Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report' - Page 7

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
* Did I take it too far with the pun?

To be Frank, I'm just Göring to sit over here and Goebbel down some Dönitz before this conversation gets truly Mengeled. Don't want to get caught up in a heilstorm of ideologies.

Not to mention, in the shortly becoming a war zone the 4G LTE patents and technology, Apple is very much defenseless there, and it can only hope for FRAND as its cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuxoM3 

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 rectangles argument that Samsung seems to give major insight into why Samsung copied Apple. It's because they felt they had the right to. Because all they were copying were rectangles, you can't patent rectangles. Probably the same reason they made their headphones white. You can't patent that either. But the problem is they kept making all their design choices like that and before long their entire product line up looked like cheap copies of Apple's devices. If it were just the shape of the device or the layout of the icons on the screen, Apple would have a tough case to make, but Samsung copied everything down to the style of the accessories that they sell for the device.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uguysrnuts 


'wouldn't be surprised if they are actually owned by his neighbor.

Or owned by anybody other than him.

He criticizes Apple so much that I find it hard to believe that he has ever owned a single Apple product.

You make it way too easy. 

The now bankrupt Nortel's 4G LTE patent portfolio amounts to a measly 150 patents which is now own by Apple-Microsoft-Sony-RIM consortium, representing about a tiny 1.8% of seminal 4G LTE patent portfolio. As I have said in my earlier posts with regard to 4G LTE patents, Android partners own about 30+% of 4G LTE portfolio. Qualcomm has about 700+ or so 4G LTE patents. Meanwhile, the "copycat and "not innovative" Samsung has almost 1200 patents in 4G LTE. Apple will definitely use Qualcomm chips because there is no other way to defend itself when the 4G LTE patent war starts at some point the future. That is Apple approach at this point, "to duck and cover." Unless, of course, Apple suddenly bought Nokia, but even this will not help much of its pickled situation. It sort of explains Apple idiotic moves in both Australian and Europe where they sold Ipad3 with wrong 4G LTE chip there? They will be eaten alive by oversea's 4G LTE patent holders if it makes a "wrong move", which literally means installing the "right" chip. If you see the list of ownerships of all 4G LTE patents, only about 30% of the patents come from the US and Canadian companies. 

source: http://www.i-runway.com/iRunway_4G_LTE_Patent_Analysis.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) Apple bought Nortel patents for the 4G LTE.
2) Your foolish claim ignores Qualcomm, a company that probably holds the most and certainly the best 4G LTE tech patents and makes their money by selling components to vendors who them in their devices. Why exactly will Qualcomm stop selling to Apple especially after their relationship goes back a very long time and Qualcomm has been making specific chip models just for Apple?

FWIW.

It points to the momentum shift from North America to elsewhere in patents that matters to people, i.e. HDTV, 4G LTE, etc... So people overseas don't patent rectangles because they've been living with rectangles since eons ago. The two ancient civilizations in the world , the Korean and Chinese civilizations, have enjoyed living with rectangular, circular and triangular objects since thousands of years before Christ was even born. In addition, people all over love to use rectangular objects with sharp edges because they enjoy to hurt their arms, bodies and legs when they use them. After all, in all of us, apparently, deep inside all of us, we have that hidden masochistic side awaiting to be discovered.

And, to make you happier, I will fix my original statement:

It sort of explains Apple idiotic moves in both Australian and Europe where they sold Ipad3 with wrong 4G LTE band there?

And, of course, ala fanboism, you BELIEVE Apple's explanation of what's going on. 

In any case, Apple is still behaving rather idiotic. Apple is selling IPAD3 without studying its market? Hmmm,. It feels very un-Apple like. But wait, what if Apple can get away with it. It can rely on fanboism. Fanbois are like those people with "hidden masochistic" tendencies. They will either let it slide or start blaming themselves for living in the wrong countries. But, Apple offer refunds for those who are not happy with their Ipad3 in those countries, but not before being threatened with class lawsuits. It is like that "never happened" DEATH GRIP issue. The funny thing is Apple offered 12 bucks for every Iphone owners with this specific issue, but, again, only after it was settled out of court in late February 2012.

The late SJ famously commented on this incident: "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases." I wonder if Apple has already been granted a patent by USPTO for "THE CORRECT GRIP" complete with its schematics. As far as I know, there is no "prior art" for this idiocy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

3) What the frak does being US or Canada-owned have to do with Apple being able to use license tech in a global economy. Guess where ARM is located?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy 

 

Why the **** are you here if you don't think Apple as a company deserves a shred of credit and don't like any of their products? I'm serious. Why? Why waste your time on an Apple fan site?

The man likes to cry about things. Let's comfort him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcrs 

It points to the momentum shift from North America to elsewhere in patents that matters to people, i.e. HDTV, 4G LTE, etc... So people overseas don't patent rectangles because they've been living with rectangles since eons ago. The two ancient civilizations in the world , the Korean and Chinese civilizations, have enjoyed living with rectangular, circular and triangular objects since thousands of years before Christ was even born. In addition, people all over love to use rectangular objects with sharp edges because they enjoy to hurt their arms, bodies and legs when they use them. After all, in all of us, apparently, deep inside all of us, we have that hidden masochistic side awaiting to be discovered.

