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

11516171921

Comments

  • Reply 361 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    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.


     


    There's a thing called "time zones", you see the world is a spinning sphere, there are places outside the USA.


     


    Now are you denying that Google was fined for overriding third party cookie blocking settings of Safari users?


     


    Are you also denying that Google collected data from open wifi networks with their street view vans?


     


    The Google goblet of Koolaid seems to invoke an interesting view of the world among their parroting acolytes or is it the Google goggles distorting the view..

  • Reply 362 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    hill60 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.

    There's a thing called "time zones", you see the world is a spinning sphere, there are places outside the USA.

    Now are you denying that Google was fined for overriding third party cookie blocking settings of Safari users?

    Are you also denying that Google collected data from open wifi networks with their street view vans?

    The Google goblet of Koolaid seems to invoke an interesting view of the world among their parroting acolytes or is it the Google goggles distorting the view..

    I think you may have misunderstood my posts, and/or confused me with another poster. I clarified further back that I was referring there to the poster that you were arguing with, not you. I wasn't part of that argument, and for the record, I agree with your position.
  • Reply 363 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Google has agreed to pay penalties in response to those charges, but neither themselves nor the prosecutor in those cases claim that those practices form the foundation of their business model.


     


    More relevant here is that those specific incidents have nothing to do with the post I replied to, which was about "selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers".


     


    There may be all sorts of ways in which companies may exhibit ethics we disagree with, and in cases like acquiring wifi data or stock options backdating they may even be penalized.


     


    But the core of any ad-supported business remains the same for both Google and Apple, and in neither case does it involve selling information about specific customers to advertisers.



     


    So you are saying Google doesn't need tracking cookies to gather information about (non-specific) users, so what was their reason for overriding users preferences?

  • Reply 364 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    hill60 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.
    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.

    Agreed.
  • Reply 365 of 407
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    So what is Samsung to do? 


    1. Don't use the bounce. OK.


    2. Don't use the double tap. OK


    3. Don't use a horizontal swipe to unlock. OK.


    I think all of those things could be easily licensed easily enough.


     


    So what should Apple do? 


    1. Pay the licensing fees for the FRAND patents.


     


    So, the only issue is trade and dress. Should Samsung not be allowed to make black or white tablets? Should Samsung not be able to make a tablet that is as thin or thinner than the competition? Should Samsung not be able to use a glass touchscreen? 


     


    These are serious questions. At what point does Apple "own" the tablet design that uses black/white, rectangular shape, glass touchscreen panel, etc etc? Is Apple the ONLY company that can use this design. Must everyone else make an ugly looking tablet? I base the idea of attractiveness on what the customer expects. There are certain car designs elements that are expected in a sleek and sexy car. So if Toyota wants to make a sleek sports car must they avoid using smooth lines so as not to upset the other automobile manufacturers? 


     


    At some point this crap has to end.



    Your whole argument is overly simplistic.  Were not talking rectangles squares or black white or any other such nonsense.  That is samsungs regurgitation for confusing the jury and the public.   Using your automotive example dont tell me that you can't tell a ford from a chevy from a toyota from a bmw.  You can by just looking at them.  It is not just smooth lines or  colors or geometric shapes that are being argued in a design patent.  It is the combination of  all of those things in a way to make the product look like apples or samsungs or bmw or ford or chevy or ferrarri or any other item that you want to look at.  Not just shapes colors but, those and a lot of other things.  Apple is saying that because samsung copied all of these things together and even changed the user interface in there touchwiz interface to look and feel like an apple ipad or iphone, that is what infringes on there design.  Not just any one thing alone but all of them combine to look like apples products.  Hell best buy even has had problems with people buying samsung galaxy tabs and returning them because they found out when they got them home they were not an iPad.   Samsung has copied the device, the packaging...hell even the charging units on there phones and pads to look just like apples.   In my eyes that pretty damning.

  • Reply 366 of 407
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    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. However, the constant harping on about patenting a rectangle does get very old when the issue obviously comprises so much more than that.


     


    ...especially when it seems to be Samsung's official line espoused by their chief product officer, Kevin Packingham.


     


    Source:-


     


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/samsung_exec_says_patent_struggle_with_apple_is_unreasonable.html

  • Reply 367 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    hill60 wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    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.

