Apple sues Samsung for allegedly copying look and feel of iPhone, iPad

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 146
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    samsung tab 10.1 weighs less and is thinner than ipad 2. Has Android 3 on it.

    Apple sh**s itself and launches lawsuit.



    Why do you think Samsung redesigned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as soon as the iPad 2 was released?



    Meanwhile the original "fat" Galaxy Tab 10.1v launches here around the 20th.



    The 7" Galaxy Tab has a dock connector which looks just like the Apple dock connector, rather than the usual Android micro USB and HDMI dual ports,
  • Reply 42 of 146
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    I totally understand how the galaxy s is a total rip off of the 3GS and the galaxy tab interface looks kind of like the iPad because of the touchwiz software....



    But Nexus S? Are you joking? Different material, completely different look apart from having a touch screen, no 'home' physical button, it doesn't even have touchwiz on it so the software looks totally different.



    Including the Nexus S just shows that this is a bargaining move on apples part.



    I wish technology companies would stop using law suits as a business plan. They could spend this money so much better in other ways....



    this.

    I'm surprised they even included the epic 4g, since it is of a different configuration than an iPhone (slide out QWERTY).



    The rest of the Galaxy S line, I can see a case for.
  • Reply 43 of 146
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Stupid. . . if you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em.



    Or rather, in Apple's case, beat them and sue them.



    Good move, Apple - about time.
  • Reply 44 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Samsung is like IBM, a collection of separate corporations underneath it's umbrella. There is no jump to another supplier as the group that provides IPS and Memory are different from the consumer electronics companies.



    Tell that to EMC. They screwed me on a software deal, making it really easy to not upgrade the EMC hardware I have.
  • Reply 45 of 146
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post


    Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.



    I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.



    Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?



    Tekstud, how many aliases do you have?
  • Reply 46 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post


    Just because glass existed doesn't mean forming glass into glassware was not innovative. Because people lived in caves doesn't mean building a hut wasn't innovative.



    Everything came out of something before and it is rare these days for someone or some company to create something that is truly new and original



    Apple did something considered to be truly innovative with the iPhone. Nothing in the market looked or worked the way the iPhone looked/worked. If you disagree, find a pre-existing mock up of the design, UI and functionality and provide a link to it. I'd be interested in seeing who Apple copied when they came up with the iPhone.



    Like I said, the grid icons were around long before the iPhone, as was shifting them aside to get to the next grid. I remember this on Dell Axim PDAs. That much is nothing new. Accelerometers have been used in electronics for some time. Hell, the Wii predates the iPhone and used accelerometers aplenty. Also, look up the LG Prada, which was first shown off in 2006. You'll see some surprising similarities, such as a capacitive touch screen and some pretty similar UI elements. Multitouch on touch screens has been around since the 1970s.



    Like I said, all Apple did was take existing concepts and package them together smartly.
  • Reply 47 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Actually the other guys argument is stronger than yours. He is right in this case. All of the parts separated doesn't make an innovative product. it's the combination that Apple put together to make an innovative product. Now almost all of the new smart phones coming out try to mimmic Iphone. Before everyone was trying to mimmic BB. Now everyone is trying to mimmic the Iphone/Ipad. These items really did re-define the smartphone and tablet markets and no one can honestly say they didn't. Apple and Apple alone changed the game. That's just the fact.



    Oh, Apple certainly changed the game. That much is obvious, and yes, other people mimic the iPhone, although some nifty stuff has come out of Android, such as typing without removing your finger from the screen.



    I'm saying that you can't call this so "truly innovative" that the lawsuit is justified. Nobody has done much of anything "truly innovative" in the smartphone market. It's all been incremental, albeit with some increments larger than others.
  • Reply 48 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Tekstud, how many aliases do you have?



    Do you have an argument or are you just going to accuse me of being someone else? Makes it awfully convenient when you can find a reason to ignore an argument instead of coming up with a counter-argument, doesn't it?
  • Reply 49 of 146
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,510member
    I'd never looked at images of the LG Prada till just now. Surprisingly, some people might see some elements as borrowed by Apple's iPhone. Others would not. But it's not as different as I would have expected.



    http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/2006/12...g-prada-phone/
  • Reply 50 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post


    Do you have an argument or are you just going to accuse me of being someone else? Makes it awfully convenient when you can find a reason to ignore an argument instead of coming up with a counter-argument, doesn't it?



    Your posts are such tired, old, discredited cliches that I can understand why someone responded that way.



