or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sues Samsung for allegedly copying look and feel of iPhone, iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sues Samsung for allegedly copying look and feel of iPhone, iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

samsung tab 10.1 weighs less and is thinner than ipad 2. Has Android 3 on it.
Apple sh**s itself and launches lawsuit.

Why do you think Samsung redesigned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as soon as the iPad 2 was released?

Meanwhile the original "fat" Galaxy Tab 10.1v launches here around the 20th.

The 7" Galaxy Tab has a dock connector which looks just like the Apple dock connector, rather than the usual Android micro USB and HDMI dual ports,
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #42 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Stupid. . . if you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em.

Or rather, in Apple's case, beat them and sue them.

Good move, Apple - about time.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #43 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Samsung is like IBM, a collection of separate corporations underneath it's umbrella. There is no jump to another supplier as the group that provides IPS and Memory are different from the consumer electronics companies.

Tell that to EMC. They screwed me on a software deal, making it really easy to not upgrade the EMC hardware I have.
post #44 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.

I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.

Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?

Tekstud, how many aliases do you have?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #45 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Just because glass existed doesn't mean forming glass into glassware was not innovative. Because people lived in caves doesn't mean building a hut wasn't innovative.

Everything came out of something before and it is rare these days for someone or some company to create something that is truly new and original

Apple did something considered to be truly innovative with the iPhone. Nothing in the market looked or worked the way the iPhone looked/worked. If you disagree, find a pre-existing mock up of the design, UI and functionality and provide a link to it. I'd be interested in seeing who Apple copied when they came up with the iPhone.

Like I said, the grid icons were around long before the iPhone, as was shifting them aside to get to the next grid. I remember this on Dell Axim PDAs. That much is nothing new. Accelerometers have been used in electronics for some time. Hell, the Wii predates the iPhone and used accelerometers aplenty. Also, look up the LG Prada, which was first shown off in 2006. You'll see some surprising similarities, such as a capacitive touch screen and some pretty similar UI elements. Multitouch on touch screens has been around since the 1970s.

Like I said, all Apple did was take existing concepts and package them together smartly.
post #46 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Actually the other guys argument is stronger than yours. He is right in this case. All of the parts separated doesn't make an innovative product. it's the combination that Apple put together to make an innovative product. Now almost all of the new smart phones coming out try to mimmic Iphone. Before everyone was trying to mimmic BB. Now everyone is trying to mimmic the Iphone/Ipad. These items really did re-define the smartphone and tablet markets and no one can honestly say they didn't. Apple and Apple alone changed the game. That's just the fact.

Oh, Apple certainly changed the game. That much is obvious, and yes, other people mimic the iPhone, although some nifty stuff has come out of Android, such as typing without removing your finger from the screen.

I'm saying that you can't call this so "truly innovative" that the lawsuit is justified. Nobody has done much of anything "truly innovative" in the smartphone market. It's all been incremental, albeit with some increments larger than others.
post #47 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Tekstud, how many aliases do you have?

Do you have an argument or are you just going to accuse me of being someone else? Makes it awfully convenient when you can find a reason to ignore an argument instead of coming up with a counter-argument, doesn't it?
post #48 of 145
I'd never looked at images of the LG Prada till just now. Surprisingly, some people might see some elements as borrowed by Apple's iPhone. Others would not. But it's not as different as I would have expected.

http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/2006/12...g-prada-phone/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Do you have an argument or are you just going to accuse me of being someone else? Makes it awfully convenient when you can find a reason to ignore an argument instead of coming up with a counter-argument, doesn't it?

Your posts are such tired, old, discredited cliches that I can understand why someone responded that way.

You really need to inform yourself a bit more. The set of issues you bring up has been debated ad nauseum, and you lost.
post #50 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'd never looked at images of the LG Prada till just now. Surprisingly, some people might see some elements as borrowed by Apple's iPhone. Others would not. But it's not as different as I would have expected.

Another one. See above.

Sigh.
post #51 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Your posts are such tired, old, discredited cliches that I can understand why someone responded that way.

You really need to inform yourself a bit more. The set of issues you bring up has been debated ad nauseum, and you lost.

