or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung drop 'impressive' number of patent claims against each other
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Samsung drop 'impressive' number of patent claims against each other

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
In their California lawsuit, Apple and Samsung have greatly reduced the number of patent infringement claims against one another, although there is no indication that the companies are any closer to settling their differences.

Late on Monday, Apple made a filing in the suit that roughly cut the number of patent infringement claims in half. Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said Apple's move was "a truly impressive narrowing of its infringement claims."

Five hours after Apple reduced the scope of its complaint, Samsung responded in kind, and offered to drop five of its 12 asserted patents. The reductions came after Judge Lucy Koh last week ordered the companies to cut down the number of claims they are making against each other.

"I think that's cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I'm not willing to do it," Koh said of the multitude of patents and products included in the case. "If you're going to trial in July, this is not going to be acceptable."

Though a significant number of claims were dropped from the case, two companies remain strongly at odds, as Apple feels Samsung has not been cooperative, and Samsung believes Apple's case is too big to go to trial this summer.

Apple also continues to assert that Samsung has made "copycat products" that infringe on its own designs, while Samsung has contended that its devices are "innovative, independently developed technologies."



"Between these two companies here, there can be no doubt about who's copied from whom, just like there can be no doubt about who singlehandedly revolutionized an industry," Mueller wrote. "The only question left to be answered is about scope: which of the asserted rights are both valid and infringed?"

Apple believes that Samsung's alleged infringement has allowed the company to become the worldwide leader in smartphone sales. Because of that, Apple has argued that Samsung's damages "reach billions of dollars."

Samsung's continued success was cited by Apple as a key reason that its patent infringement trial needs to start on July 30. By holding the trial this summer, the court will be able to "put an end to Samsung's continuing infringement," Apple said.

For its part, Samsung has said that Apple is "seeking to compete through litigation" rather than in the market. The company also said in court that Apple has only cited "utility patents covering extremely minor user interface features, and design patents and trade dresses that offer far narrower protection than Apple urges."
post #2 of 36

This is all just starting to get a little ridiculous. The Galaxy SIII looks like an amazing device, the 6th gen iPhone will also be an amazing device. Steve Jobs said before that Microsoft didn't have to lose in order for Apple to win. There was enough room for both of them. Substitute Microsoft for Samsung/Google here, and it's the same situation.

post #3 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

This is all just starting to get a little ridiculous. The Galaxy SIII looks like an amazing device, the 6th gen iPhone will also be an amazing device. Steve Jobs said before that Microsoft didn't have to lose in order for Apple to win. There was enough room for both of them. Substitute Microsoft for Samsung/Google here, and it's the same situation.

Arguably, as long as the two companies innovate it is not a zero-sum game. The lawsuits may have had that effect, as Samsung phones no longer look like iPhone clones.
post #4 of 36
I hope future patent cases will become more surgical. I am not a fan of throwing every out that you can and hoping something is deemed relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

This is all just starting to get a little ridiculous. The Galaxy SIII looks like an amazing device, the 6th gen iPhone will also be an amazing device. Steve Jobs said before that Microsoft didn't have to lose in order for Apple to win. There was enough room for both of them. Substitute Microsoft for Samsung/Google here, and it's the same situation.

While true this about infringement not simply about both competing fairly. Plus, MS and Apple focus on very different aspects of the same business which always made it an odd comparison which I think could be a reason for Jobs statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Arguably, as long as the two companies innovate it is not a zero-sum game. The lawsuits may have had that effect, as Samsung phones no longer look like iPhone clones.

It's hard to be certain but there does seem to be a huge shift in mirroring Apple's HW design cues.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Arguably, as long as the two companies innovate it is not a zero-sum game. The lawsuits may have had that effect, as Samsung phones no longer look like iPhone clones.

And Samsung could have avoided all of this by not slavishly imitating Apple's products for year.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I hope future patent cases will become more surgical. I am not a fan of throwing every out that you can and hoping something is deemed relevant.

