or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report' - Page 8

post #281 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Luxury brand? Strange definition:
- MacBook Air set the price point for its segment. Even today, the only way anyone has managed to beat the price is by significantly cutting features.
- iPhone - priced right in line with other premium phones
- MacPro - generally lower than competitive Xeon systems of similar quality, particularly when you look at the dual CPU version
- iMac - you still can't find a comparable 27" AIO for less
- iPad - other 10" tablets are around the same price
Apple's profits and success are not coming from a significant premium in pricing as they did in the past. Today, their prices are pretty much in line with the market while their margins are from volume, design efficiency, and an unmatched supply chain.
You're confusing 'popular' and 'profitable' with 'luxury brand'.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make one.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
You think those two are equivalent?

 

Dude, you make way, way too much sense in your posts.  Does the internet know you're here?

post #282 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'd agree, based on the 3rd direction listed, but the first two directions seem quite clearly intended to make it more similar to iOS. It suggests that there is a lack coherent direction and internal design inspiration at Samsung.

I can see that argument but I read it as an acknowledgement that it's not nearly as attractive as Apple's icons and they list two distinct reasons why. I'd argue that a more pleasant look and feel was what needed to be "copied", not simply making it look as close to iOS icons as possible. I me that is a distinct different in the focus of whoever made this comparison. That said, it does show that Samsung copied too many things too closet an then didn't change them when they were pointed out.

Fair enough - could be what they were trying to do.
post #283 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #284 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

 

It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.

 

It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.

 

The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.

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 #285 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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.
The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.

Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.

In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.

Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?

Since you're back in the thread, did you get the chance to consider a response to posts 197 or 198?
post #286 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
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.

 

Figure 1, for example, clearly depicts a 3 dimensional object, as do a number of other figures.

 

And now you seem to be claiming that Apple patented a line? You've definitely gone off into the weeds now. Either that or you don't know the difference between 1,2,3,... dimensions, making your original comment understandable: you apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

post #287 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.

 

It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.

 

The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.

Apparently you and JrAgosta are both quite clear on what it claims. How would you describe it in words? I've already said it's more than a "rounded rectangle". What does it describe to you.

 

According to Apple themselves in the patent application (bottom of page 3 right side) the shape beneath the "large rectangular shape" is non-claimed and for illustrative purposes only. Apple says "None of the broken lines form a part of the claimed design"


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 8:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #288 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.

It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.

The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.
Apparently you and JrAgosta are both quite clear on what it claims. How would you describe it in words? I've already said it's more than a "rounded rectangle". What does it describe to you.

Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.
post #289 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.

 

Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.

 

In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.

 

Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?

 

Effective only when used ethically.

 

An example, not hacking people's browsers to override user preferences (re tracking cookies), while simultaneously making a mockery of assurances made to the Government that they would respect people's right to privacy, which they were already in hot water over after tapping open wifi networks using their street view vans.

 

The difference between Google and Apple is stark in this regard.

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 #290 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.

Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So minimally you might also say in effect a flat rectangular shape of unlimited size with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel with an unspecified thickness, correct?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #291 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.
Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So at the minimum a flat rectangular shape with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel, correct? To take it one step further if you go beyond that, for instance to include the shape and placement of the home button, then Samsung's designs begin to stray from the patent claims, do they not?

Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.
post #292 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.

So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #293 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.

Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.

In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.

Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?

Effective only when used ethically.

An example, not hacking people's browsers to override user preferences (re tracking cookies), while simultaneously making a mockery of assurances made to the Government that they would respect people's right to privacy, which they were already in hot water over after tapping open wifi networks using their street view vans.

The difference between Google and Apple is stark in this regard.

He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.
post #294 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

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

obviously you can't just answer a simple fucking question. I don't care if Samsung's lawyers saw them both as flaming ducks. I'm asking YOU.
post #295 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.

I've noticed.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #296 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.
etc........
.

So in your personal opinion this:




looks like this:



?


Again, software I understand...some Galaxy S phones I understand. Box and accessory design and even some advertisements I understand. With about 90% of their claims I am on Apple's side as I feel this could be the death of TouchWhiz as it is (bizarro iOS at least in it's earlier iterations) and it could force Samsung to actually pay attention to Google's design language and simply expand upon that.

But the Tab doesn't look nor function like an iPad beyond the rounded rectangle all black (only from the front) look. Everything else is very different. And I shudder at the idea of a bunch of Joe-consumers gladly wishing a single company own the rounded rectangle for the next 12 or so years.

