or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Scott Forstall describes iOS development, challenges in Samsung trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scott Forstall describes iOS development, challenges in Samsung trial - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


They could always try to use evidence - if they hadn't destroyed most of it. /s

Gosh, it only left 38 million pages of evidence to sift thru. Perhaps in the month that the trial is scheduled for they can get to a good percentage of it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

If Jobs ever had said there might be something worth copying, IF, and they didn't actual copy anything, why ask? I think Samsung is trying to confuse the jury. What was Samnsung doing before than iPhone and iOS that was even worth stealing?

Samsung was waiting for the next version of Windows CE and developing the BlackJack 3 or 4.

If Android had not come along, Samsung wouldn't have their current share of the smartphone market.

Samsung didn't really innovate bc they had to use someone else's OS, they could not make a good one by themselves. It's like all the PC OEMSs running Windows.

If Android wouldn't have come along, the market would be dominated by iOS, RIM, Symbian, and webOS.

webOS is dead bc the market got flooded with many cheap android phones. Maybe things would be different if HP licensed webOS to all the OEMs that ended up building android phones?
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's a moot point.
Apple claimed the F700 as prior art when they applied for their design patent. Since the patent office had access to that prior art before granting Apple the patent, it's almost impossible to use the F700 as prior art to invalidate the patent.

Huh? Because Apple claimed prior art means that Samsung cannot use its own design on a future device? The SGS 2 looks like an evolved F700. Another that confuses me is the SGS 2 in question was never sold in the US, the design was changed and each carrier except VZW all got a unique looking SGS 2.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


Samsung was waiting for the next version of Windows CE and developing the BlackJack 3 or 4.
If Android had not come along, Samsung wouldn't have their current share of the smartphone market.
Samsung didn't really innovate bc they had to use someone else's OS, they could not make a good one by themselves. It's like all the PC OEMSs running Windows.
If Android wouldn't have come along, the market would be dominated by iOS, RIM, Symbian, and webOS.
webOS is dead bc the market got flooded with many cheap android phones. Maybe things would be different if HP licensed webOS to all the OEMs that ended up building android phones?

 

Even without Android, RIM and Symbian will never dominate the market. Just saying. :)

without Android, iOS will be the undisputed king of Smartphones by now, and everyone will have to look at an iPhone if they want a smartphone.

post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

Samsung was waiting for the next version of Windows CE and developing the BlackJack 3 or 4.
If Android had not come along, Samsung wouldn't have their current share of the smartphone market.
Samsung didn't really innovate bc they had to use someone else's OS, they could not make a good one by themselves. It's like all the PC OEMSs running Windows.
If Android wouldn't have come along, the market would be dominated by iOS, RIM, Symbian, and webOS.
webOS is dead bc the market got flooded with many cheap android phones. Maybe things would be different if HP licensed webOS to all the OEMs that ended up building android phones?

WebOS is dead because of the uninspired hardware they put it on.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbrucewayne View Post

Even without Android, RIM and Symbian will never dominate the market. Just saying. 1smile.gif
without Android, iOS will be the undisputed king of Smartphones by now, and everyone will have to look at an iPhone if they want a smartphone.

I don't believe that, and is that really a world you would wanna live in? You guys are also forgetting Bada, Samsung has explored options other than Android.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I don't believe that, and is that really a world you would wanna live in? You guys are also forgetting Bada, Samsung has explored options other than Android.


And is failing miserably, that is why they couldn't leave Android. Not to mention they molded BADA to imitate Android. BTW, if Apple proves Samsung copied Apple using Android, we may see trials against BADA next. lol

 

Hey, if my features work well with the next guy, where all those advertisements about easy connections, happy people sharing easily, or phones working with each other seamlessly will only work in apple filled world then why not? I would definitely like that. Now if Android will be the defining factor in making that happen, why not as well?

post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Huh? Because Apple claimed prior art means that Samsung cannot use its own design on a future device? The SGS 2 looks like an evolved F700. Another that confuses me is the SGS 2 in question was never sold in the US, the design was changed and each carrier except VZW all got a unique looking SGS 2.

I never said any such thing. I said that Samsung could not use the F700 as prior art against Apple - since it was already disclosed.
"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 #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbrucewayne View Post


And is failing miserably, that is why they couldn't leave Android. Not to mention they molded BADA to imitate Android. BTW, if Apple proves Samsung copied Apple using Android, we may see trials against BADA next. lol

Hey, if my features work well with the next guy, where all those advertisements about easy connections, happy people sharing easily, or phones working with each other seamlessly will only work in apple filled world then why not? I would definitely like that. Now if Android will be the defining factor in making that happen, why not as well?

Because would you like it if Samsung didn't allow their patents to be frand and they were the only ones allowed to make cell phones until those patents expired?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Because would you like it if Samsung didn't allow their patents to be frand and they were the only ones allowed to make cell phones until those patents expired?

There's another false dichotomy.

If Samsung did not allow its patents to be FRAND, carriers would have found another way to make the technology work. There's rarely only one way to do things.
"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 #51 of 66
Deleted
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's another false dichotomy.
If Samsung did not allow its patents to be FRAND, carriers would have found another way to make the technology work. There's rarely only one way to do things.

Then why are they frand? When Motorola had the patent for the "mobile phone", how does one get around that without licensing it? Sometimes there just isn't a workaround.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I never said any such thing. I said that Samsung could not use the F700 as prior art against Apple - since it was already disclosed.

If they admitted there was prior art then why can't Samsung say that? It's obvious that the SGS 2 is a variant of the F700. Now I'll readily admit that Touch Wiz is a close copy of what iOS looks like. There are so many ways to skin Android, HTC does a good job and many amateur devs have also done really good things with it. Samsung definitely took more than one page of Apple's book there.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/5/12 at 5:14pm
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Nonsense. Don't you think Steve knew they would need to backup their claim on infringement when this war went to court? edit: EricTheHalfBee sums it up way better here
Deleted? Wow. Glad to be able to read it now. Still, wow AI. If someone posts a comment you'd think that person is the owner of those words, but AI thinks it was given to them when clicking on the summit button? Strikes me as 'odd'.
The size of his team I absolutely believe. He's got the Siri team, which is the largest team within Apple. And of course he's got managers between him and these 1,000 people otherwise he'd do nothing but granting sick leave and all that crap management stuff.


Siri team is the largest within Apple? That's hard to fathom.

post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's a moot point.
Apple claimed the F700 as prior art when they applied for their design patent. Since the patent office had access to that prior art before granting Apple the patent, it's almost impossible to use the F700 as prior art to invalidate the patent.

Huh? Because Apple claimed prior art means that Samsung cannot use its own design on a future device? The SGS 2 looks like an evolved F700. Another that confuses me is the SGS 2 in question was never sold in the US, the design was changed and each carrier except VZW all got a unique looking SGS 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I never said any such thing. I said that Samsung could not use the F700 as prior art against Apple - since it was already disclosed.

If they admitted there was prior art then why can't Samsung say that? It's obvious that the SGS 2 is a variant of the F700. Now I'll readily admit that Touch Wiz is a close copy of what iOS looks like. There are so many ways to skin Android, HTC does a good job and many amateur devs have also done really good things with it. Samsung definitely took more than one page of Apple's book there.

Surely what he was saying was that the existing F700 design was disclosed in Apple's patent application, so that the F700 design cannot be used to try to invalidate the Apple patent that was granted, presumably on the basis that it was sufficiently different from the F700.

That the SII may be a variant of the F700 is a separate issue. However, that cannot make it immune from infringing on the subsequent iPhone design patent if the variations are enough to take it too close to the iPhone design.
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Surely what he was saying was that the existing F700 design was disclosed in Apple's patent application, so that the F700 design cannot be used to try to invalidate the Apple patent that was granted, presumably on the basis that it was sufficiently different from the F700.
That the SII may be a variant of the F700 is a separate issue. However, that cannot make it immune from infringing on the subsequent iPhone design patent if the variations are enough to take it too close to the iPhone design.

I understand what you're getting at, but should that exclude Samsung from showing it as a previous design?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Surely what he was saying was that the existing F700 design was disclosed in Apple's patent application, so that the F700 design cannot be used to try to invalidate the Apple patent that was granted, presumably on the basis that it was sufficiently different from the F700.
That the SII may be a variant of the F700 is a separate issue. However, that cannot make it immune from infringing on the subsequent iPhone design patent if the variations are enough to take it too close to the iPhone design.

I understand what you're getting at, but should that exclude Samsung from showing it as a previous design?

No, I don't see why it should. It just isn't ammunition against the existence of Apple's design patent.
post #58 of 66

All these people referencing the F700 should be aware that this is a knock-off of the Nokia line (trying to look like the communicator). So, Samsung is so innovative at this time that it's phones are copies of RIM or Nokia. Fast follower indeed.

post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesDizzy View Post

All these people referencing the F700 should be aware that this is a knock-off of the Nokia line (trying to look like the communicator). So, Samsung is so innovative at this time that it's phones are copies of RIM or Nokia. Fast follower indeed.

So you are saying that iPhone "round corners touchscreen smartphone" design patent is not invalidated by existence of F700, but by the existence of the Nokia communicator and possibly RIM ?

post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post


They (Apple) obviously feel the benefit of winning this case far outweighs the cost of revealing so much about how they work. I tend to agree.

Seems Samsung strategy is to force Apple to reveal as much as possible about its process and drive the price of the entire suit for Apple, even if Apple wins eventually. They might think long and hard before they decide to go to the court again. Sounds like a good strategy by Samsung.

post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Seems Samsung strategy is to force Apple to reveal as much as possible about its process and drive the price of the entire suit for Apple, even if Apple wins eventually. They might think long and hard before they decide to go to the court again. Sounds like a good strategy by Samsung.

Nice try, but that's not what appears to be at all.

First, the amount of money being spent isn't going to have any significant impact on Apple. Their cash horde is growing by billions of dollars per year - even with these legal expenses.

Second, Apple doesn't need to win all of the cases - even most of them. Even winning a few cases is advantageous for Apple.

The biggest factor you're ignoring, though, is that you're looking at the skirmishes and ignoring the strategies. Apple's strategy is to stop people from making blatant copies of their products. Samsung's strategy appeared to be to make their products look so much like Apple products that consumers would choose the Samsung product. If you look at the latest generation of Samsung products, they're moving away from the 'blatant copy' strategy, so Apple won their main objective.
"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 #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Seems Samsung strategy is to force Apple to reveal as much as possible about its process and drive the price of the entire suit for Apple, even if Apple wins eventually. They might think long and hard before they decide to go to the court again. Sounds like a good strategy by Samsung.

That sounds brainless to me. Truly.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #63 of 66
mad props to Steve Forstall... and major respect for him... (Sorry, but he is still not CEO material for Apple... We need him in the IOS/OSX division!)
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then why are they frand? When Motorola had the patent for the "mobile phone", how does one get around that without licensing it? Sometimes there just isn't a workaround.
.
by thinking, not copying
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

.
by thinking, not copying

You obviously did zero thinking for that answer.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's a moot point.
Apple claimed the F700 as prior art when they applied for their design patent. Since the patent office had access to that prior art before granting Apple the patent, it's almost impossible to use the F700 as prior art to invalidate the patent.

Where did you read that? They initially claimed it as an infringing device, yet later removed it from the list.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Scott Forstall describes iOS development, challenges in Samsung trial