    ...especially when it seems to be Samsung's official line espoused by their chief product officer, Kevin Packingham.

    Source:-

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/samsung_exec_says_patent_struggle_with_apple_is_unreasonable.html

    As has been said many times - it looks like they are clutching at straws and just hoping to confuse the issue enough to get away with it. As a legal strategy I guess it makes sense, but the repeated attempts to sell the idea on this forum are tiresome.
  • Reply 368 of 407
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Samsung doesn't copy Apple..really they don't.

    apple_v_samsung_evidence.png


     


    I agree with you, they both look similar in UI, icon boxes and dock background (Samsung obviously had more than inspired).   IMO, Apple has got a point here.  Did Apple patent covering those altogether in one design patent?  I am not quite sure.  And I am not sure how Apple could argue this as we are comparing home screen on iPhone and application drawer in Galaxy S.  However, icon designs itself were look completely different.


     


    By the way, Apple design patents here are basically about rectangular shape with rounded corners however some of Apple shareholders or diehard fans would want to understand them.  

  • Reply 369 of 407
    hjb wrote: »
    I agree with you, they both look similar in UI, icon boxes and dock background (Samsung obviously had more than inspired).   IMO, Apple has got a point here.  Did Apple patent covering those altogether in one design patent?  I am not quite sure.  And I am not sure how Apple could argue this as we are comparing home screen on iPhone and application drawer in Galaxy S.  However, icon designs itself were look completely different.

    By the way, Apple design patents here are basically about rectangular shape with rounded corners however some of Apple shareholders or diehard fans would want to understand them.  

    even I agree that on the software side for smartphones Samsung needs to ahve their asses handed to them. Even when it comes to the entire Samsung Galaxy S and some versions of the S2 they need their asses handed to them. Some box design, some ads...Samsung seriously needs to get their asses handed to them.

    But if it means granting the entire concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle to ONE company for 20 years tech time in order for Samsung to walk away with a painful ass? I'd rather Samsung got off. Actually no I don't.

    I reallllly want Samsung to change and they need to be fined heavily and forced to actually innovate when it comes to design (They do in tech and even software but UI/UX often not).

    But I cannot grasp the concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle with a screen belonging to one company.
  • Reply 370 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 371 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 372 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    even I agree that on the software side for smartphones Samsung needs to ahve their asses handed to them. Even when it comes to the entire Samsung Galaxy S and some versions of the S2 they need their asses handed to them. Some box design, some ads...Samsung seriously needs to get their asses handed to them.

    But if it means granting the entire concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle to ONE company for 20 years tech time in order for Samsung to walk away with a painful ass? I'd rather Samsung got off. Actually no I don't.

    I reallllly want Samsung to change and they need to be fined heavily and forced to actually innovate when it comes to design (They do in tech and even software but UI/UX often not).

    But I cannot grasp the concept of a minimalistic rounded rectangle with a screen belonging to one company.

    I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.
  • Reply 373 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macrulez wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    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.


    One of those was from a poster I'm familiar enough with here and elsewhere that I don't spend much time with what he writes.

    In your post #191 you wrote:
    "So, just to be clear, you really think that Samsung's detailed, feature-by-feature comparison study including options to copy Apple's implementations is equivalent to a discussion at Apple on whether or not to make a 7" tablet."

    In the Apple email in the article I linked to it describes Apple's head of Internet software/services Eddy Cue having spend enough time with Samsung's 7" tablet to have evaluated a wide range of different types of apps, and apparently spent enough time with the browser app to come to the conclusion that while not optimal it was at least acceptable.

    Dissecting the precise number of hours each company spent with each product would leave us with some arbitrary threshold beyond which the practice is somehow "unethical" but below which it is "ethical".  Respectfully, that just seems like splitting hairs to me.  All companies study their competition.

    I know one person who worked at Apple at a time when they were making an upgrade to a competing software product, and they had that product running on a Mac in the meeting room, going through it feature by feature, deciding which features to implement as the other product had done and which to do differently.

    As with any company prudent about remaining competitive, I don't hold that as any sort of indictment against them.   It's just how any smart company works.  And sometimes "any smart company" might just include (*gasp*) Samsung.

