Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.



    As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.



    The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)



    I understand your point. However, it is not the point that was being discussed, so rather than addressing the point that was actually under discussion, you changed the topic to something that was easier to criticize.



    As for your second argument, you do not have to buy new hardware everytime you want to upgrade your software when you own an iPhone. For android, there are many phones that you do not have to buy new hardware to get the latest software; however, there are also many phones where the opposite is true.
  • Reply 82 of 144
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.



    HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.



    What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.
  • Reply 83 of 144
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    The primary objective of the aggregated pictures were to show how the screen dominated the majority of the phones' real estate.



    What my picture of the SPH-i330 (i300 for the older version) showed was that Apple wasnt the first manufacturer to have started the whole "screen is the major real estate" design language, contrary to what the aggregated pictures are suggesting.



    The designs of the devices were already headed in that direction to begin with.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


    What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.



    If you leave Samsung out of this one then I'll agree with you.
  • Reply 84 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    Uh, yes they do. They look remarkably similar. They're both tablets of similar dimensions, and look remarkably close to both the iPad and almost all other tablets.



    It just goes to further invalidate the argument that "Apple did it first." Sheesh.



    Shakespeare didn't use original plots in his plays.



    Good luck trying to get away with plagiarizing his work
  • Reply 85 of 144
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.



    HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.



    Samsung predated Apple in introducing a screen first/ button second design in 2002 for Sprint network ( of which I've personally owned).



    Please stop trying to deny the obvious.



    1) There are 6 buttons on the front of that phone with about 40% of the face not being dedicated to the touchscreen. Conclusion: The buttons were not an afterthought.



    2) That phone's SW relied very little on the touchscreen. Only a few apps were even useful for the touchscreen. Most of the activity was done with the HW buttons. Conclusion: You are still lying.
  • Reply 86 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Apple's notification center is quite different than Android's or webOS', and many reviewers have noted this.



    See, this is what I don't understand. You believe the Notification Center is quite different, and yet, it's essentially the same. Turn the argument around, and say that Samsung Galaxy Tab is quite different from the iPad, and you say that it's essentially the same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


    What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.



    So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?



    Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?
  • Reply 87 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    Do you own a car with more or less wheels than four?



    No?



    Why is it OK for car manufacturers to make cars with the same amount of wheels, despite the vehicles themselves being wholly different?



    Well, the number of wheels would have actually been an evolution of wagon and carriage, which predates patent laws.



    The real innovation of the automobile was the gasoline engine, by Karl Benz. And there were patents that protected the invention.



    Back to the point, I'm not saying other companies can't make products that borrow design cues or are influenced from Apple's designs, but they should acknowledge Apple as the trendsetter. Anti-Apple people seem to want to marginalize any influence Apple has had over the course of technology.
  • Reply 88 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    You're exactly right. So now it's OK for Apple to simply use it?



    If its properly licensed and doesn't infringe on patents.



    If not, Palm can sue to their hearts content.
  • Reply 89 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    See, this is what I don't understand. You believe the Notification Center is quite different, and yet, it's essentially the same. Turn the argument around, and say that Samsung Galaxy Tab is quite different from the iPad, and you say that it's essentially the same.







    So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?



    Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?



    The notification center is a singular element. Samsung is potentially in trouble because they potentially infringed on a myriad of protected elements when, combined, make the iPad what it is.



    And no, Apple shouldn't have exclusive rights to a touchscreen device. Who says that?
  • Reply 90 of 144
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    1) There are 6 buttons on the front of that phone with about 40% of the face not being dedicated to the touchscreen. Conclusion: The buttons were not an afterthought.



    2) That phone's SW relied very little on the touchscreen. Only a few apps were even useful for the touchscreen. Most of the activity was done with the HW buttons. Conclusion: You are still lying.





    lol



    Now you are jumping into the design methodologies. Wow, unbelievable. You just cant take the truth now can you?



    Now its becoming personal? I must be a really bad person.



    And now I'm "lying"?



    A person is lying when he/she believes one truth to be true yet consistently makes statements that are otherwise. However, in this case, I'm not lying. I firmly believe that Samsung was the first to launch a screen-is-the-main interface device in the mobile communication market.
  • Reply 91 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    You make fun of "puerile banality" just to end your comment with a slam about living in a basement and not having sex is in discordance of your contrafribblarities. I'd hate for you be anuspeptic, phrasmotic, or even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation.



    Wow, quoting Blackadder on an Apple forum. Now I KNOW I'm in the right place.
  • Reply 92 of 144
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?



    Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?



    No, I never claimed Apple should be the sole producer of touchscreen phones. You came up with that one up yourself. I simply said that before Apple popularized touchscreen phones (and actually made them useable, pre-iPhone touch screens sucked), no-one wanted a touch screen phone. Same with tablets. No one wanted a tablet pre-iPad, but for some reason trolls like yourself try to claim Apple has nothing to do with altering the direction of technology.
  • Reply 93 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


    No, I never claimed Apple should be the sole producer of touchscreen phones. You came up with that one up yourself. I simply said that before Apple popularized touchscreen phones (and actually made them useable, pre-iPhone touch screens sucked), no-one wanted a touch screen phone. Same with tablets. No one wanted a tablet pre-iPad, but for some reason trolls like yourself try to claim Apple has nothing to do with altering the direction of technology.



    lol.



    So this really has nothing to do with patents, and more about others paying Apple props for influencing technology.



    Gotcha.
  • Reply 94 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


    Where the heck the patents that truly define the iPhone experience?

    -Inertial scrolling

    -Capacitive touch screen

    -Multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-zoom, rotate

    -Screen transitions on a mobile device as way to work around display size limitations



    As with all good fireworks displays, I have no doubt they are saving the best for the last!
  • Reply 95 of 144
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    Do you own a car with more or less wheels than four?



    No?



    Why is it OK for car manufacturers to make cars with the same amount of wheels, despite the vehicles themselves being wholly different?



    Why do people even make this argument? Is Apple saying they can't use displays, glass, plastic, metal, CPUs, GPUs, RAM, digital storage, batteries, have a front and back, or any other basic things that come with a physical object and consumer electronics? Of course not, so why argue that a blatant copy is somehow in line with having wheels on or a motor in a car?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post


    Wow, quoting Blackadder on an Apple forum. Now I KNOW I'm in the right place.



    I was hoping someone would notice. I think the guy I was responding to thinks they are real words.
  • Reply 96 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Back to the point, I'm not saying other companies can't make products that borrow design cues or are influenced from Apple's designs, but they should acknowledge Apple as the trendsetter. Anti-Apple people seem to want to marginalize any influence Apple has had over the course of technology.



    This would be ideal, but I don't think it fits under the current realization of IP law. Ideally, companies should be able to borrow from each other (to some extent), and acknowledge influence, but doing so would potentially open them to legal attack. Thus, we have companies pretending that everything they come up with sprang fully formed from the head of their R&D department, with no intellectual heritage.
  • Reply 97 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    ... Slide to unlock has been around forever ...



    Here you are just making things up. Several very smart folks have been searching for prior art on "slide to unlock" and no one has found anything yet. This statement is simply false.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    ... Patenting a method of transferring bits in order to relay data? Yes, that is absolutely every digital device in existence. ...



    Here you demonstrate that you know *nothing* about "data detectors" which is probably the strongest patent of the four and has been patented by Apple and talked about for many years, (long before iPhone ever came out).
  • Reply 98 of 144
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shidell View Post


    lol.



    So this really has nothing to do with patents, and more about others paying Apple props for influencing technology.



    Gotcha.



    Google has been copying Apple's (patented) touchscreen paradigms and ideas from the day the iPhone was unveiled. Samsung has copied Apple's (patented) designs, though they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.



    There really is no point in discussing something with someone as immature as yourself, as you've proven you can't accept anyone's arguments favouring Apple, even though the truth is obvious. You just come up with irrelevant nonsense that makes no real argument at all.
  • Reply 99 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post


    Google has been copying Apple's (patented) touchscreen paradigms and ideas from the day the iPhone was unveiled. Samsung has copied Apple's (patented) designs, though they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.



    There really is no point in discussing something with someone as immature as yourself, as you've proven you can't accept anyone's arguments favouring Apple, even though the truth is obvious. You just come up with irrelevant nonsense that makes no real argument at all.



    And so? What about devices that have been detecting and using input via a screen prior to the iPhone? Just because Apple popularized a touchscreen, we forget all about how others popularized devices using the screen as an input method to begin with? Sigh.



    You want people to believe that Apple did everything, and they're simply continuing with the progress of technology, like every other tech company in existence is doing.



    I give them props on popularizing products as they have, but if you expect me to listen to others say that they're fairly suing companies from the moral high ground, I won't accept that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Here you are just making things up. Several very smart folks have been searching for prior art on "slide to unlock" and no one has found anything yet. This statement is simply false.



    Here you demonstrate that you know *nothing* about "data detectors" which is probably the strongest patent of the four and has been patented by Apple and talked about for many years, (long before iPhone ever came out).



    I've already proven how slide to unlock was done before Apple did it.



    And as a software developer, I would like to know what in the hell you're talking about with respect to "data detectors." What I posted is not related to any sort of "data detector" terminology whatsoever.



    Please elaborate and defend your argument, because it sounds like you're just making stuff up.
  • Reply 100 of 144
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy View Post


    We keep hearing that these Apple patents are so solid, yet none have gained any traction in the USA.



    Er, did the 3 to 5 year timeline referenced in the article totally fly over your head?



    Declaring irrelevancy is just a tad premature at this time.
Sign In or Register to comment.