or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Designer says Samsung designs "substantially the same" as Apple's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Designer says Samsung designs "substantially the same" as Apple's - Page 2

post #41 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.

 

Either way, does Samsung use other tablets as their prior art, where as apple only use Samsung UMPC.  Did samsung actually ever make a XP tablet edition product?

 

Expert witness are routinely reimbursed for their time to testify.  They have mortgages to pay too....

post #42 of 114

I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.

post #43 of 114

According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad

 

Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/12 at 7:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPM View Post

 

Because then her bias would have been too obvious. Fear not, she will award Apple the victory soon enough.

 

 

 

Because Samsung is not a US company (yes, companies do exist outside of the country of god and guns).

It is clear the Samsung cannot expect fairness in the current US.

 

 

 

We might not know the details of US "law", but we know unfairness and racial bias when we see it!

 

South Korea 5ting!

 

If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.

 

Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.

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 #45 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.

 

Well then, at least he was honest about it.

post #46 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

 

It was worth mentioning, as that is the angle that Samsung was using as a foil.


For AI to ignore that completely, and frame him solely as a design expert, is disingenuous.  

 

I don't think you understand what disingenuous means "Psycho Miko."  

 

They "frame him solely as a design expert" because he is.  The fact that like most expert witnesses, he is paid, means nothing.  If there was some kind of bias attached to the fact that he was paid, then courts wouldn't routinely allow paid witnesses.    

 

You are the one being disingenuous by implying something that no one believes and doesn't really exist, based (apparently) on no other evidence than your own bias.  

post #47 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Explain for me how those devices look anything alike? I'm sure not seeing it.

 

I know, right?  It's like taking a picture of a house and saying that it was "obviously" strongly influenced by the shoebox.  Or saying that all cars are copies of the original Ford in that they have four wheels on the bottom, doors on each side, and use the exact same "steering wheel" device.    

post #48 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks. lol.gif
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/

 

For that to have any relevant meaning, as regards this case, it would have to show that NONE of the returns were due to iPad confusion, 1 in 10 is more than none.

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 #49 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber View Post

I honestly believe that in the long run, it's Apple who will win most of the patent lawsuits that actually matter. No matter what those lawyers say, there's no way  that a judge is going to ignore the plain clear fact (that you can clearly see in the photos even with zero knowledge about the matter) that Samsung is in some way too heavily inspired by Apple's design choices.

 

I hope so too, but sadly it's not up to the judge.  It's up to the jury and let's face it, juries are complete idiots about half the time.  The average person has a fairly low IQ and is easily led.  They also favour emotion over logic and have very little capacity for critical thinking.  

post #50 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.

 

In which part of Solip's post did he discount Dieter Rams' design? Better read his posts twice before commenting.

 

Apart from that you still don't get the difference between inspiration and copying.

 

Any designer so even Rams gets their inspiration from somewhere.

 

But in the case of Samesung we are talking about blatant copying.

post #51 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.

 

Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.

Why don't American corporations that call foul about the onslaught of Chinese counterfeit products pull out of China? That'll serve them right.

Or maybe there's another reason. Hmm...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/?page=full

post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

 

 

In which part of Solip's post did he discount Dieter Rams' design? Better read his posts twice before commenting.

 

Apart from that you still don't get the difference between inspiration and copying.

 

Any designer so even Rams gets their inspiration from somewhere.

 

But in the case of Samesung we are talking about blatant copying.

 

I'll let Solip answer your question, Rabbit_Coach.

post #53 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad

 

Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.

 

This is what I don't get.  You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case.  It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.  

 

Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent.  This is perfectly reasonable.  Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not.  This is all perfectly normal stuff.  

post #54 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Ok, fanboi. Fanboism are happened often.

 

That's "fanboy."  

 

A "Boi" is a girl in drag as a man.  

post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Ok, fanboi. Fanboism are happened often. Go ahead and correct that sentence for me.
Fandroid trolls are broken and can't be corrected.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks. lol.gif
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/

I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that malfunction was the number 1 reason that iPads are returned as well. That's the reason I returned my first iPad. It's also the reason I returned my recently purchased refurbished asus transformer.

 

In fact, it's probably the number 1 reason given by consumers for returning anything...

post #57 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

That's "fanboy."  