Good timing. I don't know if you saw the related article this morning where the judge in another Apple/Samsung ITC case tossed a 3000 page response submitted by Apple. They were supposed to file one single page.  Surely their counsel was aware of that as it's not the first time dealing with the ITC.

 

Perhaps as you wrote, they figured they'd list everything they could and hope something stuck. In this case the only thing that stuck was the legal bill for writing up the thousands of pages.

 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/itc-judge-throws-out-3000-pages-of.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And Samsung could have avoided all of this by not slavishly imitating Apple's products for year.

Considering Samsung is the only vendor using Android that is successful and to the point of bringing in 1/3 the profit of the iPhone I have to say that Samsung's method, despite being unethical, was the best move to make from a business standpoint. I can't imagine any feasible patent penalty that could put them in a worse position than the other vendors using Android.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 36
.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Considering Samsung is the only vendor using Android that is successful and to the point of bringing in 1/3 the profit of the iPhone I have to say that Samsung's method, despite being unethical, was the best move to make from a business standpoint. I can't imagine any feasible patent penalty that could put them in a worse position than the other vendors using Android.

Have to agree on that. They built brand relevance fairly quickly with phones that were practically indistinguishable, and are now trying to push different designs given that added clout.

But, I have to admit to having no sense on how all of this is going to end up in 3 years: what will be left of RIM, Nokia, HTC? Will Samsung stick with Android, or diversify? What will happen with Mooogle in the mobile space? What about Chinese knock-offs? It is really hard to imagine which path we will take.
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Have to agree on that. They built brand relevance fairly quickly with phones that were practically indistinguishable, and are now trying to push different designs given that added clout.
But, I have to admit to having no sense on how all of this is going to end up in 3 years: what will be left of RIM, Nokia, HTC? Will Samsung stick with Android, or diversify? What will happen with Mooogle in the mobile space? What about Chinese knock-offs? It is really hard to imagine which path we will take.

 

My best guess sir? I think at least Nokia and HTC will not be dead, but must rethink whether staying in North America is really worth it. 

 

Nokia will have to pull out of North America and learn how to live without it, this time for good. This will require Nokia to stop playing Apple's game of relying on App store to sell your ware. Will app store business model stay cactus on the other side of the Atlantic forever like it is now?

 

For HTC. Is Oppo now it's parent company? Oppo is a fighting brand in China while HTC is a premium version, like Lincoln is to Ford. So Oppo feature phones will stick around the U.S. for a bit but HTC will need to think soon whether staying in North America is well worth the image they cannot pay bills with.

post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

This is all just starting to get a little ridiculous. The Galaxy SIII looks like an amazing device, the 6th gen iPhone will also be an amazing device. Steve Jobs said before that Microsoft didn't have to lose in order for Apple to win. There was enough room for both of them. Substitute Microsoft for Samsung/Google here, and it's the same situation.

 

Their charger cord for the Galaxy Tab has a nearly identical look to apples, even if it's black and cheapy plastic instead of the trademark white look from apple. Their first phone looked nearly identical to the iPhone and has arguably been stealing market share from apple since it's introduction based on it's design similarities. I'd say that's grounds for settlement at minimum. This case is pertaining to the infringements and subsequent harm that was imposed, not whether they're currently still copying apple (which in some ways they definitely are). Apple has a strong case for sure. I'd like to see the outcome just to see how this thing settles out. 

Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #12 of 36

I'll accept settlement if it's $40 for every infringing phone sold since the start of the infringement and on every phone going forward that continues to infringe.

 

Otherwise, just break them.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Good timing. I don't know if you saw the related article this morning where the judge in another Apple/Samsung ITC case tossed a 3000 page response submitted by Apple. They were supposed to file one single page.  Surely their counsel was aware of that as it's not the first time dealing with the ITC.

