or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple portrays itself as smartphone underdog in Samsung suit opening remarks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple portrays itself as smartphone underdog in Samsung suit opening remarks - Page 2

post #41 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs.  First off we all know that product designs can take 18-24 months from creation to launch and the I700 (silver phone lower right corner pre-iPhone) was a 2003 launch so saying it was a 2005 phone is way off.  They of course are selectively showing Samsung Windows Phones at the time which Android did not exist and thus their focus was dictated based on technology trends at the time.  Android came along and was focused on touch based input so designs evolved over time.  One thing is for sure a lot of HTC, Dell, Palm, Motorola etc. devices evolved as well.

That makes no sense.  Samsung doesn't get off the hook just because Google created Android.  If you had a moving company and unfortunately ran out of trucks to complete a job and someone came along and offered you free trucks to use NSA with the condition that s/he is not liable for anything that goes wrong and you use them but discover that the trucks were stolen then too bad.  You're on the hook.  Perhaps Samsung should have insisted on legal indemnification before shipping these phones*.

 

*Not that it would completely help since it was Samsung's bright idea to mimic Apple's packaging and create Touchwhiz

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #42 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Follow @tim on Twitter to get live updates from inside the courtroom. Interesting stuff.
Thanks. I do agree that Apple was an underdog but as far as no name and no credibility, I don't buy it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Packaging can't be patented, unless it is part of a product. The logo's on the packaging can be trademarked, but not patented.

Packaging is a part of trade dress which is included in this case.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #44 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

That makes no sense.  Samsung doesn't get off the hook just because Google created Android.   Perhaps Samsung should have insisted on legal indemnification before shipping these phones*.

 

*Not that it would completely help since it was Samsung's bright idea to mimic Apple's packaging and create Touchwhiz

Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC. 

http://www.mobilemode.com/a/News/Android/Google-Wants-To-Co-Defend-HTC-Against-Nokia-In-Patent-Lawsu.html#.UBhB06U7WAg

 

In the case of Samsung, Google tried to convince Sammy to make design changes to avoid this lawsuit. I think they're on their own for now.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 112

samsung has blatantly copied apple from the devices look & feel itself  to its accessories & packaging.

 

1000

post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wasn't being at all obtuse. What about Apple's legal strategy so far makes you believe there's any subtlety involved, that they're "holding back"?

 

Only everything. Like the fact they only bring a few patents to the table when they launch a case or the fact they pick different patents against different offenders even though they could use the same.

 

They also can't bring everything at once because no court would allow for such a complex trial with so many things to consider. Apple (and others) have been told by judges before to "trim" their cases down to make them more managebale.

 

Apple is testing the waters and with each court victory they end up with a patent that's far more valuable as it's been "battle tested", so to speak.

post #47 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

To all of you: think back to 2005, 2006 and 2007. Where were Apple then? Success? In the mobile phones market? The court hearings are not about today!

They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #48 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's not playing chess. It's thermonuclear war.

 

But so far, most of Apple's tactical strikes have fizzled into duds.

post #49 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC. 

http://www.mobilemode.com/a/News/Android/Google-Wants-To-Co-Defend-HTC-Against-Nokia-In-Patent-Lawsu.html#.UBhB06U7WAg

 

In the case of Samsung, Google tried to convince Sammy to make design changes to avoid this lawsuit. I think they're on their own for now.

Google is trying to come to handset makers' aid now (you forgot to mention Google buying patents and trying to gift them to others like HTC), but Google made it clear in the beginning that they were not going to be held liable.  That should give any business person pause.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #50 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

But so far, most of Apple's tactical strikes have fizzled into duds.

 

I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.

 

If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.

post #51 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's actually worse.
Samsung is essentially saying "we evaluated all these prototypes that look nothing like the iPhone and could easily have released a phone that did not mimic the iPhone so exactly, but we chose not to because of Apple's success, so we chose a phone that looks nearly identical to the iPhone. Nice job making Apple's case.