 

A "Boi" is a girl in drag as a man.  

Let Google be your friend this time.

post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post


Diasgreements are happened often. You're called a troll not because of disagreement, but because you're repeating what Android trolls spew everywhere.

Disagreements are happened often.

->Disagreements often happen.

 

There, I fixed it.

post #59 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is what I don't get.  You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case.  It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.  

 

Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent.  This is perfectly reasonable.  Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not.  This is all perfectly normal stuff.  

I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.

 

The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.

 

IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.

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

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


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/12 at 8:56am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Let Google be your friend this time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi_(sexual_slang)

 

This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."  

 

"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous.  I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.  

 

I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.  

post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?

 

because the low end products are probably from the same third party manufacturer. They just slap a different company label on it or a slightly different shell from that manufacturer. Like those seen on TV shit. That's what you see on big box retailers. Everyone benefits from the economy of scale. Do a google image search of those kitchen products and you see a lot of designer kitchens for enormous sums.
 


Edited by lightstriker - 8/7/12 at 8:24am
post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi_(sexual_slang)

 

This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."  

 

"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous.  I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.  

 

I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.  

When you're able to do a quick wiki search of boi but can't be bothered to use any search engine to look up fanboi, then what is the purpose of replying to what I said?

Is it because you took affront at a simple instruction?

post #63 of 114

I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding.  I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.

 

I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever.  Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.

post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding.  I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.

 

I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever.  Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.

I have never come across a tablet user in South Korea who has ever asked me where he or she could get my iPad app for a Galaxy Tab (Samsung iPad?). If a Korean were to come up to me at Starbucks Apgujeong station and point out that my iPad was the same device as their Samsung iPad, I think everyone in the store would stop sipping their caramel macchiatos and silently say, "I pity you, fool."

post #65 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad

 

 

does anyone know whether it's possible to get a copy of the official court transcripts in which this exchange, paraphrased above, took place?

 

here's another take on the events: http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240005067

 

"Two Japanese patents and one Korean patent show a rectangular phone form with a large glass face and rounded corners. The glass face varies in size from one patent to the other, but all are much larger than older generations of phones. All three resemble the form of the iPhone, as well as the popular Samsung Galaxy line and its many variants."

post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because none of those manufacturers have design patents that are as detailed as Apple's. Furthermore, none of them revolutionized their industry the way that Apple did. For refrigerators, microwaves, etc, they really DID get to the current design via a natural progression - or at least everyone thought so and never bothered to patent their designs.
An expert must be certified as an expert to be able toe express an OPINION. Anyone (expert or not) can state facts that they observed. It is certainly allowable to ask someone what they've observed. Of course, Apple could then ask him how much time he spent hanging around the cash registers of big box stores to show that even if people were mis-buying Samsung products every day he probably wouldn't have seen it.
It's really a moot point. Samsung's own documents state that the #1 reason for returns of their products at Best Buy was because people thought they were buying an iDevice and bought Samsung instead. That's going to carry a lot more weight than someone who probably doesn't hang out at Best Buy's cash register - and even if he did, the consumers didn't realize their error until they got home.

Would you not say the refrigerator was revolutionary over the ice box? A can list many more inventions that were more revolutionary than the iPhone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #67 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?

how do you know that there aren't some law suits? There ways that refridgerators do distinguish themselves from each other that if those ideas were taken you would see lawsuits. But, i doubt you follow fridge trends enough to know whether there are or are not patent suits.

 

I'm sure Subzero has probably kept an eye on the GE Monogram series. And i'm sure Viking keeps an eye on the design of other manufacturing ranges. But, to the point, the GE Monogram and some Haier knock offs do cut into losses of Subzero and Viking, because from a design standpoint they look very similar for a decent discount. Is it right that Viking and Subzero popularized an indsutrial look to then lose in residential sales to simply cheaper products that look the same? Clearly, these two companies found a way to design a fridge and a range that look drastically different then other residential fridges. Why should that not be protected?

post #68 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.

 

The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.

 

IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.

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

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

LOL losing steam, eh bud?  You keep repeating the same thing over and over again.  Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #69 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

LOL losing steam, eh bud?  You keep repeating the same thing over and over again.  Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well. 