 

And, to make you happier, I will fix my original statement:

It sort of explains Apple idiotic moves in both Australian and Europe where they sold Ipad3 with wrong 4G LTE band there?

And, of course, ala fanboism, you BELIEVE Apple's explanation of what's going on. 

 

In any case, Apple is still behaving rather idiotic. Apple is selling IPAD3 without studying its market? Hmmm,. It feels very un-Apple like. But wait, what if Apple can get away with it. It can rely on fanboism. Fanbois are like those people with "hidden masochistic" tendencies. They will either let it slide or start blaming themselves for living in the wrong countries. But, Apple offer refunds for those who are not happy with their Ipad3 in those countries, but not before being threatened with class lawsuits. It is like that "never happened" DEATH GRIP issue. The funny thing is Apple offered 12 bucks for every Iphone owners with this specific issue, but, again, only after it was settled out of court in late February 2012.

 

The late SJ famously commented on this incident: "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases." I wonder if Apple has already been granted a patent by USPTO for "THE CORRECT GRIP" complete with its schematics. As far as I know, there is no "prior art" for this idiocy.

 

Wow someone needs a midol 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


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.

"Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller, handing him the wrong one. Schiller comments, "Well, they're confusing"."

Samsung's counsel was naming and then showing several phones to Schiller and asking if they resembled iPhones. After a couple of them had been presented he named another but showed Schiller a different Samsung device than the one he had named. So different Samsung phones. It was funny tho put in context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcrs 

You make it way too easy. 

 

The now bankrupt Nortel's 4G LTE patent portfolio amounts to a measly 150 patents which is now own by Apple-Microsoft-Sony-RIM consortium, representing about a tiny 1.8% of seminal 4G LTE patent portfolio. As I have said in my earlier posts with regard to 4G LTE patents, Android partners own about 30+% of 4G LTE portfolio. Qualcomm has about 700+ or so 4G LTE patents. Meanwhile, the "copycat and "not innovative" Samsung has almost 1200 patents in 4G LTE. Apple will definitely use Qualcomm chips because there is no other way to defend itself when the 4G LTE patent war starts at some point the future. That is Apple approach at this point, "to duck and cover." Unless, of course, Apple suddenly bought Nokia, but even this will not help much of its pickled situation. It sort of explains Apple idiotic moves in both Australian and Europe where they sold Ipad3 with wrong 4G LTE chip there? They will be eaten alive by oversea's 4G LTE patent holders if it makes a "wrong move", which literally means installing the "right" chip. If you see the list of ownerships of all 4G LTE patents, only about 30% of the patents come from the US and Canadian companies. 

 

source: http://www.i-runway.com/iRunway_4G_LTE_Patent_Analysis.html

To quote Google's patent trolling surrogate "It only takes one bullet to kill."

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

To quote Google's patent trolling surrogate "It only takes one bullet to kill."

I thought it was your opinion that practicing companies like Apple, Moto, Sony, etc couldn't be considered trolls? Am I mistaken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I thought it was your opinion that practicing companies like Apple, Moto, Sony, etc couldn't be considered trolls? Am I mistaken?

My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.

I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.

Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.

 

I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.

 

Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.

Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


I also doubt they are paid for posting here, but why did you assume that you are in that supposed category?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz 


I've been accused before.

Not by me, although, it's not the first time you've gotten all defensive when I've mentioned shills. I've always just thought that you don't think or write clearly enough for someone to pay you to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.

 

I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.

 

Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"? 

Advertising isn't the same as violating individual privacy to build profiles sold to advertisers. It's interesting that you can't make that distinction, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


But since you can't patent rectangles in the U.S., either, that's a silly point.
You CAN get a design patent for a specific design that might contain a rectangle, but that's true around the world, as well (at least in countries that have design patents).

I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.

So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf

Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.

Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.

 

So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf

 

Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.

The simple answer is that the design patent describes a 3-dimensional object, thus, it clearly isn't a rectangle. But, it's obvious to anyone who actually looks at the patent for 30 seconds that there is much, much more to it than just a cuboid. But, then, you and Samsung's lawyers know that. You are, as usual, being disingenuous. I guess you were, also as usual, hoping no one would actually follow your link. I don't think you've ever posted a link that actually supports your assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 
The link you provided has 48 figures and a bunch of text. If you can't figure it out, you need help beyond what anyone can provide here.
As for it not being a 3 dimensional object, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY object on the planet is three dimensional. Obviously, they're describing a three dimensional object.

As I said in my earlier post, it's very clear to you what Apple is claiming, unlike many of us. Since your understanding of it is much better than most, please do the forum members (and not me) a favor and continue to explain what Apple is really claiming so that any possible validity to those "Apple patented a rounded rectangle" stories can be put to rest once and for all. I agree there's more to it than those two elements IMO.

You have an opportunity to share your understanding of it so the rest of us can understand too. Simply telling others they're wrong about "rounded rectangles" doesn't mean much if you can't explain why they're wrong. I'm confident you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednival 
All major tech companies patent things that are obvious and should never have been awarded a patent, but that is an entirely different issue. The issue at question here is whether Samsung knowingly stole design elements

I agree in general, and believe they borrowed just a bit too heavily in their original S series phones a few years back. I also think they've realized it's not worth it either, with making more unique design choices not all that expensive nor difficult compared to litigation.