So, you are saying that Apple does not own rectangular shape with rounded coners, shiny metal look rim and home button. Good.
Of course not, however Apple do own some remarkably detailed design patents, going well beyond a two dimensional front view, which Samsung are likely to have infringed, enough to have several injunctions placed against their products in other jurisdictions.
The "OMG, Apple has patented the rectangle!!!" is a diversionary battle cry of the lowest of the low Internet trolls.
Google sued MSFT over MSFT using Google's search results with BING.
No they didn't.
No they didn't.
No, Google just whined about Bing to whoever would listen, like the spoiled little brats that they are.
If you're going to do a comparison, don't compare apples to oranges (excuse the pun). The Samsung screen is the app drawer and is similar across all Android devices, not just Samsung (although each has its own variation according to the OEM's launcher). The Sense screen is the home screen which is why it looks different, and Samsung home screens are just as different. Stop spreading fud.
No, Google just whined about Bing to whoever would listen, like the spoiled little brats that they are.
You're right of course. They should have immediately run to court and sued like "big boys do".
It sounds like Peckerhand didn't read beyond the first line of the design patent. His statement regarding "rectangles" is nothing more then a straw man argument.
While the U.S. patent law needs updating, and whether such updating even would effect this court case, current law is what it is, and Samsung has to live or die by what "is" and not what they wish it "is."
Peckerhand needs to stop the verbal masturbation and deal with law as it currently is written.
I agree with the general idea, but:
- ad hominem arguments fail hard. They're the mark of idiots, so why would you use them?
- Packingham, since it's his name, is precisely doing the "deal with law as it currently is written" part. Whether law is properly written or used is something else entirely.
- opinions actually differ depending on where you are in the world.
For example, what is considered flirting in Southern Europe is considered sexual harassment in the prudish devout gun-swerving United States. Both sides obviously consider the other side to be deeply wrong. Why wouldn't design be subject to the same differences of opinion?
What you consider blatant and evil imitation and copy can perfectly be seen as acceptable and good in a society that based its whole culture on imitation and copy, like China or Asia. Making good copies of paintings, temples or martial arts is hard work, you know? Chinese mandarins actually (from the Sui dynasty) were recruited based on an examination of their ability to reproduce the Classic Works.
As I believe I've proven, your opinion is solely that, an opinion, and American Law as currently written might already allow Samsung what Samsung says it is allowed. Moreover, even if this is not the case, whether American Law is _right_ is a matter of cultural choices, subject to time and geography. Samsung is Korean. Apple's American.
I still think Samsung is lying, here, but it's my personal opinion...
Problem still is, you're assuming "Samsung stole from Apple". Samsung doesn't see it this way (or at least, pretends not to).
Courts shall decide about this. I believe Apple will win, but that's precisely why we have courts and not mobs of people hanging "niggers" and others "yellows". See how fast it moves from "Samsung might have copied" to "let's burn those niggers"? Whenever I read statements like yours, I'm afraid...
I don't like lawyers. I like them more than I like mobs. They're a necessary pain, I guess.
Personally, I think patents are for the sissy who's product can't hold market share. All these companies hiding behind patent infringement lawsuits are like children yelling back and forth... "I had it first!... No, I had it first... NO I had it first...." grow up and realize that patents don't make a great product... people do. bunch of babies holding on to a deprecated system.
Correction, Samsung doesn't MAKE great products, it COPIES great products!
hill60 wrote: »
Here's the Samsung F700, the way the fandroids don't want you to see it i.e. apart from being rectangular why it is nothing like the iPhone design patents:-
Why the rubbish about "rectangles" is precisely that, rubbish for trolling Internet sites, you'd expect better from an executive representing a company.
It is time for Samsung to get out of court and into the design room.
They are being mediocre at best, if they want competition they need something cooler than the iPhone, not a copy of it. LOOSERS!
And it is time for apple to do the same, where is my OSX 15" iPad with hexa core i7 and oodles of Ram?
I know I want it!!!
