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 10

post #361 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
post #362 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

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)

In which case it would be much harder to prove infringement on that alone. I haven't been following the tablet issue closely - is the alleged design infringement Apple's entire case?
post #363 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
post #364 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.
...unless you're a fan of Dieter Rams. 1wink.gif

I see some similarities between Samsung and Apple products myself, but the key question is to what degree do they violate patents, and to what degree are those patents valid?

So far in the various jurisdictions where this "thermonuclear war" has been played out, the results have been mixed.  Sometimes Apple can get sanctions against products, other times they're required by the court to publish statements on their web site and leading newspapers telling the world that Samsung doesn't copy them, and once in a while the court questions the very legitimacy of those patents.

This is sticky business, rather complex stuff, as the widely mixed results have shown.  Those who think it's simple clearly haven't been reading other news sites.

Personally, I don't think much will come of it either way. 

If Apple prevails they'll probably get a few billion from Samsung at most, Samsung will amortize it across a couple quarters, and with the infringing products long gone from the shelves anyway it all goes back to business as usual (which right now doesn't look bad for either Samsung or Android, nor even Apple; lots of growth potential in the market for everyone).

If Samsung prevails they may get some portion of their court costs paid by Apple, but having moved on to other designs anyway they'll probably just keep making those sorts of products and all this will be forgotten about within a couple years (well, at least in the outside world; here in the AI forums I suspect they'll be plenty of griping about such an outcome long after the outside world has forgotten about it).

The bigger question for those of us who hold Apple stock and have been buying dozens of Apple products over the years is what the long-term effect will be on the brand.  A lot of internal info has come out of this trial, and while there's nothing all that radical these things have a way of cropping up, a subtle tainting of the "magic", not to mention the challenge of a company who's come this far on an underdog marketing strategy now finding itself the biggest, baddest corporation in the world.  When you go from underdog to top dog people view you differently, sometimes even customers, esp. the segment to whom the "Think Different" campaign appealed.  This leaves an opening for some new brand....

Much change is afoot over the next couple years.  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

FWIW, I'm still holding my AAPL for now.

I'm inclined to think that monetary damages were never Apple's main goal, but rather they seek to deter Samsung and others from following this path in the future. If that is their goal, then I would say they are succeeding, even with the mixed results of their legal actions.
post #365 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.

The dotted-line drawings don't matter to the protected elements in the patent claims. I'm sure that's what Apple wants you and others to see in the dotted line drawings... an iPhone. But that's not what they're claiming for the usage, nor what they're limiting it to as they plainly state in their description. If Apple's intent was to protect only their iPhone design they wouldn't mention other device type examples nor claim ownership of it no matter the scale would they?

 

.Those accompanying dotted-line drawings were simply serving as an example of a possible use and do not affect or limit the patent in any way. The patent as granted can apply to any number of possible devices in any type of use or any size. Whether they use it against devices that do not look like an iPhone is their choice, but it's certainly possible they would be successful as long as the display area alone resembles the patented features. Apple put no limits on the usage, and the patent office accepted that.

 

It doesn't affect Samsung's guilt or innocence in the big picture as far as I'm concerned. They are guilty of trade dress infringement in my opinion. Even a couple of the icons are taken from iOS. These two design patents are a different story and I won't be at all surprised to see one or both of them found to be invalid by the time the case is over.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/5/12 at 5:31pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #366 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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.
Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't recall the post you made which provided a URL to a reasonable source explaining how Google sells information about specific customers to their advertisers.

Whatever other objectionable practices they have engaged in, Google clearly claims that they don't sell or share personal information with 3rd parties, but that they do share information across their own services. I've not seen any definite evidence that they have broken that policy, despite the common belief that they have.
post #367 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy 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.
I'm sure that's what Apple wants you and others to see in the dotted line drawings... an iPhone. But that's not what they're claiming for the usage, nor what they're limiting it to as they plainly state in their description. If Apple's intent was to protect only their iPhone design they wouldn't mention other device type examples nor claim ownership of it no matter the scale would they?