Aaaaand you present nothing as a refutation, only that "well, it's been said, and it was wrong then, too!" as if that somehow makes it so. Come back when you know how to form a coherent counter argument.
post #52 of 145
Apple doesn't particularly get patents in order to sue the pants off people who violate them, they get patents to protect themselves from getting sued by people who might come up with the same idea (keeping in mind that they file patents long before they introduce a product using that patent).

OTOH, if there is a blatent (in Apple's opinion) rip-off, why wouldn't Apple raise the lawsuit threat level? Steve Jobs promised they would; perhaps it's about time. I don't see any shortage of people suing Apple at this point :-).

On a different subject, maybe Apple ought to bid high on the Nortel patents so they have some more IP to use against Samsung in the LTE arena. :-)
post #53 of 145
I think Apple has a strong case. That is borrowing too many direct elements of the iPhone to be a coincidence of design. The question is whether Apple’s patents will hold up in court (or if Samsung thinks the patents will hold up should they chose not to settle).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

I wonder if it is more a tactical lawsuit by Apple to get better terms... "$7.8 billion in purchases planned for 2011"

I bet you it's be less for more in 2012! Plus first dibs on "flash memory and liquid crystal displays."

Everything is tactile in business, even the the appearance of altruism or philanthropy.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

I'm saying that you can't call this so "truly innovative" that the lawsuit is justified. Nobody has done much of anything "truly innovative" in the smartphone market. It's all been incremental, albeit with some increments larger than others.

I have to agree with the other guys. You are mixing the definition of innovative with inventive. Gp look it up on dictionary.com. Innovative is to alter the existing ideas or products to make a new product that's more modern in a different way. Yes, all those technologies you mentioned (accelerometer, touch screen..etc) already pre-existed before iPhone. But who is the first one to put them all together on a phone?

Now in Samsung's case, taking the iPhone to make it a little bit rounder, fatter, more icons but generally look & feel the same is not innovative. It's called copy. Just like you take someone's thesis and rephrase only parts of it. Everyone knows that's plagiarism.
post #55 of 145
deleted
post #56 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.

I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.

Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?

You miss the point. It doesn't have to be completely innovative. It is a look and feel lawsuit. Is Nintendo the only company to ever make a platform game? No, but if Samsung released a game that involved a plumber with a hat and a mustache saving a princess and the plumber is named Nario. Then they are going to get sued.

Samsung didn't just recreate some aspects of the iPhone software and hardware look and feel. They copied the phone. My link above goes to the prior thread I started on this matter. It contains links to half a dozen reviews of the Samsung noting the ability to confuse it with the 3G.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowotoe View Post

I have to agree with the other guys. You are mixing the definition of innovative with inventive. Gp look it up on dictionary.com. Innovative is to alter the existing ideas or products to make a new product that's more modern in a different way. Yes, all those technologies you mentioned (accelerometer, touch screen..etc) already pre-existed before iPhone. But who is the first one to put them all together on a phone?

Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?
Quote:
Now in Samsung's case, taking the iPhone to make it a little bit rounder, fatter, more icons but generally look & feel the same is not innovative. It's called copy. Just like you take someone's thesis and rephrase only parts of it. Everyone knows that's plagiarism.

Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.
post #58 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

A rectangular handheld device with four primary buttons and apps laid out in a grid....hmmm...where have I seen that before?



If patents can apply to an aluminum ring around the bezel the world is in a sorry state.

The grid thing should just go away. If anyone's going to sue over it, it's going to be HP (provided they got a patent for it). I mentioned something similar maybe even years ago.

However, the physical design cues are startling, notwithstanding the function of the devices.
post #59 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?

So your argument that that Apple's lawsuit is bogus is that they lost to Creative or copying their UI too much?


Quote:
Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.

I seem to recall Apple purchasing rights by Xerox Parc.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

A rectangular handheld device with four primary buttons and apps laid out in a grid....hmmm...where have I seen that before?

The Apple Newton had a similar layout and predates those...

Quote:
If patents can apply to an aluminum ring around the bezel the world is in a sorry state.