 

1 the ITC is not the courts so no matter who the ITC sides with and why, the loser will go to the courts

 

2. Apple may have done this move on purpose to help build their court case. They could then turn around when they are judged against by arguing that the ITC was lazy and out of line for telling them to reduce everything to what fits on one page when the matter is far more complex. And even if the first judge disagrees, the second might side with Apple that key issues were totally ignored when they shouldn't have been

 

it's classic moves for this time of case. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

 

Their charger cord for the Galaxy Tab has a nearly identical look to apples, even if it's black and cheapy plastic instead of the trademark white look from apple. Their first phone looked nearly identical to the iPhone and has arguably been stealing market share from apple since it's introduction based on it's design similarities. I'd say that's grounds for settlement at minimum. This case is pertaining to the infringements and subsequent harm that was imposed, not whether they're currently still copying apple (which in some ways they definitely are). Apple has a strong case for sure. I'd like to see the outcome just to see how this thing settles out. 

 

While I agree with you on all of that and I feel that it is 100% obvious that Samsung is not innovating at all but just copying, I can't agree that the courts are the place to deal with that issue. Not in the way that this copying has currently happened. Stealing code etc sure, but this is on a looser more petty level that I feel doesn't outweigh the negative PR that Apple is getting over it. The FRAND crap, nail Samsung on that sure. The other tech patents, nail Samsung on that, definitely. The design stuff, I think Apple needs to remove the stick on that. So what if Samsung copied the basic shape etc. Use that against them. Point out that innovation means doing something totally new, not doing what everyone else does. Take it to the  Court of Public Opinion where the real money lies. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Take it to the  Court of Public Opinion where the real money lies. 

 

Unfortunately the verdict from court of public was 'Galaxy is close enough, we will buy this and keep the change.'

 

On this side of the Pacific where price differences between iPhone and Galaxy is 30% or more, and incomes for freshgrads are frozen for 20 years due to inflation, that is enough to tip the scale. High-flying professionals and boomers are as tapped out as their U.S. counterparts an those who wants iPhone have bought theirs already. With gray imports sucked away all stragglers from Thai carriers.

 

I say that's how Samsung made their way into the market here; forget parents who can buy iPhone, we will catch their kids.

 

I hate to say this, but the perfect world Jobs envisioned in 2007 with the first iPhone has gone in 2010 and then came recession. Suddenly budget and money becomes just as important overnight. Billions of young professionals who planned to buy iPhone in 2009 woke up in 2010 and found they can't, not yet. Galaxy sneaked in as the next best thing, they agreed and stay on ever since. If there is no recession, Samsung may never get this opening.

 

Was it the same in 1972 Oil Shock that knocked Detroit Three off their feet and open the door for Corolla, Civic, Sunny and Colt? I think something similar is happened here.


Edited by Fairthrope - 5/8/12 at 10:01am
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

 

Unfortunately the verdict from court of public was 'Galaxy is close enough, we will buy this and keep the change.'

 

On this side of the Pacific where price differences between iPhone and Galaxy is 30% or more, and incomes for freshgrads are frozen for 20 years due to inflation, that is enough to tip the scale. High-flying professionals and boomers are as tapped out as their U.S. counterparts an those who wants iPhone have bought theirs already. With gray imports sucked away all stragglers from Thai carriers.

 

I say that's how Samsung made their way into the market here; forget parents who can buy iPhone, we will catch their kids.

 

I hate to say this, but the perfect world Jobs envisioned in 2007 with the first iPhone has gone in 2010 and then came recession. Suddenly budget and money becomes just as important overnight. Billions of young professionals who planned to buy iPhone in 2009 woke up in 2010 and found they can't, not yet. Galaxy sneaked in as the next best thing, they agreed and stay on ever since. If there is no recession, Samsung may never get this opening.

 

Was it the same in 1972 Oil Shock that knocked Detroit Three off their feet and open the door for Corolla, Civic, Sunny and Colt? I think something similar is happened here.

 

That would be a fair point EXCEPT, the three main Samsung phones GS2, Note and G Nexus, are NOT CHEAP TO BUY. Of course, prices have come down now as they have with the iphone. Although, the note is still expensive. The GS3 will also be expensive. And its the GS2 that was the bread and butter selling over 20 million units by year end 2011 and the note sold over 5 million. Samsung clearly have a foot in the high end as well. Thats something no other iphone rival can say. 

