The USB connector, power adapter, app drawer. These are the things that fb's constantly harp about. But need I remind you again, normal people don't give a rat's ass about these things. Mobile World Congress, the most important gathering of the year of journalists, academians and industry leaders voted Galaxy S2 Best Smartphone and Samsung Best Manufacturer, all in the year of copygate. Go figure.
And the Apple Smartcase, turns out it is a copy of InCase.
The "snap back" feature is one of the things that I love about iOS. These justices are morons to think that it particularly isn't important.
Because your intellect triumphs over years of schooling with many more years of experience in making impartial decisions. You being on this very forum makes you a non-candidate for the job position you are trying to mock. Lets see some credentials that could top these "moron" justices. These positions arent given out like candies.
Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.
If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?
Of all the things that article could've talked about, they chose to focus on how different the user experience is between the iPhone and the F700 based primarily on the homescreen. Something the F700 actually shares with the Galaxy S.
They could've talked about the similar icons, or the iOS-like persistent dock, but no, they had to choose the one feature that actually differentiates both the F700 and the Galaxy S from the iPhone
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.
If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?
You should tell this to the fandroids, who always seem to think the judges that decide in Apple's favor are biased, aren't smart enough to understand the issues, or even made a decision based on a bribe of $$$ or iPads.
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Let me ask you this:
1) Do you agree that the homescreen on the F700 is different than the one on the iPhone?
2) Do you agree that the homescreen on the Galaxy S is different than the one on the iPhone?
3) Do you agree that the homescreen on the Galaxy S functions more like the one on the F700 than the one on the iPhone?
4) Do you agree that the App drawer on the Galaxy S is a rip off of the iPhone?
5) Do you agree that the article would've been more convincing if it pointed out how similar the App drawer on the Galaxy S is to the iPhone vs the F700?
The article makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone, and as evidence they present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that is a bad argument because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts their case.
Instead, it would've been more convincing if they focused on how different the F700's function menu is from the iPhone, and how similar the Galaxy S' app drawer is to the iPhone.
That is all I'm saying. You seem to be the one twisting my words.
Quote:
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
And that would've been a better thing talk about than the difference in the homescreen between the F700 and the iPhone.
You're obviously focused on the App drawer of the Galaxy S. So why did you link an article that goes off talking about different homescreens rather than how similar the App drawer is to the iPhone?
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
Actually the app drawer if anything is proof that Google did not copy apple with Android. The app drawer is something that was more common on mobile operating systems like...BLACKBERRY. When people often show the picture of android before iOS and Android after iOS they do not put 2 and 2 together. You have to adapt your product to the market if you wish for it to sell. If google would have released android still as a non touch based operating system it would have never gotten popular. However we know after the release of the original iPhone people began to want touch based phones. As a result we saw most operating system attempt to change over to being touch based and even more utilizing touch based screens. Don't kid yourself google did not copy the iPhone (except for multitouch). Going from a blackberry look a-like to touch based does not mean they copied it means they adapted to the market.
I love Sesame Street. C'mon, let's all sing it together: "One of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same.."
It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
With due respect, I think he was referencing it in terms of hardware similarities, in which case he does have a point.
Though I find this somewhat ironic:
The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:
I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware. I wasn't suggesting it preceded the iphone. They just both came out around the same time, and the iphone is the obviously iconic one that everyone will recognize. I didn't link one of the troll articles. The engadget article was from February 2007. The troll articles suggest it was announced in 2006. I checked before posting the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.
That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
The row of icons on a device like this originated on the Apple Newton but the reason why everybody brings up the app drawer photo is that is exactly what Samsung did - the App drawer view is what is featured in all Samsung's publicity shots, not the "home screen".
The SGS was a clear attempt to piggyback off iPhones success by producing a very similar product
All for the best, but as I've said in earlier postings, these lawsuits need to come to an end. I'm glad to hear based on rumors that Tim Cook seems pragmatic, but the sooner we see these suits end, the better.
Please list a running Android based phone in 2005, or even 2006, okay, may be the end of 2007. Enjoy.
Nope, not even 2007. The first Android-based phone available for consumers wasn't released until the end of 2008. Almost two years after the iPhone, of course it would offer similar features. That's what had the consumer's attention and it's only common sense. You're not going to build something consumers aren't looking to buy are you?
Geesh, I don't know why you'd expect any phone manufacturer wouldn't be influenced by Apple's ideas. Engineer's and software designers aren't kept locked away from the world in dark caves somewhere.
Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.
However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?
Go back to the original trial court order. The injunction was denied because Apple was unable to show irreparable harm, not because of any merits of the case.
To get an injunction in the U.S., you must show not only a likelihood that you will prevail on the merits of the case, but you must also show that if you win, a big, fat check from the loser would not make you whole or that the opponent has no way to pay the damages that could accrue during the trial. Since Samsung has plenty of money to pay even a multi-billion dollar decision,
Apple's only argument would be to say that the damage would be so great that money wouldn't fix it (this happens, for example, in cases where the plaintiff is a small company who might go out of business before the case is settled and therefore, even a large cash settlement would not make up for the fact that they no longer exist). Clearly, Apple's not going out of business if Samsung is allowed to copy them for another year or two. And in a fast moving business like the cell phone business, Apple (like the competition) is constantly releasing new products. Even if Apple's business is hurt today, Apple has the chance to recover market share with the next version - or the one after that.
The appeals court decision states essentially that Apple did not prove that a big, fat, damages check from Samsung would be unable to make them whole.
Denying the injunction was probably a good decision based on the legal requirements for issuing an injunction. However, it says nothing about the merits of the case since the injunction discussion was based on whether Samsung could pay sufficient damages rather than whether Apple was likely to prevail in the case (I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the original trial court even conceded that issue to Apple and said that there was a high probability that Apple would prevail in the end, but I'm not going to look it up).
Well, its quite obvious that this goes both ways: Apple and Android .... fanboys (girls too) in general
Exhibit A:
Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.
The Apple haters would love to imply that for every Apple hater/fandroid trolling an Apple article there's an Apple fanboy trolling an Android article. A typical response would be something like "tell Apple fanboys to stay out of our threads and we'll stay out of Apple threads". The fact is that Apple haters are far more numerous and far more prolific and are responsible for the vast majority of Aple articles ending up in the $hitter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
The article makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone, and as evidence they present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that is a bad argument because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts their case.
Instead, it would've been more convincing if they focused on how different the F700's function menu is from the iPhone, and how similar the Galaxy S' app drawer is to the iPhone.
That is all I'm saying. You seem to be the one twisting my words.
You're the one twisting the words and intent of the article. The very first picture in the article is what they're addressing - a picture that has been posted countless times by Apple haters to insinuate that the iPhone copied the F700. Look at the headline from the picture:
"LOL @ APPLE - Suing someone you stole the design from to begin with."
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone the article proves that Apple didn't copy the F700, which is the real point of the article. They then go on to say...
"In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz."
Another quote from the article:
"Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents."
I'm curious how you think the F700 hurts Apple's case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.
I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware. I wasn't suggesting it preceded the iphone. They just both came out around the same time, and the iphone is the obviously iconic one that everyone will recognize. I didn't link one of the troll articles. The engadget article was from February 2007. The troll articles suggest it was announced in 2006. I checked before posting the link.
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
Resorting to personal attacks and insults are we?
I never "insinuated" that they "copied and rushed" it to market. Please show me where I said anything of the sort.
Your original post claimed the market was heading in that direction. You failed to show any product that proves your point as both the F700 and LG Prada were not only significantly different from the iPhone, but they were vastly inferior in how they worked.
Again? Are we really having this ridiculous argument about whether Android is a cheap copy of iOS again? Really?
This isn't a question of "opinion". Android is obviously a knockoff of iOS. Every shred of evidence, including the history of Google's acquisition and subsequent development of Android, especially when we look at the timeline, so obviously points to this truth that to deny it is to be either entirely disingenuous or utterly clueless. Even if Apple were to lose every court case related to this, it wouldn't change these facts. So, please, spare us the nonsense, and yourself the embarrassment, of attempting to argue otherwise. It just makes you look stupid.
Curiously, it doesn't matter whether Samsung copied Apple or not. It's only relevant that: (1) Samsung's product looks like Apple's; (2) Apple has patents on the design and features; and (3) Samsung produced its designs and features after Apple's patent applications were filed.
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.
Apple fans are an oppressed minority. Subject to constant abuse, they fight valiantly for truth and light, only to be mocked and ridiculed by ignorant liars.
It has always been like that.
Finally with the iPhone, it looked like the general public might realize the superiority of Apple products and Apple fans, but then Android came along and ruined everything.
