AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet - Page 2

post #41 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:23pm
I love that with an almost complete absence of trolling in this thread (headed off in the first three posts!) that it has still managed to descend into puerile bickering with no real content!

I think we need the Samsung/Android shills or we start eating our own!
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #42 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden99 View Post

It's funny how defensive Apple fans (or possibly shareholders) are of the almighty Apple. I love a range of different devices across the years, from a vareity of manufactuers, but I understand the process of design, nothing is created in a perfectly insulated vacuum chamber - including the iPhone and iPad.

I have no personal problem with devices that follow Apple's design cues. I have a problem when people refuse to acknowledge Apple's role as industry trendsetter; many even go as far to say that Apple's designs aren't unique or anything special or that such-and-such did it first.

Just pay your respect, and don't make it so similar that it causes confusion.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Are you implying that the superficial similarities between Apple's current products and those of Apple's competitors, along with the superficial differences among the previous products of Apple's competitors, have any deeper meaning than being superficial similarities, or superficial differences?

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #44 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] Apple will "continue its barrage of patent litigation," and may use feedback from the court to file even stronger motions for preliminary injunctions against Android devices in the future. [...]

It's still early days. And Apple has many more patents, unencumbered by FRAND, that they will be forced to protect.

And why shouldn't they? Android is "stolen property" and as such, it needs to be crushed.
It's already D.O.A. in the pad computing space (unless you count the Kindle Fire "padlet.")
So Apple only needs to defend themselves in the mobile phone space. Nice and simple.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #45 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

That phrase really seems out of place, and the fact that you used such a phrase in conjunction with your monicker "Dr" implies that you're trying to look smart.

If I wanted to look smart, I'd simply refrain from posting on AI.

The meaningless collage was trying to illustrate how everyone has copied Apple's designs by insinuating that the temporal correlation in the degree of similarity in outer design of the products in question (low similarity in the past, high similarity now) is a proof that other manufacturers have been aping Apple's designs. The phrase I posted is the classical rebuttal of that fallacy; in few words, the designs may have converged for reasons other than everyone copying Apple, and the extent and direction of copying cannot be determined by the similarities alone.

I'm sorry if my post still looks unclear, that's the simplest I can do right now. I hope you got my point.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden99 View Post

I just want to point out those images have likely been purposefully crafted to show Apple in the best light. Just check out this image, which gives another true selection of tablets, before and after iPad.


LOL. like how far zoomed out that image is, obviously purposefully crafted to show Apple in the worst light. Notice all those are several inches thick, include a multitude of buttons on the bevel, pen input, run a bloated desktop Microsoft OS, big fans, etc...

After ipad, no buttons, thin, light weight OS, no pen, finger input, etc... So yes, there is very big change once the iPad was released. yes, they all copied Apple. thanks for playing.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I owned many a device before the iPhone, and none utilized the slide-to-unlock method of unlocking the device.

I'm sorry, I thought the tired argument is that slide-to-unlock is too obvious. Too obvious that no one else used it on a phone/PDA.

Here's just one example. There's many. http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-...ey-invented-it

Even with this stated, I don't think Apple should be prevented from using Slide to Unlock. However, I don't think they should be allowed to patent it. It's fundamental to use, just like entering data is fundamental, and reading items on the screen is fundamental.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well…

What about Palm? They had everyone beat, and icons on a grid was their fundamental UI design layout.

This is all the natural evolution of computing. The idea that these processes and fundamentals are "patented" is the product of a poor US patent system.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

The comical part of this forum is that if the reverse was in gear, and Google (or any of Android's manufacturers) were suing Apple, you would all cry foul.

In fact, when those manufacturers do press litigation back at Apple, you all cry foul.

To change direction, I would personally like to see a paradigm change in the industry, where when someone purchases a phone, they are free to install whatever OS on it they choose, just like one can elect to do with a computer. You shouldn't be locked in to iOS, WP7, Android, or anything else.

And I also personally think it's a travesty that by being "locked" to an OS by carrier and manufacturer, one is practically forced to upgrade hardware in order to upgrade software. I have a 2 year old Android phone running the latest version of Android, and it works wonderfully.

Throwing away hardware annually for no reason makes no sense economically and only generates additional (unnecessary) waste, and that's why I support Android--and want to see it's environment opened further, so that phones can be promoted to longer lifespans with the ability to have the latest software.