 

And the interesting thing is, they are willing to push the envelope where all analysts and bloggers say they will fail. Remember what the 'experts' said about the note. a 5.3" screen? a Stylus? This thing won't sell. 

Samsung went ahead and did it anyway, and blazed a new trail that other android makers are looking to follow. 

 

The most important thing that Samsung learned from Apple after all these years though is that its about the experience. And you are seeing that with the GS3. Things like smart actions, pop out video, eye tracking, etc. They finally realise that the guy on the street doesn't care about specs. he cares about cool features that he most probably will never use, but is super cool to have. 

post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Arguably, as long as the two companies innovate it is not a zero-sum game. The lawsuits may have had that effect, as Samsung phones no longer look like iPhone clones.

While the Galaxy model pictured above does look similar to a iPhone the Galaxy II and III don't even come close.

post #18 of 36

Can you imagine is every other industry acted the same as these guys:

 

Television manufacturer - "Hey, you copied our TV design. Your TV is rectangular with channel/volume/power button on the right-hand side. I'm suing you!!!"

 

Laptop manufacturer - "Hey, you copied our laptop design. You have a rectangular housing that folds open with a keyboard on the bottom, and screen on the top. Your power button is just above the keyboard on the left like ours. I'm suing you!!!

 

Refridgerator manufacturer - "Hey, you copied our refridgerator design. You have a dual compartment refrigerator with freezer on the left and cooler on the right. You even copied the water dispenser on the freezer side. I'm suing you!!!

 

I'm sure some brilliant individual will point out how phones didn't look like they do now before the iPhone came out. Hey, news flash, TVs used to be gigantic boxes until someone came out with the first flat screen. Let's just move on already....
 

post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post
Can you imagine is every other industry acted the same as these guys:


YEAH! How weird would it be if everyone protected their intellectual property. What a worthless world that would be.

 

Quote:

Laptop manufacturer - "Hey, you copied our laptop design. You have a rectangular housing that folds open with a keyboard on the bottom, and screen on the top. Your power button is just above the keyboard on the left like ours. I'm suing you!!!

 

You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.

 

Quote:

I'm sure some brilliant individual will point out how phones didn't look like they do now before the iPhone came out. Hey, news flash, TVs used to be gigantic boxes until someone came out with the first flat screen. Let's just move on already....

 

Thanks for the completely and utterly irrelevant comparison.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


YEAH! How weird would it be if everyone protected their intellectual property. What a worthless world that would be.

 

 

You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.

 

 

Thanks for the completely and utterly irrelevant comparison.

 

Exactly how is pointing out that most other electronic components look virtually IDENTICAL across brands, but yet they manage to not sue each other over design 'irrelevant'??? I'm sorry that you seem to be having some difficulty making the connection :(

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.

 

 

Just like sony had the air design first :D. Anyway I doubt they'd get a patent on something so broad.

post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Exactly how is pointing out that most other electronic components look virtually IDENTICAL across brands, but yet they manage to not sue each other over design 'irrelevant'??? I'm sorry that you seem to be having some difficulty making the connection :(


The issue is trade dress. All autos have a very similar "look" to them, however each have details that identify their brands. THIS is what the suit is about. Samsung infringed on Apple's trade dress in addition to various patents that Apple invented to give their products a certain "feel". For example when you scroll to an end of a list, there is a kind of neat "bounce" you get. It's an electronic mimic of a mechanical action that Apple invented. The list doesn't have to bounce, but Apple made it do that, and then patented it. Samsung copied that action. Samsung copied a whole group of such actions that Apple invented to give it's products a certain feel to their user. Samsung could have created their own UI "feel" but they didn't. Apple is suing for a whole raft of tiny things they invented to give their product a distinctive look and feel.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.

 

 

I wonder at what point a computer moved from being a "luggable" to a "portable" to a "laptop." The most innovative thing I see Apple bringing to a "laptop" was the trackpad. They may have some patents on it because other manufacturers have terrible trackpads in comparison. By milling their portable cases out of a solid chunk of aluminum, Apple makes the most rigid laptops on the market. Taking that to the MBA makes me wonder how well many of the ultraportables will act over their expected life -- a somewhat flexible design ought to start acting flaky long before they are expected to do so.

