hilarious man. You say the Windows phone looks nothing like the iPhone. How can you say the Windows phone looks nothing like it yet say that the Samsung phone(s) do? By your logic that it "looks nothing like any iPhone," neither does any Samsung phone.


i didn't read all the other posts, i just saw this windows phone post...but here's my input.

There's NOOO way you can mix the windows phone's with anything else. Their UI is vastly different, not to mention, has Xbox Live and Internet Explorer right on the homepage. Hardware wise, yes, my Samsung Focus S is the same shell as the Samsung Galaxy 2....But honestly, there's no confusing these samsung phones casing with an Apple's. Apple has that grooved edges appearance, not to mention, small screen with a fat body, while Samsung phones are completely black, MUCH bigger screens, and thinner (pretty light too)

I'm sure Apple believes that people confuse a Samsung Note for apple phones tooo -________________________________-


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Rofl, you're hilarious man. You say the Windows phone looks nothing like the iPhone. How can you say the Windows phone looks nothing like it yet say that the Samsung phone(s) do? By your logic that it "looks nothing like any iPhone," neither does any Samsung phone.
> 
> 
> 
> i didn't read all the other posts, i just saw this windows phone post...but here's my input.
> 
> There's NOOO way you can mix the windows phone's with anything else. Their UI is vastly different, not to mention, has Xbox Live and Internet Explorer right on the homepage. Hardware wise, yes, my Samsung Focus S is the same shell as the Samsung Galaxy 2....But honestly, there's no confusing these samsung phones casing with an Apple's. Apple has that grooved edges appearance, not to mention, small screen with a fat body, while Samsung phones are completely black, MUCH bigger screens, and thinner (pretty light too)
> 
> I'm sure Apple believes that people confuse a Samsung Note for apple phones tooo -________________________________-
Click to expand...

I think the huge obnoxious Apple logo on the back of the phone and all over the walls at the store is also a dead giveaway. There's NO confusing Apple for Samsung. I think a caveman can say "this definitely isn't an Apple product, there's no Apple on it." You don't walk into a store looking to buy an iProduct and walk out with anything other than an iProduct. Even clueless elderly grandparents would say "I want an iPad for my grandson." In most cases it's not like you just grab the iPad off the shelf. At least at every store down here, any high-priced electronics are usually behind glass and you have to ask an employee to get it.

The case should have ended long ago. "Do the Samsung products in question deceive/confuse consumers into thinking they're buying an Apple product?" No. "Ok, so... what's the problem? I don't see any."


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> I think the huge obnoxious Apple logo on the back of the phone and all over the walls at the store is also a dead giveaway. There's NO confusing Apple for Samsung. I think a caveman can say "this definitely isn't an Apple product, there's no Apple on it." You don't walk into a store looking to buy an iProduct and walk out with anything other than an iProduct. Even clueless elderly grandparents would say "I want an iPad for my grandson." In most cases it's not like you just grab the iPad off the shelf. At least at every store down here, any high-priced electronics are usually behind glass and you have to ask an employee to get it.
> The case should have ended long ago. "Do the Samsung products in question deceive/confuse consumers into thinking they're buying an Apple product?" No. "Ok, so... what's the problem? I don't see any."


That makes too much sense. That's the problem lol


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Rofl, you're hilarious man. You say the Windows phone looks nothing like the iPhone. How can you say the Windows phone looks nothing like it yet say that the Samsung phone(s) do? By your logic that it "looks nothing like any iPhone," neither does any Samsung phone.


Those 10 phones look nothing like the iPhone as I pointed out in my post....

I said they meet the

iPhone Trade Dress

27. The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance-*a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments*, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple's innovative iPhone user interface.

As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple.

28. Each of these elements of the iPhone product configuration is distinctive and serves to identify Apple as the source of the iPhone products. Moreover, none of these elements is functional.

They evolved into something that did look like the iPhone though you can say it was the natural evolution or not. Those phones did not have to look like the iPhone there are millions of phones that meet the bolded description but don't look like the iPhone. The description is too vague that is why there is a court case and the prior art.


----------



## Tsumi

Not all smartphones have the metallic edge. Android also does not have rounded icons, they have shopping bag, square gallery, etc. A quick look through my phone (running CM9) and galaxy s3 pictures show square icons for the native apps, or icons in the shape of whatever it is they're portraying. The other icon shapes are from the developers and out of Samsung's/Google's control. Flat with rounded edges? Phones have always been flat with round edges for ergonomic reasons. Large display screen with segments on top and bottom? Well, duh, where else are you going to put the primary navigation buttons and phone speaker? People certainly don't want to hold phones sideways while talking, it's uncomfortable. Buttons on the side of the screen? Makes the device wider, once again interfering with ergonomics, and if you put it on the right side only, what about left-handed people? Apple phones doesn't have black segments on all their phones, they also have white versions; so does some Android phones.

That's why this case is stupid, and Apple should not be allowed to trademark that design.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Not all smartphones have the metallic edge. Android also does not have rounded icons, they have shopping bag, square gallery, etc. A quick look through my phone (running CM9) and galaxy s3 pictures show square icons for the native apps, or icons in the shape of whatever it is they're portraying. The other icon shapes are from the developers and out of Samsung's/Google's control. Flat with rounded edges? Phones have always been flat with round edges for ergonomic reasons. Large display screen with segments on top and bottom? Well, duh, where else are you going to put the primary navigation buttons and phone speaker? People certainly don't want to hold phones sideways while talking, it's uncomfortable. Buttons on the side of the screen? Makes the device wider, once again interfering with ergonomics, and if you put it on the right side only, what about left-handed people? Apple phones doesn't have black segments on all their phones, they also have white versions; so does some Android phones.
> That's why this case is stupid, and Apple should not be allowed to trademark that design.


This particular case doesn't involve Android..though there are many of those..

This will continue until someone famous tells these guys to stop being babies and suck it up. It needs to get into national consciousness.

I think both side of the isle are a little tired of it this case even more because phones in contention are even made anymore.

I hope there is no Apple frontal assault on Android if there is that opens frontal assaults on linux destop shell makers. I'd hate to see Apple v Canonical, MS v KDE etc.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> This particular case doesn't involve Android..though there are many of those..
> This will continue until someone famous tells these guys to stop being babies and suck it up. It needs to get into national consciousness.
> I think both side of the isle are a little tired of it this case even more because phones in contention are even made anymore.
> I hope there is no Apple frontal assault on Android if there is that opens frontal assaults on linux destop shell makers. I'd hate to see Apple v Canonical, MS v KDE etc.


I told you already, this isn't just about Apple vs Samsung. This is about Apple vs Android, and to an extent, Apple vs Microsoft. Don't be naiive, if Apple wins against Samsung, it'll use that precedent to go after HTC, Motorola, and everyone else.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> This particular case doesn't involve Android..though there are many of those..
> This will continue until someone famous tells these guys to stop being babies and suck it up. It needs to get into national consciousness.
> I think both side of the isle are a little tired of it this case even more because phones in contention are even made anymore.
> I hope there is no Apple frontal assault on Android if there is that opens frontal assaults on linux destop shell makers. I'd hate to see Apple v Canonical, MS v KDE etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I told you already, this isn't just about Apple vs Samsung. This is about Apple vs Android, and to an extent, Apple vs Microsoft. Don't be naiive, if Apple wins against Samsung, it'll use that precedent to go after HTC, Motorola, and everyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't think so..If it was really about that it be against Google...

This is really only a design thing


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> I don't think so..If it was really about that it be against Google...
> This is really only a design thing












He's right, if they get this they're going to hound the others.

