Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report'

1568101121

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 407
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    The point is - I think - that a design style cannot be copyright protected or patented.
    Look at the car industry, the flattened wheel arches are used by almost every car manufacturer I know of, but some manufacturer had it implemented first.
    If you have a nice design idea, you can implement it first, but you can count on it that it will be 'copied' because it's successful.
    The copy in this case isn't literal, and thats what counts.
    If you 'copy' a book and use exactly the same storyline, but write every word yourself, it isn't protected by copyright.
    A design style cannot be patented because it isn't a solution to a problem, it isn't a method of doing things.
    If Apple tries to protect its design style, and it looks like it when I read about this court case, Apple will lose.

    J.
  • Reply 142 of 407
    eric475eric475 Posts: 177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Luxury brand? Strange definition:

    - MacBook Air set the price point for its segment. Even today, the only way anyone has managed to beat the price is by significantly cutting features.

    - iPhone - priced right in line with other premium phones

    - MacPro - generally lower than competitive Xeon systems of similar quality, particularly when you look at the dual CPU version

    - iMac - you still can't find a comparable 27" AIO for less

    - iPad - other 10" tablets are around the same price

    Apple's profits and success are not coming from a significant premium in pricing as they did in the past. Today, their prices are pretty much in line with the market while their margins are from volume, design efficiency, and an unmatched supply chain.

    You're confusing 'popular' and 'profitable' with 'luxury brand'.


    Here's what studentx said, "Apple has become so efficient a good chunk of those margins come simply from running a better supply chain."


     


    I don't want to misconstrue what studentx pointed out but extrapolating from his point, I'd say that Apple's enormous purchasing power and superior supply chain allow the company to maintain luxury-level markups.


     


    I believe that Apple is a luxury brand because they sell a premium product that commands markups that are higher than those of some top luxury auto brands and fashion brands. We can agree to disagree on this point, can't we? It's a subjective POV.

  • Reply 143 of 407
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    "You can't patent a box with four wheels,

    Actually at one point you could, and they likely did. But patents naturally die after 20 years or so and the automobile is 100 years old. Once a patent has naturally expired you can't get another patent on the exact same thing, thus why they are getting patents on the 'little things' these days.
  • Reply 144 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Why the **** are you here if you don't think Apple as a company deserves a shred of credit and don't like any of their products? I'm serious. Why? Why waste your time on an Apple fan site?



     Just because you can't take it that yellow men are beating white Americans AGAIN, doesn't mean you should wail on him.


     


    Your parent lost your jobs when the Japs moved in twenty years ago, I can understand. Now are you afraid the Koreans and even Chinese are going to do the same again, sent you whites of to the street to die?

  • Reply 145 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eric475 View Post


    Here's what studentx said, "Apple has become so efficient a good chunk of those margins come simply from running a better supply chain."


     


    I don't want to misconstrue what studentx pointed out but extrapolating from his point, I'd say that Apple's enormous purchasing power and superior supply chain allow the company to maintain luxury-level markups.


     


    I believe that Apple is a luxury brand because they sell a premium product that commands markups that are higher than those of some top luxury auto brands and fashion brands. We can agree to disagree on this point, can't we? It's a subjective POV.



     Err, coming from the Asia-Pacific, I think it is getting harder to maintain their 'premium' margins now in 2012 than in 2009 when 3GS first officially imported. Used markets and grey importers exploded and just outcompeted carriers here. By now carriers have to eat up differences themselves and give us discounts, 0% interest payments for 10 months, three years warranty, free data and call for the first six months and so on.


     


    Mercedes get its head handed to them by grey marketers using the very same playbook. Half of Mercedes sold from Beijing to Jarkatar are now grey imported and dealers just admit defeat, offering to service them as well if you buy their packages. 


     


    Von Dutch had to left and Giorgio Armani was killed too, only Exchange remains. Apple may not remain an exception for long; it will be forced to lower the price and bring iPhone line to cheaper brackets eventually. The iPhone is indeed very popular, but with low-hanging customers all snapped up, oversupply of handsets and cut-throat competitions between carriers themselves and grey importers, price wars and cheapening of the 'premium' image is all but inevitable now.

  • Reply 146 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


     There is no good solution to the issue. I, like many others, are stuck using the iTunes ecosystem and therefore am still in Apple's grip.



     


     


    That is a big part of Apple's success.  The ecosystem.

  • Reply 147 of 407
    ochymingochyming Posts: 474member


    When Chinese car companies copy European cars and stick their logo in it, everyone in the West cries CopyCat.


    When Samsung copy Apple and stick its logo in it, everyone in the West who despise/cannot afford Apple´s products cries NO Copycat.

  • Reply 148 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post



    The point is - I think - that a design style cannot be copyright protected or patented.

    Look at the car industry, the flattened wheel arches are used by almost every car manufacturer I know of, but some manufacturer had it implemented first.

    If you have a nice design idea, you can implement it first, but you can count on it that it will be 'copied' because it's successful.

