To all of you: think back to 2005, 2006 and 2007. Where were Apple then? Success? In the mobile phones market? The court hearings are not about today!
Amazing that you have to point this out. I asked the other day if people are really this obtuse and I guess they are. Apple certainly was an underdog in the smartphone market when the iPhone came out. A lot of people predicted failure. They're not an underdog now but based on number of phones sold wide Samsung certainly isn't. And as far as designs - it's the early Samsung smartphones that are pretty blatant copies of the iPhone. No one is suggesting the Galaxy S III copies the iPhone design. Heck it's not about rectangles either otherwise Apple would be suing more than Samsung. If people can't see the clear cases where Samsung ripped off Apple then they're blind. And since there are many cases where they didn't it just proves there IS more than one way to design a smartphone. And Samsung was just being lazy.
So can Samsung prove the two phones below were in development before the iPhone came out? We saw the purple prototype from Apple which basically shows that the iPhone 4 wasn't ripping off the LG Prada but it's own prototype from 2005. And since the LG Prada was not multi-touch and the OS really looked nothing like iOS, plus the fact the Prada and iPhone were announced a month apart it's really a stretch to suggest Apple copied LG. but these early Samsung phones sure look like iPhone clones.
I really thought the Oracle suit against Google was the one to watch and would have had a tremendous impact on Android. But in the end, Google won. Most of Apple's lawsuits to date have also been largely unsuccessful. I definitely can see merit in this case with some of those Samsung design, but even if Apple wins I don't see the fine doing very much. Samsung and others would certainly have to be far more careful in the future, but they would still be around and competing. Samsung has also really overtaken Apple by a very wide margin in global smartphone sales as the chart below shows. Samsung alone in fact have more than doubled Apple sales and their own in just one year. That is understandable since they sell a lot more models and in many more price points in 3rd world countries. But that is still troubling since I believe Apple was leading all single Android vendors prior to this. No one can dispute that the S2 and now S3 were very successful for Samsung. If the discrepancy widens much further over the next year I could see Apple making two iPhone models in 2013, one with a smaller screen like the current model and one with a larger screen to compete with the S3 and similar phones. I think it is clear that many people care more about a larger screen than one handed use.
Apple doesn't need to 'portray' itself as anything. Of course it was the underdog. Every single company in the handset business wrote them off. It's common knowledge. A few years ago they never had a phone.
Apple doesn't need to 'portray' itself as anything. Of course it was the underdog. Every single company in the handset business wrote them off. It's common knowledge. A few years ago they never had a phone.
I'm being told elsewhere that Apple "was under intense pressure to create a smartphone".
It's hilarious what people can forget after only five years.
I was thinking the same thing... While that may not qualify "technically" as thermonuclear... try convincing the survivors and families...
I can remember seeing films in the late 1940s or early 1950s of the ground -- showing outlines of human bodies that had been "vaporized"... it was eerily similar to outlines shown after the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and Pompeii/Herculaneum.
Where is the data-tapping prior art? And don't talk about hyperlinks, because originally they had to be specifically coded. HTC found out this is a valid patent as it's been through court and still stood up.
I don't this one has been adjudicated yet. If fact I'm not certain any of Apple's asserted patents have made it that far. You're probably thinking of the "likely valid and infringed" rulings in preliminary injunction or ITC cases. That's not the same as being ruled valid.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just nuclear, not thermonuclear (e.g., H-Bombs).
Nuclear and thermonuclear is the same thing. Fusion detonation. Atomic aka fission bombs are not nuclear and are no longer used because they aren't as efficient
If Apple truly had it all sewed up do you really think they wouldn't have asserted them yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006. Apple owns pinch to zoom. Just because it hasn't been asserted yet doesn't mean it won't be used, or used later. Jobs said he'd spend every $ to crush Android for copying. He meant what he said, and while Cook isn't the fighter Steve was, this is far from over.
tl;dr It will come up sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightcmech
I just reviewed this patent. I did not look at all the claims. However, claim 1, at least, is limited to a continuous adjustment of a graphical object through two different gestures. I.e., the image zooms continuously if you pinch repeatedly. I just tested this on my Android, in google maps, and it definitely zooms in steps, not continuously.
