This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
This is not amazing but sad. This only shows that Samsung saw a new competitor and that they had to change their design strategy
to better compete with the iPhone. They did just that and answered brilliantly with a superior design
that looked nothing like the iPhone but was a very unique, signature Samsung design.
This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit and Apple are the ones who now need to be innovative.
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
6 months ago, I was a little pro-Samsung with this case. I admit that I side with Apple when it comes to complaints about similar UIs, packaging, and timing, but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
I've lost my sympathy for Samsung simply because they lie a lot. It doesn't take a second pair of eyes to see that Samsung rushed a bunch of iPhone clones into production in 2007-2008 to compete with Apple's iPhone, because that's what was popular at the time. Had they said "Yeah! We made a phone similar to the iPhone because that's what the majority of people wanted. The iPhone was popular. That's how competition works!" I would have more respect for them. They weren't honest, though. They said "iPhone? What iPhone? I've never heard of the iPhone. We designed this thing by ourselves from the ground up, and the fact that it's 95% similar looking to the iPhone, including the packaging, peripherals and marketing materials, is pure coincidence." Keep on stretching those lies, Samsung.
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
I suppose even a top "law-speaking-dude" can't defend the indefensible. But what a stupid error this was.
Samsung: Your honour, in our defense, we would like to submit to the court that we don't [I]just[/I] copy Apple. We've been copying people for years and since nobody else has had a problem with it, we feel Apple shouldn't either. Fact is, by copying Nokia, our products looked like junk compared to Apple so we had to throw out everything and do what Apple was doing as evidenced by the abrupt shift in our product designs. Hopefully this will prove to you that Apple in no way influenced... wait, which side am I on again? Sorry, I get so easily confused about which company I'm working for as I can't tell the products apart from a reasonable viewing distance.
Why on Heaven and Earth did they submit this evidence in their defense? Ah well, shouldn't be long until they wrap this case up and all Samsung's old products stay off the shelves.
This is not amazing but sad. This only shows that Samsung saw a new competitor and that they had to change their design strategy
to better compete with the iPhone. They did just that and answered brilliantly with a superior design
that looked nothing like the iPhone but was a very unique, signature Samsung design.
This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit and Apple are the ones who now need to be innovative.
Signed
DaHarder
LOL I read your reply in my email, which doesn't send the forum markup. It was all left-justified. I thought about how he used to center everything which go that feature removed from the forum, but knew it had come back with Huddler. I was going to "correct" your post and center in the classic stylings of DaH but you have crossed your o's and dotted your a's.*
* Scandinavia's version of dotting your i's and crossing your t's. ????
I'm not surprised at all, I'm sure there were "holy shit" memos sent through every manufacturer. The iPhone quickly became the iMonkeyWrench in all of their plans.
Exactly. This is the phone Palm announced just 2 days before Apple announced the iPhone.
They were just one of many manufacturers who had to find a new plan.
Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple. When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished the carrier that carried the iphone.
I'm not familiar with this, though it sounds plausible. A google search is swamped by the current Apple v Samsung conflict. Do you have a link or two to get me started?
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
THIS. THIS. THIS.
It's 100% legal not to mention brilliant to copy Apple's GOAL of creating elegant simplicity for users of their products. Most companies try to make hardware and software that is capable of doing things. Apple creates hardware and software that give users the ability to do things. The difference may sound tiny, but in reality, it's huge.
...but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
I would think that argument is bullcrap too. Except I can't figure out who is actually making that particular argument. It sounds more like the Strawman argument that Samsung has erected and attacked than it does like anything Apple actually said.
Trade dress claims are not about any one thing like shape - in fact they ignore size as well. A trade dress claim is an "and" claim, not an "or" claim. In this case, Apples trademark is: A rectangular mobile digital device with rounded corners AND rounded silver edges AND a black face AND an array of 16 square icons with rounded edges AND the top 12 icons appear on a black background AND the bottom four appear on a silver background AND [specified colours on the face] AND a number of other items regarding the screen, border, icons and trim.
Had Samsung done any one or two of them differently, Apple would not have had a case.
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?
Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.
They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
This is not amazing but sad. This only shows that Samsung saw a new competitor and that they had to change their design strategy
to better compete with the iPhone. They did just that and answered brilliantly with a superior design
that looked nothing like the iPhone but was a very unique, signature Samsung design.
