I'm not sure why there's so much turmoil over the U.S. verdict. The money matters to none of the parties involved. With minor adjustments any sales ban will be circumvented and, in the end, the U.S. court system may be the only one that leans Apple's way. After those minor adjustments are implemented it'll be business as usual for Samsung and they'll continue selling many millions of devices. I don't know that anyone realizes this yet, but Samsung has become part of the pop electronics culture every bit as much as Apple now (helped in no small part by the lawsuits). Ask yourselves this: Has Samsung had a banner year because it's OS borrows some of iOS's features (which they've done from the start) or have their suddenly monstrous sales been driven by what they offer that Apple doesn't? If it winds up being about all those extra features, with a few minor OS adjustments, they'll keep giving Apple a run for it's money.
*edit* I wonder how Samsung's future LTE suit against Apple will fare. I doubt it'd get much traction in the U.S. but, if the U.K. verdict is any indicator, there may be some animosity toward Apple in foreign courts. I honestly don't believe these suits are going to benefit Apple in the long run.
I don't know that anyone realizes this yet, but Samsung has become part of the pop electronics culture every bit as much as Apple now (helped in no small part by the lawsuits).
We don't realize it because it isn't the case.
Ask yourselves this: Has Samsung had a banner year because it's OS borrows some of iOS's features (which they've done from the start) or have their suddenly monstrous sales been driven by what they offer that Apple doesn't?
The former. They copy Apple as close as possible, closer than possible, actually, because they were found to be doing it illegally, and their corner-cutting on quality/cost is why their products are selling well.
The former. They copy Apple as close as possible, closer than possible, actually, because they were found to be doing it illegally, and their corner-cutting on quality/cost is why their products are selling well.
No. They dominate the smartphone market in general because of so many cheap devices but the Galaxy S3 and the Note aren't budget devices at all. I believe they're at 60 million units between them now. It's a little suspicious that their copying didn't really pay off until the S3 was released and 50 million people proved they were willing to pay top dollar for an Android device and another 10 million surprised everyone by making the Note phablet a success (also paying top dollar).
No. They dominate the smartphone market in general because of so many cheap devices but the Galaxy S3 and the Note aren't budget devices at all. I believe they're at 60 million units between them now. It's a little suspicious that their copying didn't really pay off until the S3 was released and 50 million people proved they were willing to pay top dollar for an Android device and another 10 million surprised everyone by making the Note phablet a success (also paying top dollar).
It's a little suspicious the numbers when they were proven to have lied about all their previous models' numbers.
1. "American companies aren't stealing IP from South Korean companies" --> This is a very wide statement that could not possibly be true.
I think he means that in a general, not in the literal, sense, i.e., well-known technologies/products/services of well-known companies. If you have a serious counter-example, feel free to provide it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
2. "Let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money" --> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Much of the benefits you mention I'm assuming are related to outsourced American jobs, but this happened as a consequence of American domestic policies encouraging it as a way of driving up profits. Blaming South Korea for benefiting makes no sense.
I think you need to school yourself on some minor matters of 20th cent. history and geopolitics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
3. Are we now just equating South Korea with Samsung? If that is the case, then we might as well just equate America with Wal-Mart, a company that has plenty of well known dirty practices.
I think he means Samsung as a metaphor (as Walmart would, indeed, be for the US).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
I think the $1.05 billion win was deserved (perhaps excessive, but I'm willing to give the US court system the benefit of the doubt in that that number roughly portrays Apple's losses as a consequence of Samsung's actions), but in adding the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab, they're over-extending. This case is far from over, as appeals are still on the way and in the upper courts from here on out, juries are not used. The original Galaxy S and S2 variants are very noticeably similar to Apple's designs, both inside and out, but the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab are a whole different beast. I sincerely hope that Apple's lawyers actually have a well thought out plan, and not just acting on hubris derived from winning case after case.
Uh-uh. The jury found 'willful' infringement. As a result, many would argue that the amount in question was not just well-deserved, but will be tripled by Ms. Koh.
As to the rest of that para: thanks for your legal advice. I doubt that you need to lose any sleep over whether Apple's lawyers have a "well thought out plan."