Apple, although they do a respectable job in updating their own software, forces Apple consumers to upgrade as a consequence of buying their products. This is evident in the additional support jailbreaking brings to iDevices.


I don't agree with the argument "if it was the other way around." That is simply a false comparison, and it doesn't change whether or not apple is justified. It just turns the argument toward the users (and it's not hard to find idiots on either side of the spectrum, so basically you're saying "I'm not good at the big leagues-let's play teeball)

And I don't understand how the argument of having to buy new hardware in order to get the new software favors android. It's the opposite. See: the 3GS is still on sale. Also see: year old phones that will not upgrade to ICS
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well

One simple question I have, is a grid's of icons that special?
Isn't this what the earliest file managers did?
Android had limited resolution, and screen sizes, at one time, until they modernized their phone offerings. Is it impossible to think they simply had a grid of icons, because the screen offerded them more space, and they wanted to use if for something, and icons are extremely obvious? I knows earlier Windows Mobile phones had some versions with icons, sometimes smaller icons, with text, how is this much different?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well

You're still missing my point.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

I don't agree with the argument "if it was the other way around." That is simply a false comparison, and it doesn't change whether or not apple is justified. It just turns the argument toward the users (and it's not hard to find idiots on either side of the spectrum, so basically you're saying "I'm not good at the big leagues-let's play teeball)

And I don't understand how the argument of having to buy new hardware in order to get the new software favors android. It's the opposite. See: the 3GS is still on sale. Also see: year old phones that will not upgrade to ICS

The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.

As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

in few words, the designs may have converged for reasons other than everyone copying Apple, and the extent and direction of copying cannot be determined by the similarities alone.

Right, it was just the logical step to stop selling every kind of phone but black ones in the candy bar format with a screen that takes up the entire front.

It was also a logical step to retool phone packaging from a standard cardboard box with that one kind of side flap that has the curved teeth to a full-reveal top where the product is the first (and only) thing you see when you first open the box instead of all the manuals and other junk that comes with the device.

Apple just happened to be the first one to do both of those things, but at that time, that's what EVERYONE was just about to do.



I understand what you're saying and I understand that what you've said is a physical possibility within the operational parameters of the Universe and the laws of probability, but come on.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #53 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Here's just one example. There's many. http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-...ey-invented-it

Even with this stated, I don't think Apple should be prevented from using Slide to Unlock. However, I don't think they should be allowed to patent it. It's fundamental to use, just like entering data is fundamental, and reading items on the screen is fundamental.

I've seen the "neonode" or whatever it's called. It's not at all the same. It's not the gesture Apple patented, it's the gesture in conjunction with an image and a specific path.

EDIT: Also, if the slide-to-unlock is so FUNDAMENTAL to use, why did so many devices before the iPhone not use a similar approach? You have a strange definition of "fundamental".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

What about Palm? They had everyone beat, and icons on a grid was their fundamental UI design layout.

This is all the natural evolution of computing. The idea that these processes and fundamentals are "patented" is the product of a poor US patent system.

I'm sorry, but the Apple Newton has Palm beat.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

...
I understand what you're saying and I understand that what you've said is a physical possibility within the operational parameters of the Universe and the laws of probability, but come on.

Thanks for following. Now, if you do understand those things, then you also understand that posting those images doesn't prove anything and is mere flamebait.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Yawn. That argument is getting really old by now. Yes, ONE of the primitive 'publicly seen' alpha-models had a blackberry-esque feel to it but the SDK at that point, even early on fully supported full touch systems too, that didn't happen overnight, and it was before the iPhone was released. Continual denial and acting like Google never thought of a touch phone until Steve rolled one out on stage is simply ridiculous. Obviously the success of the iPhone pushed Google to take Android much further into a touch direction.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Di...re_the_iPhone_
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #56 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Thanks for following. Now, if you do understand those things, then you also understand that posting those images doesn't prove anything and is mere flamebait.

You're using the common defense of "well, there's the possibility..."

Anything is possible. Use some common sense.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I'm sorry, but the Apple Newton has Palm beat.

And here's a list of everything that has the Newton beat.

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

MS-DOS, and Windows, is also "grid based using icons."

What's the point? Technology evolves. The Newton wouldn't have existed without prior work, just as what we have now wouldn't have existed without the same prior work, and everything since.

This argument is invalid and has been since the start, and it's the reason why people come here shaking their heads at these types of lawsuits.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

You're using the common defense of "well, there's the possibility..."