You know Apple have already ruined perfectly good things they don't deserve to own. Highlighting text on a page? Pul-lease. Letting a voice command search the phone's contacts? These are ridiculous things Apple have sued for and won meritlessly.


----------



## Novakanedj

I think this is the only real "copy" of an Apple product. Even so there are subtle differences and the blatant Samsung logo, squared button and illuminated menu and back buttons. Wish Apple would concentrate more on innovation and recreation rather than litigation.


----------



## Pillz Here

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It's purely huddler, when you click it to go full screen because it wants to be all shiny and awesome it opens it in page which for some reason limits the max size that you can show. That's why Chrome can be useful, right click > Open Image in new Tab.


You can do that in Firefox too, it's not limited to Chrome lol. Just click the picture to bring up the Huddler "popout" then right click > View Image.


----------



## aroc91

Or you can just middle click it and then you don't have to bother with the right click context menu.


----------



## Kand

Chinese iPhone? Yes. Both are Chinese.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Who else would love to see a huge countersuit filed against Apple now?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *The Mad Mule*
> 
> God, enlarging a picture should not be this complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> He's on his lil' Mac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably on Safari.
Click to expand...

Or he's on steam. lol.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CaptainChaos*
> 
> That's all well and good, but as the pic in the OP shows, Samsung was already on the path of building their own sleek touchscreen devices. We all know other companies were as well. What Apple did with the design of the iPhone was not revolutionary it was evolutionary. That's the point here. Sure companies were influenced by the iPhones design, I don't think anyone can deny that, but not to the extent that Apple seems to believe. Apples argument is that Samsung infringed on the iPhones trade dress which in turn led consumers to purchase more Galaxy phones then they would have, and misled consumers into purchasing it over an iPhone.
> In truth people:
> a.) Wanted another option as they didn't all want to be tied to AT&T as a provider and
> b.) People were willing to try something different that may have had a feature or two the iPhone didn't


And apple has shown evidence of what they were working on LONG before that Samsung photo.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And apple has shown evidence of what they were working on LONG before that Samsung photo.


In the form of the iPhone _concept_ from 2005. You can't seriously think that Samsung copied a concept model, which nobody outside of Apple knew about until the final version's release in 2007. It's completely illogical to consider that prior art or trade dress or anything else. It's obvious they were developed independently. The iPhone wasn't influenced by the pre-iPhone Samsung phones and the post-iPhone Samsung phones weren't necessarily influenced by the iPhone.


----------



## CrazyHeaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And apple has shown evidence of what they were working on LONG before that Samsung photo.


That isn't the point. The real point here is that Apple didn't release it yet to the public. Apple was working on something like it and so was Sony and Samsung is claiming they were too. It is a simple design so the thought that more than one company has thought it shouldn't really surprise anyone.

I've been looking a little more into this case than I wish to. I do feel that Samsung should be fined by court, not by apple, for releasing those documents which clearly breaks the law. I don't think it should directly affect their argument against Apple but it also shouldn't go unpunished. It is my opinion that Samsung was trying to get that info to potential jurors and I doubt it was a mistake. The lawyers should have known the law and knew what they were doing at the time.

Edit: It is annoying that quotes I started to make a long time ago the forum remembers and including in what I post later.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And apple has shown evidence of what they were working on LONG before that Samsung photo.


And there are products that *existed 7 YEARS before the iPhone* was ever released.






Also, for all you Apple defenders, want to know how Samsung ISN'T copying the iPhone?

What's the last Samsung phone that had a 3.5" screen?

Galaxy Note 5.3"
Galaxy S3 4.8"
Galaxy Nexus 4.6"
Galaxy S2 4.3" - 4.5"
Galaxy S 4.0"

iPhone 3.5" - and you only get 1 new phone per year, and looks the same as its predecessor.

If Samsung was copying Apple, wouldn't they release *one new phone per year with a 3.5" screen, and looked EXACTLY the same EVERY year?*

Samsung phones are also thinner than the iPhone, they use Micro USB, they also give you the freedom of a Micro SD card slot, they don't have a locked down operating system, and I can go on and on.

If the new iPhone has a bigger screen, they are now COPYING Samsung, since the last 5 iPhone's ALL had a 3.5" screen. This is of course going by the Apple logic.









Let's look at the Nexus evolution:



Galaxy Phones evolution:



Now let's look at IOS evolution.


----------



## Bologna

^ If you think this case is as simple as all that nonsense you're spewing, you're in for a rude awakening. Screen size is irrelevant as this case is concerned, as is the frequency of releases and how different they are from the previous model. You're introducing a whole lot of points that are totally moot. You're trying way too hard are defending samsung. Focus on the points of the case, not your own wily claims.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> ^ If you think this case is as simple as all that nonsense you're spewing, you're in for a rude awakening. Screen size is irrelevant as this case is concerned, as is the frequency of releases and how different they are from the previous model. You're introducing a whole lot of points that are totally moot. You're trying way too hard are defending samsung. Focus on the points of the case, not your own wily claims.


Facts are facts there bud.

I'm just showing how ridiculous this case is.

Look at how the iPhone has evolved over the years, it looks EXACTLY the same as the original.

Samsung on the other hand has made changes, and continues to evolve unlike the iPhone.

I see you ignored the video also.

Devices with rectangular screens and rounded corners have existed for YEARS way before the iPhone.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Facts are facts there bud.
> I'm just showing how ridiculous this case is.
> Look at how the iPhone has evolved over the years, it looks EXACTLY the same as the original.
> Samsung on the other hand has made changes, and continues to evolve unlike the iPhone.


Once again, whatever "facts" youre posting are irrelevant.

The evolution of the iPhone is even more irrelevant. You're more interested in posting about how boring iPhone updates are as opposed to Samsung and that's really about it. Off topic is off topic.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Once again, whatever "facts" youre posting are irrelevant.
> The evolution of the iPhone is even more irrelevant. You're more interested in posting about how boring iPhone updates are as opposed to Samsung and that's really about it. Off topic is off topic.


I'm glad you agree that the iPhone is boring and nothing special, that hasn't evolutionized since its conception.

This is why Apple is so desperate to slow down the competition that is constantly evolutionizing and making better products than they are.

I'm glad we agree on this fact.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And apple has shown evidence of what they were working on LONG before that Samsung photo.


What exactly is your point? That Samsung copied a prototype? Or are you agreeing with me about the fact that multiple companies were developing similar looking products?


----------



## Bologna

Some of you guys SHOULD go be lawyers for Samsung, because by the sounds of things, the current lawyers are doing horrendously awful.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/02/judge_denies_samsungs_2001_a_space_odyssey_fidler_tablet_arguments.html

But I'm sure you'll counter with more childish remarks about how the judges are paid off, etc.


----------



## kikkO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Some of you guys SHOULD go be lawyers for Samsung, because by the sounds of things, the current lawyers are doing horrendously awful.


Are you crazy? They'll lose the case faster than you can say Samsung.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Some of you guys SHOULD go be lawyers for Samsung, because by the sounds of things, the current lawyers are doing horrendously awful.
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/02/judge_denies_samsungs_2001_a_space_odyssey_fidler_tablet_arguments.html
> But I'm sure you'll counter with more childish remarks about how the judges are paid off, etc.


Apple is trying to make the case that their design is completely original and theirs, and therefore everyone else with a similar design is copying Apple and infringing copyrights and patents.

Samsung and what everyone else with sense is saying is that these ideas existed long before Apple brought the iPhone to the market, so Apple shouldn't have been awarded these patents and copyrights in the first place. There's nothing childish about it.


