LOLz the samsung loyalists on this topic are hilarious. "Some lawyers interpret laws differently" I guess the lawyer is just dyslexic. Anyways, the samsung lawyer F'ed up, no need to write a paragraph on rectangles being a natural form of evolving smart phones.
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
B.t.w. we're getting off-topic
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone at MacWorld 2007, the big revolution was the manner in which a user interacted with their handheld (capacitive touchscreen with multi-touch gestures, iOS) coupled with the large number of features that that handheld device could accomplish (Real web, e-mail, some useful apps & games, etc). You could just hear the collective "Oh Shit" that the telecom industry gave. There had been plenty of rectangles with screens before (etch-a-sketch, Microsoft Tablets, LG phone) but there was NOTHING out there, not even in prototype, that had the revolutionary interface of the iPhone. Other companies followed with their take on it, which is fine. Palm had WebOS, which flopped and was sold to HP, which couldn't make it work either. Nokia tried to stick with their Symbian OS, which flopped. RIM with their Blackberry, which is flopping but might conceivably make a comeback. Microsoft kept hawking their Windows Phone, which flopped, but they have a chance with Windows 8. All of these things were rectangles, too, but at least these companies tried to distinguish themselves from Apple's solution in many ways.
But there is also Android. It supports the blatant rip-off of the iOS system, and Samsung is making the best of it. In other words, this isn't just about the "rectangle", as Samsung would like to make you believe. They want to ignore the worst offense and guide your eyes to the least. It isn't working. They asked for the position they are in, and look, they got it.
But there is also Android. It supports the blatant rip-off of the iOS system, and Samsung is making the best of it. In other words, this isn't just about the "rectangle", as Samsung would like to make you believe. They want to ignore the worst offense and guide your eyes to the least. It isn't working. They asked for the position they are in, and look, they got it.
Thompson
There will almost certainly be a case about Android features similar to those in iOS at some point. This one ain't it. This is almost totally about exterior design features and only minimally about any software IP, which I believe has already been taken care of within Android anyway, even without Apple's patent claims being examined and ruled valid or invalid. This case is all about Samsung, not Android. Had Sammy been as successful with Windows phones that looked as much like the iPhone, Apple would still have brought suit over their design patents IMHO.
In terms of how to come up with a competing product without stepping obviously on someone else's toes, I actually give Microsoft a heck of a lot of credit for Windows Phone7/7.5.
For a phone in the same form factor as the iPhone using the same input paradigm, they have implemented their OS very well.
Eg: no copying of the rubber banding effect - instead they have a 'squishing effect' instead which compresses upwards/downwards the contents of the screen when you scroll out of bounds. The home screen works totally differently but is still relatively effective, and is actually quite ingenious in its combining of buttons and live information in 'live tiles'. It actually works very well as an interface.
WinPho is a good example of how to compete without copying wholesale. If only Samsung understood that.
Not sure where he is intentionally lying, or inducing others to lie and I already explained what his interpretation of releasing the inadmissable evidence was (based on his written submission to the judge). Unless you are on the Samsung legal team make sure you can substantiate your claims. The judge will censor him or rule him in contempt if there is any evidence of that but I doubt he got to the position he is in by acting in such a patently illegal way.
So, your argument is that he can't have done anything wrong because he's a prominent lawyer? Or is it that he's never been caught lying before, so he can't be lying now?
Either way, it doesn't seem like much of an argument.
The "evidence" was excluded because it wasn't evidence, it was propaganda concocted by misrepresenting and misconstruing facts. The judge recognized this, thus excluding the "evidence", and the submission of this evidence constitutes his lies to the court. Unless of course you are arguing that he got to the position he is in by being a simpleton and had no idea what he was arguing.
So, your argument is that he can't have done anything wrong because he's a prominent lawyer? Or is it that he's never been caught lying before, so he can't be lying now?
Either way, it doesn't seem like much of an argument.
The "evidence" was excluded because it wasn't evidence, it was propaganda concocted by misrepresenting and misconstruing facts. The judge recognized this, thus excluding the "evidence", and the submission of this evidence constitutes his lies to the court. Unless of course you are arguing that he got to the position he is in by being a simpleton and had no idea what he was arguing.
I have never said he didn't do anything wrong. All I have said is I don't see any evidence of him lying and if he is I would be surprised considering he is a prominent partner in a prominent firm. If he is lying he is taking a hell of a risk. Samsung's legal team obviously believes this evidence is factual, rightly or wrongly. Evidence is excluded at trial all the time. Samsung's legal team obviously disagrees with this ruling but by releasing the evidence to the press I think they made a tactical error that could potentially affect their appeal if they lose since appeals always have to be on a point of law and part of their appeal would be that the judge erred in excluding relevant evidence. But by releasing the evidence to the press this could come back and haunt them at the appeal stage. If you could send me a link to the Judge's reasoning as to why this document was excluded as evidence I would appreciate it. I had read somewhere that the reason it was excluded was because they missed their submission deadline which I would find to be extremely surprising for a case of this magnitude.
Anyhow, I will leave it to the judge to rule on this particular lawyer's conduct. That's the only opinion that matters in the end.
I'm an avid student of this case, and ultimately, Samsung is not in the wrong. They are being sleezy, but nothing they have done will warrant the results Apple is looking for.
As far as the pictures of the charger and 30 pin connection, first off, Apple wasn't the first to have a usb wall charger like that. In fact, they aren't even the first to have a wall charger that takes usb input. This is a horrible place to complain about copying.
The 30 pin plug, however, IS an issue. You see, people will search for a 30 pin plug because they think the 30 pin plug is proprietary to Apple. Samsung's plug places the pins on the other side, and improves upon the clipping feature that creates a snug connection. This is literally enough, however, to get away with. What would constitute the outcome Apple is calling for is if Samsung's plugs worked with Apple products.
In the end, Apple is doing fine competing with everyone, and stuff like this is just them going that extra mile to ensure their own profits. Nobody can blame them, but once it's over it's time to move on. The general consensus is there isn't enough to charge Samsung with copying.
Oh and I say this with 100% support behind Apple. Any American company who's profits are undermined by something like IP theft has my support. I just wish this was actually the case.
Comments
LOLz the samsung loyalists on this topic are hilarious. "Some lawyers interpret laws differently" I guess the lawyer is just dyslexic. Anyways, the samsung lawyer F'ed up, no need to write a paragraph on rectangles being a natural form of evolving smart phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
B.t.w. we're getting off-topic
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone at MacWorld 2007, the big revolution was the manner in which a user interacted with their handheld (capacitive touchscreen with multi-touch gestures, iOS) coupled with the large number of features that that handheld device could accomplish (Real web, e-mail, some useful apps & games, etc). You could just hear the collective "Oh Shit" that the telecom industry gave. There had been plenty of rectangles with screens before (etch-a-sketch, Microsoft Tablets, LG phone) but there was NOTHING out there, not even in prototype, that had the revolutionary interface of the iPhone. Other companies followed with their take on it, which is fine. Palm had WebOS, which flopped and was sold to HP, which couldn't make it work either. Nokia tried to stick with their Symbian OS, which flopped. RIM with their Blackberry, which is flopping but might conceivably make a comeback. Microsoft kept hawking their Windows Phone, which flopped, but they have a chance with Windows 8. All of these things were rectangles, too, but at least these companies tried to distinguish themselves from Apple's solution in many ways.
But there is also Android. It supports the blatant rip-off of the iOS system, and Samsung is making the best of it. In other words, this isn't just about the "rectangle", as Samsung would like to make you believe. They want to ignore the worst offense and guide your eyes to the least. It isn't working. They asked for the position they are in, and look, they got it.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
But there is also Android. It supports the blatant rip-off of the iOS system, and Samsung is making the best of it. In other words, this isn't just about the "rectangle", as Samsung would like to make you believe. They want to ignore the worst offense and guide your eyes to the least. It isn't working. They asked for the position they are in, and look, they got it.
Thompson
There will almost certainly be a case about Android features similar to those in iOS at some point. This one ain't it. This is almost totally about exterior design features and only minimally about any software IP, which I believe has already been taken care of within Android anyway, even without Apple's patent claims being examined and ruled valid or invalid. This case is all about Samsung, not Android. Had Sammy been as successful with Windows phones that looked as much like the iPhone, Apple would still have brought suit over their design patents IMHO.
