-A border around the screen that is thicker at the top and bottom (but equal) and thinner on the sides (but the sides are equal)
-A aluminum band around the side of the phone.
Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006:
It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
2) The three points of the lawsuit are?:
First Claim: Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Second Claim: Federal trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114
U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 is for the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of sixteen colorful icons.
U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 is for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.
U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side.]
Third Claim: Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114
No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon. No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon. No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon. No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon. No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon. No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon. Pending No. 85/041,463 is the iTunes icon, which is a riff on U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038, the desktop iTunes logo.
Fourth claim: common law trademark infringement
Fifth claim: Unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code
Sixth claim: Unjust enrichment
Seventh claim: Infringement of the ’002 patent
Eighth claim: Infringement of the ’381 patent
Ninth claim: Infringement of the ’134 patent
Tenth claim: Infringement of the ’828 patent
Eleventh claim: Infringement of the ’915 patent
Twelfth claim: Infringement of the ’891 patent
Thirteenth claim: Infringement of the ’533 patent
Claims fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen: infringement of design patents
You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz.
And here is a quote from a site that details the situation well…
Oh, and don’t conflate trade dress with Apple’s doomed copyright-based “look and feel” lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90s — it’s totally different. Trade dress law is well-established, and Apple itself has a history of successfully pursuing trade dress claims in the Northern District of California. In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power for knocking off the iMac’s trade dress, winning injunctions in both cases and eventually getting extremely restrictive settlements that effectively removed the infringing products from the marketplace.
It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.
Funny, I don't post on every article he does, just the ones where he is always wrong.
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
hmmm...good example of the logic you use. Draw conclusions from insufficient evidence or evidence you make up much? Wait, I know - you're part of a dancing group at Radio DItty Musique Hell.
I was an adult when I got an Apple //c as my first computer.
After I'd read 'The Whole Earth Software Catalog 2.0' - edited by Stewart Brand.
(i)Pad(2go)wans aren't necessarily what they look like.
Oh. I've been reading DED/RDM for quite awhile as standalone. I've been shocked amazed and awed at the vitriol spewed here when his byline comes up - no matter how trenchant his observations or points.
Yeah right. Prove it. When DED mentioned google was trying to "silence him" was he trolling for page hits or just talking about how it sucks to be in an accident and out for a few weeks?
Why don't you ask who Prince McLean is the next time you see him?
It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
2
You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz.
So tell us again how the lawsuit has nothing to do with any software?
1. I didn't make that case with Samsung in the FIRST PLACE. If you think I did, then SHOW ME WHERE.
2. I didn't say that the lawsuit had NOTHING to do with the software. IN fact, I've mentioned SEVERAL TIMES that Apple had a STRONG case with TouchWiz, and with CERTAIN phones (like the Galaxy S variants).
But they're ALSO including phones (Like the Nexus S and Transform) that do NOT use touchwiz and they also DON't look like the iphone the way that phones like the Vibrant does. Their software related claims (in this case) are strong, as are SOME of their hardware claims. But they're also listing phones like the Continuum (has a whole second screen), Transform (stock android/keyboard), Nexus S (curved screen, stock android) in with phones they have those Valid claims for (Vibrant) which could hurt their case.
Also, the messaging icon listed in the trademark dispute (the image you linked) is the stock Android image. It's also a fairly obvious one. Unless you want to claim that Apple invented emoticons and chat bubbles.
So, just to clarify because you didn't get it the last dozen times I've said it in the past two days:
A: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to touchwiz (even Android blogs said Samsung was treading on thin ice when they announced the new version of touchwiz). I've said this from the start.
B: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to specific phones, like the Galaxy S line, but the "Rounded corners and borders around the touchscreen" claim is BULLS**T because the design was NOT originated by Apple (it's inherent in the design of cellphones, and it has been for YEARS.
C: I NEVER claimed that Apple copied Samsung, nor did I claim that the F700 was released before the iphone. What I've said that claiming that Samsung somehow threw together an entirely new phone and UI within a MONTH of Apple announcing the iphone is absurd.
I would put the same points a third time, but I doubt it would sink in then either. You'll most likely quote what I wrote above and ask me the SAME questions I already answered. You do it every single article. You seem to assume that just because SOME people make a claim, then EVERYONE who holds a similar position makes that claim. It doesn't work that way.
I'm curious, did TV manufacturers sue each other for all using a giant screen that displayed images with a power, channel and volume buttons along the bottom?[*].
Agreed. Add in SLR cameras and pocket cameras, cam corders, electric razors, tennis rackets, running shoes, wrist watches. More expensive items? How about nearly identical aircraft GPS/NAV/Com systems (Garmin, Bendix-King, Avidyne etc).