 

If laptops are the product of an evolutionary process, then Apple has been the energy behind pushing that evolution at a much faster pace then it would have otherwise.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


The issue is trade dress. All autos have a very similar "look" to them, however each have details that identify their brands. THIS is what the suit is about. Samsung infringed on Apple's trade dress in addition to various patents that Apple invented to give their products a certain "feel". For example when you scroll to an end of a list, there is a kind of neat "bounce" you get. It's an electronic mimic of a mechanical action that Apple invented. The list doesn't have to bounce, but Apple made it do that, and then patented it. Samsung copied that action. Samsung copied a whole group of such actions that Apple invented to give it's products a certain feel to their user. Samsung could have created their own UI "feel" but they didn't. Apple is suing for a whole raft of tiny things they invented to give their product a distinctive look and feel.

 

I have no issue with with trade dress as it is designed to prevent counterfeiting products and prevent manufacturers from "deceiving the origin" of their product. However, since Samsung stamps their name in bold on the front of their devices, I don't see how anyone can claim deception and suggest this as an issue. That is why most of these trade dress issues have now been thrown out abroad.

 

What bothers me is that we all see the absurdity in allowing a TV manufacturer to consider a bezeled rectangle shape, with squared corners and control buttons on the right hand side as their "unique design", but yet we give Apple a free pass when they essentially claim the same thing with their bezeled rectangle shape, rounded corners, and button at the bottom closest to the thumb in holding position. Not only that, but many here in la-la land even seem to condone this action that games and unduly burdens our legal system.

 

I also have no problem with people protecting their intellectual property. I do however have problems with companies that "steal" the invention of others, rush to get the patent first, and then have the nerve go around and sue. Contrary to Steve Job's statement, Apple did not invent the multi-touch gesture. Contrary to your comment on Apple's scrolling "bounce", they did not invent easing functions in UI programming. Dozens of others assertions have been made of patent infringement from both sides, and almost ALL thrown out, here and abroad. This has become nothing more than a monumental waste of time and energy, but will hopefully help to highlight the need for revamping the patent process. I just wish companies could compete without the frivolous lawsuits so that this wasn't necessary.

post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Contrary to Steve Job's statement, Apple did not invent the multi-touch gesture.
Where is the quote from Jobs that Apple invented the first multi-touch gesture? I seem to recall Apple having the foresight to buy the patents specifically related to multi-touch patents. But that doesn't mean there implementation isn't superior or that they didn't also improve on the design. In fact it seems quite silly to think that Apple didn't improve on the multi-touch capacitance patents they legally acquired.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

I have no issue with with trade dress as it is designed to prevent counterfeiting products and prevent manufacturers from "deceiving the origin" of their product. However, since Samsung stamps their name in bold on the front of their devices, I don't see how anyone can claim deception and suggest this as an issue. That is why most of these trade dress issues have now been thrown out abroad.

What bothers me is that we all see the absurdity in allowing a TV manufacturer to consider a bezeled rectangle shape, with squared corners and control buttons on the right hand side as their "unique design", but yet we give Apple a free pass when they essentially claim the same thing with their bezeled rectangle shape, rounded corners, and button at the bottom closest to the thumb in holding position. Not only that, but many here in la-la land even seem to condone this action that games and unduly burdens our legal system.

Just stamping a different name doesn't excuse it, putting a "Hyundai" logo doesn't mean they didn't steal the unique styling of a Jaguar. Samsung has copied the design language such that if the logos were blacked out, it would be very easy to mistake in identifying which is which, even one of Samsung's lawyers made that mistake. They've also copied accessory designs and packaging designs. Pretending this didn't happen doesn't help your argument. Pretending that every rectangle is the same as every other doesn't help your argument either. The specific treatments to add shape do matter, such as specific radius, specific shapes of bevels and offsets were pretty blatantly copied. There is a great variety of things that can be done to make a product unique, there's no need to copy a competing product to do so.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.

