Yes, but Apple didn't implement those items in the exact same way as Android. They differentiated it and/or improved upon it. Sammy, on the other hand, saw the iPhone and copy and pasted without improving upon it.
Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?
There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
Wow. I've been skimming through this document and it is absolutely stunning how systematically they worked to copy the iPhone design aesthetic and UX. Now one commenter said that yes, this is the type of review you'd expect, but being in the UX industry for about 10 years, there is a difference between reviewing your own screenshots and making direction, and comparing another product, making direction and giving an engineer the "correct" UI on the left side. As another review stated, they didn't say it, but it was heavily inferred that they copy the UI/UX on the left.
This is wholesale copying of everything that made me go "wow" when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone. This is stuff that was not obvious then and made the iPhone something brilliant. Here we see Samsung picking that apart and giving direction as to how to copy all those usability features that Apple spent years refining.
The article is correct that this does not necessarily mean they violated design patents (although some of these directions definitely show that they were doing just that), but it does show how they used the hard work and design genius of Apple's designers for their own benefit.
They'd be stupid not to do so. Jobs himself did that. Do your stuff as well as you can and if someone outperforms you, study why to outperform him later...
But I imagine that professionally, when someone ouperforms you, you just switch jobs? No? How remarkable.
Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?
There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.
The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
I don't know who to blame, AppleInsider for getting sucked into the Apple vs Samsung/HTC/(Insert any other big mobile manufacturer here) flame war and losing touch with what made this blog interesting.
Or Apple, who by all accounts in the media these days have gone from the most exciting consumer electronics company to a large 'Suing Company' with a side business in consumer electronics.
Here's a hint (although none of the Apple bashers ever seem to want to do this).
Read the actual patent. Not some summary on an Apple-bashing site. Apple did not patent the shopping list as the Register claims. They are patenting only the very specific claims being made.
In the end, though, some people are so enmeshed in the idea of attacking Apple on everything and justifying anything that Apple's competitors do that logic doesn't work, so I don't have any hope that you'll even bother to read the patent.
Here's a hint (although none of the Apple bashers ever seem to want to do this).
Read the actual patent. Not some summary on an Apple-bashing site. Apple did not patent the shopping list as the Register claims. They are patenting only the very specific claims being made.
In the end, though, some people are so enmeshed in the idea of attacking Apple on everything and justifying anything that Apple's competitors do that logic doesn't work, so I don't have any hope that you'll even bother to read the patent.
That's why I usually link to the patents so that anyone truly interested can look for themselves. Since you already read it do you have the link to share? If not I can look it up.
Systems and methods for providing shopping-related information to a consumer are provided. Embodiments of the system allow a consumer to create an electronic shopping list by scanning products. In some embodiments, shopping-related information may be obtained for items in the shopping list, such as pricing information, product quality, consumer ratings, and other information that may help a consumer to make an informed purchasing decision. Other embodiments allow a consumer to obtain and compare retail prices offered by several retailers for products in the shopping list. Still other embodiments provide a store-wide network that allows a shopper to scan items in the store, add the scanned items to a shopping list, and then check-out electronically.
The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.
It was also on the first iPhone.
The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.
Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.
NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.
This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.
Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.
Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.
What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple
get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a
shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.
Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.
These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,
is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.
This is the least intelligent reply I could have possibly expected. You ignored everything I said and just waved the shareholder card. Regarding criminal charges, you have to find a criminal law that has been violated, and you would most likely have to seek extradition, as I doubt you will find their top executives to be citizens of the United States. You ignored everything I said and went off on a rant. Regarding SJ's decision, the official record is that Andy Rubin stepped out whenever the iphone was discussed. That's the official statement from Apple, so I'll go with that. Arguing who stole what on Apple vs Google is pointless there, as you'll never prove it. Not only that, it's not on topic with what we were discussing.
The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.
Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.
NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.
This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.
Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.
I've never said it was stolen. I was pointing out Android didn't take it from the Apple jailbreakers as you thought.
Maybe Samsung should try using the angle that Apple wanted to see what an iPhone designed by Sony would look like and it turns out, it looks like this:
I believe it was required by law. They can't legally delete or alter anything but they can legally give you so much data that the relevant stuff is harder to find.
Correct (even though it is strongly believed that they may have deleted all incriminating emails that were non-Outlook in origin)
The only strategy left to Samsung in these circumstances was to "hide them in plain sight". It must have required several days of "burning the Midnight Oil" for Apple's tireless legal eagles to go through the reams of bumph and finally hit paydirt with this gem, this peach of an eye-opener.
High fives all round at 3 a.m. in the morning, I imagine :-)
Ah, so Germany will protect the intellectual property of its car manufacturers, but not of American technology manufacturers. I see.
Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?
Maybe Samsung should try using the angle that Apple wanted to see what an iPhone designed by Sony would look like and it turns out, it looks like this:
A slight departure from their previous unique Xperia S design, perhaps they have a similar copy-cat document that needs to be looked at.
Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Yes, but Apple didn't implement those items in the exact same way as Android. They differentiated it and/or improved upon it. Sammy, on the other hand, saw the iPhone and copy and pasted without improving upon it.
Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?
There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?
If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic.
And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.
"Stevier".
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
What's that?
No-one apart from Apple, you say?
Check it out.
Originally Posted by hill60
Check it out.
