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 9

post #321 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.

What part of this patent describes anything Apple is requesting patent protection for in three-dimensions Jr? You're falling behind by trying to avoid simply answering questions you're asked.

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

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #322 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What part of this patent describes anything Apple is requesting patent protection for in three-dimensions Jr? You're falling behind by trying to avoid simply answering questions you're asked.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf

What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.

That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.
"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 #323 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.
That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.

Well, here's the description. What is it you'd like to point out? You do understand that anything in the accompanying figures 1 thru 8  drawn with dotted lines is not part of Apple's patent claims or specified use. As such they're not germane to the protected elements, which in this case is a flat rectangular display with evenly rounded corners, and possibly a small cut-away elongated oval area on the display near the top.. If that's incorrect in your opinion, please be specific as to why for a change..

 

"The claimed surface ofthe electronic device is illustrated with
the color designation for the color black.
The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
As indicated in the title, the article ofmanufacture to which
the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), a novelty item or toy"

Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 11:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #324 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Of course. What else do they have?
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.

 

Yes, but it's particularly sad to see a company like Google, that originally had so much promise, stoop to, among other things, shamelessly ripping off other companies. I think they genuinely believed they wouldn't be evil when they founded the company, but that quickly went by the wayside. Particularly sad in Brin's case, which is why, I guess, he tries to keep his head in the sand and work on self-driving cars so he doesn't have to admit to himself that he helped create a company as bad, as corrupt, and as dismissive of individual rights as any communist block government was.

 

And let's not pretend that Google and Samsung aren't in bed in this criminal enterprise together.

post #325 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #326 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #327 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well, here's the description. What is it you'd like to point out? You do understand that anything in the accompanying figures 1 thru 8  drawn with dotted lines is not part of Apple's patent claims or specified use. As such they're not germane to the protected elements, which in this case is a flat rectangular display with evenly rounded corners, and possibly a small cut-away elongated oval area on the display near the top.. If that's incorrect in your opinion, please be specific as to why for a change..

"The claimed surface ofthe electronic device is illustrated with
the color designation for the color black.
The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
As indicated in the title, the article ofmanufacture to which
the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), a novelty item or toy"

That, of course, ignores the dozens of pictures that were included. Even YOU ought to be able to look at a picture and understand it.

BTW, when you look at the original (you can find it on Google patents), you find that Apple cited the Samsung F700 as prior art. Since it was cited, it's almost impossible for Samsung to use the F700 as prior art. The patent office considered it and decided that it was not sufficiently similar to block Apple from getting the patent.
"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 #328 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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"

You're not thinking in the 3rd dimension, Marty! 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #329 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #330 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Since you're back in the thread, did you get the chance to consider a response to posts 197 or 198?


Neither was directed at me or particularly interesting to me personally, so I didn't give those posts a thought.  Are they unusually important?

Well that's odd - the post numbers seem to have changed. Apologies for the misdirection. They are now posts 191 and 192, and were responding to you.
post #331 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez 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 made the post you're replying to about four hours ago, your reply posted only about 40 minutes later.

More recently I rejoined this thread.  What did we each do in the meantime?


Me:



You:



The weather's nice outside.  Give it a try.  Summer only comes once a year.

Good for you. I just got back from a 30 mile bike ride in the mountains. But I agree with the sentiment.
post #332 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. However, the constant harping on about patenting a rectangle does get very old when the issue obviously comprises so much more than that.
post #333 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #334 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Good for you. I just got back from a 30 mile bike ride in the mountains. But I agree with the sentiment.


Excellent.  I feel bad for the east coasters who've been dealing with thick muggy air.  It's been quite nice here in CA - glad you're near a place where you can get out on the bike in the hills.  Nothing beats the feeling of a good ride on a summer's day.

In fact, I think I'll take your cue and saddle up myself....

New Mexico at 7500' is a pretty good place to ride. If that photo was your area then it looks similar. Enjoy.
post #335 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. 

