Originally Posted by mausz
As my examples where subjective, so is your evaluation of them.
This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.
My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.
Wait, I'm not so sure you're talking value adding anything in your points. Amoled vs lcd - it's different sides of the same coin. They're both screens. Is this what the lawsuit is about?
Size is not a value either, given it's purely subjective. I'm 6' 3", does that make me better than you are at 5' 11"? Is this what the lawsuit is about?
User replaceable batteries? And what pray tell value does that bring? Sounds to me more like an excuse for not making the battery robust enough to survive the intended use, but this too is not what we're talking about here is it?
Consumer choice? Is that your argument for what? For allowing Samsung, or anyone else, to copy another company's product(s) so that the consumer has a choice to buy the real thing or a knock-off? Again, I'm not seeing how this pertains to the lawsuit?
Price? Again, how does that pertain to the lawsuit in question? I would argue that it's Samsung's benefit to steal ideas from Apple and others so as not to have the burden of development costs, which in turn allows them to price their products, in some cases, lower than the competition. That's not right or fair, even if you consider their products are generally not competing on the same quality/design level.