----------



## Faraz

I love how caught up people get into this. Smartphones have to be that shape. It was an absolutely natural progression. Square wouldn't work; neither would round. Having handles or any protrusions coming out of the sides wouldn't either. Having the menu buttons on the side or top of the screen wouldn't either because of how the phone is held. This is the only reasonable shape and interface setup. This is how quickly and easily this ridiculous argument should really end in a sane world.

This is like car companies suing each other because their sedans have the same layout.


----------



## CrazyHeaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> ^ If you think this case is as simple as all that nonsense you're spewing, you're in for a rude awakening. Screen size is irrelevant as this case is concerned, as is the frequency of releases and how different they are from the previous model. You're introducing a whole lot of points that are totally moot. You're trying way too hard are defending samsung. Focus on the points of the case, not your own wily claims.


Yes, I think this "should" be simple, simply thrown out. And yes, I believe Samsung lawyers should be thrown out with it. All of this is beyond the point.

Since you see to be in the know of the reality of this case would you mind spelling it all out for us. All I'm getting here is that Apple doesn't like competition and what we are seeing them do is a abuse of the patent system that also needs to be reworked with the current being thrown out.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Once again, whatever "facts" youre posting are irrelevant.
> The evolution of the iPhone is even more irrelevant. You're more interested in posting about how boring iPhone updates are as opposed to Samsung and that's really about it. Off topic is off topic.


Holy Christ. You are thick.

The fact that Samsung had phones BEFORE THE IPHONE that would fall under Apples offending category is all that needs to be said. It's completely illogical to claim you invented a look at already existed. I'm wondering what sort of fairytale world you're living in where 2007 comes before 2006 and prototypes only matter for Apple.

7/10 for getting me to reply though, troll.


----------



## AznDud333

unfortunately for us..this wont matter
the judge handling this matter seems to very much be on apple's side...considering how she's banned galaxy nexus..a phone that is completely the opposite of iphone and pretty much barred it from being sold even after numerous appeals.. think we might part with freedom this time around


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Some of you guys SHOULD go be lawyers for Samsung, because by the sounds of things, the current lawyers are doing horrendously awful.
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/02/judge_denies_samsungs_2001_a_space_odyssey_fidler_tablet_arguments.html
> But I'm sure you'll counter with more childish remarks about how the judges are paid off, etc.


The question you should be asking is:

Why is the judge constantly rejecting evidence that PROVES the iPhone is NOT an original idea, and that this is the natural progression Samsung was heading in?

How can the judge NOT accept the Samsung F700 as evidence in this case?



Let's pretend I buy the judge's argument that they submitted it "too late". ( Too late BEFORE the trial has even started ) Now, let's pretend this was a murder trial, and nearing the end of the trial, a key witness comes forward to testify that proves the defendant is guilty. Is the judge then going to say this evidence cannot be submitted because it's "too late"?

It's not the lawyers doing a horrendous job, it's the judge denying any evidence that would invalidate Apple as the originator of this rectangular device with rounded corners idea.

Did you happen to watch the video I posted? I've yet to see you comment on that device, which happens to have a rectangular screen with rounded corners, launched in 2000, PROVING the iPhone is not an original idea.

Discussing anything with you gives a glimpse of how difficult it must be to deal with Judge Lucy Koh. Once you have a one track mind, it's hard to grasp and understand any logic. No wonder Samsung lawyers are so frustrated.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

So a new bill was just passed that obligates companies that frivolously sue over patents and fail pay for the defendant's legal fees. Now, Apple will be praised and worshipped for making such a marvelous reform take place.


----------



## prava

The point is: the legal system of the US sucks.

'nugh said...


----------



## Cyrilmak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> I absolutely love my windows phone. I have a friend that has a Android Nexus (maybe 6 months old?) and his brother has one too. Both say that my Windows 7 phone is faster...
> Obviously the nexus has MUCH better specs, but the OS is just soo smooth and intuitive


Project Butter. Google it. Oh the irony.


----------



## Cyrilmak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Erm, why is that prototype, of which the images and information were public as of a few days ago, 2012, in that image and what does that exact prove?
> Nothing, that's what.
> EDIT:
> and half those innovations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Sony Ericsson C905 and w580i had GPS and an accelerometer long before the iPhone. Seriously? Multi-tocuh? Apple bought the patent for that meaning someone else had it first. AppStore? Sony Ericsson had one before them, too.
> Apple popularised this stuff. They didn't invent it.


Actually Verizon Wireless was the first to have an App Store - was for BREW devices, around the same time, Windows CE had started sprouting app stores, then palm.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> ^ If you think this case is as simple as all that nonsense you're spewing, you're in for a rude awakening. Screen size is irrelevant as this case is concerned, as is the frequency of releases and how different they are from the previous model. You're introducing a whole lot of points that are totally moot. You're trying way too hard are defending samsung. Focus on the points of the case, not your own wily claims.


How is size irrelevant? Part of Apples trade dress is the same size being carried across all phones, Samsung clearly haven't copied that. That's like saying "The fact that the home button is a different shape is irrelevant, Apple has a home button so Samsung copied them!"


----------



## GermanyChris

http://allthingsd.com/20120802/apple-asks-court-to-rule-in-its-favor-after-samsung-evidence-leak/

Next salvo..it's like kids fighting the school yard a lot of rolling around and getting dirty and no injury

"In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California late Wednesday evening, Apple said the court should sanction Samsung by ruling that the patents at issue in the case are valid and infringed by Samsung. And if the court declines to do so, it should at the very least instruct the jury that Samsung has engaged in "serious misconduct," and bar the company from any further mention of its "Sony style" argument in court.

Apple, in its motion for sanctions, argues that Samsung's broadcast of excluded evidence is not only a clear attempt to prejudice the jury, but part of an emerging pattern of misconduct."


----------



## GermanyChris

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

"I think it's pretty clear here that one of these things is not like the others. The entire aesthetic of the F700 interface is significantly different than either iOS or TouchWiz: the icons are monochrome and have unique designs, there's that cool X/Y highlight on the selected icon, there's a text label at the top. And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen"


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/
> "I think it's pretty clear here that one of these things is not like the others. The entire aesthetic of the F700 interface is significantly different than either iOS or TouchWiz: the icons are monochrome and have unique designs, there's that cool X/Y highlight on the selected icon, there's a text label at the top. And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen"












Apples patent describes those three devices. The interface is a whole other issue. If you think those three devices look that much different to each other, you are delusional. Stick a better screen in the F700 and what do you have? If you think that smartphones can possess a drastically different design, given our human physiology, then you are delusional. But please, I implore you to provide us with evidence of a more logical and natural fit for smartphones, to backup your statement.

P.S. This wasn't directed at you specifically GermanyChris.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples patent describes those three devices. The interface is a whole other issue. If you think those three devices look that much different to each other, you are delusional. Stick a better screen in the F700 and what do you have? If you think that smartphones can possess a drastically different design, given our human physiology, then you are delusional. But please, I implore you to provide us with evidence of a more logical and natural fit for smartphones, to backup your statement.
> P.S. This wasn't directed at you specifically GermanyChris.


But remember, the F700 has a keyboard I think that was the general point of the Verge article.


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> But remember, the F700 has a keyboard I think that was the general point of the Verge article.


And? Apples whole argument, is how the face of the device looks. There is nothing about thickness or ancillary features. The fact remains that the F700 has a logical layout for human use. Just like every smartphone, tablet, ereader or what ever other devices we manipulate primarily using both our hands and eyes. Many manufacturers came to the conclusion that this design was the most logical, this has nothing to do with any perceived influenced by Apple. We know this, as there is evidence to prove that they all came to this conclusion in tandem.