In terms of how to come up with a competing product without stepping obviously on someone else's toes, I actually give Microsoft a heck of a lot of credit for Windows Phone7/7.5.
For a phone in the same form factor as the iPhone using the same input paradigm, they have implemented their OS very well.
Eg: no copying of the rubber banding effect - instead they have a 'squishing effect' instead which compresses upwards/downwards the contents of the screen when you scroll out of bounds. The home screen works totally differently but is still relatively effective, and is actually quite ingenious in its combining of buttons and live information in 'live tiles'. It actually works very well as an interface.
WinPho is a good example of how to compete without copying wholesale. If only Samsung understood that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justmark
Not sure where he is intentionally lying, or inducing others to lie and I already explained what his interpretation of releasing the inadmissable evidence was (based on his written submission to the judge). Unless you are on the Samsung legal team make sure you can substantiate your claims. The judge will censor him or rule him in contempt if there is any evidence of that but I doubt he got to the position he is in by acting in such a patently illegal way.
So, your argument is that he can't have done anything wrong because he's a prominent lawyer? Or is it that he's never been caught lying before, so he can't be lying now?
Either way, it doesn't seem like much of an argument.
The "evidence" was excluded because it wasn't evidence, it was propaganda concocted by misrepresenting and misconstruing facts. The judge recognized this, thus excluding the "evidence", and the submission of this evidence constitutes his lies to the court. Unless of course you are arguing that he got to the position he is in by being a simpleton and had no idea what he was arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, your argument is that he can't have done anything wrong because he's a prominent lawyer? Or is it that he's never been caught lying before, so he can't be lying now?
Either way, it doesn't seem like much of an argument.
The "evidence" was excluded because it wasn't evidence, it was propaganda concocted by misrepresenting and misconstruing facts. The judge recognized this, thus excluding the "evidence", and the submission of this evidence constitutes his lies to the court. Unless of course you are arguing that he got to the position he is in by being a simpleton and had no idea what he was arguing.
I have never said he didn't do anything wrong. All I have said is I don't see any evidence of him lying and if he is I would be surprised considering he is a prominent partner in a prominent firm. If he is lying he is taking a hell of a risk. Samsung's legal team obviously believes this evidence is factual, rightly or wrongly. Evidence is excluded at trial all the time. Samsung's legal team obviously disagrees with this ruling but by releasing the evidence to the press I think they made a tactical error that could potentially affect their appeal if they lose since appeals always have to be on a point of law and part of their appeal would be that the judge erred in excluding relevant evidence. But by releasing the evidence to the press this could come back and haunt them at the appeal stage. If you could send me a link to the Judge's reasoning as to why this document was excluded as evidence I would appreciate it. I had read somewhere that the reason it was excluded was because they missed their submission deadline which I would find to be extremely surprising for a case of this magnitude.
Anyhow, I will leave it to the judge to rule on this particular lawyer's conduct. That's the only opinion that matters in the end.
I'm an avid student of this case, and ultimately, Samsung is not in the wrong. They are being sleezy, but nothing they have done will warrant the results Apple is looking for.
As far as the pictures of the charger and 30 pin connection, first off, Apple wasn't the first to have a usb wall charger like that. In fact, they aren't even the first to have a wall charger that takes usb input. This is a horrible place to complain about copying.
The 30 pin plug, however, IS an issue. You see, people will search for a 30 pin plug because they think the 30 pin plug is proprietary to Apple. Samsung's plug places the pins on the other side, and improves upon the clipping feature that creates a snug connection. This is literally enough, however, to get away with. What would constitute the outcome Apple is calling for is if Samsung's plugs worked with Apple products.
In the end, Apple is doing fine competing with everyone, and stuff like this is just them going that extra mile to ensure their own profits. Nobody can blame them, but once it's over it's time to move on. The general consensus is there isn't enough to charge Samsung with copying.
Oh and I say this with 100% support behind Apple. Any American company who's profits are undermined by something like IP theft has my support. I just wish this was actually the case.
Is Julian Assange the attorney for Samsung?