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
I'll call him out on his blog and I'll call him out to his face if I ever see him. Apparently he couldn't handle it and edited his page to block me. That's right. He didn't ban me.
I'll call him out on his blog and I'll call him out to his face if I ever see him. Apparently he couldn't handle it and edited his page to block me. That's right. He didn't ban me.
You should be banned from this site for your constant harassment and rampant antiforumina.
LOL..Apple fanboys and PR shills are strong at it..
First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..
So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.
Now, let's address how Apple does these things and gets away with it..
Well it's easy.. Steve Jobs has this perfected from the Xerox days.. he goes and "partners" with companies like Samsung, Motorola and others and asks them to make a phone to connect to iTunes so Apple ecosystem will work with them (aka ROKR).. in this partnership, just like he did with Xerox and Creative Labs prior to the rip of design and technology behind original iPod, he gets access/gets shown to the latest designs and ideas of the products to be released by these companies in a good will that the companies will work together..
He then, goes back to his office and has his army of slaves who he yells at and molests to make him a super high polished version/copy of the same product but with a bit of an Apple gloss.
Naturally, he can afford doing that because he basically stole the whole concept and R&D time and money that some of these companies invested and just stole ideas. This allows him to really considerably cut down on the time it takes to release a product.
This is standard operating procedure for Apple.. Steve Jobs is master at it and he has been doing forever.. and he doesn't really hide it... he admits it himself
But then again.. this is not the first thing they stole.. whole new line up of Apple's design is stolen from Dieter Rams. Almost every piece of modern Apple design is a straight rip from Dieter's concepts.
Here's a tip Apple shillboys.. when you are trying to accuse someone of stealing ideas.. make sure that you are not the worst rip off artists in the room.
What are we talking about here.. Steve Jobs is a criminal.. he has been sued for stock fraud for Christ sake... He's not only a thief in design sense but in a traditional sense as well.
It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.
Read it. Agree with it.
But, a rectangular device with rounded corners? That's uh, dumb. But since this is like the first or second case I've read about a trade dress suite, I can't say how it will go.
If anyone should sue, it should be Honda over kia's old optima and current forte. But maybe they are smart enough to know that suing them won't profit them.
Find me a post in this thread where he denies this. You're either being intentionally stupid, or not. I hope it's the former.
I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states ?Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006? when the phone present ?here? was introduced the month after the iPhone. It?s the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
If someone makes their career out of attacking other platforms and the users of those platforms, it's expected that people will react negatively.
I'd like you to find any other writer on Anything approaching a "major" blog that ONLY posts negative screed's like DED does. It doesn't exist, because most sites don't give those types of users a podium. Most sites ban those types of users.
Think about this for a second, DED made an entire "Article" to debunk a MEME that people were posting on internet forums.
This is like AndroidCentral, Droid Life, Phandroid, Androidpolice, or even just normal Tech sites like Engadget or Thisismynext making an entire "Article" based off of something someone uploaded to 4chan and it somehow made it's way to their comments.
He posted an "article" about a MEME just so he could attack Android users. And he published it to AI instead of his personal blog. How in the world can this type of "post" be "respected."
yes, grids are obvious. and that's about as much similarity as there is between the "early" samsung phone and the iphone.
but there's a difference between grids of icons and grids of colored icons on a black background with white text under each icon and a series of white dots to indicate which of a series of horizontally distributed screens the user is on. it's the difference between "ooh that's a cool idea. we need to make a similar, competing product" and "ooh that's a cool idea. let's make one and put our logo on it! ...oh i guess we should move the white dots to the top or something, to make it look like a new idea."
Totally agree on the moving the white dots around. Here's the issue, though. From a UI design perspective where does it go from being a technology to a design standard or best practice. I mean, no one has heartburn over the fact that all major desktop OSes share UI elements like:
icons
scroll bars to reveal content larger than a view port
a set of 3 buttons at the top to close, minimize, or maximize windows
um... windows
etc.
Some software patents I totally get and support. Others, I'm leery on. In this case, I think it's obvious Apple's correct, but I don't think their suit is valid. The problem is in today's corporate world, you have to go over the edge on the offensive just to protect what is in fact yours. Too bad, really.
LOL..Apple fanboys and PR shills are strong at it..
First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..
So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.
Oh my.
Where is the proof of the way it looked in 2006?
How does this save Samsung from any other part of the suit?
How did you come to the conclusion that the iPhone was rushed to beat the Samsung F700 to a ?demo off??
Where is the proof of the F700 being released before the iPhone in June 2007?
I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states ?Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006? when the phone present ?here? was introduced the month after the iPhone. It?s the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.
That's great, but irrelevant.
Let me take you back to your post:
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
Here's a simple yes or no question.