    Fortunately for both Apple and Samsung, and perhaps the fairness of the court system itself, nothing anyone writes in this little corner of the Internet can have any effect on the outcome of the trial.  The question the jury will be given isn't "What is the number of hours each company spent studying the other's products?", but rather they're being asked to evaluate very specific elements within a very specific context.

    My only point in posting that link was that finding that a company studied a competing product isn't any sort of proof of the allegations in this case; studying the competition is not a crime, not when Samsung did it or when Apple did it.  It MIGHT be evidence favoring such an argument, but we'll have to see how the jury feels about that.  Given how smart companies work, they may not find it significant at all.  Ultimately the decision will have to rest on the outcome of the process - the final product - and not exclusively on the process itself. 

    As a side note, I found it amusing that even Cult of Mac has more balanced coverage of this trial than AI.  Not surprising, just funny.  Like Fox News, AI has clearly found a certain pandering business model that works for them, so even if the editorialism is funny no one can deny that selling their readers' eyeballs to their advertisers has done well for them in keeping the joint running.

    Oddly enough, it seems they're leaving a lot of money on the table using a poorly-targeted ad server.  It sometimes shows links to Android phones, Google's Nexus 7 tablet,  and Windows software, and sometimes the links are completely broken like the one on the front page right now ostensibly for some racing game you can "Download to your PC" but clicking it takes you to the American Heart Association.   Almost makes one wish they used an ad network with smarter profiling. ;)

    Fair enough - I agree that those types of comparison almost certainly take place at all these companies. I guess here I'm swayed by the fact that Samsung did produce something that looks far to much like an iPhone (IMO). In contrast, Apple don't often seem to come up with products that look like copies of something.
  • Reply 374 of 407
    muppetry wrote: »
    I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.

    not the iPhone one...the tablet one.

    The iPhone design is Apple's and Apple's only...and for that Samsung should pay.
  • Reply 375 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    muppetry wrote: »
    I still think the generality of this design patent issue is being overplayed. If you look at those line drawings, what do you see? I see an iPhone. It looks like an iPhone. It doesn't look like most of the other rounded rectangular phones out there, except some of Samsung's, who rather too exactly copied the look and then went on to copy the icons and the layout etc.

    not the iPhone one...the tablet one.

    The iPhone design is Apple's and Apple's only...and for that Samsung should pay.

    Oh, right. I'm much less sure about the tablet issue. I'd try to apply the same test. Rather than compare the products to each other, compare them to the design patents.
  • Reply 376 of 407
    muppetry wrote: »
    Oh, right. I'm much less sure about the tablet issue. I'd try to apply the same test. Rather than compare the products to each other, compare them to the design patents.

    even Apple's product doesn't match the drawing. That specific drawing is for a non-existent product. (though probably a prototype)
  • Reply 377 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Google has agreed to pay penalties in response to those charges, but neither themselves nor the prosecutor in those cases claim that those practices form the foundation of their business model.


     


    More relevant here is that those specific incidents have nothing to do with the post I replied to, which was about "selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers".


     


    There may be all sorts of ways in which companies may exhibit ethics we disagree with, and in cases like acquiring wifi data or stock options backdating they may even be penalized.


     


    But the core of any ad-supported business remains the same for both Google and Apple, and in neither case does it involve selling information about specific customers to advertisers.



     


    If you were as quick to do diligent research as you are to postulate on how others must, or do, run their business, you would find that Apple sells only aggregate data to advertisers  -- no information about specific customers.


     


    Certainly Apple makes occasional mistakes -- but in 34 years of dealing with Apple, I've never known them to deliberately violate their own [or accepted] ethical principles...


     


    Microsoft has few principles, Google has none -- and Samsung is borderline illegal, IMO.

  • Reply 378 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 379 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    muppetry wrote: »
    Oh, right. I'm much less sure about the tablet issue. I'd try to apply the same test. Rather than compare the products to each other, compare them to the design patents.

    even Apple's product doesn't match the drawing. That specific drawing is for a non-existent product. (though probably a prototype)

    In which case it would be much harder to prove infringement on that alone. I haven't been following the tablet issue closely - is the alleged design infringement Apple's entire case?
  • Reply 380 of 407
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

Sign In or Register to comment.