They are being mediocre at best, if they want competition they need something cooler than the iPhone, not a copy of it. what a bunch of LOOSERS!
And it is time for apple to do the same, where is my OSX 15" iPad with hexa core i7 and oodles of Ram? I know I want it!!!
yours smugly wrote: »
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA. Samsung is such a sorry xerox.
I am so tired of all this litigation crap.
Why? What's it got to do with you? Let Apple and Samsung figure it out. That's what the courts are there for.
This happens every day in other industries. Tech is no exception. You just read about it a lot because tech is an area of interest.
Worrying about litigation in tech doesn't make my Mac run any faster. And I must say, it does run nicely with Mountain Lion.
hjb wrote: »
If you look the Samsung digital photo frame marketed in 2006. It really resembles Galaxy Tab and Ipad. The frame itself is not unrelated products if you see the specs. I guess, they developed from the frame when they saw the market which Apple seemed to have created. The Apple's Ipad design patent does not look like Ipad nor Galaxy Tab. It really look like Knight Riders tablet (Tablet Newspapers 1994) and a bunch of tablet computers prior to 2004, see the recent UK rulling.
For this iPhone design patent, I do not see much resemblance. Samsung had their own designs (rectangular shape with rounded corners with UIs before iPhone released) In the image comparason, you are comparing home screen with iPhone and application drawer on Android, which is not Samsung's. In real world, they look different (in fact home screen of all android phones out there are look different)
So, what is material in this?
I haven't read the entire thread, but if it hasn't happened yet, there will be a car industry analogy.
Ok, if there hasn't been one yet, I'll do it.
So, the automotive industry builds autos. Right? Ok. So there are a lot of different cars out there and many of them have design elements that look similar to other completely different cars of different makes and models. Maybe there are lawsuits and litigation, but I really don't hear about it. I think everyone is pretty much in the school of thinking that says that all cars generally need 4 wheels, an engine, a transmission to put the power from the engine to the wheels, a chassis and suspension to control the power and keep things grounded, and a body or frame of some kind to protect the occupants. This is basically the phone industry's series of FRAND patents. A car needs all those things to be a car (generally speaking). A phone generally needs a lot of things to in order to be a phone...or rather a smartphone.
However, the auto industry finds ways to make their products all look different enough and priced competitively enough that there isn't likely someone going home with a Kia Optima (the old ones that tried to look like the old bug-eyed Benz's) and thinking they got a Mercedes C-Class. You really can't mess that up no matter how much one car company might emulate some design cues from a higher-priced higher-class car company.
Phones prior to the iPhone were more like this analogy of the car industry. Some phones looked similar, but ultimately there were pricier and better quality models and they were all sort of different enough that one couldn't easily be mistaken for another. Now, of course there are the people who say the LG Prada was there first. Sure, maybe thats true but who's still using one? That's like the biggest cop out now..."iPhone blah blah blah Samsung copied yadda yadda yadda" "oh yeah well the Prada was announced before the iPhone so who copied who?" Nobody cares. Do you see LG giving much of a shit? Supposedly they were pissed and had been threatening legal action but they haven't followed through. They're probably thrilled that Apple is spending mega bucks on their panels and probably make more money off that then actual sales of phones. Maybe they realized that trying to look a gift-horse in the mouth while it's pissing money in your hand isn't a good idea (if that even made sense). Maybe LG is just waiting for the iPhone to succeed...oh...wait...hmmm...ok maybe they are waiting for the iPhone to...oh...uh...maybe they're just waiting like everyone else year after year for some unknown reason to sue Apple for infringement when they could have done so within the first year or so of iPhone releases. That would make sense, but nah. Who knows?
Anyway, back to the case here...