.Those accompanying dotted-line drawings were simply serving as an example of a possible use and do not affect or limit the patent in any way. The patent as granted can apply to any number of possible devices in any type of use or any size. Whether they use it against devices that do not look like an iPhone is their choice, but it's certainly possible they would be successful as long as the display area alone resembles the patented features. Apple put no limits on the usage, and the patent office accepted that.

Look - I understand your argument, but I really think the discussion needs to be tabled until they try to assert these patents against other devices. I don't see how fretting about possibly unreasonable future actions has any bearing on the current, quite reasonable action.
post #368 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Look - I understand your argument, but I really think the discussion needs to be tabled until they try to assert these patents against other devices. I don't see how fretting about possibly unreasonable future actions has any bearing on the current, quite reasonable action.

I'll agree with that.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #369 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
post #370 of 390

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
post #371 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Whatever other objectionable practices they have engaged in, Google clearly claims that they don't sell or share personal information with 3rd parties, but that they do share information across their own services. I've not seen any definite evidence that they have broken that policy, despite the common belief that they have.
It's helpful to find that we agree there's no evidence that Google sells information about specific individuals to any advertiser, and in that regard, selling only aggregate data, their model is very similar to Apple's and pretty much every other ad network.

But here you raise an entirely different issue, which prompts a different question: Are Apple's services so disjointed that you can't use a single Apple ID across multiple Apple services?

The only issue I've had with Apple services is that I've ended up with two Apple IDs. Not disastrous, but more complex than it could be, even though I understand the reasons given for not being able to combine them. Does Apple really have multiple services anyway? I guess they have iCloud and iTunes.
post #372 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


No doubt this is motivated by exactly the reasons Steve Jobs described, and it's not about money. The question is whether this is in their long-term interest to pursue quite so publicly.

Sure, that seems like a silly question, but think about it:

Before this "thermonuclear war" was launched, Apple had a much larger share in smartphones and Samsung was barely a player.  Now that Apple has positioned Samsung as the company to beat, folks are looking at Samsung products with more interest than ever before.   Apple spent $1.1 billion marketing iOS devices, and with their investment in these trials part of that has served only to portray Samsung as having products that are so good they represent a significant threat to even the largest company on earth.

This intricacies of patent law are unknown to most people, and a growing number of both professional and lay press are questioning the value of whether we should allow many of these types of patents at all. Any outcome from these trials will be lost on most consumers.  All they know is that Apple has spent a lot of money delivering the message, "Samsung! Samsung! Samsung", turning Samsung into a household brand.

Apple is now king of the hill, and they've positioned Samsung as a worthy underdog.

This is not simple stuff, and especially tricky at this point in Apple's transition.

This thing with Samsung is not the stupid "themonuclear war," as I understand it. That is against Android, starting with HTC, I believe. (I really wish Jobs hadn't used that phrase, or that Isaacson hadn't repeated it, though I suppose he was just being a reporter.)

Anyway, Apple HAD to pursue a suit against Samsung, in order to defend the design patents, no matter what their validity. As muppetry says, it's about forestalling a wretched tidal wave of copycats if they don't show how tough they're going to be with the first one to come along, Samsung. If they did the same with some poor little rip-off company down the line, it really would cost them some sympathy among underdog bleeding-heart types. And their patent would be less defendable, if they had overlooked big bad Samsung.

Can you wrap your mind around this logic?
Edited by Flaneur - 8/5/12 at 6:45pm
post #373 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In which case it would be much harder to prove infringement on that alone. I haven't been following the tablet issue closely - is the alleged design infringement Apple's entire case?

honestly I haven't been too gun ho (or is in gung ho?) on this in months but I believe it was that plus the other trade dress infringements (of which Samsung is guilty even to a blind man)

My favored outcome to this case is all design related issues in Apple's favor, forcing Samsung to make much needed changes to their UI/UX, and the tablet issue and any other minimalistic rectangles that aren't in fact in close proximity to Apple's finished products thrown away.

I don't like Samsung and hate that they had the last two Nexus devices. I hope the 5 Nexuses rumor rings true so my next phone isn't a Samsung. If they lose this case and change their ways maybe they can change my mind, but until then, **** Samsung.
post #374 of 390

Here ya' go...

 

 

1000

 

 

Yes... It does have a touch interface...


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/5/12 at 6:58pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #375 of 390
Rule #1 of the Nude Olympics....