This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit and Apple are the ones who now need to be innovative.
Signed
DaHarder
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
smooth move, ex-lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!
I think Samsung execs consumed a rather generous amount of Romulan Ale when they engaged in this email exchange.
6 months ago, I was a little pro-Samsung with this case. I admit that I side with Apple when it comes to complaints about similar UIs, packaging, and timing, but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
I've lost my sympathy for Samsung simply because they lie a lot. It doesn't take a second pair of eyes to see that Samsung rushed a bunch of iPhone clones into production in 2007-2008 to compete with Apple's iPhone, because that's what was popular at the time. Had they said "Yeah! We made a phone similar to the iPhone because that's what the majority of people wanted. The iPhone was popular. That's how competition works!" I would have more respect for them. They weren't honest, though. They said "iPhone? What iPhone? I've never heard of the iPhone. We designed this thing by ourselves from the ground up, and the fact that it's 95% similar looking to the iPhone, including the packaging, peripherals and marketing materials, is pure coincidence." Keep on stretching those lies, Samsung.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Don't hold your breath for that $2.5B.
You're right.
$25 billion.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
OMG...I can't stop laughing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
This is not amazing but sad. This only shows that Samsung saw a new competitor and that they had to change their design strategy
to better compete with the iPhone. They did just that and answered brilliantly with a superior design
that looked nothing like the iPhone but was a very unique, signature Samsung design.
This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit and Apple are the ones who now need to be innovative.
Signed
DaHarder
Yeah, +1. Come on, Apple, innovate don't litigate!
Quote:
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
I suppose even a top "law-speaking-dude" can't defend the indefensible. But what a stupid error this was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
This is not amazing but sad. This only shows that Samsung saw a new competitor and that they had to change their design strategy
to better compete with the iPhone. They did just that and answered brilliantly with a superior design
that looked nothing like the iPhone but was a very unique, signature Samsung design.
This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit and Apple are the ones who now need to be innovative.
Signed
Retarder
Fixed that for you.
For those that are curious:
This is the barrel that Samsung is getting reamed over in court.
Bring out the Gimp.
Why on Heaven and Earth did they submit this evidence in their defense? Ah well, shouldn't be long until they wrap this case up and all Samsung's old products stay off the shelves.
Quote:
"Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!"
Originally Posted by ImperialForces
I think Samsung execs consumed a rather generous amount of Romulan Ale when they engaged in this email exchange.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Actually this dates back to Adlai Stevenson and the Cuban missile crisis...
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
LOL I read your reply in my email, which doesn't send the forum markup. It was all left-justified. I thought about how he used to center everything which go that feature removed from the forum, but knew it had come back with Huddler. I was going to "correct" your post and center in the classic stylings of DaH but you have crossed your o's and dotted your a's.*
* Scandinavia's version of dotting your i's and crossing your t's. ????
Exactly. This is the phone Palm announced just 2 days before Apple announced the iPhone.
They were just one of many manufacturers who had to find a new plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Constance
Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple. When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished the carrier that carried the iphone.
I'm not familiar with this, though it sounds plausible. A google search is swamped by the current Apple v Samsung conflict. Do you have a link or two to get me started?
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
THIS. THIS. THIS.
It's 100% legal not to mention brilliant to copy Apple's GOAL of creating elegant simplicity for users of their products. Most companies try to make hardware and software that is capable of doing things. Apple creates hardware and software that give users the ability to do things. The difference may sound tiny, but in reality, it's huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson
...but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
I would think that argument is bullcrap too. Except I can't figure out who is actually making that particular argument. It sounds more like the Strawman argument that Samsung has erected and attacked than it does like anything Apple actually said.
Thompson
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
"Absolutely nothing innovative. Just a natural progression of what all phones were doing at the time."
Trade dress claims are not about any one thing like shape - in fact they ignore size as well. A trade dress claim is an "and" claim, not an "or" claim. In this case, Apples trademark is: A rectangular mobile digital device with rounded corners AND rounded silver edges AND a black face AND an array of 16 square icons with rounded edges AND the top 12 icons appear on a black background AND the bottom four appear on a silver background AND [specified colours on the face] AND a number of other items regarding the screen, border, icons and trim.
Had Samsung done any one or two of them differently, Apple would not have had a case.
I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?
Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.
They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.