For what it's worth, my entire life savings is in AAPL, and I have every reason to judge in Apple's favor. But I think Android is probably intentionally avoiding this one.
US 7,844,915 is being asserted in this case. It is about distinguishing between scroll and pinch-to-zoom gestures and doesn't require continuous adjustment.
Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:
How do you conclude "Apple is not an underdog" by posting a bunch of alleged prototypes of Samsung phones? That seems like a non-sequitur to me.
I don't get I'll be outrage from the haters. If Apple is wrong and its so obvious as they all suggest Apple will lose this case. And it will be publicly humiliating and costly. Even as it is right now the most secretive team at Apple is getting huge exposure. Prototypes that were never meant for the public are being releases, designers are on the witness stand describing the team and how it works. Does anyone honestly believe Apple would allow all this to become public knowledge for BS reasons?
Prototypes that were never meant for the public are being releases, designers are on the witness stand describing the team and how it works. Does anyone honestly believe Apple would allow all this to become public knowledge for BS reasons?
Well, all Apple does is steal ideas from other companies, so those prototypes are just rehashes of phones we've already seen on the market. Besides, the market was headed in that direction five years ago, anyway. What Apple did was just a natural progression.
I don't know if it's possible -- but it would be interesting if the Judge declared a mistrial and banned the sale on any Samsung devices under challenge until after s new trial.
It appears that Sammy and some other large Korean companies regulatly run roughshod over Korean regulations and laws... apparently they assume the same tactics will work here...
I don't know if it's possible -- but it would be interesting if the Judge declared a mistrial and banned the sale on any Samsung devices under challenge until after s new trial.
It appears that Sammy and some other large Korean companies regulatly run roughshod over Korean regulations and laws... apparently they assume the same tactics will work here...
Samsung may be able to prove their early smartphones were evolutions of prototypes that predates the iPhone. Though what they actually sold to the public looks more like an iPhone than any of their prototypes do.
I think the Sony argument is a lot weaker. Basically all they have is Jony Ive telling one of his designers to pretend he was designing for Sony and mock something up something Sony might do. Oh and to do it as a fun side project. It might carry more weight if they had an actual product Apple was allegedly copying. Or if this prototype ended up being the phone they went with.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte
To all of you: think back to 2005, 2006 and 2007. Where were Apple then? Success? In the mobile phones market? The court hearings are not about today!
Amazing that you have to point this out. I asked the other day if people are really this obtuse and I guess they are. Apple certainly was an underdog in the smartphone market when the iPhone came out. A lot of people predicted failure. They're not an underdog now but based on number of phones sold wide Samsung certainly isn't. And as far as designs - it's the early Samsung smartphones that are pretty blatant copies of the iPhone. No one is suggesting the Galaxy S III copies the iPhone design. Heck it's not about rectangles either otherwise Apple would be suing more than Samsung. If people can't see the clear cases where Samsung ripped off Apple then they're blind. And since there are many cases where they didn't it just proves there IS more than one way to design a smartphone. And Samsung was just being lazy.
So can Samsung prove the two phones below were in development before the iPhone came out? We saw the purple prototype from Apple which basically shows that the iPhone 4 wasn't ripping off the LG Prada but it's own prototype from 2005. And since the LG Prada was not multi-touch and the OS really looked nothing like iOS, plus the fact the Prada and iPhone were announced a month apart it's really a stretch to suggest Apple copied LG. but these early Samsung phones sure look like iPhone clones.
I really thought the Oracle suit against Google was the one to watch and would have had a tremendous impact on Android. But in the end, Google won. Most of Apple's lawsuits to date have also been largely unsuccessful. I definitely can see merit in this case with some of those Samsung design, but even if Apple wins I don't see the fine doing very much. Samsung and others would certainly have to be far more careful in the future, but they would still be around and competing. Samsung has also really overtaken Apple by a very wide margin in global smartphone sales as the chart below shows. Samsung alone in fact have more than doubled Apple sales and their own in just one year. That is understandable since they sell a lot more models and in many more price points in 3rd world countries. But that is still troubling since I believe Apple was leading all single Android vendors prior to this. No one can dispute that the S2 and now S3 were very successful for Samsung. If the discrepancy widens much further over the next year I could see Apple making two iPhone models in 2013, one with a smaller screen like the current model and one with a larger screen to compete with the S3 and similar phones. I think it is clear that many people care more about a larger screen than one handed use.