Apparently you disagree with at least some part of the post claims, but having a problem putting it in words so that it's understandable. Which part specifically? Perhaps easier for you, what was it that Apple's patent expert testified Samsung was copying from the patents, which is what the article is about? 


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/7/12 at 10:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks. lol.gif
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/

Even if that's correct (the information provided by Samsung to the court tells a different story), it suggests that more than 8% of returns were due to product confusion. That's plenty to support Apple's case.

How many people buy a GM car thinking that they bought a Ford? How many fly somewhere on American and think they actually flew on United? I'll be the answers are way below 1% in either case.
"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 #71 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Would you not say the refrigerator was revolutionary over the ice box? A can list many more inventions that were more revolutionary than the iPhone.

The ice box to rebid greater is quite a bit like the cellphone to the Blackberry and smartphone to the iPhone. Each device had basic characteristics where the haters can say "Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but whatevs my icebox keeps my food cold, too, so sod off ya wanker."*

The point each of those changed the industry and how our lives use these devices which resulted in cultural changes.


* Little Britian reference.

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 #72 of 114

Interesting numbers. A few casual observations:

 

1) The source cited in this article was Samsung. Samsung's number one priority seems to be - at present - to defend the charge that they copied the iPad. Would it be in Samsung's best immediate interests, to spin the results of the internal survey they conducted by taking a hit on quality - versus consumer deception?

 

2) The breakdown for the numbers (as reported) seems to be dissatisfaction based on the following categories:

 

25% - malfunctions

17% - design limitations (hardware - assuming lack of operator error)

10% - design limitations (software - operating system - assuming lack of operator error)

  9% - exchanges for iPads (for undisclosed reasons - perhaps consumers were confused by similarities at point of purchase - perhaps they weren't - we don't know)

  8% - customer support (software apps)

  6% - performance dissatisfaction

 

The nature of the "survey" is suspect as to it's inherent reliability. For instance, was this a follow-up Likert-style survey that Samsung commissioned - i.e., that contacted consumers that had returned the product and asked them to respond to the exact categories above?  Or, perhaps more probably, was this merely a "compilation" by Samsung who received return comments from consumers who were asked at the time of return to cite a reason as to why they were returning it. It has been my experience, when returning something to Best Buy, that the store employee asks me why I am returning it, and then edits what I say in a short pithy phrase on their return form.

 

 

Also, if we are to believe the actual words used (which may be an unfair assumption - given the laxness with which media reports are given here in the U.S. of A. (no disrespect intended) - the words "The study, conducted last year at 30 Best Buy stores in New York, Los Angeles, and Florida to determine why consumers were returning the tablet" makes it sound (improbably so) like Samsung might have had in-store personnel waiting to conduct a survey on consumers who returned their tablets.

 

Otherwise, if not conducted in the store right at the point of return, any subsequent determination "in store" after the return without the actual consumer being present to be able to say why they were returning it, would necessarily be suspect because the respondent would not be present.

 

If they contacted the consumers who returned the product later at home, it would not have been conducted "in-store," and - depending on the lag in time between the return and the survey, this may further compound concerns about validity and reliability.

 

If this is the case, it might just as well be summarized in the following manner:

 

75% - dissatisfying consumer experience with the product

25% - unreported category (I wonder what this category might have been)

 

However,  a different situation may exist where the diligent Best Buy employee writes down everything the consumer says, which might be a combination of any two or more of the categories reported (e.g., Best Buy: What is wrong with the product? Consumer: "Wow! Where do I begin? The thing doesn't work worth a %@#!* (25% malfunction, 6% performance dissatisfaction), the touch panel is unresponsive (17% design limitation-hardware), the operating system sucks (10% design limitations-software), and there is no support for the apps for the thing! (8% customer support)"

 

Rather than being individual categories that summarize an individual consumer's single reason for return, the categories reported may very well be combination reasons cited to Best Buy. If so, that drives the percentage down (diminishes downward  from 75%) for the categories stated, and increases the mystery category (increases from 25% upward) that is unreported. Given this distinction, it might not be surprising (given that some of these categories seem to be subsets of another) that quite a different picture may in treuth develop.

 

One fantasy speculation (because we have no way of knowing one way or the other) may very well be something as simple as this:

50% of products retruned for a combination of reasons cited;

50% of products returned for undocumented reasons.