The ignorant lying majority chooses Android over iOS nearly two to one when buying a cellphone. They do it to spite Apple, because the majority of people have an irrational hate of Apple and everything it stands for.
These are the same people who kill little babies for sport.
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted.
Comments
And the Apple Smartcase, turns out it is a copy of InCase.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/a...gazine-jacket/
The "snap back" feature is one of the things that I love about iOS. These justices are morons to think that it particularly isn't important.
Because your intellect triumphs over years of schooling with many more years of experience in making impartial decisions. You being on this very forum makes you a non-candidate for the job position you are trying to mock. Lets see some credentials that could top these "moron" justices. These positions arent given out like candies.
Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.
If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?
Oh please.
Of all the things that article could've talked about, they chose to focus on how different the user experience is between the iPhone and the F700 based primarily on the homescreen. Something the F700 actually shares with the Galaxy S.
They could've talked about the similar icons, or the iOS-like persistent dock, but no, they had to choose the one feature that actually differentiates both the F700 and the Galaxy S from the iPhone
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.
If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?
You should tell this to the fandroids, who always seem to think the judges that decide in Apple's favor are biased, aren't smart enough to understand the issues, or even made a decision based on a bribe of $$$ or iPads.
You should tell this to the fandroids, who always seem to think the judges that decide in Apple's favor are biased,
Well, its quite obvious that this goes both ways: Apple and Android .... fanboys (girls too) in general
Exhibit A:
The "snap back" feature is one of the things that I love about iOS. These justices are morons to think that it particularly isn't important.
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Let me ask you this:
1) Do you agree that the homescreen on the F700 is different than the one on the iPhone?
2) Do you agree that the homescreen on the Galaxy S is different than the one on the iPhone?
3) Do you agree that the homescreen on the Galaxy S functions more like the one on the F700 than the one on the iPhone?
4) Do you agree that the App drawer on the Galaxy S is a rip off of the iPhone?
5) Do you agree that the article would've been more convincing if it pointed out how similar the App drawer on the Galaxy S is to the iPhone vs the F700?
The article makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone, and as evidence they present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that is a bad argument because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts their case.
Instead, it would've been more convincing if they focused on how different the F700's function menu is from the iPhone, and how similar the Galaxy S' app drawer is to the iPhone.
That is all I'm saying. You seem to be the one twisting my words.
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
And that would've been a better thing talk about than the difference in the homescreen between the F700 and the iPhone.
You're obviously focused on the App drawer of the Galaxy S. So why did you link an article that goes off talking about different homescreens rather than how similar the App drawer is to the iPhone?
You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.
Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.
Actually the app drawer if anything is proof that Google did not copy apple with Android. The app drawer is something that was more common on mobile operating systems like...BLACKBERRY. When people often show the picture of android before iOS and Android after iOS they do not put 2 and 2 together. You have to adapt your product to the market if you wish for it to sell. If google would have released android still as a non touch based operating system it would have never gotten popular. However we know after the release of the original iPhone people began to want touch based phones. As a result we saw most operating system attempt to change over to being touch based and even more utilizing touch based screens. Don't kid yourself google did not copy the iPhone (except for multitouch). Going from a blackberry look a-like to touch based does not mean they copied it means they adapted to the market.
Ah, the old reference the the LG Prada and F700 (both of which were garbage phones and had horrible touch gestures).
Here's a better article for you.
The Verge - F700 vs iPhone
I love Sesame Street. C'mon, let's all sing it together: "One of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same.."
It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.
With due respect, I think he was referencing it in terms of hardware similarities, in which case he does have a point.
Though I find this somewhat ironic:
The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:
I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware
Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.
That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
2005 is before 2007 right?
Android in 2005 bore absolutely no resemblance to Android of 2007/2008. It was redsigned to mimic iOS
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
The row of icons on a device like this originated on the Apple Newton but the reason why everybody brings up the app drawer photo is that is exactly what Samsung did - the App drawer view is what is featured in all Samsung's publicity shots, not the "home screen".
The SGS was a clear attempt to piggyback off iPhones success by producing a very similar product
2005 is before 2007 right?
Please list a running Android based phone in 2005, or even 2006, okay, may be the end of 2007. Enjoy.
Please list a running Android based phone in 2005, or even 2006, okay, may be the end of 2007. Enjoy.
Nope, not even 2007. The first Android-based phone available for consumers wasn't released until the end of 2008. Almost two years after the iPhone, of course it would offer similar features. That's what had the consumer's attention and it's only common sense. You're not going to build something consumers aren't looking to buy are you?