I don't ever recall you being inconsiderate of others, and that's admirable. You serve as an excellent example for other members IMHO.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #336 of 390
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.
Well then what this proves is someone at Samsung was worried about their stuff looking too much like Apple's. If anything this trial is going to prove that Samsung is obsessed with Apple.
post #337 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Read the patent. The patent examiner obviously knows what they were referring to.
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.
Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.

According to the document that is not what the subject is for the first two items. It states that it's lacking a 3D effect and that the icon edge curvature is not smooth. It uses iOS as an example of what a good 3D lighting effect and smooth icon edge curvature is.

In no way does it state they need copy iOS more blatantly. The image even states Samsung's UI is too close to iOS as a warning. The fact that Samsung did not heed the advice given in this document is what should focused on at the trial, not the perfectly reasonable and legal comparison of two items and saying, "ours isn't as good, we should do better."

PS: Calling him Googleguy, as minor and unoffensive as it is, is still technically name calling.


edit: I just looked at the image again. I hadn't noticed the text under the phone images, just the text next to it, so there is no implication to be made. The originator clearly states what improvements are to be made and why.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #338 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

According to the document that is not what the subject is for the first two items. It states that it's lacking a 3D effect and that the icon edge curvature is not smooth. It uses iOS as an example of what a good 3D lighting effect and smooth icon edge curvature is.

Yes, but you're taking the document in isolation.

You also have to look at what Samsung did with the recommendations. It turns out that they followed the recommendations that took their product closer to the iPhone and ignored the recommendation that suggested that they needed to differentiate themselves from the iPhone.
"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 #339 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, but you're taking the document in isolation.
You also have to look at what Samsung did with the recommendations. It turns out that they followed the recommendations that took their product closer to the iPhone and ignored the recommendation that suggested that they needed to differentiate themselves from the iPhone.

The only reason I isolated the document is because you wrote...
Quote:
Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you were suggesting that the author of the document was implying that they need to "copy" Apple's 3D lighting and icon edge smoothness, as opposed to just improve them so they look better in comparison to the gold standard, id est iOS. If that wasn't your intent then I offer you not just a mea culpa but a momma mea culpa.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #340 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The only reason I isolated the document is because you wrote...
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you were suggesting that the author of the document was implying that they need to "copy" Apple's 3D lighting and icon edge smoothness, as opposed to just improve them so they look better in comparison to the gold standard, id est iOS. If that wasn't your intent then I offer you not just a mea culpa but a momma mea culpa.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. As you point out, the document itself doesn't prove anything. But the document, when combined with Samsung's actions, is pretty strong evidence. It appears clear that Samsung built a bunch of prototypes and then went out of their way to change the prototypes to make them look like Apple's products.

But why is your momma sorry? /s
"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 #341 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Really? I guess it is safe to say that it is common knowledge then, that Apple stole RIM's BBM, Google's Notification Center and a whole host of Android design features like ota os updates, split keyboard, and now we see Apple attempting to copy Google maps/earth.
Funny, but it's probably safe to say, you don't think any of that is 'stealing' by Apple though, right?

 

And yet you don't see any of those companies suing Apple?

post #342 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.

A vast majority of rectangular touchscreen phone's and tablets have not been sued as they do not infringe Apple's specific patents.

 

Ergo the "Apple has patented the rectangle" argument is bullshit.

 

Apple patented the design of the iPhone, Apple patented the design of the iPad.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #343 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

A vast majority of rectangular touchscreen phone's and tablets have not been sued as they do not infringe Apple's specific patents.

 

Ergo the "Apple has patented the rectangle" argument is bullshit.

 

Apple patented the design of the iPhone, Apple patented the design of the iPad.

Good news then for Google. Apple hasn't sued them either, ergo Apple must think they aren't infringing any of their patents.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #344 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.

 

There's a thing called "time zones", you see the world is a spinning sphere, there are places outside the USA.