 

 

 

I laughed out loud when I read this.  Keep up the good work, JR!

post #52 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

and packaging

 

And the wire that connects it to the wall socket!

post #53 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


.... but as far as no name and no credibility, I don't buy it.

Of course you don't. What a surprise.

post #54 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
. . . The really, really, obvious, intuitive gestures like pinch to zoom however were already in use for a long period beforehand so really simple stuff like that can be used by anyone (at least until the patent is asserted, challenged, and ruled on).  

Maybe, but Apple was pretty smart about going back and buying a lot of early IP from several sources (like FingerWorks.) I don't know, but quite probably Apple may well own the most strategically relevant and advantageous prior art.

post #55 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Maybe, but Apple was pretty smart about going back and buying a lot of early IP from several sources (like FingerWorks.) I don't know, but quite probably Apple may well own the most strategically relevant and advantageous prior art.

It seems that way to me.

"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 #56 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.

Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight. 

post #57 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Because this is the how universe works, except perhaps for the Big Bang but you'll have to ask Dick Applebaum about that. Apparently his ears are still ringing from it. :D

 

Nah!   But I know a guy that dated her in high school!  Eins, zwei, g'suffa.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 7/31/12 at 2:35pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #58 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs.  First off we all know that product designs can take 18-24 months from creation to launch and the I700 (silver phone lower right corner pre-iPhone) was a 2003 launch so saying it was a 2005 phone is way off.  They of course are selectively showing Samsung Windows Phones at the time which Android did not exist and thus their focus was dictated based on technology trends at the time.  Android came along and was focused on touch based input so designs evolved over time.  One thing is for sure a lot of HTC, Dell, Palm, Motorola etc. devices evolved as well.

 

And, once again, there are two sides in every lawsuit.  If Apple is stretching the truth then the other side will have ample opportunity to address that.  There's no bullying here, it's a fair fight.

post #59 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight. 

Especially since the original iphone looked exactly like an ipod with a click wheel for the rotary dialer.  Oh wait. . .

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #60 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.

If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.

More importantly, the competition is backing away from the blatant copies of Apple products. Put the original Tab next to the iPad of its time. It was so close that even their attorneys couldn't tell the difference and the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an iPad. Now, after all the lawsuits, look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone - Samsung has stopped the near-exact copies.
"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 #61 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Example?

He should've written it "when one goes thermonuclear war they get themselves blown up as well"
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #62 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Maps may not be the best place to test that since the tiles are discrete sizes. Try it in the picture viewer app and see if it zooms continuously or in steps.

Excellent point.  Maps was also a stupid place for me to test because it has to download the information.  However, pictures are the same... it only zooms in direct response to the gesture.  When I stop, it stops, regardless of whether I do another gesture in immediate succession.  (I just realized that scrolling is continuous, but it's not multi-touch.)

post #63 of 112

heres a link to the source of that pic so you can see it. it is more than obvious where samsung is getting their ideas.

http://cydiahelp.com/samsung-copies-apple/

post #64 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.

 

If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.

Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace

Data tapping = Prior Art

SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now

Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.

 

If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc

post #65 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight. 

Not really, especially once it was subsidized. It was cheaper and more convenient to buy an iphone versus buy an iPod plus a cell phone. People had already seen what Apple could do with a digital music player it was very easy to believe they'd do the same with a cell phone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Packaging can't be patented, unless it is part of a product. The logo's on the packaging can be trademarked, but not patented.

This isn't true.  There's nothing in the patent statutes that say that packaging can't be patented.  The physical structure of the packaging certainly could be patented (assuming it's novel and non-obvious).  And further the look and feel of the packaging could be covered by a design patent.  Even the logo's COULD be included in the design, but that would be unhelpful, since no legitimate company would acutally use someone else's trademark on their packaging.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, really; it's just not true.  Packaging definitely is patentable, both the structure and the look and feel. 

post #67 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

More importantly, the competition is backing away from the blatant copies of Apple products. Put the original Tab next to the iPad of its time. It was so close that even their attorneys couldn't tell the difference and the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an iPad. Now, after all the lawsuits, look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone - Samsung has stopped the near-exact copies.