As the owner of a both a Galaxy SIII and a 'current generation' iPod Touch I can only draw one of 3 conclusions from your little 'claim':
01) You Do Not Own Both Devices, therefore you've have never made any such comparisons of the two devices.
02) You Simply Have No Idea of What You Speak, therefore unable to properly discern the differences between the devices.
03) You Are Lying (or at the very least blind), given that the devices in question are of different shapes, aspect-ratios, sizes, colors, substrate/material construction, UI look/configuration, et al.
Anyway... It's going to be quite interesting WHEN Apple's little sue-rage gets to the higher courts and these nonsensical 'patents' are invalidated.
Apple is not suing on the differences but on the specific similarities that are protected by Apple's patents. What's so hard to understand?
No. They dominate the smartphone market in general because of so many cheap devices but the Galaxy S3 and the Note aren't budget devices at all. I believe they're at 60 million units between them now. I
Obviously, that's the number they use when they're trying to convince analysts of how great their sales are. When asked to produce actual sales figures to allocate royalty payments, the numbers are much smaller.
Is there a third-party marketshare scraper that shows they're not lying?
*egg on face*
Oops.... Apparently I have a faulty memory. Only took a few seconds to find it's the cumulative S and Sll that hit 50 million. As for lying, I've not seen any reports that say they've lied in the past.
The next few months will be interesting. Seriously, there's no way a sales ban lasts long on the software side of things (it's too easy to update the firmware) and I doubt the form factor can withstand further tests in court. In the end, there's many more days left in court and even if they get everything they want in the U.S..... that doesn't mean there won't be backlash elsewhere. The U.K. verdict blew me away. That judge had a grudge.
I see a few problems with your statement, mostly based on the fact you have no idea what you are commenting on. Either inform yourself of context, or don't bother saying anything. That goes for life in general, as well as this forum.
You know what, I love Macs. I have used them since the early 90s, and work with them every day and use them every night.
iPhones too. I aspired to own an iPhone but couldn't justify one until last year, when I finally got myself an iPhone 4.
I even convinced my brother to dump his Galaxy S2 and get a 4s when it came out, and entiher of us are unhappy with that choice.
I own an iPad, and have extolled its virtues to anyone who will listen, and use it for virtually anything that doesnt need a big screen to do. My 5 year old iMac 24" survived a couple of years longer as a result of me not needing it so much for general internet browsing as a result of this!
It does, however, make me unconfortable to read all these negative headlines in the general press about Apple and their litigiousness of late.
While I support their need to protect their uniqueness, and cant understand how anybody else cant see that Samsung quite clearly are using Apple as their template for success in the smartphone business, I do feel that there is, at least in the technology industry, and amongst more tech savvy consumers, an image of 'Apple is Evil'.
I know that they arent trying to dominate the market by patent litigation, and are quite happy to see other scompeting on a fair and even playing feild, but right now I feel Samsung has the mindshare.
The oft repeated "Patenting rounded rectangles'" keeps being thrown up in discussions, despite it never actually being about that. Or the "They dont want any competition" argument, which holds no ground to anyone who actually followed the case with any degree of open mindedness.
That said, I sit here contemplating my next computer and Smartphone purchase.
Samsung have, in my eyes, designed some extremely tempting products. The Galaxy Note 2 in particular has me salivating at the prospects of having a mini tablet that does everything I want and more.
As for my computer, I can no longer justify the Apple Premium, and instead am looking to buy a Windows machine instead.
I come to this forum to see a multitude of people polarized on either side. Why cant anyone ever be in the middle gorund?
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
Interesting historical information to be sure, but, I don't see how your preface of 'But,' fits your reply at all. Normally, 'but' indicates some sort of contradiction of what precedes it. But, your post doesn't in any way contradict the quoted post's historically correct assertion that Sherlock provided a unified local computer and internet search function years ago. Alta Vista didn't provide that functionality, it was just another web search engine.