    The copy in this case isn't literal, and thats what counts.

    If you 'copy' a book and use exactly the same storyline, but write every word yourself, it isn't protected by copyright.

    A design style cannot be patented because it isn't a solution to a problem, it isn't a method of doing things.

    If Apple tries to protect its design style, and it looks like it when I read about this court case, Apple will lose.

    J.


     


    Your argument has a flaw. A design IS a method of doing something and that design can be patented. In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. If your argument held any weight, US law wouldn't allow for design patents in the first place. Go ahead and tell any engineer or architect that a design isn't a solution to a problem. They will laugh in your face. The chair you sit on, the building you're within, the computer you use, the table it's resting on, all were designed to solve a specific problem. You could've argued about the US patent system in general, but you didn't.


     


    I'm not going to take sides on this case as I don't have all the facts presented, but it's obvious Apple believes Samsung created their own phone(s) in violation of a design patent Apple holds for the iPhone. Samsung believes otherwise. That's the whole point of this jury trial: to determine who's opinion is legally correct in this argument.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eric475 View Post


    Here's what studentx said, "Apple has become so efficient a good chunk of those margins come simply from running a better supply chain."


     


    I don't want to misconstrue what studentx pointed out but extrapolating from his point, I'd say that Apple's enormous purchasing power and superior supply chain allow the company to maintain luxury-level markups.


     


    I believe that Apple is a luxury brand because they sell a premium product that commands markups that are higher than those of some top luxury auto brands and fashion brands. We can agree to disagree on this point, can't we? It's a subjective POV.



     


    What is a luxury brand? It's all in perception really as there is no clear definition. Is Apple perceived as such? I believe so. But the real question to ask: Is being a perceived luxury brand a good reason to dislike Apple? Again, in my opinion, I don't believe so.


     


    And disliking Apple because they don't give the same discount to students as they did in the past, that made me laugh. Disneyland had a free-on-your-birthday pomotion a few years back. Should I dislike the company because they don't offer that discount anymore? It was serving the same purpose as Apple's student discount, getting people into their ecosystem that might not have joined otherwise. Disneyland is another polarizing brand, but to dislike it just because they don't offer a discount anymore smells of false entitlement.


     


    So the original poster's reasons for disliking Apple as presented to us so far are not based in logical reasoning. Perhaps there's a personal emotional reason, but then it would be more difficult for him to sway others to his point of view with that type of reason.

  • Reply 149 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    They are relentless because a large number of them are paid astroturfers. Then there is tekstud, back now as JerrySwitched26.

    It would seem that he has worked on his grammar and punctuation during his exile! His English has improved a bit.

    He's pretty obviously ConradJoe and ZZZ - not sure about the tekstud connection.
  • Reply 150 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post





    At worst, rumors sites, especially Apple rumor sites, tend to attract individuals with mental illness science hasn't yet come out a name for.


     


     


    Science doesn't have a name for it, but pop culture certainly does:  the Fanboi.  Some people get a big kick out of poking them with sticks.  The responses, including cognitive dissonance, howling and hysteria are amusing to those people.

  • Reply 151 of 407
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    lamewing wrote: »
    So what is Samsung to do? 
    1. Don't use the bounce. OK.
    2. Don't use the double tap. OK
    3. Don't use a horizontal swipe to unlock. OK.
    I think all of those things could be easily licensed easily enough.

    Not easily at all. All of those are nonSEP items so legally Apple can't be forced to license them. And as those patents are part of what makes he iPhone experience unique, Apple isn't likely to say yes.

    On the flip, Samsung has to allow any and everyone access to the SEP items. And further the fees must meet FRAND rules. Which Apple believes they didn't. The only way Apple can force Samsung to tell what everyone else is paying is to through the courts. Which is why 'violating' such patents and forcing a suit is a trick used by all companies
  • Reply 152 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    jnjnjn wrote: »
    The point is - I think - that a design style cannot be copyright protected or patented.

    Look at the car industry, the flattened wheel arches are used by almost every car manufacturer I know of, but some manufacturer had it implemented first.

    If you have a nice design idea, you can implement it first, but you can count on it that it will be 'copied' because it's successful.

    The copy in this case isn't literal, and thats what counts.

    If you 'copy' a book and use exactly the same storyline, but write every word yourself, it isn't protected by copyright.

    A design style cannot be patented because it isn't a solution to a problem, it isn't a method of doing things.

    If Apple tries to protect its design style, and it looks like it when I read about this court case, Apple will lose.

    J.

    Your argument has a flaw. A design IS a method of doing something and that design can be patented. In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. If your argument held any weight, US law wouldn't allow for design patents in the first place. Go ahead and tell any engineer or architect that a design isn't a solution to a problem. They will laugh in your face. The chair you sit on, the building you're within, the computer you use, the table it's resting on, all were designed to solve a specific problem. You could've argued about the US patent system in general, but you didn't.