PS. I noticed that the second one, the thinner Tab, does have some icon modifications to look more iOSy...but I always felt that Samsung's visual knockoffs of iOS software should be punished. My gripe is that the shape of the two (which isn't the same) and the look of the two (which isn't the same) is up for debate.
post #297 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.
So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?

Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
post #298 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.
I've noticed.

He being MacRulez, in case I wasn't being clear on that.
post #299 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

The iPhone design patent looks legit to me...
post #300 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So minimally you might also say in effect a flat rectangular shape of unlimited size with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel with an unspecified thickness, correct?

 

Absolutely not. Minimally, it's a 3-Dimensional surface. It is absolutely not flat.

post #301 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?

 

Again, it's clearly a 3-Dimensional surface. But then again, since you called it a 1-Dimensional object at one point, maybe you just don't know the correct words to express this.

post #302 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.

It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I pressed for his opinion. 

 

It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.

 

I gave you the more detailed patent of the two Apple is claiming in this lawsuit. This is the second of two design patents they're asserting against Samsung's phones and even more simple than the first if that's possible..

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf

 

Again, anything shown with dotted lines is not part of their design claims. Note that it even avoids claiming a bezel or home button as germane to the design. Simply a flat rounded rectangular shape for the display.

 

They go on to say:

"The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein. As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic device, (or a) media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player), (or a) media storage device, (or) a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), (or even) a novelty item or toy"


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 9:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #303 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I asked for his opinion. 

It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.

OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
post #304 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I asked for his opinion. 

It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.

And by the way - I suspect that the other posters were simply frustrated by your dogged pursuit of increasingly detailed answers to questions that they believe (as do I) have obvious answers.
post #305 of 390

Seems we need these again:

 

1000

1000

1000

post #306 of 390

Right, now can we dispense with the thoroughly disingenuous claims that this is about rectangles. Sophistry is one thing, but completely dishonest arguments are entirely another.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seems we need these again:

 

1000

1000

1000

post #307 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?

In general I disagree. See this 2nd of two patents Apple is asserting against Samsung smartphones. Note again that dotted lines show items that are not part of the claimed design but shown only for illustrative purposes.(This one would be the actual trap if one was intended)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf

It simply describes a flat, rectangular display face with evenly rounded corners as far as I can tell. No bezels or buttons, nor even anything with "depth" are included in the claims. Muppetry, are you seeing that one differently than I am?

 

This is not in any way an indication that I believe Samsung didn't intentionally take the easy path of imitating way too many Apple design elements. I've consistently said I think they have, and I don't think they should get off scot-free. At the same time posters who say Apple is claiming ownership of any electronic display face that is a flat rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners, no matter what size or type of device, isn't far off the truth.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 9:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #308 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Right, now can we dispense with the thoroughly disingenuous claims that this is about rectangles. Sophistry is one thing, but completely dishonest arguments are entirely another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seems we need these again:

I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.
post #309 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
In general I disagree. See this 2nd of two patents Apple is asserting against Samsung smartphones. Note again that dotted lines show items that are not part of the claimed design but shown only for illustrative purposes.(This one would be the actual trap if one was intended)
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf

That one does appear to exclude the bevel detail, and is just the rounded rectangle, inlaid front and touchscreen. Closer, definitely, but still not just a rounded rectangle. Consider other examples. Since it was one of the patents granted it would probably look odd not to include it in the asserted IP.
post #310 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.

 

Yes, well, it does seem to be an approved talking point. But, the real purpose of this ridiculous "rectangle" argument is to simply serve as a distraction from the real issues. There is really no question that Samsung has attempted to copy Apple's design as closely as possible, just as Google has ripped off Apple's IP with Android. What this is really about is a much more fundamental question, that goes even beyond the law: whether it is fundamentally right or wrong to steal other people's work  Those defending Samsung (and Google) seem to believe that it's ok to steal, as long as you can get away with it, however you manage to do that.

post #311 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


This is not in any way an indication that I believe Samsung didn't intentionally take the easy path of imitating way too many Apple design elements. I've consistently said I think they have, and I don't think they should get off scot-free. At the same time posters who say Apple is claiming ownership of any electronic display face that is a flat rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners, no matter what size or type of device, isn't far off the truth.

Are you basing that opinion on that patent? What do you think Apple should do, given that patent exists? Not pursue Samsung, even though they clearly (IMO) violated more than just that shape? Request that the patent be invalidated? Not invoke it? Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
post #312 of 390

Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.

 

But could you answer whether you personally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.

 

EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 9:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #313 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.