I am completely fed up with Apple's behavior. Five, six years ago, we had a company that was in a serious spurt of innovation, doing things like for the first time making sure software developers had the proper tools to economically develop applications for smartphones, and aggressively pushing Intel Core processors into the marketplace, while still maintaining a very high quality standard with Mac OS X. We now have a patent trolling company that funds R&D at a notably low rate compared to other tech firms, has allowed the quality control in Mac OS X to go to seed, and would rather spend its cash pile on lawyers. Even the Apple Stores are no longer a benefit for the company, with Tim Cook apparently having decided to turn them into a cheap-and-nasty stand-alone retail chain (evidenced by the importation of Dixon's executives from England) rather than a glowing shop window and point of customer contact for Apple as a whole.
I'm also tired of the Apple accusations against Android. I have used Apple computers for 20 years, out of preference -- but as the software quality control declines, it is trying my patience, despite the obvious superiority of the hardware at the moment. As for smartphones, I use Android, currently a Galaxy S3, as the iPhone has never met my needs; Apple was slow to get it up to a high-resolution display, slow to get it on Verizon, slow to put even a minimally decent notifications system in the operating system, slow to get 4G on it, and completely non-responsive so far in terms of user customization of the OS. What, exactly, is Apple patenting? And don't tell me, "rounded corners." If that's what it's about, Apple, Samsung and all the rest of the gang should be paying compensation to RIM, who had rounded corners on the Blackberry the better part of a decade ago.
Apple's real innovation with the iPhone was a very simple one; make the process of application development standard enough, easy enough, and cheap enough for software developer and customer alike to foster an environment where people can actually use their phones as a computing platform. The stuff they're actually suing over, on the other hand, is abuse of the legal system. If the other firms should be paying royalties, it should be for the likes of the App Store and Xcode -- not rounded corners and icons and bouncing windows. The fact that Android is now in serious trouble for doing far less than Microsoft did to copy Apple 20 years ago is just another indication of how our current generation of legal professionals and corporate executives have lost sight of what patent law should be about. This is just another one of those things, rather like the serious possibility that we'll be disallowed from selling our second-hand imported electronics to others without manufacturer permission, that shows the patent system to have spiraled completely out of control.
You know I've seen this picture million times and I still don't get it. Does anyone confuse an iPod with a Braun thermostat? They look nothing alike except they're both white. This Braun own a patent on the color white?
And before anyone chimes in with 'the Galaxy S III looks nothing like an iPhone', many of the patent issues Apple has with Samsung have nothing to do with the look and feel of the hardware but are software related.
... Apple's real innovation with the iPhone was a very simple one; make the process of application development standard enough, easy enough, and cheap enough for software developer and customer alike to foster an environment where people can actually use their phones as a computing platform. The stuff they're actually suing over, on the other hand, is abuse of the legal system. If the other firms should be paying royalties, it should be for the likes of the App Store and Xcode -- not rounded corners and icons and bouncing windows. ...
So, what you are saying is that there was practically no difference between the original iPhone and a Blackberry, other than the software development and distribution process? (Ignoring the fact that for the original iPhone there was no software development and distribution process.) I think we can pretty much reject your assertions as being, prima facie, absurd.
It is interesting to note however that Samsung has also knocked off Xcode, the Mac Mini, the MacBook Air, cables and connectors, packaging, ...
You know I've seen this picture million times and I still don't get it. Does anyone confuse an iPod with a Braun thermostat? They look nothing alike except they're both white. This Braun own a patent on the color white?
And before anyone chimes in with 'the Galaxy S III looks nothing like an iPhone', many of the patent issues Apple has with Samsung have nothing to do with the look and feel of the hardware but are software related.
It's the same effect as seeing a face on Mars or Snoopy in a cloud. It's a product of the irrational and possibly insane.
Note that these images are always done with the same angle, lighting and other effects to make sure they have a similar appearance. You can test this with a squint test, something you don't see in a court room to prove that something is the same as something completely different.
Isn't one of the supposed stolen objects a dehumidifier being compared to a Mac Pro? I can't even begin to imagine how crazy one must be to think those are the same products because at a certain angle and lighting they have vaguely the same shape.