Did Menno deny that The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown? YES/NO (Correct answer is NO)
Why are you not getting this? It's painful to watch, but like a train wreck, I can't help it.
Comments
Funny. I think you spend more time on Android sites than you do apple. I really think deep down inside DED, you love android.
He loves Android in the same way that Red Sox fans love the Yankees.
Three points of apple's lawsuit are:
-Rounded corners
-A border around the screen that is thicker at the top and bottom (but equal) and thinner on the sides (but the sides are equal)
-A aluminum band around the side of the phone.
Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006:
It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
2) The three points of the lawsuit are?:You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz. And here is a quote from a site that details the situation well…So tell us again how the lawsuit has nothing to do with any software?
Don't you all have some Portal 2 to be playing?
What? Apple users don't game?
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/a...sung-analysis/
It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.
Funny, I don't post on every article he does, just the ones where he is always wrong.
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
hmmm...good example of the logic you use. Draw conclusions from insufficient evidence or evidence you make up much? Wait, I know - you're part of a dancing group at Radio DItty Musique Hell.
I was an adult when I got an Apple //c as my first computer.
After I'd read 'The Whole Earth Software Catalog 2.0' - edited by Stewart Brand.
He was here:
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2...-of-all-demos/
(i)Pad(2go)wans aren't necessarily what they look like.
Oh. I've been reading DED/RDM for quite awhile as standalone. I've been shocked amazed and awed at the vitriol spewed here when his byline comes up - no matter how trenchant his observations or points.
Yeah right. Prove it. When DED mentioned google was trying to "silence him" was he trolling for page hits or just talking about how it sucks to be in an accident and out for a few weeks?
Why don't you ask who Prince McLean is the next time you see him?
It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
2
You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz.
So tell us again how the lawsuit has nothing to do with any software?
1. I didn't make that case with Samsung in the FIRST PLACE. If you think I did, then SHOW ME WHERE.
2. I didn't say that the lawsuit had NOTHING to do with the software. IN fact, I've mentioned SEVERAL TIMES that Apple had a STRONG case with TouchWiz, and with CERTAIN phones (like the Galaxy S variants).
But they're ALSO including phones (Like the Nexus S and Transform) that do NOT use touchwiz and they also DON't look like the iphone the way that phones like the Vibrant does. Their software related claims (in this case) are strong, as are SOME of their hardware claims. But they're also listing phones like the Continuum (has a whole second screen), Transform (stock android/keyboard), Nexus S (curved screen, stock android) in with phones they have those Valid claims for (Vibrant) which could hurt their case.
Also, the messaging icon listed in the trademark dispute (the image you linked) is the stock Android image. It's also a fairly obvious one. Unless you want to claim that Apple invented emoticons and chat bubbles.
So, just to clarify because you didn't get it the last dozen times I've said it in the past two days:
A: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to touchwiz (even Android blogs said Samsung was treading on thin ice when they announced the new version of touchwiz). I've said this from the start.
B: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to specific phones, like the Galaxy S line, but the "Rounded corners and borders around the touchscreen" claim is BULLS**T because the design was NOT originated by Apple (it's inherent in the design of cellphones, and it has been for YEARS.
C: I NEVER claimed that Apple copied Samsung, nor did I claim that the F700 was released before the iphone. What I've said that claiming that Samsung somehow threw together an entirely new phone and UI within a MONTH of Apple announcing the iphone is absurd.
I would put the same points a third time, but I doubt it would sink in then either. You'll most likely quote what I wrote above and ask me the SAME questions I already answered. You do it every single article. You seem to assume that just because SOME people make a claim, then EVERYONE who holds a similar position makes that claim. It doesn't work that way.
Apple has the iPhone and untouchable mindshare.
Samsung is a parts supplier that can be replaced.
Guess who my money's on to come out of this laughing?
I'm curious, did TV manufacturers sue each other for all using a giant screen that displayed images with a power, channel and volume buttons along the bottom?[*].
Agreed. Add in SLR cameras and pocket cameras, cam corders, electric razors, tennis rackets, running shoes, wrist watches. More expensive items? How about nearly identical aircraft GPS/NAV/Com systems (Garmin, Bendix-King, Avidyne etc).
This process is rich guys flexing.
Yuck.
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
I'll call him out on his blog and I'll call him out to his face if I ever see him. Apparently he couldn't handle it and edited his page to block me. That's right. He didn't ban me.
I'll call him out on his blog and I'll call him out to his face if I ever see him. Apparently he couldn't handle it and edited his page to block me. That's right. He didn't ban me.
You should be banned from this site for your constant harassment and rampant antiforumina.
It?s amazing you post this crap as if you aren?t going to be called out on your lies.
