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

11516182021

Comments

  • Reply 341 of 407
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,864member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Of course. What else do they have?

    I suspect that most companies will try to get away with whatever they can. Apple, while often clearly inspired by other work, does not seem to have done much outright copying, largely, I suspect, because they have tended to be ahead of the design game in the areas where they compete. Once they finally coupled that with efficient production, marketing and market integration, they became hard to catch any other way.


     


    Yes, but it's particularly sad to see a company like Google, that originally had so much promise, stoop to, among other things, shamelessly ripping off other companies. I think they genuinely believed they wouldn't be evil when they founded the company, but that quickly went by the wayside. Particularly sad in Brin's case, which is why, I guess, he tries to keep his head in the sand and work on self-driving cars so he doesn't have to admit to himself that he helped create a company as bad, as corrupt, and as dismissive of individual rights as any communist block government was.


     


    And let's not pretend that Google and Samsung aren't in bed in this criminal enterprise together.

  • Reply 342 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 343 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 344 of 407
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Well, here's the description. What is it you'd like to point out? You do understand that anything in the accompanying figures 1 thru 8  drawn with dotted lines is not part of Apple's patent claims or specified use. As such they're not germane to the protected elements, which in this case is a flat rectangular display with evenly rounded corners, and possibly a small cut-away elongated oval area on the display near the top.. If that's incorrect in your opinion, please be specific as to why for a change..

    "The claimed surface ofthe electronic device is illustrated with
    the color designation for the color black.
    The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
    As indicated in the title, the article ofmanufacture to which
    the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
    device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
    media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), a novelty item or toy"

    That, of course, ignores the dozens of pictures that were included. Even YOU ought to be able to look at a picture and understand it.

    BTW, when you look at the original (you can find it on Google patents), you find that Apple cited the Samsung F700 as prior art. Since it was cited, it's almost impossible for Samsung to use the F700 as prior art. The patent office considered it and decided that it was not sufficiently similar to block Apple from getting the patent.
  • Reply 345 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    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"



    You're not thinking in the 3rd dimension, Marty! 

  • Reply 346 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 347 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macrulez wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Since you're back in the thread, did you get the chance to consider a response to posts 197 or 198?


    Neither was directed at me or particularly interesting to me personally, so I didn't give those posts a thought.  Are they unusually important?

    Well that's odd - the post numbers seem to have changed. Apologies for the misdirection. They are now posts 191 and 192, and were responding to you.
  • Reply 348 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macrulez 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 made the post you're replying to about four hours ago, your reply posted only about 40 minutes later.

    More recently I rejoined this thread.  What did we each do in the meantime?


    Me:
    700


    You:
    700


    The weather's nice outside.  Give it a try.  Summer only comes once a year.

    Good for you. I just got back from a 30 mile bike ride in the mountains. But I agree with the sentiment.
  • Reply 349 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
    I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.

    What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.

    I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. However, the constant harping on about patenting a rectangle does get very old when the issue obviously comprises so much more than that.
  • Reply 350 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 351 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macrulez wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    Good for you. I just got back from a 30 mile bike ride in the mountains. But I agree with the sentiment.


    Excellent.  I feel bad for the east coasters who've been dealing with thick muggy air.  It's been quite nice here in CA - glad you're near a place where you can get out on the bike in the hills.  Nothing beats the feeling of a good ride on a summer's day.

    In fact, I think I'll take your cue and saddle up myself....

    New Mexico at 7500' is a pretty good place to ride. If that photo was your area then it looks similar. Enjoy.
  • Reply 352 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,284member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    I don't believe that I have ever used the terms "shill" or "troll", and I don't think they add anything to a discussion. 


    I don't ever recall you being inconsiderate of others, and that's admirable. You serve as an excellent example for other members IMHO.