Edit:- Let me put it another way. Do you think if that other Samsung device also had a keyboard, then Apple wouldn't have a problem?


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrilmak*
> 
> Project Butter. Google it. Oh the irony.


good to see them catch up


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> And? Apples whole argument, is how the face of the device looks. There is nothing about thickness or ancillary features. The fact remains that the F700 has a logical layout for human use. Just like every smartphone, tablet, ereader or what ever other devices we manipulate primarily using both our hands and eyes. Many manufacturers came to the conclusion that this design was the most logical, this has nothing to do with any perceived influenced by Apple. We know this, as there is evidence to prove that they all came to this conclusion in tandem.
> Edit:- Let me put it another way. Do you think if that other Samsung device also had a keyboard, then Apple wouldn't have a problem?


I'm not advocating anything...


----------



## I_dalder_I

Both company's equally overcharge us for only so so devices that quickly become outdated so we can throw down hard earned cash for the next rushed cycle. Why not let the multi-billion dollar conglomerate company's do the arguing and we just appreciate the tech and the wealth of knowledge this forum stores. Sorry just tied of all the arguing on here recently.


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> I'm not advocating anything...


Then what was the purpose of this post?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> But remember, the F700 has a keyboard I think that was the general point of the Verge article.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/
> "I think it's pretty clear here that one of these things is not like the others. The entire aesthetic of the F700 interface is significantly different than either iOS or TouchWiz: the icons are monochrome and have unique designs, there's that cool X/Y highlight on the selected icon, there's a text label at the top. And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples patent describes those three devices. The interface is a whole other issue. If you think those three devices look that much different to each other, you are delusional. Stick a better screen in the F700 and what do you have? If you think that smartphones can possess a drastically different design, given our human physiology, then you are delusional. But please, I implore you to provide us with evidence of a more logical and natural fit for smartphones, to backup your statement.
> 
> P.S. This wasn't directed at you specifically GermanyChris.
Click to expand...

Forget it man. Apple and their followers will say Samsung phones are blatant ripoffs of the iPhone, and then say that the F700 looks NOTHING like it. How convenient;







the one Samsung phone that looks "nothing like" the iPhone is the one that was designed before the iPhone. It's gotten to a point where I don't even fret about it and just get amused.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> Then what was the purpose of this post?


Updated news...


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GermanyChris*
> 
> Updated news...


And I was merely pointing out the obvious flaws in the "news" you posted.


----------



## GermanyChris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> And I was merely pointing out the obvious flaws in the "news" you posted.


ok..


----------



## CaptainChaos

That wasn't a news update, it was an opinion piece from someone at the verge. You can see why someone would think you were supporting that argument.

Anyways, not directed at you Chris, but anyone can see that the Galaxy line was a natural progression from the f700. In truth aesthetically the Galaxy phones have much more in common with the f700 than the iPhone. The fact that it also looks like an iPhone, is consequential. I'm sure Samsung took *some* inspiration from the iPhone when refining their design, just as I'm sure Apple took some inspiration from other products that came before the iPhone. This article can show you as much http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future. Is the fact that Jonathan Ive took inspiration from Braun products worth going to court over, I sure as hell don't think so. It's only natural.


----------



## Miki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't know what's worse, our broken patent system or all the high school kids who thinks it's cool to hate on Apple.


If the broken patent system really bothers you, then it's easy to understand why many "hate" on Apple for taking advantage of it. It seems like every other week Apple is suing someone, or completely blocking a product from getting to the market.

Most of us are tired of it. And just to be clear, if any other company was pulling this crap, we'd be hating on that company.

What's amazing to the majourity of us, is those that actually defend Apple for this. It's literally mind boggling to me. You don't have to hate Apple as a whole find their Patent Trolling ridiculous.

You just have to be reasonable.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> How is size irrelevant? Part of Apples trade dress is the same size being carried across all phones, Samsung clearly haven't copied that. That's like saying "The fact that the home button is a different shape is irrelevant, Apple has a home button so Samsung copied them!"


its funny this is the only industry with problems like this....

some examples to show how ridiculous apple sounds
-ford suing toyota for having 4 wheeled cars
-dell suing hp for having rectangle shaped cases
-hp suing gateway for putting power button on front of case
-chevy suing mazda for having steering wheel
-ticonderoga suing bic for putting erasers on the top of pencil
-toyota suing hyundai for having the brake to the left of the gas pedal
-Asus suing gigabyte for putting memory slots to the right of the cpu socket
-Microsoft suing apple for having desktop shortcuts
-apple suing samsung for rounded edges, oh wait that craziness is real....

I mean come on, everyone has to see how ridiculous this is, Samsung's phones are obviously different from Apples, even if they both use touchscreens and rounded edges.....


----------



## Giac

LOL Samsung, the sizes of the phones are all wrong, look at the S2, its smaller than the iphone 3gs! Both sides are being incredibly deceitful and its time to stop.


----------



## SohcSTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Miki*
> 
> If the broken patent system really bothers you, then it's easy to understand why many "hate" on Apple for taking advantage of it. It seems like every other week Apple is suing someone, or completely blocking a product from getting to the market.
> Most of us are tired of it. And just to be clear, if any other company was pulling this crap, we'd be hating on that company.
> What's amazing to the majourity of us, is those that actually defend Apple for this. It's literally mind boggling to me. You don't have to hate Apple as a whole find their Patent Trolling ridiculous.
> You just have to be reasonable.


You have to understand Miki, the people that have always liked apple for being the "underdog" and "cool because it's not mainstream" are the same people that are jumping on the "calling apple bashers out" bandwagon. Mainly because it put's them back in the realm of "not mainstream" and "elite" again.


----------



## OwnedINC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AznDud333*
> 
> unfortunately for us..this wont matter
> the judge handling this matter seems to very much be on apple's side...considering how she's banned galaxy nexus..a phone that is completely the opposite of iphone and pretty much barred it from being sold even after numerous appeals.. think we might part with freedom this time around


It's ok, I'll just buy one from korea =D


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *I_dalder_I*
> 
> Both company's equally overcharge us for only so so devices that quickly become outdated so we can throw down hard earned cash for the next rushed cycle. *Why not let the multi-billion dollar conglomerate company's do the arguing and we just appreciate the tech and the wealth of knowledge this forum stores.* Sorry just tied of all the arguing on here recently.


Because one of those multi-billion dollar conglomerates is trying to make it so they are the ONLY producer of smart phones on the planet. Apple's goal here is simply to eliminate any and all competition and if you think that's good for us the consumer you are crazy...


----------



## I_dalder_I

I understand that patent trolling by apple isn't going too improve things in the smart phone realm at all. You must understand that unless your actually going too do something about it, other then just not buy a product you don't like or support, then arguing does nothing but suck energy. I've known that people who love apple's salty taint on here are crazy but i thought us regular people still had some class.


