Designer says Samsung designs "substantially the same" as Apple's - Page 3

That's funny!

Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)

eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric475 

 

 

J. Ive, Dieter Rams wants his designs back.

I don't see how not witnessing someone mistake a product for another is "faltering."

No one who makes such a mistake usually announces it to the world at the top of their lungs -- "I made a mistake and purchased the wrong thing!!!"

usually, they just return to the store for an exchange or live with it.

Stupid cross examination.

And no doubt, when you get into the tiny details, major differences appear, where Apple's attention to detail shine through.

BUT where it counts in terms of "curb appeal," where customers or potential customers see a jpeg of the item on the internet or behind glass at the store or in the box, or even side by side, it's obvious that the Samsung looks near identical unless you are specifically looking for differences.

So Samsung's argument about specifically looking at the small details is erroneous at the conceptual level.  they are basically making an argument against themselves if the differences they have to point out are at the level only a designer or Samsung engineer would notice.

If only Apple's lawyers would point this out in a strong way.

Samsung really doesn't have a case.  Surprised it's dragging out this long.

In terms of fees, the courts and lawyers must think Christmas came early.

When I was at Walmart about 4 months ago, there was a Samsung Galaxy Tab in the iPad 2 display case. I told a manager and they did nothing because it was still there a week later.

Ives isn't screwing Rams out of billions of dollars in business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric475 

 

 

J. Ive, Dieter Rams wants his designs back.

OK, so now it's not the details that count (though it is Apple's trademark - and I, for one, am impressed with their focus on detail) but the 'curb appeal'.

So, it's getting generic again. But then again, we're back into rectangles-territory... which is not good either. The thin thing doesn't stick. Just follow the thinning-pattern over the years. EVERY producer designed, smaller lighter and thinner over the years (though 3,5 inch is now deemed too small, which I don't have a problem with: it's a phone... I use an iPad to read)

BTW: at the conceptual level, we have a rectangular touch screen.

There was prior art to that... a lot of it.

Originally Posted by Neo42 
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.

Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.

I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DESuserIGN 

That's funny!

Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)

 

eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)

 

 

hard to talk through your lower mouth when it is dedicated to the single purpose of breathing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.

 

I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.

I can't figure out if you are trying to refute what I said, agree with me or are just whining.  I will just reply based on the first guess (refuting), though clearly there's a bit of whining too.   Lots of bla bla, broken record baseless defense?  To cut through the crap, do you disagree with what I said?  Can you not tell the difference between an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab?  Do you think anyone of average or even below intelligence would have trouble distinguishing them in the ways I described?  Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.

Originally Posted by Neo42 
Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.

So ignore all the facts and what actually happened and give me an answer that doesn't line up with anyone's perception of reality but my own broken one, got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmason1270 

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?

Viking has a ton of patents, mostly utility,

http://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en#hl=en&tbm=pts&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Viking+Range+Corporation%22&oq=%22Viking+Range+Corporation%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l4.205800.205800.4.209386.1.1.0.0.0.0.181.181.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.A3hgdzp9uBE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=69a27ca41f4728f8&biw=1327&bih=914

but also many design patents.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oDARAAAAEBAJ&lpg=PA1&zoom=4&ots=GsF5wDwxWT&dq=%22Viking%20Range%20Corporation%22%20Design&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=%22Viking%20Range%20Corporation%22%20Design&f=false

I'm sure they would take action if they felt their patents were being infringed. But I imagine in that market a simple cease and desist letter is enough for their competitors. Often it is for Apple too, but clearly not with Samsung.

With all this transparent aping of Samsung's talking points, patented rectangles, Dieter Rams, etc. (and particularly by very new posters in Korea) does anyone doubt Samsung has launched an Astroturfing campaign?

Do any of the real readers at AI think any of these obvious astroturfers are having any effect on public opinion?

It seems that all it does is make people more disgusted with Samsumg.

Just curious.

Originally Posted by jragosta 
I don't think it's recent. Samsung and Google seem to have been doing it for months.

And Adobe actually did it before that, back when they thought Flash was worth anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


I don't think it's recent. Samsung and Google seem to have been doing it for months.

I didn't men to imply that it was recent (although I gave some examples of recent talking points.)

I agree it seems to have been going on for for a long time. Maybe even more than a year. But I don't see the advantage. It's obviously hurting Samsung in public perception and in the pocketbook too (reduction of Apple's component alone is huge.)

In the case of Google it's less obvious, but I seem to notice more and more people voicing negative opinions about them too. Seems like a lose lose for Samsung and Google.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

And Adobe actually did it before that, back when they thought Flash was worth anything.

Seems like a perfect example the others might have learned from, . . .

. . . but they didn't.

Originally Posted by DESuserIGN 
Seems like a perfect example the others might have learned from, . . .

. . . but they didn't.

Well, Samsung learned to do something that they hadn't been doing before, so… 

It's funny I went for years with nobody on my block list. Then in the last year or so it has swelled enormously.