Comments
I'm not sure why there's so much turmoil over the U.S. verdict. The money matters to none of the parties involved. With minor adjustments any sales ban will be circumvented and, in the end, the U.S. court system may be the only one that leans Apple's way. After those minor adjustments are implemented it'll be business as usual for Samsung and they'll continue selling many millions of devices. I don't know that anyone realizes this yet, but Samsung has become part of the pop electronics culture every bit as much as Apple now (helped in no small part by the lawsuits). Ask yourselves this: Has Samsung had a banner year because it's OS borrows some of iOS's features (which they've done from the start) or have their suddenly monstrous sales been driven by what they offer that Apple doesn't? If it winds up being about all those extra features, with a few minor OS adjustments, they'll keep giving Apple a run for it's money.
*edit* I wonder how Samsung's future LTE suit against Apple will fare. I doubt it'd get much traction in the U.S. but, if the U.K. verdict is any indicator, there may be some animosity toward Apple in foreign courts. I honestly don't believe these suits are going to benefit Apple in the long run.
Originally Posted by Dvoraak
I don't know that anyone realizes this yet, but Samsung has become part of the pop electronics culture every bit as much as Apple now (helped in no small part by the lawsuits).
We don't realize it because it isn't the case.
Ask yourselves this: Has Samsung had a banner year because it's OS borrows some of iOS's features (which they've done from the start) or have their suddenly monstrous sales been driven by what they offer that Apple doesn't?
The former. They copy Apple as close as possible, closer than possible, actually, because they were found to be doing it illegally, and their corner-cutting on quality/cost is why their products are selling well.
Not necessarily:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We don't realize it because it isn't the case.
The former. They copy Apple as close as possible, closer than possible, actually, because they were found to be doing it illegally, and their corner-cutting on quality/cost is why their products are selling well.
No. They dominate the smartphone market in general because of so many cheap devices but the Galaxy S3 and the Note aren't budget devices at all. I believe they're at 60 million units between them now. It's a little suspicious that their copying didn't really pay off until the S3 was released and 50 million people proved they were willing to pay top dollar for an Android device and another 10 million surprised everyone by making the Note phablet a success (also paying top dollar).
Originally Posted by Dvoraak
No. They dominate the smartphone market in general because of so many cheap devices but the Galaxy S3 and the Note aren't budget devices at all. I believe they're at 60 million units between them now. It's a little suspicious that their copying didn't really pay off until the S3 was released and 50 million people proved they were willing to pay top dollar for an Android device and another 10 million surprised everyone by making the Note phablet a success (also paying top dollar).
It's a little suspicious the numbers when they were proven to have lied about all their previous models' numbers.
Not to hold anyone's candle, but a few responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
1. "American companies aren't stealing IP from South Korean companies" --> This is a very wide statement that could not possibly be true.
I think he means that in a general, not in the literal, sense, i.e., well-known technologies/products/services of well-known companies. If you have a serious counter-example, feel free to provide it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
2. "Let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money" --> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Much of the benefits you mention I'm assuming are related to outsourced American jobs, but this happened as a consequence of American domestic policies encouraging it as a way of driving up profits. Blaming South Korea for benefiting makes no sense.
I think you need to school yourself on some minor matters of 20th cent. history and geopolitics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
3. Are we now just equating South Korea with Samsung? If that is the case, then we might as well just equate America with Wal-Mart, a company that has plenty of well known dirty practices.
I think he means Samsung as a metaphor (as Walmart would, indeed, be for the US).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
I think the $1.05 billion win was deserved (perhaps excessive, but I'm willing to give the US court system the benefit of the doubt in that that number roughly portrays Apple's losses as a consequence of Samsung's actions), but in adding the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab, they're over-extending. This case is far from over, as appeals are still on the way and in the upper courts from here on out, juries are not used. The original Galaxy S and S2 variants are very noticeably similar to Apple's designs, both inside and out, but the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab are a whole different beast. I sincerely hope that Apple's lawyers actually have a well thought out plan, and not just acting on hubris derived from winning case after case.
Uh-uh. The jury found 'willful' infringement. As a result, many would argue that the amount in question was not just well-deserved, but will be tripled by Ms. Koh.
