Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report'

1131416181921

Comments

  • Reply 301 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.


     


    So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?


    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf


     


    Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.


     


    Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.



     


    It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.


     


    It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.


     


    The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.

  • Reply 302 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macrulez wrote: »
    hill60 wrote: »
    My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.
    The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.

    Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.

    In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.

    Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?

    Since you're back in the thread, did you get the chance to consider a response to posts 197 or 198?
  • Reply 303 of 407
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,864member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.


     


    Figure 1, for example, clearly depicts a 3 dimensional object, as do a number of other figures.


     


    And now you seem to be claiming that Apple patented a line? You've definitely gone off into the weeds now. Either that or you don't know the difference between 1,2,3,... dimensions, making your original comment understandable: you apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Reply 304 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.


     


    It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.


     


    The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.



    Apparently you and JrAgosta are both quite clear on what it claims. How would you describe it in words? I've already said it's more than a "rounded rectangle". What does it describe to you.


     


    According to Apple themselves in the patent application (bottom of page 3 right side) the shape beneath the "large rectangular shape" is non-claimed and for illustrative purposes only. Apple says "None of the broken lines form a part of the claimed design"

  • Reply 305 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    hill60 wrote: »
    It's obvious that you, like shills and trolls promoting Samsung's official line, continuously overlook the third dimension.

    It does not take sixteen pages to describe the simple two dimensional shape of a rectangle, you and Samsung's marketing team allude to.

    The "rectangle" argument is disingenuous hogwash thrown around to muddy public perception.
    Apparently you and JrAgosta are both quite clear on what it claims. How would you describe it in words? I've already said it's more than a "rounded rectangle". What does it describe to [SIZE=16px]you[/SIZE].

    Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.
  • Reply 306 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.


     


    Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.


     


    In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.


     


    Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?



     


    Effective only when used ethically.


     


    An example, not hacking people's browsers to override user preferences (re tracking cookies), while simultaneously making a mockery of assurances made to the Government that they would respect people's right to privacy, which they were already in hot water over after tapping open wifi networks using their street view vans.


     


    The difference between Google and Apple is stark in this regard.

  • Reply 307 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.


    Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So minimally you might also say in effect a flat rectangular shape of unlimited size with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel with an unspecified thickness, correct?

  • Reply 308 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Not that you are asking me, but it really does seem rather clear what it depicts, so I don't quite understand your persistence on this question. If you view the entire set of drawings, the minimum claimed is the rounded rectangular shape with a beveled frame and an inlaid flat front. That structure is 3D to begin with. The maximum claimed includes the other front features such as the home button, microphone and shape and location of the touchscreen area.
    Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So at the minimum a flat rectangular shape with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel, correct? To take it one step further if you go beyond that, for instance to include the shape and placement of the home button, then Samsung's designs begin to stray from the patent claims, do they not?

    Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.
  • Reply 309 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.


    So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?

  • Reply 310 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    hill60 wrote: »
    macrulez wrote: »
    The core business model of companies that sell advertising isn't to sell information about individuals, because (among other reasons) doing so would make no business sense.

    Instead, the model used by such companies is to place ads in targeted locations that match as closely to the user profile as the user is willing to reveal, with the companies paying for the ad never having access to that data.

    In that respect, the difference between Google's ad network and Apple's iAd seems to be merely the degree to which each company has been successful using this model.

    Is your assertion that this ad network model is ethical only when used ineffectually?

    Effective only when used ethically.

    An example, not hacking people's browsers to override user preferences (re tracking cookies), while simultaneously making a mockery of assurances made to the Government that they would respect people's right to privacy, which they were already in hot water over after tapping open wifi networks using their street view vans.

    The difference between Google and Apple is stark in this regard.

    He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.
  • Reply 311 of 407
    Samsung's lawyers seem to think so, at a distance (across the court room).

    obviously you can't just answer a simple fucking question. I don't care if Samsung's lawyers saw them both as flaming ducks. I'm asking YOU.
  • Reply 312 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.


    I've noticed.

  • Reply 313 of 407
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Yes, I think the first Galaxy Tab 10.1 was Samsung's attempt to follow the iPad's design as closely as possible while utilizing their available tech. This allowed them to cut a lot of corners by following the IP of their competitors too closely. I'm not just talking about inspiration. I'd say Nokia was inspired by the iPod with the Lumia but I would in no way say it's copy, clone or in anyway steals from Apple's IP.
    A couple things to consider: 1) Google warned Samsung that the Galaxy 10.1 was too close to Apple's design. 2) Samsung's own investigation into why people returned the device was because people thought they were buying an iPad.
    etc........
    .

    So in your personal opinion this:

    700
    700

    looks like this:

    700

    ?


    Again, software I understand...some Galaxy S phones I understand. Box and accessory design and even some advertisements I understand. With about 90% of their claims I am on Apple's side as I feel this could be the death of TouchWhiz as it is (bizarro iOS at least in it's earlier iterations) and it could force Samsung to actually pay attention to Google's design language and simply expand upon that.

    But the Tab doesn't look nor function like an iPad beyond the rounded rectangle all black (only from the front) look. Everything else is very different. And I shudder at the idea of a bunch of Joe-consumers gladly wishing a single company own the rounded rectangle for the next 12 or so years.

    PS. I noticed that the second one, the thinner Tab, does have some icon modifications to look more iOSy...but I always felt that Samsung's visual knockoffs of iOS software should be punished. My gripe is that the shape of the two (which isn't the same) and the look of the two (which isn't the same) is up for debate.
  • Reply 314 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Yes, but they clearly violate the minimum claimed, and their variations from the further claims are slight, so I would suppose that would be up to the interpretation of the courts.
    So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?

    Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
  • Reply 315 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    He's vanished again. Interesting to note those posters who post contentious assertions and disappear as soon as you attempt to engage them, only to pop up in different threads with the same old stuff.
    I've noticed.

    He being MacRulez, in case I wasn't being clear on that.
  • Reply 316 of 407
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.

    So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
    <p id="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1344171605439_590" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf</p>

    <p style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);"> </p>

    Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.

    Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.

    The iPhone design patent looks legit to me...
  • Reply 317 of 407
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,864member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Thank you sir. You're the first one to put it into words. So minimally you might also say in effect a flat rectangular shape of unlimited size with four evenly rounded corners surrounded by a bezel with an unspecified thickness, correct?



     


    Absolutely not. Minimally, it's a 3-Dimensional surface. It is absolutely not flat.

  • Reply 318 of 407
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,864member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    So in your opinion those that claim Apple has successfully patented a flat rounded rectangular shape for an electronic device face aren't so far off then?



     


    Again, it's clearly a 3-Dimensional surface. But then again, since you called it a 1-Dimensional object at one point, maybe you just don't know the correct words to express this.

  • Reply 319 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.


    It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I pressed for his opinion. 


     


    It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.


     


    I gave you the more detailed patent of the two Apple is claiming in this lawsuit. This is the second of two design patents they're asserting against Samsung's phones and even more simple than the first if that's possible..


    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf


     


    Again, anything shown with dotted lines is not part of their design claims. Note that it even avoids claiming a bezel or home button as germane to the design. Simply a flat rounded rectangular shape for the display.


     


    They go on to say:


    "The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein. As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic device, (or a) media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player), (or a) media storage device, (or) a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), (or even) a novelty item or toy"

  • Reply 320 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
    It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I asked for his opinion. 

    It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.

    OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
Sign In or Register to comment.