----------



## AznDud333

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> The question you should be asking is:
> Why is the judge constantly rejecting evidence that PROVES the iPhone is NOT an original idea, and that this is the natural progression Samsung was heading in?
> How can the judge NOT accept the Samsung F700 as evidence in this case?
> 
> Let's pretend I buy the judge's argument that they submitted it "too late". ( Too late BEFORE the trial has even started ) Now, let's pretend this was a murder trial, and nearing the end of the trial, a key witness comes forward to testify that proves the defendant is guilty. Is the judge then going to say this evidence cannot be submitted because it's "too late"?
> It's not the lawyers doing a horrendous job, it's the judge denying any evidence that would invalidate Apple as the originator of this rectangular device with rounded corners idea.
> Did you happen to watch the video I posted? I've yet to see you comment on that device, which happens to have a rectangular screen with rounded corners, launched in 2000, PROVING the iPhone is not an original idea.
> Discussing anything with you gives a glimpse of how difficult it must be to deal with Judge Lucy Koh. Once you have a one track mind, it's hard to grasp and understand any logic. No wonder Samsung lawyers are so frustrated.


i have to agee with you, i think most of the online community knows in their hearts that judge lucy koh is on apple's side before this whole case even started.. bye bye freedom


----------



## Stealth Pyros

^ I love how Apple even used the same hand


----------



## Miki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Giac*
> 
> LOL Samsung, the sizes of the phones are all wrong, look at the S2, its smaller than the iphone 3gs! Both sides are being incredibly deceitful and its time to stop.


_Really_? Not sure if serious...

The sizes of the phones aren't even relevant to the point Samsung is making. You need to look at the BIGGER picture here.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SohcSTI*
> 
> You have to understand Miki, the people that have always liked apple for being the "underdog" and "cool because it's not mainstream" are the same people that are jumping on the "calling apple bashers out" bandwagon. Mainly because it put's them back in the realm of "not mainstream" and "elite" again.


Great point.

Also, I think what is boils down to is whether you're a reasonable person, or not. I've owned every phone Apple has put out to date, except the 4S (because I switched over to Android). So, I've clearly supported Apple.

That said, I draw the line when a company tries to stifle their competition to the point of not allowing consumers to have their product(s). To me that is an insult to all of us.

In my opinion, a reasonable person says, "Look, I like Apple, but this patent trolling is ridiculous, and needs to stop. I don't care what company does this."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *I_dalder_I*
> 
> I understand that patent trolling by apple isn't going too improve things in the smart phone realm at all. You must understand that unless your actually going too do something about it, other then just not buy a product you don't like or support, then arguing does nothing but suck energy. I've known that people who love apple's salty taint on here are crazy but i thought us regular people still had some class.


Ah, this is what a forum is meant for. Discussion, debate...

I think most of us will sleep okay, don't worry about it. ^__~


----------



## theturbofd

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/04/judge_rejects_samsung_censure/
Quote:


> He did acknowledge that Apple bought phones from the competition and analyzed them, but said this was largely to sort out how to design antennas and avoid dropped calls.


Oh the hypocrites


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/04/judge_rejects_samsung_censure/
> Oh the hypocrites


Haven't you heard?

They are *great* artists.


----------



## paulerxx

Sketchy judge is sketchy....


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> So a new bill was just passed that obligates companies that frivolously sue over patents and fail pay for the defendant's legal fees. Now, Apple will be praised and worshipped for making such a marvelous reform take place.


They pass it already?
last time I heard they just started work on it, and that was this month. I seriously doubt they pass it so fast.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Apple bribes courts. You know it, I know it. Either that or the idiots on the juries and sitting in the Judge robes are completely re-freaking-tarded.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Apple bribes courts. You know it, I know it. Either that or the idiots on the juries and sitting in the Judge robes are completely re-freaking-tarded.


No they don't, Samsung's lawyers are just inept.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Bologna do you ever respond to someone that makes a challenging point? Do you read the OP at all?


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> No they don't, Samsung's lawyers are just inept.


There's one thing I see with this pic... and that's samsung is continuously evolving it's cellphones while apple sticks with the same shape and look. Oh and another thing the F700 was shown in 2007 before the iphone so explain how they copied?


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> There's one thing I see with this pic... and that's samsung is continuously evolving it's cellphones while apple sticks with the same shape and look. Oh and another thing the F700 was shown in 2007 before the iphone so explain how they copied?


You guys keep harping on the fact that samsung's phones kept evolving...yeah they kept changing until they eventually got as close to the iPhone as possible without downright cloning it. Apple figured out what design works well long before Samsung figured out (and they still haven't which is why their designs change every year).

The F700 wasn't released until December 2007, many months after the iPhone, despite whatever meme's floating around the internet many of you like to use as official evidence.


----------



## SohcSTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You guys keep harping on the fact that samsung's phones kept evolving...yeah they kept changing until they eventually got as close to the iPhone as possible without downright cloning it. Apple figured out what design works well long before Samsung figured out (and they still haven't which is why their designs change every year).
> The F700 wasn't released until December 2007, many months after the iPhone, despite whatever meme's floating around the internet many of you like to use as official evidence.


It shows progress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the natural progression to mini flat screen TVs.

So the Samsung memes are fake but the apple ones aren't? Doesn't it take more than "a few months" to create and produce a phone? They couldn't of copied project purple if it was locked down as much as they say it was.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You guys keep harping on the fact that samsung's phones kept evolving...yeah they kept changing until they eventually got as close to the iPhone as possible without downright cloning it. Apple figured out what design works well long before Samsung figured out (and they still haven't which is why their designs change every year).
> The F700 wasn't released until December 2007, many months after the iPhone, despite whatever meme's floating around the internet many of you like to use as official evidence.


Samsung hasn't figured out what design works? Have you not seen the galaxy series sales? And you agree that they keep changing it so if it's constantly changing then how does it copy the iphone again? I mean if it keeps changing then how would it constantly look like the iphone..... especially since the iphone has the same look throughout the years.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> The F700 wasn't released until December 2007, many months after the iPhone, despite whatever meme's floating around the internet many of you like to use as official evidence.


There are no 2 ways about it. You have no idea what you're talking about. The F700 was RELEASED a month after the iPhone was ANNOUNCED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_%28original%29


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> There are no 2 ways about it. You have no idea what you're talking about. The F700 was RELEASED a month after the iPhone was ANNOUNCED.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_%28original%29


You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.


----------



## SohcSTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.


Wikipedia is as good of a source as Photoshop happy apple.....


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.


Almost all wiki are cited. It must be really hard for you to click the link.
http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=3516
It was announced at February 2007 from press release.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> There are no 2 ways about it. You have no idea what you're talking about. The F700 was RELEASED a month after the iPhone was ANNOUNCED.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_%28original%29
> 
> 
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.
Click to expand...

Documents which Apple is notorious for manipulating it into false evidence once before already, to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad.









The F700 released within a month of anyone ever knowing of the iPhone; it was designed much before that.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.


Laughable. Ever noticed the section at the bottom of each Wikipedia page titled "References"? Take a big step back and reevaluate, because you've been making yourself look like a complete fool.


----------



## dzalias

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.


What a doofus







.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Bologna has to trolling, nothing else makes sense.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> There are no 2 ways about it. You have no idea what you're talking about. The F700 was RELEASED a month after the iPhone was ANNOUNCED.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_%28original%29
> 
> 
> 
> You're using Wikipedia as official proof? The photos I posted are official documents entered into court by Apple. You guys need to do some better research.
Click to expand...

You must have just started school and believed the teacher when they said Wikipedia always has false and inaccurate information.


----------



## d33r

Im needing a new phone soon, my black berry 8900 curve is having problems. Is the samsung galaxy s3 better than the iphone? My youger brother has the iphone and its always losing connection and not very good. what should i get?


----------



## forever109

i swear to the god, back in the day when we were using 2g phones, b4 apple were so hot like now, i always try to look for those awesome samsung phones, including prototypes,
n for most of those one in the pictures i saw them long long time ago ..


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> Almost all wiki are cited. It must be really hard for you to click the link.
> http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=3516
> It was announced at February 2007 from press release.