    You really need to inform yourself a bit more. The set of issues you bring up has been debated ad nauseum, and you lost.
  • Reply 51 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I'd never looked at images of the LG Prada till just now. Surprisingly, some people might see some elements as borrowed by Apple's iPhone. Others would not. But it's not as different as I would have expected.



    Another one. See above.



    Sigh.
  • Reply 52 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Your posts are such tired, old, discredited cliches that I can understand why someone responded that way.



    You really need to inform yourself a bit more. The set of issues you bring up has been debated ad nauseum, and you lost.



    Aaaaand you present nothing as a refutation, only that "well, it's been said, and it was wrong then, too!" as if that somehow makes it so. Come back when you know how to form a coherent counter argument.
  • Reply 53 of 146
    rhyderhyde Posts: 294member
    Apple doesn't particularly get patents in order to sue the pants off people who violate them, they get patents to protect themselves from getting sued by people who might come up with the same idea (keeping in mind that they file patents long before they introduce a product using that patent).



    OTOH, if there is a blatent (in Apple's opinion) rip-off, why wouldn't Apple raise the lawsuit threat level? Steve Jobs promised they would; perhaps it's about time. I don't see any shortage of people suing Apple at this point :-).



    On a different subject, maybe Apple ought to bid high on the Nortel patents so they have some more IP to use against Samsung in the LTE arena. :-)
  • Reply 54 of 146
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I think Apple has a strong case. That is borrowing too many direct elements of the iPhone to be a coincidence of design. The question is whether Apple’s patents will hold up in court (or if Samsung thinks the patents will hold up should they chose not to settle).





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    I wonder if it is more a tactical lawsuit by Apple to get better terms... "$7.8 billion in purchases planned for 2011"



    I bet you it's be less for more in 2012! Plus first dibs on "flash memory and liquid crystal displays."



    Everything is tactile in business, even the the appearance of altruism or philanthropy.
  • Reply 55 of 146
    wowotoewowotoe Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post


    I'm saying that you can't call this so "truly innovative" that the lawsuit is justified. Nobody has done much of anything "truly innovative" in the smartphone market. It's all been incremental, albeit with some increments larger than others.



    I have to agree with the other guys. You are mixing the definition of innovative with inventive. Gp look it up on dictionary.com. Innovative is to alter the existing ideas or products to make a new product that's more modern in a different way. Yes, all those technologies you mentioned (accelerometer, touch screen..etc) already pre-existed before iPhone. But who is the first one to put them all together on a phone?



    Now in Samsung's case, taking the iPhone to make it a little bit rounder, fatter, more icons but generally look & feel the same is not innovative. It's called copy. Just like you take someone's thesis and rephrase only parts of it. Everyone knows that's plagiarism.
  • Reply 56 of 146
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 57 of 146
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post


    Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.



    I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.



    Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?



    You miss the point. It doesn't have to be completely innovative. It is a look and feel lawsuit. Is Nintendo the only company to ever make a platform game? No, but if Samsung released a game that involved a plumber with a hat and a mustache saving a princess and the plumber is named Nario. Then they are going to get sued.



    Samsung didn't just recreate some aspects of the iPhone software and hardware look and feel. They copied the phone. My link above goes to the prior thread I started on this matter. It contains links to half a dozen reviews of the Samsung noting the ability to confuse it with the 3G.
  • Reply 58 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wowotoe View Post


    I have to agree with the other guys. You are mixing the definition of innovative with inventive. Gp look it up on dictionary.com. Innovative is to alter the existing ideas or products to make a new product that's more modern in a different way. Yes, all those technologies you mentioned (accelerometer, touch screen..etc) already pre-existed before iPhone. But who is the first one to put them all together on a phone?



    Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?

    Quote:

    Now in Samsung's case, taking the iPhone to make it a little bit rounder, fatter, more icons but generally look & feel the same is not innovative. It's called copy. Just like you take someone's thesis and rephrase only parts of it. Everyone knows that's plagiarism.



    Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.
  • Reply 59 of 146
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    A rectangular handheld device with four primary buttons and apps laid out in a grid....hmmm...where have I seen that before?







    If patents can apply to an aluminum ring around the bezel the world is in a sorry state.



    The grid thing should just go away. If anyone's going to sue over it, it's going to be HP (provided they got a patent for it). I mentioned something similar maybe even years ago.



    However, the physical design cues are startling, notwithstanding the function of the devices.
  • Reply 60 of 146
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post


    Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?



    So your argument that that Apple's lawsuit is bogus is that they lost to Creative or copying their UI too much?





    Quote:

    Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.



    I seem to recall Apple purchasing rights by Xerox Parc.
Sign In or Register to comment.