So phones prior to the Prada (happy?) all looked drastically different. Then the Prada comes along and...ok I can't keep doing that. The Prada only lasted two generations. Nobody cares about the Prada. Where was I? Ok, the iPhone comes along and not only does the entire industry drop deuce and start making phones that looked like an iPhone but Android followed suit and took their Blackberry clone and made it look like an iPhone because of how popular the form factor was. Then everyone followed the Android bus. The WinPhone7 1990 Dodge Caravan is chugging along trying to keep up with the Android Bus but some licensing pays for the gas money needed to keep the Caravan running. Tablets before the iPad were all generally thick chunky slabs loaded with buttons nobody really wanted to use. After the iPad, Android and Win7 tablets all basically became super thin and nearly buttonless...and nobody really wanted to use them either. At least not until the Nexus 7, but it still remains to be seen whether that will really chew into Apple's tablet share. The Kindle Fire...well nobody really likes the Kindle Fire...no matter how many were sold.
In any case, Samsung ultimately took copying Apple to a whole other level when they made USB charging adaptors that look almost exactly like Apple's little cube adaptor, the product packaging looks like Apple's, and the products themselves very nearly look like Apple's offerings. This is like the Kia trying to look like the Benz only a much more successful level. South Korean companies as a whole seem to love copying much like a lot of Chinese knock-off brands. Samsung claims that Apple is restricting the use of a very important design cue that is necessary to the function and operation of a smartphone. To all the people claiming Apple is making a big deal about rectangles...its much more than that. If people are actually going to Best Buy and leaving with what they think is an iPad when really they went home with a Galaxy Tab...that's a problem. Samsung and others can easily make (and I would argue that they are now) phones and tablets like they used to and design like they used to before the iPhone/Prada.
Whew. Yes, I know its long-winded and I'll get comments that nobody read it. Thats ok. I just wanted to get the car analogy out there in case it wasn't already. It just so happens that I went off on a super-tangent along the way. Carry on.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that this is Apple's aim?
Yes, I do believe this. Apple has turned into the Microsoft of yore. It is all about the profits, which in itself is not unexpected. BUT when Apple has Ives state, for the record, that Apple isn't about profits...well, then any of Apple's credibility goes out the window. So what is Apple's aim? It seems they want to completely corner the smartphone market. Then what? People have a choice of Apple...(let me do the math, carry the Apple....divide by Apple) or...Apple? Is that what you want?
It's only Apple that is unreasonable. Yet every other company out there who can't make there own products themselves and just steals Apple's R&D are little angels.
What a bunch of B.S.!!!
Every patent whore out there with no products seems to think they should have a piece of Apple's profit without spending a dime to create anything and they call Apple unreasonable?
I'm sorry but that is unreasonable in so many different ways. Apple didn't start this patent war, they did. Apple has the right to defend itself and its intellectual property for which they actually spent a lot of time, money, and effort into creating unlike the patent whores who do nothing but go to court with nothing and say Apple owes them?
Apple's R&D. Siri as an example. Apple BOUGHT the Siri software, which ran fine on the 3GS and 4 models, and then placed an artificial limitation in the software so that it would only run on the 4S. Yes, that is R&D $$$ well spent. Apple doesn't use others' ideas? Cough....Notification Bar in iOS 5....straight from Android (and whoever else Android got it from). Yet, people cheer when Apple came up with the notification bar. Total BS.
Forbes has a simple and basic explanation of the lawsuit as the lead to an equally important patent grant that doesn't involve Apple directly. (You really should read about how that new patent may change the debt servicing market worldwide. It's in the Forbes story linked below):
Depending on the final outcome, the case may prove momentous not simply because Apple is seeking an unprecedented $2.5B in damages, but because the nature of Apple’s patent infringement claims against its rival hinge on particular design elements of its iPhone that may or may not have “changed the world.”
Wait just a second. A two and a half billion dollar lawsuit based not on the technological guts of the iPhone? (That’s correct.) In a case that doesn’t even pit the actual Android operating system in Samsung’s mobile devices against Apple’s iOS? (You got it.)
The fundamental aspects of Apple’s legal arguments can be distilled to: Is it rectangular in shape? Does it have a glass face? Are its corners rounded instead of sharp? Very well then, there’s an app—I mean a patent—for that. And Apple professes to hold it. You see, it’s not the thing itself—it’s the structures that “make it happen” that matter.