or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notification Center
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notification Center - Page 3

post #81 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post


You really need to check your facts. My use of the app Cydia, was incorrect, it was the installer app, released in 2007. David Ashman had a hack in September of 2008, that required the user install using a .deb file via SSH (I should know, I did it myself), then a download was available via the installer app, January 2009. How on earth could android have this as it had no touch screen phones available until late 2009? Nice try, but you fail. Best stick to facts and not the dreams you seem to live off. Google stole the idea, as did samescum. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary.

OK. I checked. Yup, I'm right. Here's the evidence again.

 

Simply watch this video from Nov/2007 for yourself, demonstrating the Status Bar with notifications at the 2:19 mark. Oh, and don't forget the included touchscreen Android device demo'd at around 3:00.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&feature=player_embedded#!

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

OK. I checked. Yup, I'm right.

Simply watch this video from Nov/2007 for yourself, demonstrating the Status Bar with notifications at the 2:19 mark. Oh, and don't forget the included touchscreen Android device demo'd at around 3:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&feature=player_embedded#
!



Are you missing the point of the status bar to also include notifications? As mentioned previously this has existed long before Android was ever purchased by Google.

"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 #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Actually you pretty much absolutely supported my verdict.  There are two issues related to these types of patent suits.  Infringement and validity.  Infringement is almost always the easy one.  Does Samsung hold a patent related to the notification center?  Yes.  Did Apple use something essentially the same in their devices?  If the answer to that is yes, then Apple infringed (regardless of whether or not the patent is valid).  It is even entirely possible that Apple could have a substantially similar patent in its arsenal and they could choose to use that to countersue Samsung.  If that is the case, since they both used a system that violates the others' held patents- they would both be guilty of infringement.  If you dispute that Samsung holds the patent, you're irrational- because Samsung holds the patent.  That is a fact.  If you could claim that Apples version of notification is not in violation of Samsungs patent you could at least make an argument if you have one.  But even a casual look at notification center on Android and Apples version shows they are pretty much the same thing.  Saying Apple didn't infringe the patent would be more emotional than logical.  It would be a lot like the 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom' patents-  Question 1: Did Apple hold a patent on 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom'  Answer(s):  Yes.   Question 2: Did Samsung use 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom' on their devices?  Answer:  Yes.  Therefore Samsung infringed on Apples patents.  It is not really arguable.  I think the android fans that argue otherwise are just as guilty of arguing emotionally instead of logically.

If infringement is found, it is not necessarily a bad thing.  The patent needs to be valid.  In my case I thought the patent should not be valid because it is too obvious a thing to patent.  That would be open to argument and lawyers are pretty good at that and they will- which is why I said they could save some time and just use *my* opinion (and it is just that- my opinion).  In your case, you are claiming there is prior art.  That's an even stronger argument because it would be fact based.  Even with prior art there will still be an argument of whether the 'prior art' is similar enough and as long as they are getting paid lawyers will make the argument.

Either way its the same verdict.
Did Apple infringe:  Yes.
Does it matter:  No, the patent is invalid.

My point.
1. Notifications existed prior to Google or samescum implementing it. Prior Art. Which should invalidate any patent Google or anyone else claims. This needs to be contested.
2. Either of these two companies would have clearly been aware of what was happening on the iPhone back in 2007-2008. I'm just a part time hacker and even I found how to enable notifications back in 2008.
3. Google filed for a NC patent in 2010. Even google aren't buying into a law suit against Apple which should tell you something.
4. Samescum write their code off the back of android, so their NC couldn't predate googles.

It's a bit rich of a corrupt company to claim something that isn't theirs to claim, while the code existed before any of these companies implemented it. That is my point.
post #84 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

OK. I checked. Yup, I'm right. Here's the evidence again.

Simply watch this video from Nov/2007 for yourself, demonstrating the Status Bar with notifications at the 2:19 mark. Oh, and don't forget the included touchscreen Android device demo'd at around 3:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&feature=player_embedded#
!



If you wish to be pedantic, then Growl used software notifications back in 2004. http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php
Prior art, which invalidates any patent. Tested in court, samescum will be shot down in a flaming ball of crud.
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post


If you wish to be pedantic, then Growl used software notifications back in 2004. http://growl.info/documentation/version_history.php
Prior art, which invalidates any patent. Tested in court, samescum will be shot down in a flaming ball of crud.

I don't know if you're right about that new claim of yours or not. I seriously doubt you've any idea of the claims in Samsung's supposed patent, and thus know whether anything Growl did affects them. If I'm wrong and you do have specifics of the Samsung patent, please link it here for the rest of us to take a look at.