Yes, well, it does seem to be an approved talking point. But, the real purpose of this ridiculous "rectangle" argument is to simply serve as a distraction from the real issues.

Of course. What else do they have?
Quote:
There is really no question that Samsung has attempted to copy Apple's design as closely as possible, just as Google has ripped off Apple's IP with Android. What this is really about is a much more fundamental question, that goes even beyond the law: whether it is fundamentally right or wrong to steal other people's work  Those defending Samsung (and Google) seem to believe that it's ok to steal, as long as you can get away with it, however you manage to do that.

I suspect that most companies will try to get away with whatever they can. Apple, while often clearly inspired by other work, does not seem to have done much outright copying, largely, I suspect, because they have tended to be ahead of the design game in the areas where they compete. Once they finally coupled that with efficient production, marketing and market integration, they became hard to catch any other way.
post #314 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.

 

But could you answer whether you personally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.

 

EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.

 

Clearly it does represent something other than, "a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners," since black parts are not limited to the perimeter. I would say I don't understand why you insist on dishonestly describing everything you link to, except I do understand exactly why.

 

But, again, your entire argument for n posts back is premised on the (false) impression you are trying to create that Apple's case hinges entirely on a single patent. It doesn't, and it's, again, disingenuous of you to attempt to create the impression that it does. Perhaps you'd like to address the other parts of the case to show us that you aren't just engaging in sophistry and confusion?

post #315 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So in your personal opinion this:
[images]
looks like this:
[image]

Yes, I think the sum of all parts resemble the iPad too closely to be 1) a coincidence, and 2) too be too confusing for a certain part of the population. Surely anyone on this site would know the difference but we read, about digest and analyze tech in atypical ways compared to the general population. Rule of thumb: If you what RAM and know how much your phone has then you as not the average user.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/5/12 at 10:07am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #316 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.

But could you answer whether you personally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.

I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that. And I don't believe they have asserted it, or suggested that they might, in future, assert it, against anything except a phone, so, no, I don't see it describing a generic electronic device of any size.

And again, what's your point here? Do you believe that this patent could or should be asserted against all those other rounded rectangular phones, or even more broadly? It isn't being asserted against them because mostly they don't look like that. It's being asserted against Samsung because they not only copied this design, they also worked hard to copy almost everything else about the iPhone.
post #317 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.

I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.

 

What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #318 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that. 

No, there's no touchscreen area specified, nor a touchscreen at all as far as I know. It's simply a drawing of a generic display area which could be using any display technology. Could be in any size, tiny or huge, used by a phone, used by a PDA, or could even be part of a toy according to Apple's statement.

 

EDIT: ...and yes you had already answered, but I had noted that as an edit in the original post so you apparently missed it. I even apologized for asking again. :)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #319 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.

 

What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.

 

Well, except that your use of scare quotes around 'falsely claiming' indicates that you do want us to think that Apple is claiming that. But, your position has become more than a bit untenable, so I can understand why you'd want to back off directly asserting it and simply start using cues to indicate it.

 

And let's get this whole thing about shills and trolls straight. Certainly no one is naive enough to think that there are not shills posting on AI. (And, no one is stupid enough to assert there are no trolls.) I'd say who I think the shills are, but apparently the mods don't like that. Certain posters clearly aren't shills: no one would pay them to post the stuff they do. Not every pro-Android poster is a shill, some of them are just confused about what's good and right. But there are definitely those whose only reason for posting here is because they are compensated to do so, and I think it's pretty clear in most instances who they are.

post #320 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Read the patent. The patent examiner obviously knows what they were referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That isn't how I read that image. I'd argue 1( their comparison to the 3D effect and icon edge was that it had to be more like Apple's but that it wasn't nearly as good as Apple's because it lacked fluidity. This is the comparative evaluation that one Apple exec talked about on the stand, and 2) their mention of the icons was to show that it was too close to the iPhone, meaning they should be made more unique as to not be confusing. That said, this is very damaging but whoever made this image was clearly trying to show where they could improve on the UI and one of those ways to not make it so iOS-like.

I don't see it that way. They had three recommendations:

1. Insert lighting effects so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
2. Make the edge curve smoother so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
3. Differentiate the design so it doesn't look too much like the iPhone. They did NOT do this. In fact, their finished product moved even closer to the iPhone.

It's obvious from this document that they compared their product to the iPhone and intentionally made their product look more like the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Again, it's clearly a 3-Dimensional surface. But then again, since you called it a 1-Dimensional object at one point, maybe you just don't know the correct words to express this.

Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report'