Whatever the case, the results seem to skew away from Samsung's favor once combination reasons are allowed (and we have no reason to believe they were excluded).

 

Of course, as already stated, much of this is just idle speculation on my part, but I am somewhat familiar with how surveys should be conducted and, without trying to be overly laborious, this is how the article - void as it is of meaningful data - strikes me.

 

I apologize if this is too poorly written to easily understand - please share any concerns with this meager presentation and I will try to write with greater clarity.

 

I thank you beforehand for your kind patience.

 

post #73 of 114

For an example of a non-infringing, distinctive design, just take a look at a Lumia 900.

 

Unique physical attributes: color, shape, and overall form factor very different from iPhone.

 

Unique software design: Metro (I mean "Windows 8-style UI") is innovative, unique, and highly regarded (even by Apple fans.) 

 

Samsung doesn't have to copy anybody.  They could, if they wanted to, design a better UI than Apple.

But no, they chose the quick-and-dirty route.  They panicked and rushed to fix the "crisis of design," as their head of

mobile communications, JK Shin said in a memo brought forth as evidence in the trial.  And as we all know,

the fastest way to make your smartphone look better is to rip off Apple.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The ice box to rebid greater is quite a bit like the cellphone to the Blackberry and smartphone to the iPhone. Each device had basic characteristics where the haters can say "Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but whatevs my icebox keeps my food cold, too, so sod off ya wanker."*
The point each of those changed the industry and how our lives use these devices which resulted in cultural changes.
* Little Britian reference.

But you'd agree that the invention of the refrigerator revolutionized that industry and forced ice box makers into a "design crisis". None of this is new, its happened in just about every industry.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #75 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

For an example of a non-infringing, distinctive design, just take a look at a Lumia 900.

Unique physical attributes: color, shape, and overall form factor very different from iPhone.

Unique software design: Metro (I mean "Windows 8-style UI") is innovative, unique, and highly regarded (even by Apple fans.) 

Samsung doesn't have to copy anybody.  They could, if they wanted to, design a better UI than Apple.
But no, they chose the quick-and-dirty route.  They panicked and rushed to fix the "crisis of design," as their head of
mobile communications, JK Shin said in a memo brought forth as evidence in the trial.  And as we all know,
the fastest way to make your smartphone look better is to rip off Apple.

Yea and how's that working for MS versus the route Samsung took? Numbers don't lie. I'm not saying what Samsung did was right but it is proving to be highly profitable.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 114
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
The ice box to rebid greater… 

 

Frigging auto-correct, eh? "Um gumbo thirty years, I guess. I'm'a go do levvytown."

post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.

 

Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.

 

I sometimes think Samsung's greatness and efforts are indeed wasted in the country of god and guns...

Nevertheless, for now, it is still a big market, and probably worth the fight against Applekoh.

 

South Korea 5ting! 

post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMacGuy View Post

I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.

 

Do you really think this?  Because even the dumbest of the dumb can plainly tell the difference from the back side of the device (which is what other people generally see).  There is a single similarity between the devices-- the front area and only when the displays are turned off.  As soon as you look at the backs or turn the displays on, any confusion about what you're looking at should be immediately dispelled.  I haven't even taken into account the fact that the samsung tablets are taller.  Since I know that the aspect ratio is different, the only remote and unlikely chance I would confuse the two is if I could only see the turned off displays, from a long distance, at odd angles that obfuscate the aspect ratio.  I think anyone who feels differently about this is clearly biased for one company or the other.

post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

I'll let Solip answer your question, Rabbit_Coach.

You're the making the stupid comment so you defend yourself. I'm going to fight your pathetic position for you. Ive said he was inspired by the Rams, he did not copy Rams.

Your argument is the same as saying musicians steal from The Beatles and show a lyrics with the word 'help' in it as proof. Show us prove that Ives products function the same way any of Rams 60's products instead of grabbing the sole angle and lightening between two images that prove anything more than your apoohenia.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/7/12 at 11:10am

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 #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Frigging auto-correct, eh? "Um gumbo thirty years, I guess. I'm'a go do levvytown."

Yeah, but it's ultimately my fault for not proof reading what I type on my iPad.

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Designer says Samsung designs "substantially the same" as Apple's