 

 

This comment speaks volumes to your warped perspective of reality. But wait, why stop there, didn't Apple also invent the Internet? I don't think TV was even around until Apple TV, right?

post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post
This comment speaks volumes to your warped perspective of reality. But wait, why stop there, didn't Apple also invent the Internet? I don't think TV was even around until Apple TV, right?

 

Calm down and go educate yourself

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Calm down and go educate yourself
And they've reinvented the market with the MBA.

They've also reinvented the tablet market with the iPad but I'm sure e_veritas will foolishly point out that tablets existed before 2010.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Calm down and go educate yourself

NEC Ultralite seems to predate the first Apple notebook by about a month.

http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/necultralite/
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Just stamping a different name doesn't excuse it, putting a "Hyundai" logo doesn't mean they didn't steal the unique styling of a Jaguar. Samsung has copied the design language such that if the logos were blacked out, it would be very easy to mistake in identifying which is which, even one of Samsung's lawyers made that mistake. They've also copied accessory designs and packaging designs. Pretending this didn't happen doesn't help your argument. Pretending that every rectangle is the same as every other doesn't help your argument either. The specific treatments to add shape do matter, such as specific radius, specific shapes of bevels and offsets were pretty blatantly copied. There is a great variety of things that can be done to make a product unique, there's no need to copy a competing product to do so.

 

Again, my contention is that a bezeled rectangle, rounded corners, and button at the bottom does not qualify as a "unique design". How you compare such a broad design to that of a car is beyond me. Fortunately, most courts around the globe have decided to not use your definition of "unique design" as well.

 

The fact that a lawyer can't distinguish between 2 products from a distance is completely anecdotal, but I love how you rely on it to support your case. I have several black computer monitors of the same shape that would be difficult to distinguish from across a court room and without being able to see the branding at the bottom. According to your obscure logic, I guess Dell, should be suing Sony now, or vice versa???

 

Your suggestion that minute details were copied in the shape are complete fabrications. For crying out loud, the iPad vs Galaxy case with the lawyer that you brought up didn't even have the same aspect ratios...

post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
NEC Ultralite seems to predate the first Apple notebook by about a month.
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/necultralite/

 

Apple was the first with the modern laptop design: screen on a hinge on top, keyboard to the back of the lower portion, navigation device and palm rests in front of the keyboard.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

According to your obscure logic, I guess Dell, should be suing Sony now, or vice versa???

 

Just to clarify, are you a Newton or a Leibniz man?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


And they've reinvented the market with the MBA.
They've also reinvented the tablet market with the iPad but I'm sure e_veritas will foolishly point out that tablets existed before 2010.

 

No one is detracting from Apple's superior industrial design. I own a MBA myself as I find it to be competitively priced for what it is. However, you don't see me running around saying that Apple should own the patent on laptops because of how great it is.


Edited by e_veritas - 5/9/12 at 8:15am
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Apple was the first with the modern laptop design: screen on a hinge on top, keyboard to the back of the lower portion, navigation device and palm rests in front of the keyboard.

 

 

Just to clarify, are you a Newton or a Leibniz man?

 

Phew, it is good to see that if we cherry pick and define our own criteria for modern laptop, we can show that Apple was indeed first. For what is is worth, the first clam shell, hinged laptop was the GRiD Compass in 1982 and is typically noted as the first modern laptop computer.

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post
Phew, it is good to see that if we cherry pick and define our own criteria for modern laptop, we can show that Apple was indeed first.

 

Campfire_Pinecone.png

 

First modern convection oven.

 

There, see what "not cherry-picking" gets you?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

First modern convection oven.

 

There, see what "not cherry-picking" gets you?

 

But to my point, are you suggesting that whoever came up with the bonfire should be laying claims to the patent on "convection ovens"?

 

I see that you are very good as drawing tangents to the conversation, but not very good at relating them to the crux of the discussion....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung drop 'impressive' number of patent claims against each other