  • Reply 353 of 407
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That isn't how I read that image. I'd argue 1( their comparison to the 3D effect and icon edge was that it had to be more like Apple's but that it wasn't nearly as good as Apple's because it lacked fluidity. This is the comparative evaluation that one Apple exec talked about on the stand, and 2) their mention of the icons was to show that it was too close to the iPhone, meaning they should be made more unique as to not be confusing. That said, this is very damaging but whoever made this image was clearly trying to show where they could improve on the UI and one of those ways to not make it so iOS-like.
    Well then what this proves is someone at Samsung was worried about their stuff looking too much like Apple's. If anything this trial is going to prove that Samsung is obsessed with Apple.
  • Reply 354 of 407
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Read the patent. The patent examiner obviously knows what they were referring to.
    I don't see it that way. They had three recommendations:
    1. Insert lighting effects so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
    2. Make the edge curve smoother so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
    3. Differentiate the design so it doesn't look too much like the iPhone. They did NOT do this. In fact, their finished product moved even closer to the iPhone.
    It's obvious from this document that they compared their product to the iPhone and intentionally made their product look more like the iPhone.
    Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.

    According to the document that is not what the subject is for the first two items. It states that it's lacking a 3D effect and that the icon edge curvature is not smooth. It uses iOS as an example of what a good 3D lighting effect and smooth icon edge curvature is.

    In no way does it state they need copy iOS more blatantly. The image even states Samsung's UI is too close to iOS as a warning. The fact that Samsung did not heed the advice given in this document is what should focused on at the trial, not the perfectly reasonable and legal comparison of two items and saying, "ours isn't as good, we should do better."

    PS: Calling him Googleguy, as minor and unoffensive as it is, is still technically name calling.


    edit: I just looked at the image again. I hadn't noticed the text under the phone images, just the text next to it, so there is no implication to be made. The originator clearly states what improvements are to be made and why.
  • Reply 355 of 407
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    According to the document that is not what the subject is for the first two items. It states that it's lacking a 3D effect and that the icon edge curvature is not smooth. It uses iOS as an example of what a good 3D lighting effect and smooth icon edge curvature is.

    Yes, but you're taking the document in isolation.

    You also have to look at what Samsung did with the recommendations. It turns out that they followed the recommendations that took their product closer to the iPhone and ignored the recommendation that suggested that they needed to differentiate themselves from the iPhone.
  • Reply 356 of 407
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Yes, but you're taking the document in isolation.
    You also have to look at what Samsung did with the recommendations. It turns out that they followed the recommendations that took their product closer to the iPhone and ignored the recommendation that suggested that they needed to differentiate themselves from the iPhone.

    The only reason I isolated the document is because you wrote...
    Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you were suggesting that the author of the document was implying that they need to "copy" Apple's 3D lighting and icon edge smoothness, as opposed to just improve them so they look better in comparison to the gold standard, id est iOS. If that wasn't your intent then I offer you not just a mea culpa but a momma mea culpa.
  • Reply 357 of 407
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    The only reason I isolated the document is because you wrote...
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you were suggesting that the author of the document was implying that they need to "copy" Apple's 3D lighting and icon edge smoothness, as opposed to just improve them so they look better in comparison to the gold standard, id est iOS. If that wasn't your intent then I offer you not just a mea culpa but a momma mea culpa.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. As you point out, the document itself doesn't prove anything. But the document, when combined with Samsung's actions, is pretty strong evidence. It appears clear that Samsung built a bunch of prototypes and then went out of their way to change the prototypes to make them look like Apple's products.

    But why is your momma sorry? /s
  • Reply 358 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post





    Really? I guess it is safe to say that it is common knowledge then, that Apple stole RIM's BBM, Google's Notification Center and a whole host of Android design features like ota os updates, split keyboard, and now we see Apple attempting to copy Google maps/earth.

    Funny, but it's probably safe to say, you don't think any of that is 'stealing' by Apple though, right?


     


    And yet you don't see any of those companies suing Apple?

  • Reply 359 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    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.


    A vast majority of rectangular touchscreen phone's and tablets have not been sued as they do not infringe Apple's specific patents.


     


    Ergo the "Apple has patented the rectangle" argument is bullshit.


     


    Apple patented the design of the iPhone, Apple patented the design of the iPad.

  • Reply 360 of 407
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,284member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    A vast majority of rectangular touchscreen phone's and tablets have not been sued as they do not infringe Apple's specific patents.


     


    Ergo the "Apple has patented the rectangle" argument is bullshit.


     


    Apple patented the design of the iPhone, Apple patented the design of the iPad.



    Good news then for Google. Apple hasn't sued them either, ergo Apple must think they aren't infringing any of their patents.

Sign In or Register to comment.