Oddly though I don't see all that many notices saying "this post is hidden because . . . " Amazingly the people I block usually disappear within a week or so.

Coincidence? I think not.

Astroturfers!

(Or perhaps I have special powers that make people lose the will to post.   ;-)  )

Originally Posted by eric475 
Does your Korean-American boss approve of how you moderate the forum? Just asking.

I don't recall having ever made any racist comments (save for one mind-bogglingly stupid and narrow-minded comment a few months back), so I fail to see what his nationality has to do with anything going on here. 

I'd also certainly remove and infract any racist comments were that my position here, but as I remain part of the discussion, I disallow myself that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil I'd also certainly remove and infract any racist comments were that my position here, but as I remain part of the discussion, I disallow myself that.

You shouldn't. If the posts are inappropriate and plainly violate forum rules then I can't think of a single reason to leave them in place unless you been instructed to leave it to a different mod or admin. to handle. I've never used actively posting in a thread as a reason not to moderate it.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
You shouldn't. If the posts are inappropriate and plainly violate forum rules then I can't think of a single reason to leave them in place unless you been instructed to leave it to a different mod or admin. to handle. I've never used active posting in a thread as a reason not to moderate it.

People cry foul if someone holding a banhammer (infractionhammer) stays in the conversation. While I trust myself fully not to abuse said power, the amount of time it would take to convince a majority of other users of that (and the resultant controversy in the intervening time) is great, and with the trial on, that's probably the last thing needed right now.

Or maybe it's the first thing needed. Anyway, I'm sticking by my current mandate for now.

You have no obligation to explain your detailed reasons for banning a user or moderating a post to anyone but the administrators. The forum leadership had faith that you could moderate comments fairly or they wouldn't have asked you. Worrying that some other forum member got his feelings hurt when they were quite obviously violating forum rules is their problem not yours. 

I've felt a need to explain my reasoning maybe a half dozen times in 100's of bans, yet I've only been accused of playing favorites one single time that I can think of. It's all in how you conduct yourself. FWIW that's the way I've always approached it. Tough if anyone doesn't like it if you know the decision was fair and the right thing to do.

Anyway, as we were. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric475 


OK. But accusations have been leveled at certain posters for being on the payroll of a company I detest and you and another poster have supported his claims so far. I have absolutely nothing against the original poster and the second one but why are you, a global moderator, showing your approval to the original accusation?

I assume you are speaking of me. If not, no matter, as you appear not to be a serious poster anyway. I have not *leveled accusations* about any particular posters. Rather I have observed trends in astroturf posting over the last year. But if the shoe fits, by all means, feel free to wear it.

I think I was clear in speaking directly to you about your ignorance of patent law and more specifically about the nature and relevancy of prior art. I will continue to point out the ignorance of any post I care to. If you feel that being called out for posting ignorant propaganda is an unacceptable ad homonym attack, I think it's probably your problem, not mine or the moderator's.

If you feel *someone* has violated the terms of participation of the forum, well that's fine, but you really should be specific about it. Lay it out there for everyone to see. Who violated what terms?

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric475 


Why would you use an ad hominem attack against me? Let me ponder that for a while... Oh right, you're the one who said only a person who is a knowledgeable about utility patents, design patents, nature of prior art, and nature of trade dress should contribute to the forum.

You don't have to be an expert, but at least bring something to the table.You can post as you wish, just don't expect anyone to give you pass when you post rubbish.

When you post ignorant rubbish and pretend it has relevance, how can that bring anything of value to the forum? How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously?

How can you expect no reaction when it appears that all you want to do is post and perpetuate ignorance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

So ignore all the facts and what actually happened and give me an answer that doesn't line up with anyone's perception of reality but my own broken one, got it.

Actually I was just asking for a single perception.  Does the person I originally quote really have problems discerning the differences in products?  Do you?  Either answer the question or keeping dodging it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Since you don't seem to be able to comprehend a simple comment, let me spell it out for you.
You insist that no one could possibly mistake the Samsung product for an Apple product.
For weeks, two examples have been brought up:
1. Samsung's own attorneys (who had been working with the two products for months) couldn't tell the difference when asked to do so in court.
2. Samsung reported to the court that the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an Apple product and only found out when they got home that it was not.
Two unrelated facts that support the contention that Samsung's products are similar enough to Apple's products to cause confusion. Tallest was simply pointing out that these facts have been presented countless times and we still get trolls like you insisting that no one could possibly confuse the products. You might consider joining the real world some time and going on facts rather than your own silly opinion.

What I was really querying for is a single person's opinion.  Can I just go ahead and put you and Tallest Skil on my "can't differentiate materials, colors, aspect ratios and functionality" list?  Samsung's lawyers are on that list, though conditionally since they were not really able to inspect them from anything but one distance and perspective.  Either way, Samsung's lawyers are idiots and I expect that to some degree.  If AI regulars have the same cognitive impairments, that'd be a shame.

Originally Posted by Neo42 
Either answer the question or keeping dodging it.  

It was already answered in the only way that matters.