As to the rest of that para: thanks for your legal advice. I doubt that you need to lose any sleep over whether Apple's lawyers have a "well thought out plan."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
What?
As the owner of a both a Galaxy SIII and a 'current generation' iPod Touch I can only draw one of 3 conclusions from your little 'claim':
01) You Do Not Own Both Devices, therefore you've have never made any such comparisons of the two devices.
02) You Simply Have No Idea of What You Speak, therefore unable to properly discern the differences between the devices.
03) You Are Lying (or at the very least blind), given that the devices in question are of different shapes, aspect-ratios, sizes, colors, substrate/material construction, UI look/configuration, et al.
Anyway... It's going to be quite interesting WHEN Apple's little sue-rage gets to the higher courts and these nonsensical 'patents' are invalidated.
Apple is not suing on the differences but on the specific similarities that are protected by Apple's patents. What's so hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's a little suspicious the numbers when they were proven to have lied about all their previous models' numbers.
Well I see that the fandroids aren't the only ones prone to anecdotal rebuttals.
Originally Posted by Dvoraak
Well I see that the fandroids aren't the only ones prone to anecdotal rebuttals.
Is there a third-party marketshare scraper that shows they're not lying?
Obviously, that's the number they use when they're trying to convince analysts of how great their sales are. When asked to produce actual sales figures to allocate royalty payments, the numbers are much smaller.
Wonder why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Is there a third-party marketshare scraper that shows they're not lying?
*egg on face*
Oops.... Apparently I have a faulty memory. Only took a few seconds to find it's the cumulative S and Sll that hit 50 million. As for lying, I've not seen any reports that say they've lied in the past.
The next few months will be interesting. Seriously, there's no way a sales ban lasts long on the software side of things (it's too easy to update the firmware) and I doubt the form factor can withstand further tests in court. In the end, there's many more days left in court and even if they get everything they want in the U.S..... that doesn't mean there won't be backlash elsewhere. The U.K. verdict blew me away. That judge had a grudge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
I see a few problems with your statement...
I see a few problems with your statement, mostly based on the fact you have no idea what you are commenting on. Either inform yourself of context, or don't bother saying anything. That goes for life in general, as well as this forum.
You know what, I love Macs. I have used them since the early 90s, and work with them every day and use them every night.
iPhones too. I aspired to own an iPhone but couldn't justify one until last year, when I finally got myself an iPhone 4.
I even convinced my brother to dump his Galaxy S2 and get a 4s when it came out, and entiher of us are unhappy with that choice.
I own an iPad, and have extolled its virtues to anyone who will listen, and use it for virtually anything that doesnt need a big screen to do. My 5 year old iMac 24" survived a couple of years longer as a result of me not needing it so much for general internet browsing as a result of this!
It does, however, make me unconfortable to read all these negative headlines in the general press about Apple and their litigiousness of late.
While I support their need to protect their uniqueness, and cant understand how anybody else cant see that Samsung quite clearly are using Apple as their template for success in the smartphone business, I do feel that there is, at least in the technology industry, and amongst more tech savvy consumers, an image of 'Apple is Evil'.
I know that they arent trying to dominate the market by patent litigation, and are quite happy to see other scompeting on a fair and even playing feild, but right now I feel Samsung has the mindshare.
The oft repeated "Patenting rounded rectangles'" keeps being thrown up in discussions, despite it never actually being about that. Or the "They dont want any competition" argument, which holds no ground to anyone who actually followed the case with any degree of open mindedness.
That said, I sit here contemplating my next computer and Smartphone purchase.
Samsung have, in my eyes, designed some extremely tempting products. The Galaxy Note 2 in particular has me salivating at the prospects of having a mini tablet that does everything I want and more.
As for my computer, I can no longer justify the Apple Premium, and instead am looking to buy a Windows machine instead.