    I'm not going to take sides on this case as I don't have all the facts presented, but it's obvious Apple believes Samsung created their own phone(s) in violation of a design patent Apple holds for the iPhone. Samsung believes otherwise. That's the whole point of this jury trial: to determine who's opinion is legally correct in this argument.

    Probably a silly question, but are there any clear guidelines other than precedent for what can and cannot be prior art for a design patent? One obvious example - if something looks similar but, either in reality or fiction, has a different functionality, is that still potentially prior art?
  • Reply 153 of 407
    ochymingochyming Posts: 474member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


     


     


    Science doesn't have a name for it, but pop culture certainly does:  the Fanboi.  Some people get a big kick out of poking them with sticks.  The responses, including cognitive dissonance, howling and hysteria are amusing to those people.



     


     


    To bother to register in a site like that makes you WHAT?


    - - A Doctor ?


     


    I wrote about phony IT technicians who receive commissions in order to sell certain machines on this site, and was warned of possible BAN, now people insult me Because i like the way Apple do biz and that is OK.

  • Reply 154 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post


     [deleting racist comment]



     


    Using racial superiority to attack someone asking an honest question is low brow, sir.

  • Reply 155 of 407
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

    Science doesn't have a name for it, but pop culture certainly does:  the Fanboi.


     


    He's talking about you and your ilk, Zazzles. Not Apple fans.

  • Reply 156 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    Cult? The only people who use that term use it in the pejorative.


     



     


     


    Oh no!  Somebody better tell that to Leander!


     


     


    image


     


     


     


     


    Cult of Mac is a daily news website that follows everything Apple. Our goal is to provide timely news, insightful analysis, helpful how-tos and honest reviews.


     


    The staff is an international team of Apple experts, blogging around the clock, who have also written for WiredScientific AmericanThe GuardianPlayboy, Boing Boing, Popular MechanicMac|LifeThe New York TimesNewsweekDaily Telegraph, the BBC, MacUser and Macworld.


     


    We often break stories and are becoming a primary news source on the tech web. Our stories often picked up by mainstream outlets like the L.A TimesWall Street Journal and Wired.


    Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/about/#jbhFFA1xpzyrcCpJ.99

  • Reply 157 of 407
    anonymouse wrote: »
    They are relentless because a large number of them are paid astroturfers. Then there is tekstud, back now as JerrySwitched26.

    not for nothing but if we were paid astroturfers what use would we have in the Fox News of Apple forums?

    We'd be on general tech sites en masse.

    Then again you've never been one to require evidence before believing something.

    You and your ilk just love to dismiss whole arguments that do not align with yours by labeling people as part of an easily dismissable group.

    Go on tell me how Google sells my data.
  • Reply 158 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post


    If I was of African descent, I wouldn't go to a white supremacy website and post comments against that subculture unless I truly wanted to get nasty contrary responses. If I was homosexual, I wouldn't go to a godhatesfags website to post comments against their sub-religion unless I wanted more nasty contrary responses.



     


    Wait.  Did you really just compare this website and its posters to "a white supremacy website" and to a "Godhatesfags" website?


     


    Let me assure you, the posters on sites such as those are not nearly as irrational and nasty as the posters here.

  • Reply 159 of 407

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Probably a silly question, but are there any clear guidelines other than precedent for what can and cannot be prior art for a design patent? One obvious example - if something looks similar but, either in reality or fiction, has a different functionality, is that still potentially prior art?


     


    Excluding precedent, the US patent office determines those guidelines using their own interpretation of US law to grant or deny patents. So there is precedent and there is interpretation of the law (a fancy phrase for an opinion). And if someone doesn't like the patent office's or the patent holder's "opinion", it can be submitted to a court of law for a "second opinion" using precedent as well.


     


    If something looks similar but, either in reality or fiction, has a different functionality, it is not prior art. This is a rough example, but look at Apple Computer vs Apple Corps. Apple Computer was allowed to use "Apple" as logo and trademark even though Apple Records was using "Apple" prior. This is because the two companies have different functionality and couldn't be easily misconstrued as one being related to the other. This wasn't exactly a design patent issue but it is in the same spirit.


     


    Another example, Star Trek TNG featured PADDs throughout their show, now Apple has the iPad on the market. The creators of Star Trek, if they even have the design patent, could sue Apple for a design patent violation, but seeing as how different the two devices are in functionality, marketing, and availability, in all likelihood the case would end in Apple's favor.

  • Reply 160 of 407
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    They are relentless because a large number of them are paid astroturfers. Then there is tekstud, back now as JerrySwitched26.

    not for nothing but if we were paid astroturfers what use would we have in the Fox News of Apple forums?

    We'd be on general tech sites en masse.

    Then again you've never been one to require evidence before believing something.

    You and your ilk just love to dismiss whole arguments that do not align with yours by labeling people as part of an easily dismissable group.

    Go on tell me how Google sells my data.

    I also doubt they are paid for posting here, but why did you assume that you are in that supposed category?
Sign In or Register to comment.