Anything is possible. Use some common sense.

That's step 1. The next step is making one understand that "common sense" isn't really common.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

The comical part of this forum is that if the reverse was in gear, and Google (or any of Android's manufacturers) were suing Apple, you would all cry foul.

Yes, it's absolutely shocking how the fanboys here support lawsuits brought against copiers by innovators but don't support lawsuits brought against innovators by copiers - just shocking! How can we justify such blatant hypocrisy? Kudos for you, sir, for bringing this out into the open!
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Thanks for following. Now, if you do understand those things, then you also understand that posting those images doesn't prove anything and is mere flamebait.

I think 'flamebait' would be more 'deluding oneself into thinking that the current slew of phones and tablets looks the way it does for ANY reason other than the fact that Apple did what it did'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Yes, ONE of the primitive 'publicly seen' alpha-models had a blackberry-esque feel to it but the SDK at that point, even early on fully supported full touch systems too, that didn't happen overnight, and it was before the iPhone was released.

December 2007 was before the iPhone was released?

Quote:
Continual denial and acting like Google never thought of a touch phone until Steve rolled one out on stage is simply ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is implying that I said that, when in actuality I said nothing of the sort.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #61 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.

To some extent yes, people are very passionate about Apple. Because Apple innovates and others copy, Apple has managed to keep the underdog status in spite of being the largest company in the world.
Quote:
As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)

Well, great. Bully for you and Android. Apple fan(attic)s may try and shout you down but seriously, they don't care. We're happy for you. What we don't like is that you blatantly copy us. It gives us the moral high ground and Apple the right to sue. So keep your paradigm shift. If you love Android and the multitudes of devices why do you care what Apple does?
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Did I miss any of the typical lame talking points?

√ Inferior specs?
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:55pm
you forgot the Star Trek Next Generation thing !


www.umrk.fr "I, umrk, hereby testifies that this is the true, complete and unaltered record of what the WiFi Base Station of the Orbe of Time transmitted to my iPad, while I was staying on the...
Reply
www.umrk.fr "I, umrk, hereby testifies that this is the true, complete and unaltered record of what the WiFi Base Station of the Orbe of Time transmitted to my iPad, while I was staying on the...
Reply
post #64 of 145
2/13/12 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, and in every single thread about this stuff, these two images remain relevant.





You see how different and interesting phones and tablets were before the iPhone and iPad, respectively?

THEY WERE ALL INNOVATING BACK THEN. ALL OF THEM. As much as all of those devices sucked, that was the golden age of innovation.

Now ONE company is. ONE. And people still whine that Apple should "focus on innovating instead of suing".



2002

Samsung SPH-i300 and i330




2006


Compaq Tablet pc T1000


Hand picked devices aggregated to show only the devices that are completely different yet completely disregarding the devices that are.

That is a moral hazard issue.

"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
post #65 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

image: http://3.static.slando.com/photos/li...414097_1_F.jpg
2002

Samsung SPH-i300 and i330

Samsung had a multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phone in 2002? It's a wonder why they had to copy Apple then¡

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #66 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Samsung had a multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phone in 2002? It's a wonder why they had to copy Apple then¡

The aggregated pictures are comparing the designs.

What you are claiming isnt design related but rather function related.

Stick with the issue at hand and stop drifting about.

"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
post #67 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

What we don't like is that you blatantly copy us. It gives us the moral high ground and Apple the right to sue.

So it's blatant copying when Google does it, but when Apple does it, it's OK?

Some moral high ground.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


2002

Samsung SPH-i300 and i330


2006


Compaq Tablet pc T1000


Hand picked devices aggregated to show only the devices that are completely different yet completely disregarding the devices that are.

That is a moral hazard issue.

Those devices are nothing like the iPhone or iPad. I guarantee both used pressure-based touchscreens that likely required a stylus; the latter also runs a full desktop OS.

Since you like posting pictures, do you have one of your point? I'm having trouble finding it.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

The aggregated pictures are comparing the designs.

What you are claiming isnt design related but rather function related.

Stick with the issue at hand and stop drifting about.

The devices you listed look NOTHING like any iOS device ever released.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

So it's blatant copying when Google does it, but when Apple does it, it's OK?

Some moral high ground.

Alas, we've found the holy grail of Android apologists: the notification bar. If you're not familiar with it, it is worshipped in some circles because it is believed to have the magical effect of countering all the many, many, many allegations of what Google copied from Apple.