Geesh, I don't know why you'd expect any phone manufacturer wouldn't be influenced by Apple's ideas. Engineer's and software designers aren't kept locked away from the world in dark caves somewhere.
Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.
However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.
If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?
Go back to the original trial court order. The injunction was denied because Apple was unable to show irreparable harm, not because of any merits of the case.
To get an injunction in the U.S., you must show not only a likelihood that you will prevail on the merits of the case, but you must also show that if you win, a big, fat check from the loser would not make you whole or that the opponent has no way to pay the damages that could accrue during the trial. Since Samsung has plenty of money to pay even a multi-billion dollar decision,
Apple's only argument would be to say that the damage would be so great that money wouldn't fix it (this happens, for example, in cases where the plaintiff is a small company who might go out of business before the case is settled and therefore, even a large cash settlement would not make up for the fact that they no longer exist). Clearly, Apple's not going out of business if Samsung is allowed to copy them for another year or two. And in a fast moving business like the cell phone business, Apple (like the competition) is constantly releasing new products. Even if Apple's business is hurt today, Apple has the chance to recover market share with the next version - or the one after that.
The appeals court decision states essentially that Apple did not prove that a big, fat, damages check from Samsung would be unable to make them whole.
Denying the injunction was probably a good decision based on the legal requirements for issuing an injunction. However, it says nothing about the merits of the case since the injunction discussion was based on whether Samsung could pay sufficient damages rather than whether Apple was likely to prevail in the case (I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the original trial court even conceded that issue to Apple and said that there was a high probability that Apple would prevail in the end, but I'm not going to look it up).
Well, its quite obvious that this goes both ways: Apple and Android .... fanboys (girls too) in general
Exhibit A:
Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.
The Apple haters would love to imply that for every Apple hater/fandroid trolling an Apple article there's an Apple fanboy trolling an Android article. A typical response would be something like "tell Apple fanboys to stay out of our threads and we'll stay out of Apple threads". The fact is that Apple haters are far more numerous and far more prolific and are responsible for the vast majority of Aple articles ending up in the $hitter.
The article makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone, and as evidence they present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that is a bad argument because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts their case.
Instead, it would've been more convincing if they focused on how different the F700's function menu is from the iPhone, and how similar the Galaxy S' app drawer is to the iPhone.
That is all I'm saying. You seem to be the one twisting my words.
You're the one twisting the words and intent of the article. The very first picture in the article is what they're addressing - a picture that has been posted countless times by Apple haters to insinuate that the iPhone copied the F700. Look at the headline from the picture:
"LOL @ APPLE - Suing someone you stole the design from to begin with."
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone the article proves that Apple didn't copy the F700, which is the real point of the article. They then go on to say...
"In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz."
Another quote from the article:
"Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents."
I'm curious how you think the F700 hurts Apple's case?
It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.
I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware
This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.
Resorting to personal attacks and insults are we?
I never "insinuated" that they "copied and rushed" it to market. Please show me where I said anything of the sort.
Your original post claimed the market was heading in that direction. You failed to show any product that proves your point as both the F700 and LG Prada were not only significantly different from the iPhone, but they were vastly inferior in how they worked.
This isn't a question of "opinion". Android is obviously a knockoff of iOS. Every shred of evidence, including the history of Google's acquisition and subsequent development of Android, especially when we look at the timeline, so obviously points to this truth that to deny it is to be either entirely disingenuous or utterly clueless. Even if Apple were to lose every court case related to this, it wouldn't change these facts. So, please, spare us the nonsense, and yourself the embarrassment, of attempting to argue otherwise. It just makes you look stupid.
With due respect, I think he was referencing it in terms of hardware similarities, in which case he does have a point.
Though I find this somewhat ironic:
The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:
That version of the galaxy s is not sold in in the USA.
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.
Apple fans are an oppressed minority. Subject to constant abuse, they fight valiantly for truth and light, only to be mocked and ridiculed by ignorant liars.
It has always been like that.
Finally with the iPhone, it looked like the general public might realize the superiority of Apple products and Apple fans, but then Android came along and ruined everything.
The ignorant lying majority chooses Android over iOS nearly two to one when buying a cellphone. They do it to spite Apple, because the majority of people have an irrational hate of Apple and everything it stands for.
These are the same people who kill little babies for sport.
/s
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted.
Thank goodness you are not a judge.