When competing in Leap Frog... Contestants must complete the leap...
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #376 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Mac OS was introduced in 1984 and Windows was introduced MUCH LATER.  Yeah, Apple took Xerox's design, but they paid them money and hired the engineer that developed it.

So Apple didn't invent GUI, but improve it.
Quote:
IPad came first and these little Android wannbes came second.

But ProGear (with Linux) and various Windows tablets came before. Again nowhere sleek and polished as iPad... but that is another thing Apple improved, rather than invented.
Quote:
IPhone was first with the touch screen interface that Android phones are copying.

There were touch screen phones before iPhone. Like Nokia 7710 from 2004. Another great improvement by Apple, but not invention.
post #377 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Here ya' go...





Yes... It does have a touch interface...
I have always been fond of stereo!

Will bumper cases be available!

Your holding it wrong!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #378 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Before this "thermonuclear war" was launched, Apple had a much larger share in smartphones and Samsung was barely a player.  Now that Apple has positioned Samsung as the company to beat, folks are looking at Samsung products with more interest than ever before.

 

In the handset market Samsung overtook other established players around ten years ago, (Motorola, Sony Ericsson etc) to sit firmly in number two behind Nokia, they have been number one handset vendor in the US for at least 5 or 6 years.

 

In much the same way as a stock car they drafted behind Apple's success to come out and first overtake Nokia as number one handset vendor and Apple as number one smartphone vendor.

 

Samsung have always been one of the biggest handset vendors, as the line blurred between "feature" phones to Android based "smartphones" their market share has increased there as well.

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 #379 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

There were touch screen phones before iPhone. Like Nokia 7710 from 2004. Another great improvement by Apple, but not invention.

If Apple had claimed to have invented the touch screen phone, you might have a point. But Apple never claimed that. Nor, as near as I can tell, did anyone else.
"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 #380 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

 

No more than Apple is saying that they have the patent on rectangle phones with touch screens.

 

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.

 

This trial and Steve Jobs pure hatred of Android and Google is all well documented.

 

There is no way you can compare the pure beauty of the Samsung Galaxy S III and the iPhone 4S.

 

They are nothing alike in look, OS, or features.

Samsung has taken every product to the next level and Apple is still in 2007 as their rudementary Map application shows.

 

Give the customer the minimum to maximize profits is running a bit thin with Apple these days.  Their sales numbers are showing it.

 

Apple slips, Android big winner in China during Q2

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57486377-94/apple-slips-android-big-winner-in-china-during-q2/

If you're trying to troll, you're doing very badly at it. I estimate your age to be around 15 years old.

 

That aside;

Since when did the Galaxy S3 matter in this case? And since when was it considered "beautiful" when almost everyone in the Android community hates it or does not consider it as good as the S2 or S?

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #381 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seems we need these again:

 

1000

1000

1000

The first argument was that Samsung didn't copy Apple. From the chart, any reasonable person who disagrees with that statement is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. The next argument is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to patent rectangles with rounded edges. As your chart points out, Apple is more than just protecting a rectangle with rounded edges.

 

The real question for Samsung and this trial is whether Apple's patents are valid and did Samsung copy any of the ideas in valid patents. Samsung is saying the patents should be nullified by claiming all this prior art. My take on what I have read is that a good part of what Samsung is claiming seems bogus and they are trying to conjure something together that makes sense to a jury. For Samsung to win IMO, they have to confuse the court and jury with misdirection. The chart you posted makes it pretty obvious what went on at Samsung. Question is what will this look like in the courtroom without all this extra media coverage that we are looking at.

post #382 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

The first argument was that Samsung didn't copy Apple. From the chart, any reasonable person who disagrees with that statement is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. The next argument is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to patent rectangles with rounded edges. As your chart points out, Apple is more than just protecting a rectangle with rounded edges.

The real question for Samsung and this trial is whether Apple's patents are valid and did Samsung copy any of the ideas in valid patents. Samsung is saying the patents should be nullified by claiming all this prior art. My take on what I have read is that a good part of what Samsung is claiming seems bogus and they are trying to conjure something together that makes sense to a jury. For Samsung to win IMO, they have to confuse the court and jury with misdirection. The chart you posted makes it pretty obvious what went on at Samsung. Question is what will this look like in the courtroom without all this extra media coverage that we are looking at.