Unfortunately, if you turn it over, it has a stamp that says "Made in webOS".
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

The aggregated pictures are comparing the designs.

No they aren't or you won't have posted an image of the Samsung SPH-i300 which has buttons all over the front.

You're also being your typical self in tacking something very specific, which is Apple's entrance into the market with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen as the primary I/O and with years of SW to make it work well and then comparing to any tochscreen device you can find that existed before the iPhone even though no one stated that Apple invented the touchscreen or has exclusive rights to any and all touchscreen patents.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #72 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Those devices are nothing like the iPhone or iPad. I guarantee both used pressure-based touchscreens that likely required a stylus; the latter also runs a full desktop OS.

Since you like posting pictures, do you have one of your point? I'm having trouble finding it.

I've had the first Sprint's Sph-i300 in my neighborhood when it launched back in 2002 and no it did not require stylus. As you can see in the picture, it does register finger input.


Again, what the aggregated pictures are showing is the DESIGN not the functionality of the devices.

I know the truth is tough to swallow but PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!

"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
post #73 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

The devices you listed look NOTHING like any iOS device ever released.

Uh, yes they do. They look remarkably similar. They're both tablets of similar dimensions, and look remarkably close to both the iPad and almost all other tablets.

It just goes to further invalidate the argument that "Apple did it first." Sheesh.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Alas, we've found the holy grail of Android apologists: the notification bar. If you're not familiar with it, it is worshipped in some circles because it is believed to have the magical effect of countering all the many, many, many allegations of what Google copied from Apple.

Unfortunately, if you turn it over, it has a stamp that says "Made in webOS".

You're exactly right. So now it's OK for Apple to simply use it?
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

I've had the first Sprint's Sph-i300 in my neighborhood when it launched back in 2002 and no it did not require stylus. As you can see in the picture, it does register finger input.


Again, what the aggregated pictures are showing is the DESIGN not the functionality of the devices.

I know the truth is tough to swallow but PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!

It registered inputs the same way all resistive touchscreen register inputs. You really are the worse debater ever.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #76 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No they aren't or you won't have posted an image of the Samsung SPH-i300 which has buttons all over the front.

You're also being your typical self in tacking something very specific, which is Apple's entrance into the market with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen as the primary I/O and with years of SW to make it work well and then comparing to any tochscreen device you can find that existed before the iPhone even though no one stated that Apple invented the touchscreen or has exclusive rights to any and all touchscreen patents.

What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.

HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.

Samsung predated Apple in introducing a screen first/ button second design in 2002 for Sprint network ( of which I've personally owned).

Please stop trying to deny the obvious.

"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
post #77 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Uh, yes they do. They look remarkably similar. They're both tablets of similar dimensions, and look remarkably close to both the iPad and almost all other tablets.

It just goes to further invalidate the argument that "Apple did it first." Sheesh.

No, they don't. If Samsung had released their Galaxy line of tablets and it looked like that, I doubt Apple would have had as much of a problem with it.

But apparently now the only way to design a tablet is to make it black in the front with a maximum of one button on the front.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It registered inputs the same way all resistive touchscreen register inputs. You really are the worse debater ever.

Stop trying to carry this argument away from design and into the functionality. They are two completely different things. The pictures are comparing the designs of the devices, NOT functions or capabilities.

What people like you are doing is, after getting caught with evidence to the contrary, you start to latch onto other, more specific, arguments to refute my claims and statements.

Stop trying to beat around the bushes and just admit that you were wrong. The more you try to argue otherwise makes you more pathetic and less of a man. MAN UP!

"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
post #79 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

No, they don't. If Samsung had released their Galaxy line of tablets and it looked like that, I doubt Apple would have had as much of a problem with it.

But apparently now the only way to design a tablet is to make it black in the front with a maximum of one button on the front.

Do you own a car with more or less wheels than four?

No?

Why is it OK for car manufacturers to make cars with the same amount of wheels, despite the vehicles themselves being wholly different?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

You're exactly right. So now it's OK for Apple to simply use it?

There's a lot of history between Palm and Apple, and we're not privy to all the details. It is likely predated by something else, or it was originally created in the open-source community (I believe many jailbreakers claim they created it).

More likely, however, is that only the *concept* is the same; Apple's notification center is quite different than Android's or webOS', and many reviewers have noted this.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet