Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report' - Page 6

Hold on there, Dick. "DA" was a way of combing your hair on the back of your head to meet in the middle. But you're right, it did mean "duck's ass."

Edit: quinney says the same on the previous page.
Edited by Flaneur - 8/4/12 at 12:04pm

 

It is to Samsung's advantage to try to keep that line as blurry as possible. However, the case is in the early stages and I believe Apple will begin to bring up more and more design specifics as they go along. Phil Schiller, on the witness stand, brought up how extremely difficult it was to design some of the aspects of making the web browsing experience simple and easy. When Samsung copied those gestures, they were directly using Apple's innovations. Watch for a lot of this early testimony to circle back into the courtroom to drive points home.

 

Samsung is playing a masterful defensive strategy so it remains to be seen whether truth will prevail or confusion will carry the day.

 

Not to sound patriotic (that word is tarnished to me forever), but I'm glad a company within the country shook things up for the rest of the competition.

 I admit to having a slight Apple bias, but I don't let it get in the way of seeing things reasonably. If Samsung wins, what does Apple have to do? Pay the legal costs of Samsung and possibly get counter-sued? If Apple wins, does Samsung have to stop selling older devices that don't sell much of anyway AND pay Apple a couple bills that won't really affect either company's bottom line for more than a financial quarter, if that?

 

If Apple wins, I'd imagine Samsung pays damages on every unit of every device sold since 2007 found to be infringing and is forced to stop selling all devices that infringe until they make new devices that don't.

 

People act as if no punishment will befall Samsung for design infringement. I guess everyone has forgotten about what Apple did to eMachines (bankrupt, now owned by Gateway, bankrupt, now owned by Acer)…

 

Where I grew up (Pasadena) that hair style was called a "DT" or "Duck Tail" and often included Pomade * hair jell...  Where my wife grew up (Ambridge** suburb of Pittsburgh) it was called a "DA" or "Duck's Ass"...  according to her, it often referred to the person rather than the hair style... 

 

 

* The use of the Pomade and other Jells for the hairstyle, likely, helped give raise to the name "greasers" -- which became an ethnic slur against dark-skinned groups such as Mexicans, Sicilians...

 

** Ambridge was a town dominated by a steel mill: AMerican BRIDGE and foundry...near to Beaver Falls, where Joe Namath came from...    Ambridge became almost a ghost town when the mill closed.  I suspect that there were a lot of  anti-Japanese,  anti-Asian feelings in Ambridge around this time -- though I never heard of any racial slurs:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambridge,_Pennsylvania

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/4/12 at 12:33pm

I think there are a few things at play here.

 

1. I think in some cases of "fanboism" there is a unhealthy attachment and identification between themselves and with the device. People do let the device they use define them. It isn't just Apple Vs Google thing. I remember listening to my uncles argue who had the better truck. People identify themselves with the brand of car or truck they purchase. "I'd rather push a Chevy than drive a Ford" is a common phrase.

 

Marketing can play a role but ultimatley customer satisfaction must be met in order to engrain brand loyalty. But something happens that takes simple brand loyalty, also known as trust, to the next level of "fan" or "fanatic". In this case, the product and the brand must converge in someways with either values or interests that the person holds dear.

 

2. I think there is an element of the "hipster" movement at play here as well. Those "Apple Haters" are really very similar to people who identify themselves with more counter culture beliefs. This group prides itself as intelectually superior by being different or liking things not considered popular. Top 40 music is mocked in favor of College Radio. These are the folks that stopped watching X-Files when it moved to Sunday nights after it became popular. These people believe that they are far superior when they are away from the herd. They also lack any true loyalty to a product becasue to do so would strip them of their individualism. They are conflicted because while they take pride in enjoying a previously unheard of band and for months praise their talents but when the band "breaks" they will quickly turn their back on them as "sell outs" and claim that they were 'better in clubs than in arenas".

 

3. The techno/nerd/geek factor. Because these are computers we are talking about and not trucks the demographic is very different. But in as much as the Chevy Vs Ford truck debate, the guys who need trucks share some similarities with the guys on this forum. Many of the guys here are very techno savy. Computer programmers, engineers etc. What this means, is to them, the computer and operating system IS their truck. it is both a requirement for their profession as well as recreation. Now the "nerd" part. Nerds are socially awkward. Nerds also know what tehy know very well. The socially awkward aspect in this forum manifests itself in the literal translation and over analysis of every single post. I have seen arguement break out because more often than not, somebody doesn't get the joke. Why? Becasue the sarcasm filter is turned off. One need look no further than the great "America's" debate of July 2012 for any more evidence regarding how an obvious joke turned into one of the great "Flame Wars" of our AI. The total lack of a sense of humor, the total lack of reading nuance and subtly coupled with a group of people who are not only smart, but feel the need to prove "just how smart they are" all looked stupid and socially awkward arguing about what "America" is. There is a reason chicks don't hang out here fellas.

 

So throw all three of those factors together and you have AppleInsider forums. A bunch of intellectually gifted, self ritous, pompous, socially stunted nerds arguing about opperating systems.

I have to agree with this for similar non-patriotic reasons.

I was around when the Germans first shook up Detroit with the VW, 10 per cent of the market at its peak, as I recall. We who were horrified at what Detroit was doing in the mid-to-late 50s were glad to see it happen, though sorry that the so-called Big Three just could never get how to respond, and people started losing their jobs all over the Midwest. The Corvair? the Pinto? The Gremlin?

The latter disasters were responses to Japanese cars in the 70s, but the problem was the same. Detroit was dumb and blind to the competition,very similar to what Microsoft is today.

It is not in the DNA of the fat and complacent American corporation to make the connection between people, technology and economic necessity. We hate to see these big companies of Detroit and Seattle fail, but at the same time we are glad to see Europeans and Japanese showing a way to design something more viable. There may have been some racism mixed in with the resentment among blowhard patriots with connections to the auto industry, but as Macky says above, a lot of Americans were voting with their wallets.

Apple represents a kind of new beginning for global industry. Clearly they depend on Asian manufacturing experience and skill, and the names of their employees come from all over the world. But the genesis of the company is pure California-Silicon Valley, American in its eclecticism, unAmerican—in the Detroit sense—in its devotion to common sense, an aesthetic approach to technology, a regard for people who use the technology.

Part of the reason is that Steve Jobs grew up with a German father, an Armenian mother, drove a Fiat and a VW bus, and partook of the great cosmic equalizing culture of the late 60s and early 70s, some of it imported from India, and let's not forget Switzerland.
Edited by Flaneur - 8/4/12 at 1:16pm

 

OK... I confess... I 'm really a chick... a very chic one, at that... and i'm also a Vespugian!

 

Seriously, though... Good points!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!! :)

(suggestion on the photos)

"Note to "R&D" department.

Smaller rounded corners and a bit more silver edges/trim.

Also, add return and menu soft "buttons" at bottom and put Samsung on the front so it doesn't look like we are "comparing"."

We live in a crazy, crazy world. The justice system may even let Samsung get away with only a slap on the wrist in the name of keeping competition alive. And Apple may even actually be ordered to apologize to android vendors and Google for stifling innovation. S has very, very deep pockets as well.

 

Apple would appeal such nonsense, just as they appealed the recent idiotic British decision.

 

True, but Apple has Right. 

Possible outcomes:
- Banning of previous products. While sales are modest, there are still some being sold and some in retailer stock which Samsung would have to buy back.

- Significant fines. Potentially billions of dollars. While Samsung can afford it, it would still have a major psychological effect.

- Forced to redesign even existing products and pull them off the market until redesigned. Even the latest products still use some disputed technologies

- In theory, they could even be forced to have judicial supervision over their future product development efforts.

You mean like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared
Interesting that the fundamental problem they faced was an obvious rip-off of their IP - much like the case being discussed here:
"The tiny (three miles by five miles) European Duchy of Grand Fenwick, supposedly located in the Alps between Switzerland and France, proudly retains a pre-industrial economy, dependent almost entirely on making Pinot Grand Fenwick wine. However, an American winery makes a knockoff version, "Pinot Grand Enwick", putting the country on the verge of bankruptcy.
The prime minister decides that their only course of action is to declare war on the United States. Expecting a quick and total defeat (since their standing army is tiny and equipped with bows and arrows), the country confidently expects to rebuild itself through the generous largesse that the United States bestows on all its vanquished enemies (as it did for Germany through the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II)."

 

This is just a ridiculous statement to make (although I know it's a favourite of most right-wing Americans), and is almost completely false.  

 

Despite how many times this is said, the fact remains that the USA has some of the lowest taxes on the planet, the least regulations of any kind and the smallest, least intrusive government bureaucracy.  The USA is an outlier in almost every regard in terms of the things you mention here.  

 

Thousands upon thousands of ageing conservatives and Capitalist ideologues can say this thousands of times every day (and they do), ... but that still won't make it actually true.  

*not at all overstated clearing of the throat*

 

Politics in PO, please.

As far as taxes, you're partially correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

US personal income taxes are below average. However, US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world. Since we're talking about businesses in this discussion, that distinction is important.

As for regulation, it's a mixed bag. In terms of formal legislation, you're probably correct. However, informally (as in the massive lawsuits that are far more common in the U.S. than anywhere else on the planet), the U.S. is worse.
Edited by jragosta - 8/4/12 at 2:11pm

 

He'll be back. He always comes back. He has no friends.

Without this forum, his life would have no meaning.

That's the background of the judge.

 

Samsung is an entirely different beast compared to eMachines. On top of the fact Samsung is involved in so many different markets with a wide portfolio of products, I don't believe their current flagship phones are part of this trial (Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note, etc.). How much of a penalty per device would Samsung be slapped with? $10 per alledgedly infringing device sold? $100? Multiplied by how many units? A cursory search points to a total of 30 million Galaxy-branded phones sold by Oct 2011. But that total is global sales not US-only sales. Let's use the 30 million number just for argument's sake since they've had a few more months to sell alledgedly infringing product. I think $100 per device is extreme, but I'll use that number. So Samsung would get a $3 billion fine to Apple and not be allowed to sell any more of the older models of its Galaxy line.

 

Samsung's last quarterly earnings report showed $5.9 billion in profit. So if they lose the case, they could potentially be hit with a fine of half of one quarter's worth of profits, plus maybe another few hundred thousand in lost sales of past generation devices in the US, right? Or could the damages be more than $100 per device? Could there be a lump sum on top of damages per device sold?

 

Regardless, I don't believe Samsung will have to pay Apple even $3 billions in damages if they lose. I feel like this trial will give Samsung one or two bad quarters at most before bouncing back to normalcy. And that's just bad news on paper because Samsung has about $50 billion cash on hand according to its earnings report released in January. Samsung can afford to keep calm, pay up, and move on.

 

I don't want to step into a politics argument, but I would like to say something about US taxes. Due to exemptions, subsidies, and all other manner of tax "loopholes", corporations, especially large ones, probably don't pay an effective tax rate equal to the standard corporate tax rate stated on simple US tax rate tables.

 

Our tax system is very complex, perhaps too much so, and in my opinion favors big business over new/small businesses. It's definitely too complex for me to draw up a simple solution, but I could try: remove all exemptions, subsidies, and what have you from the corporate tax scale, then reduce the corporate tax rate. The theory in my mind would have larger corporations pay about the same effective tax rate, but smaller businesses would end up paying a lower effective rate generally speaking.

 

As for individual income tax, I think it needs to very slowly be raised back to "pre-Bush tax cuts" levels, you know when our country's budget was running a surplus so we can pay down our debt and put money borrowed back into Social Security. (HAHAHAHA, none of this will ever happen).

 

Some models of the Galaxy S III are made in Vietnam, maybe it's cheaper than China or the factories are away from prying eyes as I am not aware of any media coverage of conditions for workers, yet.

 

I wonder if the margins Samsung makes on the S III make it a "luxury" item, priced as it is exactly the same as a compatible iPhone.

At this point, the entire case is pretty moot... I mean really... look at the two devices now... the iPhone 4S versus the Galaxy 3... between the two OSs and the actual phone... only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

 

Honestly, you have to wonder about Apple and the top brass... sometimes it's like the nerdy kids in school grew up... and instead of learning to share and play together they fight like pissy kids.

 

I have a feeling Apple isn't in HDTVs yet because all the people who they are suing right now, have those HDTV patents!

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous. Your comment implies that  to improve upon something is not to invent something. For instance, if your view was taken literally you would say the first company to come out with a wireless home phone didn't invent anything because there were wired home phones before it. Apple is successful because it invents solutions to shortcomings found in other's products. The improvements are the inventions. 

 

Samsung on the other hand was not improving upon Apple's ideas, instead it was trying to match Apple's products detail for detail. 

I guess it never occurred to you that without Apple's lawsuit, Samsung would have continued making their devices look exactly like Apple's. The lawsuit may well be the only reason why the SIII now looks different.

Furthermore, even though the SIII looks different, that doesn't mean that it's not infringing on some of Apple's utility patents.

 

 

The entire suit is not moot. The suit is about both design and utility patents. Samsung made a lot of money copying Apple's design patent. Apple wants Samsung to give up its profit for the past copying of the product.The lawsuit is also about utility patents, which Apple claims Samsung is still using. I remember when the first Galaxy phones came out. They were displayed at a Best Buy store, and in a ten minute span of standing by the display I heard three different parties refer to the phone as an iPhone. 

Again, it's not margins that make something a luxury item. If it were, a Hyundai might be a luxury item while a Lamborghini might not be.

What makes a product a luxury item is its price relative to the competition, it's prestige, and so on. Manufacturing cost has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether something is a luxury item.

The SIII is no more a luxury item than the iPhone is - and no less. Their price is close to the same and they serve the same segment of the market. They both have similar levels of prestige. Personally, I don't consider something that has a 30% or so market share to be a luxury item, but if you do, then both the iPhone and the SIII are luxury items - whether the manufacturer makes 80% margins or 2% margins.

 

 

Last year, Bank of America, one of the biggest banks in the world, paid zero dollars in federal income taxes. So as you say, the tax rates mean very little because most companies find ways around paying it. Look at Mitt Romney. His father, George was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns. Mitt doesn't want to do so because he probably didn't pay any taxes. Roosevelt was elected to four terms as President. He was President during the Great Depression. He understood to get out the depression, Americans had to get paid well enough to be able to spend money on things to move the economy. He also understood corporations cannot be allowed to have so much power as to be able to buy the government. 

?? The judge is from South Korea, or does he have a picture of South Korea behind him?

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm

 

Let's not take political sides here for the sake of others.

If someone writes a term paper after doing a ton of research and someone else gets a hold of the paper and writes a paper based on what the original person wrote, I think most would see it is plagiarism and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. To me, it appears that Samsung got a hold of Apple's work and copied it. Now, it also doesn't matter if they just copied one part of the paper or not, it would still be wrong and considered plagiarism. To me, if Samsung has even copied part of what Apple patented, it is still wrong.

 

Now if this other person had done their own research and came to the same conclusions in their paper, that would seem OK to me. I don't see Samsung presenting the research that they did to reach the same design conclusions that Apple did. Samsung is saying Apple copied this and that so we should be allowed to copy. That doesn't seem like a good argument. Maybe Samsung will eventually show their research that can lead to the conclusion that they came up with things on their own but that is not how they are arguing the case at present.

 

JMO opinion though.

plagiarism |ˈplājəˌrizəm|
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

If you use other papers as a source for your research and cite the source as well as quoting any and all passages you've taken verbatim you are not plagiarizing. Your instruction my flunk you because you didn't do your own research in a way they required thus feeling you were lazy but that is not the same as plagiarizing.

I really wish I held the design patent for a "circular spoked appartus made out of wood, steel, iron, or aluminum alloys with or without a rubberized outer ring."

On a side note, if the "Father of email" had his way we'd all be paying licensing fees for sending electronic forms of messages. We should all be grateful that he's not forcing a quarter of the world's population to pay up. And yes, there is an actual person who owns the patent for email.

Forget the galaxy S (I think Samsung is guilty there) but do people here REALLY think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad? Not even the OS is similar in almost any way...

I genuinely want to know...

Yes, I think the first Galaxy Tab 10.1 was Samsung's attempt to follow the iPad's design as closely as possible while utilizing their available tech. This allowed them to cut a lot of corners by following the IP of their competitors too closely. I'm not just talking about inspiration. I'd say Nokia was inspired by the iPod with the Lumia but I would in no way say it's copy, clone or in anyway steals from Apple's IP.

A couple things to consider: 1) Google warned Samsung that the Galaxy 10.1 was too close to Apple's design. 2) Samsung's own investigation into why people returned the device was because people thought they were buying an iPad.

Now we can chalk this up to stupid buyers or just to buyer's remorse after finding it's not as easy to use as an iPad, but the former reason certainly helps Apple's case. The latter might fall into the mentality of this South Park clip.




PS: I want to create a program that replaces all these videos of people recording video from their TV screen... that then finds these people and gives them a 1 year time out from using the internet.

• http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382794/we-cant-afford-that-one (quality video without swear words bleeped but requires Adobe Flash)

PPS: Any site that requires Adobe Flash I'm referring to as being Flashist. I suppose that mean I'm evoking Godwin's Rule but perhaps we need to make the world notice which sites only support Flashism.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/4/12 at 8:31pm

Samsung's lawyers seem to think so, at a distance (across the court room).

 

But… but that's the legal way to do it! The powers that be have told teachers that if there's a program on that they want to show their students that they're to set up a video camera and tape the TV playing it!

 

I'm. dead. serious.

 

Agreed on being Flashist. 

Even in this court case there was an issue with Samsung's lawyers knowing which device was which. That said, I'm not sure of the context; it might have been between different Samsung devices. Hopefully someone will put the following remarks into focus for me.

I didn't know that.

The irony is that is we don't install Flash thus avoiding all Flashism on the internet then we become the Not Sees*,


* Did I take it too far with the pun?