If that's the goal, Samsung is going about it badly. They keep bringing up the F700 - yet Apple cited the F700 in their patent application. Since it was cited in the application, the patent office examiner had access to it and it is VERY difficult (if not impossible) to use it as prior art.
"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 #383 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


If that's the goal, Samsung is going about it badly. They keep bringing up the F700 - yet Apple cited the F700 in their patent application. Since it was cited in the application, the patent office examiner had access to it and it is VERY difficult (if not impossible) to use it as prior art.

... and just what is "prior art" and how does it affect patent applications or claims you might ask? (or should as it's likely no one in this thread really understands).

 

So here it is, clear as mud.

 

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/02/what-is-prior-art/id=12677/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #384 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... and just what is "prior art" and how does it affect patent applications or claims you might ask? (or should as it's likely no one in this thread really understands).

So here it is, clear as mud.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/02/what-is-prior-art/id=12677/

While that's useful information, it doesn't refute what I said.

Apple cited the Samsung F700 in their patent filing, so the product was accessible to the patent examiners. When given a citation like that, the patent examiner can do one of two things:
1. Argue that the prior art is to close to the claimed invention and there's not enough novelty to issue a patent.
or
2. Issue the patent - which indicates that they did not consider the prior art to be sufficient to prevent patentability.

In this case, USPTO chose the second course of action. They examined the prior art and found that it was different enough that Apple's invention is novel enough to be patentable.

It is quite common for USPTO to later overturn a patent when someone comes up with UNDISCLOSED prior art. But it is almost unheard of for the patent office to later invalidate a patent on the basis of prior art which was disclosed in the original application.
"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 #385 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


While that's useful information, it doesn't refute what I said.

I wan't trying to refute what you said Joe. Simply adding to it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #386 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

So Apple didn't invent GUI, but improve it.
But ProGear (with Linux) and various Windows tablets came before. Again nowhere sleek and polished as iPad... but that is another thing Apple improved, rather than invented.
There were touch screen phones before iPhone. Like Nokia 7710 from 2004. Another great improvement by Apple, but not invention.

Psst. You need to be informed that design patents and innovation the Jobs way mean much much more than these so-called humdrum "inventions" that you've just mentioned. Apple innovated Xerox's GUI. Thus, Apple is the original superlative innovator, which is why it deserves high praise, accolades and a half a trillion market cap. 1biggrin.gif
post #387 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Psst. You need to be informed that design patents and innovation the Jobs way mean much much more than these so-called humdrum "inventions" that you've just mentioned. Apple innovated Xerox's GUI. Thus, Apple is the original superlative innovator, which is why it deserves high praise, accolades and a half a trillion market cap. 1biggrin.gif

This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.

Here's the chain of logic:

Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.

Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.

Why is this so difficult for your mind to grasp?
post #388 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.
Here's the chain of logic:
Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.
Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.
Why is this so difficult for your mind to grasp?

Not correct. Apple is not obligated to sue every entity that might be infringing one of it's patents. There's no "use it or lose it" requirement for US patents. You've confused it with trademark law.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #389 of 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

 

You should look up the word 'inspired' as it's clear that you have no idea what it means.

 

It's been revealed that Jobs & company at Apple were 'inspired' by this device upon seeing it, as it was similar to the direction they were intially considering for the iPhone.

 

It seems that Samsung hasn't gotten the memo that the words "inspiration" and "imitation" are not synonyms.  If Apple were suing Samsung just for being "inspired by Apple", then I would say they - and now you - have a point.  But Apple claims that Samsung actively copied the iPhone.  This case will see whether they can prove it.

 

Samsung:  "Apple has been inspired by others, and we can prove it."

Apple:       "Samsung has taken a popular shipping product of ours and deliberately copied it down to the gnat's ass, and we can prove it."

 

You don't see the difference?

 

Thompson


Edited by thompr - 8/6/12 at 11:22am
post #390 of 390

I may be wrong, but I believe FRAND refers to necessary patents/techniques. For instance, cell phones being able to connect to 3G/4G/LTE networks. FRAND doesn't refer to presentation or design nuances.

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'