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
Find me a post in this thread where he denies this. You're either being intentionally stupid, or not. I hope it's the former.
First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..
So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.
Now, let's address how Apple does these things and gets away with it..
Well it's easy.. Steve Jobs has this perfected from the Xerox days.. he goes and "partners" with companies like Samsung, Motorola and others and asks them to make a phone to connect to iTunes so Apple ecosystem will work with them (aka ROKR).. in this partnership, just like he did with Xerox and Creative Labs prior to the rip of design and technology behind original iPod, he gets access/gets shown to the latest designs and ideas of the products to be released by these companies in a good will that the companies will work together..
He then, goes back to his office and has his army of slaves who he yells at and molests to make him a super high polished version/copy of the same product but with a bit of an Apple gloss.
Naturally, he can afford doing that because he basically stole the whole concept and R&D time and money that some of these companies invested and just stole ideas. This allows him to really considerably cut down on the time it takes to release a product.
This is standard operating procedure for Apple.. Steve Jobs is master at it and he has been doing forever.. and he doesn't really hide it... he admits it himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
But then again.. this is not the first thing they stole.. whole new line up of Apple's design is stolen from Dieter Rams. Almost every piece of modern Apple design is a straight rip from Dieter's concepts.
http://gizmodo.com/#!343641/1960s-br...-apples-future
Here's a tip Apple shillboys.. when you are trying to accuse someone of stealing ideas.. make sure that you are not the worst rip off artists in the room.
What are we talking about here.. Steve Jobs is a criminal.. he has been sued for stock fraud for Christ sake... He's not only a thief in design sense but in a traditional sense as well.
Everyone should do themselves a favor and read this post-
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/a...sung-analysis/
It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.
Read it. Agree with it.
But, a rectangular device with rounded corners? That's uh, dumb. But since this is like the first or second case I've read about a trade dress suite, I can't say how it will go.
If anyone should sue, it should be Honda over kia's old optima and current forte. But maybe they are smart enough to know that suing them won't profit them.
Find me a post in this thread where he denies this. You're either being intentionally stupid, or not. I hope it's the former.
I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states ?Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006? when the phone present ?here? was introduced the month after the iPhone. It?s the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.
You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.
Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?
If someone makes their career out of attacking other platforms and the users of those platforms, it's expected that people will react negatively.
I'd like you to find any other writer on Anything approaching a "major" blog that ONLY posts negative screed's like DED does. It doesn't exist, because most sites don't give those types of users a podium. Most sites ban those types of users.
Think about this for a second, DED made an entire "Article" to debunk a MEME that people were posting on internet forums.
This is like AndroidCentral, Droid Life, Phandroid, Androidpolice, or even just normal Tech sites like Engadget or Thisismynext making an entire "Article" based off of something someone uploaded to 4chan and it somehow made it's way to their comments.
He posted an "article" about a MEME just so he could attack Android users. And he published it to AI instead of his personal blog. How in the world can this type of "post" be "respected."
yes, grids are obvious. and that's about as much similarity as there is between the "early" samsung phone and the iphone.
but there's a difference between grids of icons and grids of colored icons on a black background with white text under each icon and a series of white dots to indicate which of a series of horizontally distributed screens the user is on. it's the difference between "ooh that's a cool idea. we need to make a similar, competing product" and "ooh that's a cool idea. let's make one and put our logo on it! ...oh i guess we should move the white dots to the top or something, to make it look like a new idea."
Totally agree on the moving the white dots around. Here's the issue, though. From a UI design perspective where does it go from being a technology to a design standard or best practice. I mean, no one has heartburn over the fact that all major desktop OSes share UI elements like:
- icons
- scroll bars to reveal content larger than a view port
- a set of 3 buttons at the top to close, minimize, or maximize windows
- um... windows
- etc.
Some software patents I totally get and support. Others, I'm leery on. In this case, I think it's obvious Apple's correct, but I don't think their suit is valid. The problem is in today's corporate world, you have to go over the edge on the offensive just to protect what is in fact yours. Too bad, really.LOL..Apple fanboys and PR shills are strong at it..
First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..
So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.
Oh my.
Where is the proof of the way it looked in 2006?
How does this save Samsung from any other part of the suit?
How did you come to the conclusion that the iPhone was rushed to beat the Samsung F700 to a ?demo off??
Where is the proof of the F700 being released before the iPhone in June 2007?
I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states ?Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006? when the phone present ?here? was introduced the month after the iPhone. It?s the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.
That's great, but irrelevant.
Let me take you back to your post:
1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?
Here's a simple yes or no question.
Did Menno deny that The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown? YES/NO (Correct answer is NO)
Why are you not getting this? It's painful to watch, but like a train wreck, I can't help it.