 

Now are you denying that Google was fined for overriding third party cookie blocking settings of Safari users?

 

Are you also denying that Google collected data from open wifi networks with their street view vans?

 

The Google goblet of Koolaid seems to invoke an interesting view of the world among their parroting acolytes or is it the Google goggles distorting the view..

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #345 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 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.

There's a thing called "time zones", you see the world is a spinning sphere, there are places outside the USA.

Now are you denying that Google was fined for overriding third party cookie blocking settings of Safari users?

Are you also denying that Google collected data from open wifi networks with their street view vans?

The Google goblet of Koolaid seems to invoke an interesting view of the world among their parroting acolytes or is it the Google goggles distorting the view..

I think you may have misunderstood my posts, and/or confused me with another poster. I clarified further back that I was referring there to the poster that you were arguing with, not you. I wasn't part of that argument, and for the record, I agree with your position.
post #346 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Google has agreed to pay penalties in response to those charges, but neither themselves nor the prosecutor in those cases claim that those practices form the foundation of their business model.

 

More relevant here is that those specific incidents have nothing to do with the post I replied to, which was about "selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers".

 

There may be all sorts of ways in which companies may exhibit ethics we disagree with, and in cases like acquiring wifi data or stock options backdating they may even be penalized.

 

But the core of any ad-supported business remains the same for both Google and Apple, and in neither case does it involve selling information about specific customers to advertisers.

 

So you are saying Google doesn't need tracking cookies to gather information about (non-specific) users, so what was their reason for overriding users preferences?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #347 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 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.
A vast majority of rectangular touchscreen phone's and tablets have not been sued as they do not infringe Apple's specific patents.

Ergo the "Apple has patented the rectangle" argument is bullshit.

Apple patented the design of the iPhone, Apple patented the design of the iPad.

Agreed.
post #348 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

So what is Samsung to do? 

1. Don't use the bounce. OK.

2. Don't use the double tap. OK

3. Don't use a horizontal swipe to unlock. OK.

I think all of those things could be easily licensed easily enough.

 

So what should Apple do? 

1. Pay the licensing fees for the FRAND patents.

 

So, the only issue is trade and dress. Should Samsung not be allowed to make black or white tablets? Should Samsung not be able to make a tablet that is as thin or thinner than the competition? Should Samsung not be able to use a glass touchscreen? 

 

These are serious questions. At what point does Apple "own" the tablet design that uses black/white, rectangular shape, glass touchscreen panel, etc etc? Is Apple the ONLY company that can use this design. Must everyone else make an ugly looking tablet? I base the idea of attractiveness on what the customer expects. There are certain car designs elements that are expected in a sleek and sexy car. So if Toyota wants to make a sleek sports car must they avoid using smooth lines so as not to upset the other automobile manufacturers? 

 

At some point this crap has to end.

Your whole argument is overly simplistic.  Were not talking rectangles squares or black white or any other such nonsense.  That is samsungs regurgitation for confusing the jury and the public.   Using your automotive example dont tell me that you can't tell a ford from a chevy from a toyota from a bmw.  You can by just looking at them.  It is not just smooth lines or  colors or geometric shapes that are being argued in a design patent.  It is the combination of  all of those things in a way to make the product look like apples or samsungs or bmw or ford or chevy or ferrarri or any other item that you want to look at.  Not just shapes colors but, those and a lot of other things.  Apple is saying that because samsung copied all of these things together and even changed the user interface in there touchwiz interface to look and feel like an apple ipad or iphone, that is what infringes on there design.  Not just any one thing alone but all of them combine to look like apples products.  Hell best buy even has had problems with people buying samsung galaxy tabs and returning them because they found out when they got them home they were not an iPad.   Samsung has copied the device, the packaging...hell even the charging units on there phones and pads to look just like apples.   In my eyes that pretty damning.

post #349 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. However, the constant harping on about patenting a rectangle does get very old when the issue obviously comprises so much more than that.