Ah, so Germany will protect the intellectual property of its car manufacturers, but not of American technology manufacturers. I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Wow. I've been skimming through this document and it is absolutely stunning how systematically they worked to copy the iPhone design aesthetic and UX. Now one commenter said that yes, this is the type of review you'd expect, but being in the UX industry for about 10 years, there is a difference between reviewing your own screenshots and making direction, and comparing another product, making direction and giving an engineer the "correct" UI on the left side. As another review stated, they didn't say it, but it was heavily inferred that they copy the UI/UX on the left.
This is wholesale copying of everything that made me go "wow" when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone. This is stuff that was not obvious then and made the iPhone something brilliant. Here we see Samsung picking that apart and giving direction as to how to copy all those usability features that Apple spent years refining.
The article is correct that this does not necessarily mean they violated design patents (although some of these directions definitely show that they were doing just that), but it does show how they used the hard work and design genius of Apple's designers for their own benefit.
They'd be stupid not to do so. Jobs himself did that. Do your stuff as well as you can and if someone outperforms you, study why to outperform him later...
But I imagine that professionally, when someone ouperforms you, you just switch jobs? No? How remarkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt
"Stevier".
Cheers
Heh. Actually, it probably means "Simile"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Weren't both those things available on Jailbroken iPhones BEFORE Android?
There was also an App that was removed from the App store for enabling the physical shutter button.
The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.
Here's a hint (although none of the Apple bashers ever seem to want to do this).
Read the actual patent. Not some summary on an Apple-bashing site. Apple did not patent the shopping list as the Register claims. They are patenting only the very specific claims being made.
In the end, though, some people are so enmeshed in the idea of attacking Apple on everything and justifying anything that Apple's competitors do that logic doesn't work, so I don't have any hope that you'll even bother to read the patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Here's a hint (although none of the Apple bashers ever seem to want to do this).
Read the actual patent. Not some summary on an Apple-bashing site. Apple did not patent the shopping list as the Register claims. They are patenting only the very specific claims being made.
In the end, though, some people are so enmeshed in the idea of attacking Apple on everything and justifying anything that Apple's competitors do that logic doesn't work, so I don't have any hope that you'll even bother to read the patent.
That's why I usually link to the patents so that anyone truly interested can look for themselves. Since you already read it do you have the link to share? If not I can look it up.
EDIT: Here's the patent app.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8239276.PN.&OS=PN/8239276&RS=PN/8239276
and the abstract description:
Systems and methods for providing shopping-related information to a consumer are provided. Embodiments of the system allow a consumer to create an electronic shopping list by scanning products. In some embodiments, shopping-related information may be obtained for items in the shopping list, such as pricing information, product quality, consumer ratings, and other information that may help a consumer to make an informed purchasing decision. Other embodiments allow a consumer to obtain and compare retail prices offered by several retailers for products in the shopping list. Still other embodiments provide a store-wide network that allows a shopper to scan items in the store, add the scanned items to a shopping list, and then check-out electronically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The notification bar has been part of Android since the very first version of Android. It was also on the first Android phone, the G1. It wasn't borrowed from the jailbreak community AFAIK.
It was also on the first iPhone.
The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.
Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.
NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.
This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.
Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantz
Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.
What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple
get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a
shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.
Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.
These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,
is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.
This is the least intelligent reply I could have possibly expected. You ignored everything I said and just waved the shareholder card. Regarding criminal charges, you have to find a criminal law that has been violated, and you would most likely have to seek extradition, as I doubt you will find their top executives to be citizens of the United States. You ignored everything I said and went off on a rant. Regarding SJ's decision, the official record is that Andy Rubin stepped out whenever the iphone was discussed. That's the official statement from Apple, so I'll go with that. Arguing who stole what on Apple vs Google is pointless there, as you'll never prove it. Not only that, it's not on topic with what we were discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
It was also on the first iPhone.
The green bar across the top of the screen when accessing the menu during a call.
Zero length swipe on this notification to return to the main menu.
NOTHING was stolen, if it was I am sure Apple would acknowledge it in the open source license agreements in the legal notices files that iPhone's ship with.
This is as "stolen" as the WebKit that forms the basis of Android's browser and Chrome.
Open source + license acknowledgment = not stolen.
I've never said it was stolen. I was pointing out Android didn't take it from the Apple jailbreakers as you thought.
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/10142/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
A slight departure from their previous unique Xperia S design, perhaps they have a similar copy-cat document that needs to be looked at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I believe it was required by law. They can't legally delete or alter anything but they can legally give you so much data that the relevant stuff is harder to find.
Correct (even though it is strongly believed that they may have deleted all incriminating emails that were non-Outlook in origin)
The only strategy left to Samsung in these circumstances was to "hide them in plain sight". It must have required several days of "burning the Midnight Oil" for Apple's tireless legal eagles to go through the reams of bumph and finally hit paydirt with this gem, this peach of an eye-opener.
High fives all round at 3 a.m. in the morning, I imagine :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, so Germany will protect the intellectual property of its car manufacturers, but not of American technology manufacturers. I see.
Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?
Looks ugly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Maybe Samsung should try using the angle that Apple wanted to see what an iPhone designed by Sony would look like and it turns out, it looks like this:
A slight departure from their previous unique Xperia S design, perhaps they have a similar copy-cat document that needs to be looked at.
Originally Posted by lightknight
Or maybe IP law is more complicated than what you make it sound? You know, like, we're actually not living in a Mickey Mouse world with bad guys, good guys, and Chuck Norris?
Eight months for an irrelevant reply?