Apple doesn't need to 'portray' itself as anything. Of course it was the underdog. Every single company in the handset business wrote them off. It's common knowledge. A few years ago they never had a phone.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Apple doesn't need to 'portray' itself as anything. Of course it was the underdog. Every single company in the handset business wrote them off. It's common knowledge. A few years ago they never had a phone.
I'm being told elsewhere that Apple "was under intense pressure to create a smartphone".
It's hilarious what people can forget after only five years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
History buffs indeed.
Maybe you should look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I was thinking the same thing... While that may not qualify "technically" as thermonuclear... try convincing the survivors and families...
I can remember seeing films in the late 1940s or early 1950s of the ground -- showing outlines of human bodies that had been "vaporized"... it was eerily similar to outlines shown after the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and Pompeii/Herculaneum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
He should've written it "when one goes thermonuclear war they get themselves blown up as well"
Example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
Why even bother with posters like these.... reason only confuses them further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Where is the data-tapping prior art? And don't talk about hyperlinks, because originally they had to be specifically coded. HTC found out this is a valid patent as it's been through court and still stood up.
I don't this one has been adjudicated yet. If fact I'm not certain any of Apple's asserted patents have made it that far. You're probably thinking of the "likely valid and infringed" rulings in preliminary injunction or ITC cases. That's not the same as being ruled valid.
Originally Posted by Mac.World
We have never dropped Nuclear bombs on another country. What we dropped in Japan were fission bombs, not nuclear, fusion bombs.
Do you genuinely not know what 'nuclear' means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If Apple truly had it all sewed up do you really think they wouldn't have asserted them yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006. Apple owns pinch to zoom. Just because it hasn't been asserted yet doesn't mean it won't be used, or used later. Jobs said he'd spend every $ to crush Android for copying. He meant what he said, and while Cook isn't the fighter Steve was, this is far from over.
tl;dr It will come up sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightcmech
I just reviewed this patent. I did not look at all the claims. However, claim 1, at least, is limited to a continuous adjustment of a graphical object through two different gestures. I.e., the image zooms continuously if you pinch repeatedly. I just tested this on my Android, in google maps, and it definitely zooms in steps, not continuously.
For what it's worth, my entire life savings is in AAPL, and I have every reason to judge in Apple's favor. But I think Android is probably intentionally avoiding this one.
US 7,844,915 is being asserted in this case. It is about distinguishing between scroll and pinch-to-zoom gestures and doesn't require continuous adjustment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Fine, if you want to choose to be obtuse about that common metaphor then: You don't detonate before it's time
How do you conclude "Apple is not an underdog" by posting a bunch of alleged prototypes of Samsung phones? That seems like a non-sequitur to me.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Prototypes that were never meant for the public are being releases, designers are on the witness stand describing the team and how it works. Does anyone honestly believe Apple would allow all this to become public knowledge for BS reasons?
Well, all Apple does is steal ideas from other companies, so those prototypes are just rehashes of phones we've already seen on the market. Besides, the market was headed in that direction five years ago, anyway. What Apple did was just a natural progression.
*snort*
Shit, meet Fan
Samsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to Undercut Apple’s Design Claims
http://allthingsd.com/20120731/samsung-goes-public-with-excluded-evidence-to-undercut-apples-design-claims/
I don't know if it's possible -- but it would be interesting if the Judge declared a mistrial and banned the sale on any Samsung devices under challenge until after s new trial.
It appears that Sammy and some other large Korean companies regulatly run roughshod over Korean regulations and laws... apparently they assume the same tactics will work here...
I think the Sony argument is a lot weaker. Basically all they have is Jony Ive telling one of his designers to pretend he was designing for Sony and mock something up something Sony might do. Oh and to do it as a fun side project. It might carry more weight if they had an actual product Apple was allegedly copying. Or if this prototype ended up being the phone they went with.