 

...especially when it seems to be Samsung's official line espoused by their chief product officer, Kevin Packingham.

 

Source:-

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/samsung_exec_says_patent_struggle_with_apple_is_unreasonable.html

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #350 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. However, the constant harping on about patenting a rectangle does get very old when the issue obviously comprises so much more than that.

...especially when it seems to be Samsung's official line espoused by their chief product officer, Kevin Packingham.

Source:-

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/samsung_exec_says_patent_struggle_with_apple_is_unreasonable.html

As has been said many times - it looks like they are clutching at straws and just hoping to confuse the issue enough to get away with it. As a legal strategy I guess it makes sense, but the repeated attempts to sell the idea on this forum are tiresome.
post #351 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Samsung doesn't copy Apple..really they don't.
apple_v_samsung_evidence.png

 

I agree with you, they both look similar in UI, icon boxes and dock background (Samsung obviously had more than inspired).   IMO, Apple has got a point here.  Did Apple patent covering those altogether in one design patent?  I am not quite sure.  And I am not sure how Apple could argue this as we are comparing home screen on iPhone and application drawer in Galaxy S.  However, icon designs itself were look completely different.

 

By the way, Apple design patents here are basically about rectangular shape with rounded corners however some of Apple shareholders or diehard fans would want to understand them.  

post #352 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I agree with you, they both look similar in UI, icon boxes and dock background (Samsung obviously had more than inspired).   IMO, Apple has got a point here.  Did Apple patent covering those altogether in one design patent?  I am not quite sure.  And I am not sure how Apple could argue this as we are comparing home screen on iPhone and application drawer in Galaxy S.  However, icon designs itself were look completely different.

By the way, Apple design patents here are basically about rectangular shape with rounded corners however some of Apple shareholders or diehard fans would want to understand them.  

even I agree that on the software side for smartphones Samsung needs to ahve their asses handed to them. Even when it comes to the entire Samsung Galaxy S and some versions of the S2 they need their asses handed to them. Some box design, some ads...Samsung seriously needs to get their asses handed to them.

But if it means granting the entire concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle to ONE company for 20 years tech time in order for Samsung to walk away with a painful ass? I'd rather Samsung got off. Actually no I don't.

I reallllly want Samsung to change and they need to be fined heavily and forced to actually innovate when it comes to design (They do in tech and even software but UI/UX often not).

But I cannot grasp the concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle with a screen belonging to one company.
post #353 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:58pm
post #354 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
post #355 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


even I agree that on the software side for smartphones Samsung needs to ahve their asses handed to them. Even when it comes to the entire Samsung Galaxy S and some versions of the S2 they need their asses handed to them. Some box design, some ads...Samsung seriously needs to get their asses handed to them.

But if it means granting the entire concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle to ONE company for 20 years tech time in order for Samsung to walk away with a painful ass? I'd rather Samsung got off. Actually no I don't.

I reallllly want Samsung to change and they need to be fined heavily and forced to actually innovate when it comes to design (They do in tech and even software but UI/UX often not).

But I cannot grasp the concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle with a screen belonging to one company.

I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.
post #356 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Well that's odd - the post numbers seem to have changed. Apologies for the misdirection. They are now posts 191 and 192, and were responding to you.


One of those was from a poster I'm familiar enough with here and elsewhere that I don't spend much time with what he writes.

In your post #191 you wrote:
"So, just to be clear, you really think that Samsung's detailed, feature-by-feature comparison study including options to copy Apple's implementations is equivalent to a discussion at Apple on whether or not to make a 7" tablet."

In the Apple email in the article I linked to it describes Apple's head of Internet software/services Eddy Cue having spend enough time with Samsung's 7" tablet to have evaluated a wide range of different types of apps, and apparently spent enough time with the browser app to come to the conclusion that while not optimal it was at least acceptable.