I commend you for not saying "slavish" and/or "exact" copy, "Near-exact" I won't argue with. I do believe you're correct in saying that all this litigation has forced Samsung to make different looking devices which is something they could've and should've done in the first place. I can't believe that only Apple employs people with great design ideas, all these companies probably have some but they're probably stuck in the mail room.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace

Data tapping = Prior Art

SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now

Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.

 

If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc

 

Overscroll bounce is a minor feature? Then why did everyone go to court with Apple over this instead of just removing it? Because it's not a minor feature. Especially to someone who understands interface design.

 

Where is the data-tapping prior art? And don't talk about hyperlinks, because originally they had to be specifically coded. HTC found out this is a valid patent as it's been through court and still stood up.

 

Apple's patent was strong enough to get Google and Samsung's attention and come up with a way to work around it (by removing the feature). It was also strong enough to get a preliminary injunction against the Nexus (although under appeal, the appeal has nothing to do with the validity of the patent - just that they will allow sales to continue while under appeal).

 

Galaxy Tab. Might be old, but it'll make other vendors think twice before copying again. And if Samsung loses this case in California, the fact it's no longer sold will be irrelevant as Samsung will have to pay damages. Imagine having to fork over money for a product that's long been dis-continued?

post #69 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

... and often when one goes 'thermonuclear' they end up blowing themselves up.

Really? Name a time that's happened.
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #70 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:

 

 

700

 

I wonder why Samsung doesn't show the F700 as it really looks, this is the phone with a design patent applied for in late 2006, shown at CES in 2007 shortly after the iPhone was shown off by Steve Jobs and used as an example by Samsung in your picture and as an exhibit in this case:-

 

 

700

 

How many of those other Samsung phones were also like this?

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 #71 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

He should've written it "when one goes thermonuclear war they get themselves blown up as well"

Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.

A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.

(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #72 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)

Well I was just correcting how it should've been written, and no there hasn't been any thermonuclear war and thankfully so.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #73 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's not playing chess. It's thermonuclear war.

And the problem with thermonuclear war (and software patents) is that no one wins.
post #74 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)

History buffs indeed.

Maybe you should look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"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 #75 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post


(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)

 

 

I thought that they had been used twice.  Is there some distinction I am missing?

post #76 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs.

That's what lawyers do. Samsung's lawyers will do the same thing

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 #77 of 112
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.

 

We nuked our own soil to test the first bombs, so if you want to be pedantic, the definition fits.

 

(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
 

Wow, you've never heard of WWII? Sort of a big deal. Guy with a tiny mustache, surprise attack in Hawaii… 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #78 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


I thought that they had been used twice.  Is there some distinction I am missing?

I believe you are correct sir, I forgot about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #79 of 112

Nagasaki and Hiroshima  were just nuclear, not thermonuclear (e.g., H-Bombs).

post #80 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I can quote SF from the 2007 keynotes  "... and boy, did we patent it"  

 

So I am assuming Apple has wall to wall patents over the iphone design and fonctionnality.   They could make them UI "essencial" patents and license them the same way lots 3g patents are license as "essencial"

 

I think this is going to end up with both companies being force to license patents to each other.  If Apple really has the pinch to zoom and proximity sensor patents, they why not just license them to everyone at a fair price ? Those are much more concrete patents then "rectangle" or general look and feel of the design...

'Pinch to zoom' and 'proximity sensors' are not essential to operating a mobile phone. They are innovations that solve problems. Why would Apple want to licence something that gives them a unique competitive advantage to a competitor? This is exactly what Samsung wants - a trade between their FRAND patents and Apple's exclusive ones.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple portrays itself as smartphone underdog in Samsung suit opening remarks