I come to this forum to see a multitude of people polarized on either side. Why cant anyone ever be in the middle gorund?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
Interesting historical information to be sure, but, I don't see how your preface of 'But,' fits your reply at all. Normally, 'but' indicates some sort of contradiction of what precedes it. But, your post doesn't in any way contradict the quoted post's historically correct assertion that Sherlock provided a unified local computer and internet search function years ago. Alta Vista didn't provide that functionality, it was just another web search engine.
I am completely fed up with Apple's behavior. Five, six years ago, we had a company that was in a serious spurt of innovation, doing things like for the first time making sure software developers had the proper tools to economically develop applications for smartphones, and aggressively pushing Intel Core processors into the marketplace, while still maintaining a very high quality standard with Mac OS X. We now have a patent trolling company that funds R&D at a notably low rate compared to other tech firms, has allowed the quality control in Mac OS X to go to seed, and would rather spend its cash pile on lawyers. Even the Apple Stores are no longer a benefit for the company, with Tim Cook apparently having decided to turn them into a cheap-and-nasty stand-alone retail chain (evidenced by the importation of Dixon's executives from England) rather than a glowing shop window and point of customer contact for Apple as a whole.
I'm also tired of the Apple accusations against Android. I have used Apple computers for 20 years, out of preference -- but as the software quality control declines, it is trying my patience, despite the obvious superiority of the hardware at the moment. As for smartphones, I use Android, currently a Galaxy S3, as the iPhone has never met my needs; Apple was slow to get it up to a high-resolution display, slow to get it on Verizon, slow to put even a minimally decent notifications system in the operating system, slow to get 4G on it, and completely non-responsive so far in terms of user customization of the OS. What, exactly, is Apple patenting? And don't tell me, "rounded corners." If that's what it's about, Apple, Samsung and all the rest of the gang should be paying compensation to RIM, who had rounded corners on the Blackberry the better part of a decade ago.
Apple's real innovation with the iPhone was a very simple one; make the process of application development standard enough, easy enough, and cheap enough for software developer and customer alike to foster an environment where people can actually use their phones as a computing platform. The stuff they're actually suing over, on the other hand, is abuse of the legal system. If the other firms should be paying royalties, it should be for the likes of the App Store and Xcode -- not rounded corners and icons and bouncing windows. The fact that Android is now in serious trouble for doing far less than Microsoft did to copy Apple 20 years ago is just another indication of how our current generation of legal professionals and corporate executives have lost sight of what patent law should be about. This is just another one of those things, rather like the serious possibility that we'll be disallowed from selling our second-hand imported electronics to others without manufacturer permission, that shows the patent system to have spiraled completely out of control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibod
... As for my computer, I can no longer justify the Apple Premium, and instead am looking to buy a Windows machine instead. ...
You almost had us going there until that bit. Nice try. Next time, sweat the details.
And before anyone chimes in with 'the Galaxy S III looks nothing like an iPhone', many of the patent issues Apple has with Samsung have nothing to do with the look and feel of the hardware but are software related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoeditor
... Apple's real innovation with the iPhone was a very simple one; make the process of application development standard enough, easy enough, and cheap enough for software developer and customer alike to foster an environment where people can actually use their phones as a computing platform. The stuff they're actually suing over, on the other hand, is abuse of the legal system. If the other firms should be paying royalties, it should be for the likes of the App Store and Xcode -- not rounded corners and icons and bouncing windows. ...
So, what you are saying is that there was practically no difference between the original iPhone and a Blackberry, other than the software development and distribution process? (Ignoring the fact that for the original iPhone there was no software development and distribution process.) I think we can pretty much reject your assertions as being, prima facie, absurd.
It is interesting to note however that Samsung has also knocked off Xcode, the Mac Mini, the MacBook Air, cables and connectors, packaging, ...
It's the same effect as seeing a face on Mars or Snoopy in a cloud. It's a product of the irrational and possibly insane.
Note that these images are always done with the same angle, lighting and other effects to make sure they have a similar appearance. You can test this with a squint test, something you don't see in a court room to prove that something is the same as something completely different.
Isn't one of the supposed stolen objects a dehumidifier being compared to a Mac Pro? I can't even begin to imagine how crazy one must be to think those are the same products because at a certain angle and lighting they have vaguely the same shape.