Dissecting the precise number of hours each company spent with each product would leave us with some arbitrary threshold beyond which the practice is somehow "unethical" but below which it is "ethical".  Respectfully, that just seems like splitting hairs to me.  All companies study their competition.

I know one person who worked at Apple at a time when they were making an upgrade to a competing software product, and they had that product running on a Mac in the meeting room, going through it feature by feature, deciding which features to implement as the other product had done and which to do differently.

As with any company prudent about remaining competitive, I don't hold that as any sort of indictment against them.   It's just how any smart company works.  And sometimes "any smart company" might just include (*gasp*) Samsung.

Fortunately for both Apple and Samsung, and perhaps the fairness of the court system itself, nothing anyone writes in this little corner of the Internet can have any effect on the outcome of the trial.  The question the jury will be given isn't "What is the number of hours each company spent studying the other's products?", but rather they're being asked to evaluate very specific elements within a very specific context.

My only point in posting that link was that finding that a company studied a competing product isn't any sort of proof of the allegations in this case; studying the competition is not a crime, not when Samsung did it or when Apple did it.  It MIGHT be evidence favoring such an argument, but we'll have to see how the jury feels about that.  Given how smart companies work, they may not find it significant at all.  Ultimately the decision will have to rest on the outcome of the process - the final product - and not exclusively on the process itself. 

As a side note, I found it amusing that even Cult of Mac has more balanced coverage of this trial than AI.  Not surprising, just funny.  Like Fox News, AI has clearly found a certain pandering business model that works for them, so even if the editorialism is funny no one can deny that selling their readers' eyeballs to their advertisers has done well for them in keeping the joint running.

Oddly enough, it seems they're leaving a lot of money on the table using a poorly-targeted ad server.  It sometimes shows links to Android phones, Google's Nexus 7 tablet,  and Windows software, and sometimes the links are completely broken like the one on the front page right now ostensibly for some racing game you can "Download to your PC" but clicking it takes you to the American Heart Association.   Almost makes one wish they used an ad network with smarter profiling. 1wink.gif

Fair enough - I agree that those types of comparison almost certainly take place at all these companies. I guess here I'm swayed by the fact that Samsung did produce something that looks far to much like an iPhone (IMO). In contrast, Apple don't often seem to come up with products that look like copies of something.
post #357 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.

not the iPhone one...the tablet one.

The iPhone design is Apple's and Apple's only...and for that Samsung should pay.
post #358 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.

not the iPhone one...the tablet one.

The iPhone design is Apple's and Apple's only...and for that Samsung should pay.

Oh, right. I'm much less sure about the tablet issue. I'd try to apply the same test. Rather than compare the products to each other, compare them to the design patents.
post #359 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Oh, right. I'm much less sure about the tablet issue. I'd try to apply the same test. Rather than compare the products to each other, compare them to the design patents.

even Apple's product doesn't match the drawing. That specific drawing is for a non-existent product. (though probably a prototype)
post #360 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Google has agreed to pay penalties in response to those charges, but neither themselves nor the prosecutor in those cases claim that those practices form the foundation of their business model.

 

More relevant here is that those specific incidents have nothing to do with the post I replied to, which was about "selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers".

 

There may be all sorts of ways in which companies may exhibit ethics we disagree with, and in cases like acquiring wifi data or stock options backdating they may even be penalized.

 

But the core of any ad-supported business remains the same for both Google and Apple, and in neither case does it involve selling information about specific customers to advertisers.

 

If you were as quick to do diligent research as you are to postulate on how others must, or do, run their business, you would find that Apple sells only aggregate data to advertisers  -- no information about specific customers.

 

Certainly Apple makes occasional mistakes -- but in 34 years of dealing with Apple, I've never known them to deliberately violate their own [or accepted] ethical principles...

 

Microsoft has few principles, Google has none -- and Samsung is borderline illegal, IMO.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
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'