It's called a "Design Patent". A regular utility patent covers novel functional features. A design patent covers purely aesthetic features, i.e., the "look and feel" of a thing.

While the article doesn't link to the patent in dispute, the artwork shown from the claim looks like it would be from a design patent, and the Samsung phone is nearly a clone.
post #61 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So your argument that that Apple's lawsuit is bogus is that they lost to Creative or copying their UI too much?

I'm pointing out the absurdity of what some companies call "innovation" and the ridiculous extent of how badly the patent system is screwed up. When you can patent a simple UI element that had been around on desktops for years by simply slapping a virtually identical implementation on an MP3 player, then it's in a very sorry state indeed.

And Apple didn't lose, they settled the case. Big difference.
Quote:
I seem to recall Apple purchasing rights by Xerox Parc.

And Xerox still tried to sue them for it, so I doubt it was as cut-and-dried as that.
post #62 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?

Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.

I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.

Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".

Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?
post #63 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowotoe View Post

I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.

Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".

Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?

Then why did they include a NexusS?
post #64 of 145
First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design-July 15, 2010

Quote:
The Vibrant’s industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G: The rounded curves at the corners, the candybar shape, the glossy, black finish and the chrome-colored metallic border around the display. The Vibrant even has its volume and ringer buttons in almost the same spot as the iPhone 3G.

Fortune.com

Quote:
The Vibrant looks like a thinner, lighter -- but also bigger -- iPhone 3GS, while the Captivate's edges are more square.

Quote:
I much prefer the rounded, soft iPhone 3GS-type plastic that the Galaxies have.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Or rather, in Apple's case, beat them and sue them.

Good move, Apple - about time.

Lol, thanks. I was wondering wth he was talking about. I don't have exact numbers, but I would guess galaxy sales are 10% or less of iPhone sales.

In tablets, well that is not even worth bringing up.
post #66 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You miss the point. It doesn't have to be completely innovative. It is a look and feel lawsuit. Is Nintendo the only company to ever make a platform game? No, but if Samsung released a game that involved a plumber with a hat and a mustache saving a princess and the plumber is named Nario. Then they are going to get sued.

Samsung didn't just recreate some aspects of the iPhone software and hardware look and feel. They copied the phone. My link above goes to the prior thread I started on this matter. It contains links to half a dozen reviews of the Samsung noting the ability to confuse it with the 3G.

Only if he has a brother named Puigi.
post #67 of 145
The one that really confused me was the 7" Tab being confused as an iPad. I might give 'em the Vibrant. Never looked at that one till now and there's more than a passing resemblance. But throwing in the Tab makes it look like they're stretching for the sake of a lawsuit.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 145
Not likely, Samsung is a conglomerate. These are all different divisions run by different people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
post #69 of 145
hey guys, it doesn't really matter if Apple is right or wrong on the merits of the case. that will take up to 5 years to resolve in court.

what matters is what impact the case has now.

will Samsung try to make its copying less obvious for upcoming products - even with some delay? yes.

will it sharply discourage more knockoff products? from top-tier OEM's, yes. from others, no.

will the copycat label hurt Samsing and others marketing and boost iOS products? a liitle.

does this add to the overall cloud of uncertainty surrounding Andriod's future - Oracle's suit and the others? definitely.

will OEM's respond by forking Android into differentiated non-Google variants, or developing their own OS? yes.

who will Apple sue next, in addition to HTC, Nokia, and Samsung? we'll see!
post #70 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seankill View Post

I normally agree with apple on most of their lawsuits. This one seems a bit general. "copy the look and feel".

Yes, very general.
Look particularly at:
The overall shape
The radius of the edges
The basic proportions and curves
The overal color
The design of speaker opening
the number size and placement of icons
The colors use in the interface.
Heck, look at how the product is displayed on a reflective white seamless background.

If that isn't enough, this one detail is worthy of notice:
Look at the placement of the phone icon (lower left corner.)
And while you're there, notice the color and design of that icon.

But of course this is just a general similarity.

I predict Samsung will be making some major changes.



post #71 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Yes, very general.
Look particularly at:
The overall shape
The radius of the edges
The basic proportions and curves
The overal color
The design of speaker opening
the number size and placement of icons
The colors use in the interface.