And thank you for pointing how inaccurate all the memes are about the F700


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And thank you for pointing how inaccurate all the memes are about the F700


... and by extension. All the information you have been posting.


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And thank you for pointing how inaccurate all the memes are about the F700


There is really no point in trying to talk sense into these people because they will always continue to see things how they want to see them and not the way things actually are. As you mentioned those are court documents and 100% accurate, if this was not the case then Samsung would be out on attack and the judge would sanction Apple.

These guys here really remind me of:


----------



## leetmode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> And thank you for pointing how inaccurate all the memes are about the F700


I don't know why you guys keep responding to this guy, his avatar says it all...


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> There is really no point in trying to talk sense into these people because they will always continue to see things how they want to see them and not the way things actually are. As you mentioned those are court documents and 100% accurate, if this was not the case then Samsung would be out on attack and the judge would sanction Apple.


When Apple submitted this doctored photo as evidence for a trial in Germany. They were neither attacked by their opposition, or sanctioned by the judge.


----------



## UnAimed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> When Apple submitted this doctored photo as evidence for a trial in Germany. They were neither attacked by their opposition, or sanctioned by the judge.


It was similarities between the devices that convinced the judge to ban sale of the Galaxy Tab within Europe (Netherlands excepted). Apple never claimed the two devices had identical proportions when presenting these images








Quote:


> Apple presented the image to show the similarities beyond the physical shape. The text below the comparison (page 28 of the German court filing ) points out that both devices have rounded corners and feature a flat surface centred within, and surrounded by, a metallic frame. When switched on, the text continues, both devices present an array of icons as shown in the image.
> 
> So this section of the argument is not about the physical proportions of the device, but about the overall look. The stretched image could be justified by the need to emphasis the similarities by removing the disparities. Other images in the document certainly don't draw attention to the difference in overall dimensions, with the devices compared at different angles and scaled to different sizes.


If it was the way that you think it was and Apple secretly changed the shape and tried to use it in their argument then the Judge OR Samsung would have said something about it. But *Neither* of them did


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> It was similarities between the devices that convinced the judge to ban sale of the Galaxy Tab within Europe (Netherlands excepted). Apple never claimed the two devices had identical proportions when presenting these images


You claim that there couldn't be any way for false evidence to get through the court system without repercussions. I post evidence to the contrary, involving the very same company no less. Then you change the subject.

I mean, what is the point in discussing anything with you? When you lack even the most basic intelligence needed to back up your own statements.


----------



## Bologna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tehrawk*
> 
> You claim that there couldn't be any way for false evidence to get through the court system without repercussions. I post evidence to the contrary, involving the very same company no less. Then you change the subject.
> I mean, what is the point in discussing anything with you? When you lack even the most basic intelligence needed to back up your own statements.


False evidence was not entered into any trial. You guys with your conspiracy theories really need to stop. If Apple was doctoring evidence and presenting it as fact, don't you think some where along the line someone in the legal system would notice and say something? Oh wait, all the judges are paid off too.









The defense of Samsung by some of you here is just outrageous with false claims, bad information, and just awful logic. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it fact, especially with 95% of the images you people post. Official court documents hold a little more water in reality than internet meme's and articles written on blogs like Gizmodo or wherever you get your information.

Here's where I got those three images from: http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-case-against-samsung-in-three-pictures/

For example, this picture is completely *FALSE*:


Quote:


> This picture above says the F700 was shown at CeBit 2006, and then released in 2007, making Apple and the iPhone the one that copied them. This is completely false. We here love Android, not Apple, but this is a interesting story and I just felt like sharing either way. Even if Apple is in the right. According to the picture the F700 was introduced in 2006, and Apple stole the design. I'm not going to get to deep on this, but the F700 was never seen until February of 2007 and our very own slashgear had it completely covered. This is AFTER Apple announced and showed the world the iPhone January 9th 2007 at MacWorld.
> 
> We can go even deeper here also. The photo above mentions that the Samsung F700 was "shown" at CeBit 2006, that is wrong it was 2007. Here is the hard proof.
> 
> Here is the next video, and it shows some hands-on of the F700 looking very much like not-final-hardware, or software for that matter. It barely worked. If they had been working on it since 2006, wouldn't the review model at Cebit 2007 work better than this video below. You'd think so.
> 
> We can even go back to February 7th 2007 with iphonebuzz showing the F700, and mentioning it as a copy, and a possible competitor to the iPhone, clearly after the iPhone. When you really get down to this stories deep roots, it looks like in the beginning Apple had the design and Samsung tried to copy it, but failed miserably. You might also be asking that if the F700 was shown at CeBit 2007, Samsung was certainly working on it well before that during 2006, and that is before the original iPhone got unveiled. So did Samsung have the design first and Apple steal it. We don't know, but this is some pretty hard evidence. Here is another piece of information for you, the orignal iPhone used many Samsung parts, so the question remains - was Samsung privy to some sort of reference design?


http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/

There you have it, and information from an Android site no less.







So tell me I'm trolling now, or blinded by my absolute love of Apple, or whatever other nonsense you people that can't accept reality love to say.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> False evidence was not entered into any trial. You guys with your conspiracy theories really need to stop. If Apple was doctoring evidence and presenting it as fact, don't you think some where along the line someone in the legal system would notice and say something? Oh wait, all the judges are paid off too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Caught+Photoshopping+Galaxy+Tab+101+to+Look+Like+iPad+for+Lawsuit/article22459.htm

lol wut?


----------



## Tehrawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> False evidence was not entered into any trial. You guys with your conspiracy theories really need to stop. If Apple was doctoring evidence and presenting it as fact, don't you think some where along the line someone in the legal system would notice and say something? Oh wait, all the judges are paid off too.


It is widely known that Apple submitted a doctored photo as evidence. Just because you have no prior knowledge of it, or you choose to ignore it. Does not mean its not true.
Quote:


> The defense of Samsung by some of you here is just outrageous with false claims, bad information, and just awful logic. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it fact, especially with 95% of the images you people post. Official court documents hold a little more water in reality than internet meme's and articles written on blogs like Gizmodo or wherever you get your information.
> Here's where I got those three images from: http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-case-against-samsung-in-three-pictures/
> For example, this picture is completely *FALSE*:
> 
> http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/


So you are saying that we shouldn't trust the news sites that post this information online. Yet all your claims are sourcing these very same news sites. So we should just believe the ones that you deem to be accurate? I really don't get you. You are either a truly inept troll, or just lack the skills to process information given to you.

I know this will be difficult for you. But try to think logically for just a few moments. So the article states that the F700 wasn't revealed until February. Then released towards the end of the month. How could it ever be possible to design and manufacture any device in two weeks. As well as program the software required. It just isn't feasible. Thus the design came about before the iPhone was released. (I know how fruitless it is to tell you these things, as you have continued to ignore this information repeatedly)

Can you please just take five minutes to read the source article for this thread. If you have all ready read it. Then read it again because you clearly haven't comprehended the the contents.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the iPhone


Quote:


> Furthermore, Samsung will show the court the designs above, which were possibilities for the Summer of 2006, well before the iPhone was released in 2007. In fact one of these ended up being the Samsung F700, and believe it or not, Apple went after Samsung for it only to retract when they learned it was designed before the iPhone.


http://www.talkandroid.com/125047-samsungs-designs-from-2006-were-similar-to-the-iphone-but-well-before-apple-released-it/


----------



## quakermaas

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Tehrawk* 

It is widely known that Apple submitted a doctored photo as evidence. Just because you have no prior knowledge of it, or you choose to ignore it. Does not mean its not true.
So you are saying that we shouldn't trust the news sites that post this information online. Yet all your claims are sourcing these very same news sites. So we should just believe the ones that you deem to be accurate? I really don't get you. You are either a truly inept troll, or just lack the skills to process information given to you.
I know this will be difficult for you. But try to think logically for just a few moments. *So the article states that the F700 wasn't revealed until February. Then released towards the end of the month. How could it ever be possible to design and manufacture any device in two weeks. As well as program the software required. It just isn't feasible. Thus the design came about before the iPhone was released.* (I know how fruitless it is to tell you these things, as you have continued to ignore this information repeatedly)
Can you please just take five minutes to read the source article for this thread. If you have all ready read it. Then read it again because you clearly haven't comprehended the the contents.

Exactly.

None of them copied each other unless they had got there hands on privileged information from the other company.

From the same article

"Either way it takes way more than a month or even 3 to get a design made up and tested and some review models out. Most likely years. Vincent from Slashgear visited the Apple testing facilities and they even told him most devices take around 2 years to develop and test. Although Apple does seem to test their devices more thoroughly than others"

Apple just can`t take it, that other company's had similar ideas back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros* 










Quote:


> Furthermore, Samsung will show the court the designs above, which were possibilities for the Summer of 2006, well before the iPhone was released in 2007. In fact one of these ended up being the Samsung F700, and believe it or not, Apple went after Samsung for it only to retract when they learned it was designed before the iPhone.





> http://www.talkandroid.com/125047-samsungs-designs-from-2006-were-similar-to-the-iphone-but-well-before-apple-released-it/










A bit like there "Swipe to unlock claim", that was proved to be more lies from Apple


----------



## SohcSTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> False evidence was not entered into any trial. You guys with your conspiracy theories really need to stop. If Apple was doctoring evidence and presenting it as fact, don't you think some where along the line someone in the legal system would notice and say something? Oh wait, all the judges are paid off too.


Some of us have been following this for a long time now. You sound like you just got here. Let me Google that for you.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Caught+Using+Photoshop+to+Fake+More+Pics+in+Lawsuits/article22500.htm

http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/08/apple-seemingly-photoshopped-to-make-its-point-in-samsung-case/

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-photoshop-into-an-injunction-against-samsung/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/19/did-apple-shrink-the-samsung-galaxy-s-ii-in-dutch-lawsuit-filing/

http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/apple-could-have-given-faulty-evidence-in-euro-samsung-case/

Pretty elaborate conspiracy theory huh?


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> For example, this picture is completely *FALSE*:


Was anybody arguing that it was true? Have you really read anything posted in the last few pages? The F700 was announced only a month after the iPhone. There's no way Samsung could have copied Apple. That's all anyone has been arguing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> It was similarities between the devices that convinced the judge to ban sale of the Galaxy Tab within Europe (Netherlands excepted). Apple never claimed the two devices had identical proportions when presenting these images
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was the way that you think it was and Apple secretly changed the shape and tried to use it in their argument then the Judge OR Samsung would have said something about it. But *Neither* of them did


They may not have claimed it, but it's obviously implied. They wouldn't change the aspect ratio if that wasn't their intention.

"The stretched image could be justified by the need to emphasis the similarities by removing the disparities."

Are you KIDDING me? You can't modify the differences just because it suits your cause.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UnAimed*
> 
> There is really no point in trying to talk sense into these people because they will always continue to see things how they want to see them and not the way things actually are.


Irony.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bologna*
> 
> There you have it, and information from an Android site no less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me I'm trolling now, or blinded by my absolute love of Apple, or whatever other nonsense you people that can't accept reality love to say.


and now let me tell you why you are trolling. You keep talking as if we are claiming that Apple copied the F700. In truth all we are saying is that one of the offending devices (according to apple) was well in development before anyone outside of Apple knew what an iPhone was. We are also saying that the early line of Galaxy devices look quite similar to the F700, and it's easy to see where one spawned the other. Not to mention that (if you care to read the OP) there were other devices that all followed a similar design aesthetic as the F700 and Galaxy line of phones and they were all in development before the iPhones announcement. If you aren't trolling, then you aren't really understanding whats going on.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.talkandroid.com/125047-samsungs-designs-from-2006-were-similar-to-the-iphone-but-well-before-apple-released-it/


And don't you find it odd that the judge doesn't want this evidence to be included in the trial?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.talkandroid.com/125047-samsungs-designs-from-2006-were-similar-to-the-iphone-but-well-before-apple-released-it/
> 
> 
> 
> And don't you find it odd that the judge doesn't want this evidence to be included in the trial?
Click to expand...

Apparently the judge is saying that Samsung can't do anything to prove that their design took little to no influence from the iPhone. He/she is basically saying "Oh lol, so you have evidence now that you had 10+ devices that predate the iPhone that clearly indicate you were headed towards a design similar to the iPhone's? No, you can't submit that evidence."


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Apparently the judge is saying that Samsung can't do anything to prove that their design took little to no influence from the iPhone. He/she is basically saying "Oh lol, so you have evidence now that you had 10+ devices that predate the iPhone that clearly indicate you were headed towards a design similar to the iPhone's? No, you can't submit that evidence."


How convenient........ for Apple.

Also convenient that Shin Nishibori won't testify in the trial either.
http://www.slashgear.com/key-witness-in-apple-samsung-trial-wont-testify-30240881/

Again, convenient for Apple.

By the way, the judge is a *she,* same lady who banned the Nexus and Galaxy Tab in the U.S.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I would almost guarantee she's got an iPhone under those robes somewhere...


----------



## toxaris71

I heard that part of the reason apple was suing Samsung was because there were many cases of misinformed costumers buying galaxy tabs and returning them because they thought they were iPads.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Apparently the judge is saying that Samsung can't do anything to prove that their design took little to no influence from the iPhone. He/she is basically saying "Oh lol, so you have evidence now that you had 10+ devices that predate the iPhone that clearly indicate you were headed towards a design similar to the iPhone's? No, you can't submit that evidence."
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient........ for Apple.
> 
> Also convenient that Shin Nishibori won't testify in the trial either.
> http://www.slashgear.com/key-witness-in-apple-samsung-trial-wont-testify-30240881/
> 
> Again, convenient for Apple.
> 
> By the way, the judge is a *she,* same lady who banned the Nexus and Galaxy Tab in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Had a feeling it was a she but wasn't sure at the time of posting due to alcoholic influences lmao. I knew it was the same judge that banned the tablet though.







I'm surprised that Samsung hasn't requested to dismiss the judge and get a new one because of bias against Samsung and influence from a previous case.


----------



## Georgevonfrank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Had a feeling it was a she but wasn't sure at the time of posting due to alcoholic influences lmao. I knew it was the same judge that banned the tablet though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that Samsung hasn't requested to dismiss the judge and get a new one because biased against Samsung.


They need the judge that said the patent system needs to be changed.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Samsung's Kevin Johnson cross-examined Forstall, asking whether Apple inquired into other products, including Samsung's, as it mapped out the iPhone.
> 
> "I believe you were concerned with the speed of the processor (slated for the iPhone)," suggested Johnson.
> 
> "Yes," agreed Forstall, at one point he was concerned about that.
> 
> "You looked at Samsung phones, right? You saw the processor?" he asked.
> 
> "Yes," answered Forstall.
> 
> "Do you remember looking at a click-wheel control?" Johnson asked. The technology was not used on the iPhone, but Johnson, aiming to show Apple scrutinizing competitors' products for ideas, cited a memo from Steve Jobs about the Samsung click wheel with the comment, "This may be the answer. We could put the click wheel around the number pad," in an email message to Apple staffers, including Forstall. "Didn't that illustrate Apple's willingness to borrow ideas from competitors?" asked Johnson.
> 
> "When he says that may be the answer, I'm not sure he means it's serving as inspiration (for the iPhone)," Forstall responded.
> 
> "Are you aware Apple has done very detailed teardowns and benchmarking of competitors' products, including Samsung's," Johnson asked.
> 
> "Yes," said Forstall. "But benchmarking is something different from copying and ripping something off."












http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240005003?pgno=2


----------



## Bosniac

This thread inspired me to get a Samsung S3. Today.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bosniac*
> 
> This thread inspired me to get a Samsung S3. Today.


Lol I just picked up my GS3 yesterday best phone evar


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung's Kevin Johnson cross-examined Forstall, asking whether Apple inquired into other products, including Samsung's, as it mapped out the iPhone.
> 
> "I believe you were concerned with the speed of the processor (slated for the iPhone)," suggested Johnson.
> 
> "Yes," agreed Forstall, at one point he was concerned about that.
> 
> "You looked at Samsung phones, right? You saw the processor?" he asked.
> 
> "Yes," answered Forstall.
> 
> "Do you remember looking at a click-wheel control?" Johnson asked. The technology was not used on the iPhone, but Johnson, aiming to show Apple scrutinizing competitors' products for ideas, cited a memo from Steve Jobs about the Samsung click wheel with the comment, "This may be the answer. We could put the click wheel around the number pad," in an email message to Apple staffers, including Forstall. "Didn't that illustrate Apple's willingness to borrow ideas from competitors?" asked Johnson.
> 
> "When he says that may be the answer, I'm not sure he means it's serving as inspiration (for the iPhone)," Forstall responded.
> 
> "Are you aware Apple has done very detailed teardowns and benchmarking of competitors' products, including Samsung's," Johnson asked.
> 
> "Yes," said Forstall. "But benchmarking is something different from copying and ripping something off."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240005003?pgno=2
Click to expand...

She sounds like one of the worse original Apple trolls on here.


----------



## RX7-2nr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toxaris71*
> 
> I heard that part of the reason apple was suing Samsung was because there were many cases of misinformed costumers buying galaxy tabs and returning them because they thought they were iPads.


Doubtful. More like they want to stifle competition- Android is on the rise and Samsung is the top player.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bosniac*
> 
> This thread inspired me to get a Samsung S3. Today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I just picked up my GS3 yesterday best phone evar
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bosniac*
> 
> This thread inspired me to get a Samsung S3. Today.


Bought a GN a few weeks ago. I was going to stick with my G2x longer but I felt like supporting Samsung and Nexus devices overall, so went with the GN over the S3. S3 kills it, I know, but I like the GN more. My buddy at Sprint tells me that a loooot more people are switching from iPhones to an S3, Galaxy Nexus, and even the "old" S2. The popular opinion he hears the most is they weren't happy with the gap between the 4 and 4S performance-wise and feature-wise. Their family/friends switched platforms when the S2 came out and they've been anxious to let go of their iPhones. iPhone users want in on the nice, big screens that have been around lately, and it seems that the 5 still isn't truly going to deliver on that. Hell one of my own friends who has been a die-hard iPhone fanatic (has owned every generation) switch to an EVO 3D (by no means an amazing phone) and he says he'd never go back to iOS.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RX7-2nr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *toxaris71*
> 
> I heard that part of the reason apple was suing Samsung was because there were many cases of misinformed costumers buying galaxy tabs and returning them because they thought they were iPads.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful. More like they want to stifle competition- Android is on the rise and Samsung is the top player.
Click to expand...

[SARCASM]
Nonsense. Samsung being the top Android seller and mobile phone seller overall is purely a coincidence and it has nothing to do with this. You guys are such fanboys making things more than what they are.








[/SARCASM]

Anyways IMO, though I have contributed to bumping it, this thread has run its course.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toxaris71*
> 
> I heard that part of the reason apple was suing Samsung was because there were many cases of misinformed costumers buying galaxy tabs and returning them because they thought they were iPads.


I understand Apple users aren't the brightest bunch ( as depicted in Apple's commercials )

But seriously, one tablet says Samsung on it, and is missing an Apple fruit, and it's running Android when you turn it on.

Besides, how can people really mistaken something that says Samsung on the BOX?

The reality is, Apple wants a monopoly on the Tablet and Smartphone market, since they clearly can't make better products then the competition, the next course of action is to attempt to ban them.

Apple can't compete with Android manufacturers by releasing only 1 phone per year, which looks EXACTLY the same as its predecessors.


----------



## Scrappy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *toxaris71*
> 
> I heard that part of the reason apple was suing Samsung was because there were many cases of misinformed costumers buying galaxy tabs and returning them because they thought they were iPads.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand Apple users aren't the brightest bunch ( as depicted in Apple's commercials )
Click to expand...

They even know their fans are idiots there's a rumor that the new iPhone will have the dock connector work either way so if the idiot plugs the cord in wrong it still works. They don't think highly of their consumer base.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I understand Apple users aren't the brightest bunch ( as depicted in Apple's commercials )
> But seriously, one tablet says Samsung on it, and is missing an Apple fruit, and it's running Android when you turn it on.
> Besides, how can people really mistaken something that says Samsung on the BOX?
> The reality is, Apple wants a monopoly on the Tablet and Smartphone market, since they clearly can't make better products then the competition, the next course of action is to attempt to ban them.
> Apple can't compete with Android manufacturers by releasing only 1 phone per year, which looks EXACTLY the same as its predecessors.


Remember, somewhere between 3.5m and 7m sales were lost to those devices that have SAMSUNG clearly printed on the box, and front and back of the device.

After reading what stealth quoted earlier, and how the apple lawyers are allowed to discuss things outside of the pretrial, but the Samsung lawyers aren't allowed to interfere just pissed me off all over again.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Samsung's Quinn again risked Koh's disapproval by speaking out of turn, saying that Apple was seeking to impeach the witness without laying the foundation based strictly on the earlier testimony. After being gaveled back into silence, he apologized to the judge and said he hadn't meant to speak out of turn.
> 
> Koh gave him a severe stare. "I'm not sure that was unintentional," she said.


Gaveled, seriously? What a lamer.


----------



## Brutuz

There will be a retrial, this Judge is obviously biased.


----------



## GermanyChris

There always was going to be a retrial and/or appeal.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Samsung inspired some things based on Apple's. Yep, that's right.
> But Apple inspired almost everything on other companies, deliberately copying some and silently stealing from others.
> That is the whole argument.
> Meanwhile, I've got a SE phone, which imo look much better than any Apple or Samsung device


Is this where I pull out this image: Apple meet Braun


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Is this where I pull out this image: Apple meet Braun


It's obvious to me that Braun was copying Apple.

Everybody copies Apple whether their devices came before or after.









Dieter Rams "The Godfather of Apple's designs" he took Apple's copying as a form of flattery. ( Wish they sued Apple instead )


----------



## qussl3

Okay, so when are we getting the Granny Smith vs Apple lawsuit?


----------



## AznDud333

nice lies appl...F700 was announced before 2007 LOL(which is pre iphone) in 2006


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AznDud333*
> 
> nice lies appl...F700 was announced before 2007 LOL(which is pre iphone) in 2006


It was announced in February 2007. The F700's Wiki conveniently links to Samsung's press release. Not that it really matters though, because it's still a fact that they were both under lock and key being developed at the same time, so there's no way one could copy the other.


----------



## R1VER5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jrbroad77*
> 
> 0/10


You are so cool.

-100/100


----------