 

I was simply addressing your original claim that Google stole the idea for their Android notifications bar from the Cydia app developer you cited. You were incorrect as shown by the video evidence I offered. That's hardly pedantic.

 

Anyway, I'll take your moving of the goalposts as your acceptance that I was correct to begin with.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/23/12 at 2:26pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Are you missing the point of the status bar to also include notifications? As mentioned previously this has existed long before Android was ever purchased by Google.

It may well have been Soli. I've never made any claim as to "where it all came from first". My sole reason for the posts was to point out KR00's erroneous accusations about Google stealing the idea from an iPhone app developer, which you chimed in on appearing to support with your app names and release dates in 2008. 

 

Frankly it's long been my opinion that most of today's smartphone innovations aren't so much inventive as they are expanding/building on existing features that came before them. Truly original never-before-imagined ideas are pretty rare, hardly as common as the number of software patents issued every year would imply. IMO that's another reason to start reining them in.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #87 of 114
Two Samsung articles posted back-to-back. One where Samsung is attacking Apple over a minor issue in Korea and a major antitrust case the EU is bringing against Samsung.

And where is everyone flocking to?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Two Samsung articles posted back-to-back. One where Samsung is attacking Apple over a minor issue in Korea and a major antitrust case the EU is bringing against Samsung.
And where is everyone flocking to?

The more interesting one?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 114
Screw Samsung and their Hem-Droids.
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat View Post

iNews24
How ironic. For a lawsuit "Samsung versus Apple" being reported by a news agency that had the very imaginative idea of sticking a small cap i in front of the word News.

 

Apple didn't invent the "i" prefix.   As the Internet grew in popularity in the 1990s, so did sticking an "i" (either upper or lower case) in front of Internet-connected device names or phrases.  

 

Perhaps you'll recall that Apple had to buy the iPhone name from Cisco, since it dated to a trademark for a1990s internet phone.

 

Heck, as many people know, Apple almost didn't use the late 1990s iMac name that started their use of  the "i".   Steve Jobs originally wanted to call it the "MacMan", no doubt a takeoff on Sony's popular WalkMan devices. 

 

Just imagine if he'd gotten his way.   We'd be using a MacPhone (or maybe a PhoneMan) right now.   Woof !

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

What the f(€&/ guys!?! I had notifications on my ms pocket pc:s on the end of the 90:s!!!
There is way long ago prior art on this one so please stop the crap talk NOW.

 

It is a bit ironic that the old Pocket PCs (and WinMo phones) already had back then, what many people use or want now:   to have notifications and live widgets on the homescreen (aka the Today screen).   It didn't always look pretty, but by golly, it was quick and functional.


Edited by KDarling - 12/23/12 at 8:03pm
post #91 of 114
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Apple didn't invent the "i" prefix.   As the Internet grew in popularity in the 1990s, so did sticking an "i" (either upper or lower case) in front of Internet-connected device names or phrases.

 

I don't recall a use thereof until Apple did it. Do you know any?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I don't recall a use thereof until Apple did it. Do you know any?

 

I used to have a list around here of "i" and "In" named devices.  I'll see if I can find it.   There was a surge of what were called "internet appliances" back then.   Unfortunately, much history was not cached online, and we didn't have cheap digital cameras to record things.  We have to rely on old print magazines, and most of mine are in storage now that I'm nearing retirement.

 

Many devices didn't last very long.  For example, there was a web computer called the "i-Opener" that only was sold for a couple of years around 1999, IIRC.   Others were announced but never sold, or even just topics in research papers.

 

Besides "Internet", "I"  was also used to mean "interactive", and there were plenty of Powerpoint presentations and articles in the early 1990s about "iTV".   I headed up an Interactive Settop Box API lab at that time.   We also had stupider names.   For example, Interactive TV settop boxes were originally called "Digital Entertainment Terminals" or DETs instead of STBs.  Anyway...

 

The iMac was announced in August 1998.

 

The Infogear "iPhone" dates from 1997 but was first noticed by the press in January 1998.   A ZDNet article towards the end of that year also noted, "Another major appliance expected to make a strong showing is the Internet phone. One of the first is the iPhone created by InfoGear Technology Corp., which hopes to have iPhones in 10 percent of U.S. homes by the end of 2000."


Edited by KDarling - 12/23/12 at 9:34pm
post #93 of 114

Isaac Asimov's Book  I, Robot. Could be argued as the first! Although It is clear by the syntax that it is a sentence proclaiming self awareness. I remember in the early eighties after reading the book in high school proclaiming "I, Toaster"  , "I, Chainsaw" etc. It was a common joke in my neck of the woods. product wise I only remember Ipswitch Incorporated. a developer of IT solutions began selling iMail Server in 1994. 

post #94 of 114
Originally Posted by reasonableGuy View Post
Isaac Asimov's Book  I, Robot. Could be argued as the first! Although It is clear by the syntax that it is a sentence proclaiming self awareness.

 

Having nothing at all to do with this, yeah. 

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #95 of 114

Your right. off topic. But still funny

post #96 of 114

Like "iPhone, "iPod" was another name Apple had to buy because it was already trademarked by someone else with an "internet" use in mind.

 

At the time it came out, the "iPod" name belonged to an inventor from New Jersey who had registered it couple of years earlier for  public internet kiosks.

 

There are also stories that the name was used back around 1995 in Australia, for an actual plastic pod chair with internet access.


Edited by KDarling - 12/23/12 at 10:19pm
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I used to have a list around here of "i" and "In" named devices.  I'll see if I can find it. 

 

Thanks, babe. You go and get back to us with that.

 

In the meantime, could you be a darl and make me a coffee?

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Like "iPhone, "iPod" was another name Apple had to buy because it was already trademarked by someone else with an "internet" use in mind.

No. Vinnie Chieco named the iPod
http://www.linkedin.com/in/vinniechieco
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I don't recall a use thereof until Apple did it. Do you know any?

 

iPad, iPhone, iPod were all used by others before Apple decided to purchase the rights to the names.

 

None of it were originally Apple's.

 

I'm guessing this is one of those facts that the mind tends to "forget" if it goes against one's arguments.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #100 of 114
Why people don't first read previous posts by others before posting is beyond me.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #101 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Why people don't first read previous posts by others before posting is beyond me.

 

I see what you did there.

 

1wink.gif

 

Well said!  

 

Happy Holidays!

post #102 of 114
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post
iPad, iPhone, iPod were all used by others before Apple decided to purchase the rights to the names.

 

None of it were originally Apple's.

 

A use of the "i-" prefix. iMac still predates all three of those. One of them was used in an illegal knockoff of the iMac, in fact.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #103 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't recall a use thereof until Apple did it. Do you know any?

I used a telephone equipment tester called the iTron in 1990, but it wasn't something the average consumer would ever know about.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #104 of 114

Actually the first commercial android phone was released toward the end of 2008 and just to let you know that phone had a touch screen. But I am sure that you knew about the HTC Dream AKA t-mobile G1

post #105 of 114

Gotta love butthurt companies like Samsung and Gizmodo.

 

Apple: Come at me bro

post #106 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

A use of the "i-" prefix. iMac still predates all three of those. One of them was used in an illegal knockoff of the iMac, in fact.

 

As I noted above, the public use of "iPhone" did predate "iMac".    And if the Australian story is true, "iPod" predated both by several years.

 

Again, for those coming in late, we're just talking about how Apple's ad agency ( the ones who talked Jobs into using "iMac" instead of "MacMan" ) didn't make up the "i" prefix out of thin air.

 

It was almost an inside joke at that point in the industry to call something "i-this" or "i-that", to emphasize the public's new desire for Internet connectivity via so-called "internet appliances", or for interactivity such as video on demand.

 

This is why it doesn't automatically mean someone is copying Apple,  just because they have an "i" prefix (e,g, "iNews").   It's the same as with the green phone icon... Apple itself was simply using a common industry icon/phrase.   Apple loves taking something like that, and trying to make it their own for marketing purposes.  It helps keep their products in people's minds.  Very clever, similar to Microsoft using "Windows", or Apple later trying to trademark "Multi-touch".

 

That said, I hope everyone is having a great holiday!


Edited by KDarling - 12/24/12 at 4:04pm
post #107 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

As I noted above, the public use of "iPhone" did predate "iMac".    And if the Australian story is true, "iPod" predated both by several years.

 

Again, for those coming in late, we're just talking about how Apple's ad agency ( the ones who talked Jobs into using "iMac" instead of "MacMan" ) didn't make up the "i" prefix out of thin air.

 

It was almost an inside joke at that point in the industry to call something "i-this" or "i-that", to emphasize the public's new desire for Internet connectivity via so-called "internet appliances", or for interactivity such as video on demand.

 

This is why it doesn't automatically mean someone is copying Apple,  just because they have an "i" prefix (e,g, "iNews").   It's the same as with the green phone icon... Apple itself was simply using a common industry icon/phrase.   Apple loves taking something like that, and trying to make it their own for marketing purposes.  It helps keep their products in people's minds.  Very clever, similar to Microsoft using "Windows", or Apple later trying to trademark "Multi-touch".

 

That said, I hope everyone is having a great holiday!

 

a) It doesn't really matter where the 'i' prefix comes from.

 

b) Nothing that you've written supports your assertion that it doesn't mean someone is copying Apple when they do it today. The history has nothing to do with why someone would choose to use it today.

 

c) No, it isn't the same as the white on green phone icon. Not only that, you haven't even established the thinnest of pretexts for why it would be the same, even ignoring the fact the your conclusion about the 'i' prefix is unwarranted.

 

The rest of your post is as nonsensical as usual from you. (The guy who claimed to have decades of touch screen programming experience and to have written a "browser engine" by yourself with your bare hands.)

 

That said, you're still full of it.

post #108 of 114
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

It's the same as with the green phone icon... Apple itself was simply using a common industry icon/phrase.

 

No.

 

1000

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #109 of 114
Tired of this. Vast resources are being wasted with all this legal wrangling on both sides.
post #110 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

iPad, iPhone, iPod were all used by others before Apple decided to purchase the rights to the names.

 

None of it were originally Apple's.

 

I'm guessing this is one of those facts that the mind tends to "forget" if it goes against one's arguments.

 

The components of a bread-based crust, tomato paste, ham, cheese, and various other toppings all existed well before the eighteenth century.

 

However, Raffaele Esposito is still a pizza legend for good reason.

 

700

 

Comprendere?

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No.

 

Apple was a latecomer to a world full of known phone conventions.   This was both good and bad.  They could throw away some complications, but to be considered easy to learn, Apple also had to include certain items that would be understandable to people who'd been using cell phones for years.  

 

One of the primary user symbols is the Answer/Send button.   From the very first brick sized cell phone, a green handset has been its icon.   

 

700

 

The handset symbol has been used in different orientations over the years.  A left-leaning handset was favored by HTC on most of their phones, for example, as shown above.  Others used a different orientation, but left looked good.  Even Apple later picked the same left orientation as HTC, instead of picking something unique to themselves.

 

Now, good design meant that when moving that common symbol to an icon with a background color, it made the most sense to switch to a white handset on a green background.   And sure enough, that's what Skype did before the iPhone, and so did Windows Mobile dialer skin makers years even before them:

 

1000

 

In fact, the left-learning white handset on green background symbol had been used enough that Apple could not trademark the original plain version they showed at the iPhone introduction.    Apple had to add background stripes to their trademark application in order to make it unique enough to register:

 

1000

 

So, yes, Apple used a phone symbol that people would immediately understand from past experience.   They did not go out on a limb and invent something entirely new, not even close.


Edited by KDarling - 12/26/12 at 4:55pm
post #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Apple was a latecomer to a world full of known phone conventions.   This was both good and bad.  They could throw away some complications, but to be considered easy to learn, Apple also had to include certain items that would be understandable to people who'd been using cell phones for years.  

 

One of the primary user symbols is the Answer/Send button.   From the very first brick sized cell phone, a green handset has been its icon.   

 

700

 

The handset symbol has been used in different orientations over the years.  A left-leaning handset was favored by HTC on most of their phones, for example, as shown above.  Others used a different orientation, but left looked good.  Even Apple later picked the same left orientation as HTC, instead of picking something unique to themselves.

 

Now, good design meant that when moving that common symbol to an icon with a background color, it made the most sense to switch to a white handset on a green background.   And sure enough, that's what Skype did before the iPhone, and so did Windows Mobile dialer skin makers years even before them:

 

1000

 

In fact, the left-learning white handset on green background symbol had been used enough that Apple could not trademark the original plain version they showed at the iPhone introduction.    Apple had to add background stripes to their trademark application in order to make it unique enough to register:

 

1000

 

So, yes, Apple used a phone symbol that people would immediately understand from past experience.   They did not go out on a limb and invent something entirely new, not even close.

 

You say all this stuff like it changes the fact that Samsung ripped off Apple's phone icon. It doesn't.

 

BTW, when are we getting details on your touch screen and browser engine development? 

post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

You say all this stuff like it changes the fact that Samsung ripped off Apple's phone icon. It doesn't.

 

BTW, when are we getting details on your touch screen and browser engine development? 

 

Samsung ripped off many things from Apple's iPhone:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone

post #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

 

Samsung ripped off many things from Apple's iPhone:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone

 

Well, yes, pretty much everything they could.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notification Center