or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hjb

The irony is that Jeff Han is also from Korea.  Apple is battling with a Korean company in a Korean Judge court with a technology developed by Korean.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han
I am laughing all the way.   Sorry shareholders, this is not a 'copy cat' doc as the title suggests, at least not yet.  I think Apple lawyers would have hard time proving that.   I honestly don't know why you are saying this report proves copying?  Or, is it because you, as Apple shareholders, are working in this site promoting your goods (shares)?
  Take that assumption 'Sammy is copying Apple' away for a moment and read again.     Of course, if you truly like some aspects of competition, then you would want yours be more like them.  Does this translate to 'copy'?   BTW, this report analyses Galaxy S and iPhone and made suggestions after Sammy marketed Galaxy S obviously.  Can you tell me any Sammy smartphone since Galaxy S that looks alike iPhone any more than Galaxy S?  You can not prove that Sammy is copying...
Sorry Apple shareholders, but I can not see any problem with this report.  You do analyse your products with competition and improve on competition.  This is what you call 'innovation' that Apple has been doing, isnt it?
  I agree with you, they both look similar in UI, icon boxes and dock background (Samsung obviously had more than inspired).   IMO, Apple has got a point here.  Did Apple patent covering those altogether in one design patent?  I am not quite sure.  And I am not sure how Apple could argue this as we are comparing home screen on iPhone and application drawer in Galaxy S.  However, icon designs itself were look completely different.   By the way, Apple design patents here...
See above
Oh, didn't Apple say Samsung copied iPhone in f-700?
As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.
Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
New Posts  All Forums: