Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.
It looks like there's some shenanigans going on in Wikipedia. Dates are being changed. It specifically stated on the F700 article that Samsung had filed a patent in December 2006, and someone has changed it to 2007.
It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.
This is what blows my mind. Beyond who is wrong vs who is right, Why don't we have patents that explicitly state their purpose. Ambiguity should be cause for invalidation.
This is what blows my mind. Beyond who is wrong vs who is right, Why don't we have patents that explicitly state their purpose. Ambiguity should be cause for invalidation.
We do have patents that explicitly state the purposes of the invention. In fact, good patents always do. Good patents feature breadth but not ambiguity. Ambiguity can lead to defeat in the face of challenge, but not a properly written patent that broadly spans a wide range of applications.
Having said that, the language used in patents sometimes make them sound ambiguous when in fact, they are not.
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol
No it's not. It's a laughable attempt to spread lies. Advice: Don't swallow everything you read just because it appears to back up your own biased opinions. Question where the information comes from and check other sources to corroborate the information. Here we have an obvious motive for misinformation and you just swallowed it whole assuming it's an excellent counter-attack against Apple. They can't even spell correctly for god's sake! Pathetic. I swear people live their lives in a daze most of the time.
I actually understand that fan sites can and are often very biased. The reported stories on here are a good example. But when you have an Android site debunking this pathetic propaganda then I think it's time to drop it and move on.
I can't believe this picture is doing the rounds again.
Patents are the strongest weapon Apple has in defending its IP. The huge increase in touch-screen phones and Goog's redirection of Android are symptoms of the original iPhone launch. Subsequent updates have been to level the feature-set playing field on both sides.
However, Apple took the PDA form-factor and ran with it, innovating again and again on the way these superficially-similar functions work and present themselves. This is what they are trying to protect through litigation.
Microsoft has a huge amount of vapour-destined R&D, if it can license some stuff, it does. But never when it would make more money doing something else - making the Xbox instead of working with Sega, selling windows to hardware manufacturers, etc.
Google and Android is difficult. But basically seems very hard to tell if they're making any money at all on it. It's doubtful. It's very hard to litigate for damages if the opposing party isn't making any profit. Like Chrome, Gmail, Goggles etc etc etc it's a free service (but in Android's case comes with considerable strings attached) that "users" (including hardware manufacturers) can do what they wish with, Given Advertising Dollars. Their true customers will always be Advertisers. No company is altruistic, they will back out if it becomes too difficult for them to profit. As they have time and again. As has Apple, we know.
Apple is banking on Google abandoning the android ship because of the storm. Apple hopes stormy clouds of hovering litigation make this more likely.
Samsung will copy anyone because they're factories with a face. How they've been successful is by doing the same as the other guy with their own hardware production lines. Foxconn isn't run nearly as close to the bone as Sammy's factories. And that's how Samsung makes a profit! That and minimal R&D/Original Thinking :-P This is actually not as true as it once was (look at the batshit-crazy features they put in the SIII!), and Apple are seeing this monster as a bigger and bigger threat. But it has a weak point. Their history of shameless copying. They are a greater threat than Google in many ways now, and Apple has to go for the throat, they're backed into a corner.
Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol
Why is that?
A tired, old, thoroughly debunked picture is making the rounds, again.
Now back reality S Voice alone, the new feature Samsung copied "innovated" from Siri is more than enough to make the latest injunction applicable to the SIII, more so than the Nexus.
A tired, old, thoroughly debunked picture is making the rounds, again.
Now back reality S Voice alone, the new feature Samsung copied "innovated" from Siri is more than enough to make the latest injunction applicable to the SIII, more so than the Nexus.
Agree with you that S-Voice wasn't needed, and just adds to their rep for mimicking Apple features. Of course S-Voice isn't really a Samsung creation anyway as I understand it. Isn't it pretty much Vlingo re-badged?
Agree with you that S-Voice wasn't needed, and just adds to their rep for mimicking Apple features. Of course S-Voice isn't really a Samsung creation anyway as I understand it. Isn't it pretty much Vlingo re-badged?
Oh, I DID. Did you? If so, explain it to me. Just what does Apple claim to own with that patent? In any case what does that matter. I thought I agreed with you that Sammy shouldn't have included it, no matter where it came from. ???
The S III feels and looks NOTHING like an iPhone. iPhone looks pretty nice. iPad looks awesome and is the best looking tablet easily. But the S III... it feels and looks even more premium to me than an iPhone. Again, to me it looks a lot different. It feels soooo nice in the hand. Also I looove the "TouchWiz" Skin Samsung created. I think it's very innovative and nice to use. Just my 2 cents, as an also avid Mac fan.
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
I'd take late Steve Jobs testimonial about shameless stealing of others' ideas more than good starting point. I never liked him much, but my respect for him was huge - more than huge enough to call him a liar.
Oh well. It coulda been Sammy doing that keynote in June 2007 and redefining the entire mobile industry.
Instead, it was, of course, Apple. And Apple never liked to license anything, but they *loved* to patent - from day 1 of the company. It's the product of supreme foresight.
Heh.. you know you're quite accurate. They don't like to license anything, even things that are already patented. They also bought a lot of their patent portfolio by buying out companies. While this can be seen as a good thing for Apple, you shouldn't pretend that they invented their main selling features in house. They bought and implemented them in most cases, even if they (typically) did a nice job of it. When they don't license something, they get sued assuming the patent holder has the resources to pursue it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Those dates are actually accurate, but no one really cares. It should be noted that whether images favor one side or the other, a single image never describes a design patent or any other patent. The F700 has a slide out keyboard, but this does give you some idea of where the Samsung design originated. Given Apple's secrecy, I doubt they knew much about what would be developed. I can't remember if the original displays were Samsung or LG, but Samsung was already working on lcd panels in that size range and appropriate to phones at the time.
Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.
Wiki is incorrect there. If you look at their source references, several of the links no longer work. The ones that still work are Bloomberg and phone arena. Bloomberg claims design patents were filed in December 2006. They did not provide a link. Phone arena suggested the phone itself was first unveiled in February 2007. Anyway the wiki article conflicts with its own sources. Someone will probably fix it. If you look at 2008, you won't find the tech blogs and press releases.
The S III feels and looks NOTHING like an iPhone. iPhone looks pretty nice. iPad looks awesome and is the best looking tablet easily. But the S III... it feels and looks even more premium to me than an iPhone. Again, to me it looks a lot different. It feels soooo nice in the hand. Also I looove the "TouchWiz" Skin Samsung created. I think it's very innovative and nice to use. Just my 2 cents, as an also avid Mac fan.
In case you didn't notice this case isn't about design patents
It infringes Apple's technical patents. in particular the unified search patent Apple filed in 2004 which Samsung made a point of using in S Voice advertised as a direct competitor to Siri.
btw Here's a video I made demonstrating the lag inherent in Android.
I'd take late Steve Jobs testimonial about shameless stealing of others' ideas more than good starting point. I never liked him much, but my respect for him was huge - more than huge enough to call him a liar.
Your understanding of that quote is about as smart as you understanding of the issues being raised here.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.
It looks like there's some shenanigans going on in Wikipedia. Dates are being changed. It specifically stated on the F700 article that Samsung had filed a patent in December 2006, and someone has changed it to 2007.
The source cited says 2006. http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/16106-apple-s-war-on-android
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.
This is what blows my mind. Beyond who is wrong vs who is right, Why don't we have patents that explicitly state their purpose. Ambiguity should be cause for invalidation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl
This is what blows my mind. Beyond who is wrong vs who is right, Why don't we have patents that explicitly state their purpose. Ambiguity should be cause for invalidation.
We do have patents that explicitly state the purposes of the invention. In fact, good patents always do. Good patents feature breadth but not ambiguity. Ambiguity can lead to defeat in the face of challenge, but not a properly written patent that broadly spans a wide range of applications.
Having said that, the language used in patents sometimes make them sound ambiguous when in fact, they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol
No it's not. It's a laughable attempt to spread lies. Advice: Don't swallow everything you read just because it appears to back up your own biased opinions. Question where the information comes from and check other sources to corroborate the information. Here we have an obvious motive for misinformation and you just swallowed it whole assuming it's an excellent counter-attack against Apple. They can't even spell correctly for god's sake! Pathetic. I swear people live their lives in a daze most of the time.
http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
I actually understand that fan sites can and are often very biased. The reported stories on here are a good example. But when you have an Android site debunking this pathetic propaganda then I think it's time to drop it and move on.
I can't believe this picture is doing the rounds again.
Patents are the strongest weapon Apple has in defending its IP. The huge increase in touch-screen phones and Goog's redirection of Android are symptoms of the original iPhone launch. Subsequent updates have been to level the feature-set playing field on both sides.
However, Apple took the PDA form-factor and ran with it, innovating again and again on the way these superficially-similar functions work and present themselves. This is what they are trying to protect through litigation.
Microsoft has a huge amount of vapour-destined R&D, if it can license some stuff, it does. But never when it would make more money doing something else - making the Xbox instead of working with Sega, selling windows to hardware manufacturers, etc.
Google and Android is difficult. But basically seems very hard to tell if they're making any money at all on it. It's doubtful. It's very hard to litigate for damages if the opposing party isn't making any profit. Like Chrome, Gmail, Goggles etc etc etc it's a free service (but in Android's case comes with considerable strings attached) that "users" (including hardware manufacturers) can do what they wish with, Given Advertising Dollars. Their true customers will always be Advertisers. No company is altruistic, they will back out if it becomes too difficult for them to profit. As they have time and again. As has Apple, we know.
Apple is banking on Google abandoning the android ship because of the storm. Apple hopes stormy clouds of hovering litigation make this more likely.
Samsung will copy anyone because they're factories with a face. How they've been successful is by doing the same as the other guy with their own hardware production lines. Foxconn isn't run nearly as close to the bone as Sammy's factories. And that's how Samsung makes a profit! That and minimal R&D/Original Thinking :-P This is actually not as true as it once was (look at the batshit-crazy features they put in the SIII!), and Apple are seeing this monster as a bigger and bigger threat. But it has a weak point. Their history of shameless copying. They are a greater threat than Google in many ways now, and Apple has to go for the throat, they're backed into a corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol
Why is that?
A tired, old, thoroughly debunked picture is making the rounds, again.
Now back reality S Voice alone, the new feature Samsung copied "innovated" from Siri is more than enough to make the latest injunction applicable to the SIII, more so than the Nexus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Why is that?
A tired, old, thoroughly debunked picture is making the rounds, again.
Now back reality S Voice alone, the new feature Samsung copied "innovated" from Siri is more than enough to make the latest injunction applicable to the SIII, more so than the Nexus.
Agree with you that S-Voice wasn't needed, and just adds to their rep for mimicking Apple features. Of course S-Voice isn't really a Samsung creation anyway as I understand it. Isn't it pretty much Vlingo re-badged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Agree with you that S-Voice wasn't needed, and just adds to their rep for mimicking Apple features. Of course S-Voice isn't really a Samsung creation anyway as I understand it. Isn't it pretty much Vlingo re-badged?
The integrated search part is the issue.
Didn't you read the patent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
The integrated search part is the issue.
Didn't you read the patent?
Oh, I DID. Did you? If so, explain it to me. Just what does Apple claim to own with that patent? In any case what does that matter. I thought I agreed with you that Sammy shouldn't have included it, no matter where it came from. ???
BTW, I really belong now. . . I've been accused of being an Apple fanboy!!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150965/analyst-apple-can-relax-as-google-nexus-7-is-just-another-android-tablet/80#post_2138783
The S III feels and looks NOTHING like an iPhone. iPhone looks pretty nice. iPad looks awesome and is the best looking tablet easily. But the S III... it feels and looks even more premium to me than an iPhone. Again, to me it looks a lot different. It feels soooo nice in the hand. Also I looove the "TouchWiz" Skin Samsung created. I think it's very innovative and nice to use. Just my 2 cents, as an also avid Mac fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
I'd take late Steve Jobs testimonial about shameless stealing of others' ideas more than good starting point. I never liked him much, but my respect for him was huge - more than huge enough to call him a liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Oh well. It coulda been Sammy doing that keynote in June 2007 and redefining the entire mobile industry.
Instead, it was, of course, Apple. And Apple never liked to license anything, but they *loved* to patent - from day 1 of the company. It's the product of supreme foresight.
Heh.. you know you're quite accurate. They don't like to license anything, even things that are already patented. They also bought a lot of their patent portfolio by buying out companies. While this can be seen as a good thing for Apple, you shouldn't pretend that they invented their main selling features in house. They bought and implemented them in most cases, even if they (typically) did a nice job of it. When they don't license something, they get sued assuming the patent holder has the resources to pursue it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Those dates are actually accurate, but no one really cares. It should be noted that whether images favor one side or the other, a single image never describes a design patent or any other patent. The F700 has a slide out keyboard, but this does give you some idea of where the Samsung design originated. Given Apple's secrecy, I doubt they knew much about what would be developed. I can't remember if the original displays were Samsung or LG, but Samsung was already working on lcd panels in that size range and appropriate to phones at the time.
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-brings-out-the-big-guns-f700-is-ultra-smart-083814/
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.
Wiki is incorrect there. If you look at their source references, several of the links no longer work. The ones that still work are Bloomberg and phone arena. Bloomberg claims design patents were filed in December 2006. They did not provide a link. Phone arena suggested the phone itself was first unveiled in February 2007. Anyway the wiki article conflicts with its own sources. Someone will probably fix it. If you look at 2008, you won't find the tech blogs and press releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic
The S III feels and looks NOTHING like an iPhone. iPhone looks pretty nice. iPad looks awesome and is the best looking tablet easily. But the S III... it feels and looks even more premium to me than an iPhone. Again, to me it looks a lot different. It feels soooo nice in the hand. Also I looove the "TouchWiz" Skin Samsung created. I think it's very innovative and nice to use. Just my 2 cents, as an also avid Mac fan.
In case you didn't notice this case isn't about design patents
It infringes Apple's technical patents. in particular the unified search patent Apple filed in 2004 which Samsung made a point of using in S Voice advertised as a direct competitor to Siri.
btw Here's a video I made demonstrating the lag inherent in Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This kills me every time!
Good lord, a voice recording application with *shock horror* an image of a microphone.
An already debunked image of a store display.
A size-minimised USB plug adaptor, at least it's a different colour. They should have put spikes on it to differentiate it?
A packaging box for a square product is ... square.
Crying shame that you're wrong about all of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
I'd take late Steve Jobs testimonial about shameless stealing of others' ideas more than good starting point. I never liked him much, but my respect for him was huge - more than huge enough to call him a liar.
Your understanding of that quote is about as smart as you understanding of the issues being raised here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
Good lord, a voice recording application with *shock horror* an image of a microphone.
An already debunked image of a store display.
A size-minimised USB plug adaptor, at least it's a different colour. They should have put spikes on it to differentiate it?
A packaging box for a square product is ... square.
This response kills me every time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
Good lord, a voice recording application with *shock horror* an image of a microphone.
An already debunked image of a store display.
A size-minimised USB plug adaptor, at least it's a different colour. They should have put spikes on it to differentiate it?
A packaging box for a square product is ... square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Crying shame that you're wrong about all of that.
Why is he wrong about all of that? I thought the store display was debunked as a store within a store and not Samsung's fault?
The other 3 examples are a bit weak.
(I actually dislike Samsung for ripping off Apple, but like to see fairness when criticising others)