If that isn't enough, this one detail is worthy of notice:
Look at the placement of the phone icon (lower left corner.)
And while you're there, notice the color and design of that icon.
But of course this is just a general similarity.

I predict Samsung will be making some major changes.

they could probably get away with back and profile. The front on the other hand.
post #72 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You don't patent your designs only to sit back and let the world illegal use them. Sorry, but your company deserves it's investment be protected.

Sure you do. There's absolutely nothing Apple can do about China. Patents aren't valid worldwide.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #73 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think Apple has a strong case. That is borrowing too many direct elements of the iPhone to be a coincidence of design. The question is whether Apples patents will hold up in court (or if Samsung thinks the patents will hold up should they chose not to settle).

Indeed, I'd say this is an open and shut case.
Of course the patents will hold up. These are design patents on easily documented design elements (akin to trade dress and trademarks.) It may take time and it well may not go all the way through the courts, but Samsung will capitulate and pay a settlement.
post #74 of 145
[QUOTE=mbmcavoy;1849717]The Apple Newton had a similar layout and predates those...


Apple changed the game with the Newton. Scully wanted to change the way we thought of computing but the technology just wasn't able to do 'small' yet. it was scully who correctly saw the future a bit before steve jobs did. but this is just standard operating procedure for steve jobs. he has been documented by former employees for hearing an idea from them, poo-pooing or dismissing it, then coming back weeks or more later and saying 'i have this great idea!' and then spewing out the same idea and claiming it as his own. Now THAT is far more disgusting than what samsung is doing.
post #75 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure you do. There's absolutely nothing Apple can do about China. Patents aren't valid worldwide.

They're valid wherever they're registered.
Apple is doing a lot of business in China.
No doubt they have registered patents in China too, although I'm unfamiliar with Chinese patent law and don't even know if they have something akin to design patents. They do have trademark protections that work similarly, though.
post #76 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

they could probably get away with back and profile. The front on the other hand.

Yeah, The bump at the bottom was probably created to make the Samsung look "different enough." The back is the only really strongly differentiated part though. Notice that the word "Apple" and the Apple logo don't even appear anywhere on the front of the phone, even in the UI. The Samsung phone, on the other hand has the Samsung name (which is their logo/trademark) prominently displayed. Also the word Samsung appears repeatedly in the UI. They're so unsure that their phone will be recognized that they include it in icon titles (Samsung E-mail and Samsung Apps.) This is why Apple trademarks things like "iTunes" and "App Store." It allows them to be subtle and brief while still presenting a strong brand presence. No long, 2 line icon titles for Apple.
post #77 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Is this a proxy battle over Android or are they really suing about the "look and feel" of Samsung products (regardless of OS)?

Also, I wonder if Apple is trying to force Samsung to choose between being a supplier to Apple and selling their own tablets/phones. If forced to choose, I bet Samsung would give up being a supplier to Apple. They might make more money supplying Apple today, but I'm sure they fancy themselves as something more than that.

If Apple gave Samsung an ultimatum along the lines of "if you sell components to our competitors we'll stop buying them from you" or "if you don't stop making a competitor to our products we'll cancel our component contracts" they would put themselves in line for a pretty huge antitrust ass kicking.

In other words... it ain't gonna' happen.

I think your first point was spot on. It's hard for Apple to sue Google... so they need to put the squeeze on Android partners.
post #78 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.

Of course but also if they don't defend their patent it sets a precedent the next time it comes up. If they let the small stuff slide the competition can continue chipping away at the iOS advantage. Nothing personal, just business.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.

I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.

Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?

You are confusing the term 'original' with the term 'innovative'. What you are describing, to prove you misguided point, is the very idea of innovation.
post #80 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Top 10 on the patent list is not Top 10 on the Embedded Platform List for Smartphones and Tablets.

Then show me its rankings then.


I'm gonna say that now Apple might have just awaken the sleeping giant when it comes to patents.

Is Apple ready for a counter patent lawsuits of all the electronic technologies that Samsung has in the field of battery, semiconductors, displays and the like?

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sues Samsung for allegedly copying look and feel of iPhone, iPad