Their date was set to December 7th..?? Besides the underlying tone of setting it to that date, which is a bit absurd, I honestly cant believe something like that even made it out of anyone's OFFICE, let alone making it to the final stages...!! They cant even come up with the idea to set the date to current day without seeing that the iPhone did that...??? Simply moronic.... wow... and that is just one out of hundreds of things here....
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series?
I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.
For whatever it's worth, there are a few phones with S appended as part for the same: Desire S, Wildfire S, Nexus S. Not all are from Samsung. But all came after iPhone 3GS, I believe?
From everything I've been reading thus far, it's appears Samsung will lose and lose big. But this is a California jury, so they just might say not guilty -- remember the O.J. trial??
Completely different standards for a civil trial, compared to a criminal trial.
Civil trial = "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. ~50+%)
Criminal trial = "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. ~99+%)
Man, Android looked like a car wreck back then - the whole thing was a complete mess of inconsistent fonts, weird font sizes, clashing colours and seemingly random screen layouts.
Interesting thing is, I remember my first reaction to Android back then was, "gosh, it reminds me a lot of the Windows/Microsoft aesthetic…" For me the entire aesthetic of early Android was more derived from a Windows/PC vibe than an Apple (or any other) one…
Samsung's customizations modified it to look more iPhone-esque… and that's where they've gotten into trouble… the copying is undeniable… it's just a matter of determining whether that caused "harm".
I suppose it could be argued that most Galaxy sales were "taken" from a potential iPhone sale, because people thought they were getting "almost the same as" the iPhone, but for less money...
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
Do what I do… ignore the articles that carry little interest for you, and only read the ones of interest...
AI has increased the frequency of their articles pretty significantly. I only read 40~60% of them at most… some are "threads" I'm following, other topics I could care less about…
Just like any "news" site, I'm selective based on what's interesting to me… try doing the same here? You'll no doubt enjoy it more...
There's no claims that Samsung deleted emails or anything else after they were sued by Apple. It's that they didn't start keeping allemail communications applicable to Apple and it's products when they first knew, or should have known, that that a lawsuit was likely. According to the court that should have been about 6 months prior to the lawsuit. Oddly tho, that's not when Apple considered a lawsuit would be likely, saying that was determined about four months later than the court thinks it should be. That's the reason Apple gives as to why they supposedly didn't keep a specific record of appropriate emails either. The difference, and the reason the court probably won't view the two in the same light, is that Apple says they didn't actually delete any as far as they know, unlike what happened in the home offices of Samsung in Korea.
FWIW other Samsung locations most often used a different email system (Outlook or others) which didn't automatically delete after two weeks according to court docs. It's generally only the Korean home offices that are under the gun.
Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?
Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?
Not at all. I've not at any time opined that Samsung is innocent which indicates you just don't pay attention. If you disagree with something I've posted or think it inaccurate just speak up. Trying to argue an imaginary issue isn't constructive.
Of course! This is the most obvious way in which you can make improvements to your product - By comparing it to a successful competitors' Product, what's new in it guys, GROW UP!
Okay apart from the sarcasm, this document is..... well, unbelievable. But I'm pretty sure Samsungs' counsel will find a way to justify this too.
What this document clearly establishes is the way Samsung was focused on copying everything the iPhone did better (126 items in this document or so). So, it establishes clearly that they are indeed 'the copycat'. But copying is not illegal, unless what is copied is protected by law. Much of what was copied was not protected explicitely.
It will be easy to decide for a judge or a jury that Samsung is a copycat (they clearly are). It will be more difficult to decide if they are an illegal copycat.
Sorry shareholders, this is not a 'copy cat' doc as the title suggests, at least not yet. I think Apple lawyers would have hard time proving that.
I honestly don't know why you are saying this report proves copying? Or, is it because you, as Apple shareholders, are working in this site promoting your goods (shares)?
I'm wondering..... how do both companies manage to acquire such sensitive documents?
I suspect by referrals from other documents. Like being mentioned in an email, another document etc. It is very, very hard to remove the proof of existence of a document. Because, how are you going to find and then alter for instance all the other documents where it is mentioned?
So far the only evidence presented is from Apple's side. Samsung's chance to present their competing experts and evidence hasn't come yet. That would be the biggest reason it seems one-sided.
Yes, but based on what we've seen, there's almost nothing Samsung could possibly say that wouldn't be shredded in cross examination.
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
I don't know who to blame, AppleInsider for getting sucked into the Apple vs Samsung/HTC/(Insert any other big mobile manufacturer here) flame war and losing touch with what made this blog interesting.
Or Apple, who by all accounts in the media these days have gone from the most exciting consumer electronics company to a large 'Suing Company' with a side business in consumer electronics.
Your post, filled as it is with catchphrases of those who want to minimise the enormity of the blatant rip-off of Apple they have done.
Why not go post that garbage on somewhere like Endgadget so you can bask in the glory of +1's from the mindless Android fans over there, where comments like "Apple copied the rectangle, I hate them.", "Innovate don't litigate" get hundreds of upvotes.
Comments
Their date was set to December 7th..?? Besides the underlying tone of setting it to that date, which is a bit absurd, I honestly cant believe something like that even made it out of anyone's OFFICE, let alone making it to the final stages...!! They cant even come up with the idea to set the date to current day without seeing that the iPhone did that...??? Simply moronic.... wow... and that is just one out of hundreds of things here....
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.
Originally Posted by carmelapple
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series?
I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?
If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic.
And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.
having skimmed through All Things D, they do have some good, objective reporting http://allthingsd.com/20120807/similarity-of-apple-and-samsung-icons-beyond-coincidental-designer-testifies/?refcat=news
the "internal Samsung document comparing the original Galaxy S phone with the iPhone" doesn't seem to help the Samsung lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
...
If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic.
And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.
"Speedier"
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmelapple
I'm curious...what if in 2009 Apple released the iPhone 3GS...but didn't call it the iPhone 3GS. Instead perhaps calling it the iPhone 3GT denoting speed like "Grand Touring" or something? In 2010, would Samsung have created the Galaxy S like it obviously ended up doing or would they have released the "Galaxy GT" series? In other words, would Samsung have copied whatever letter(s) Apple appended to the name of its phone or would they have released the Galaxy S regardless of whatever Apple did? I have a feeling it would be the former, but I guess we'll never know. The naming convention doesn't appear to be on trial, but I think that's another thing Samsung clearly copied in an effort to make things more "Apple-like". How about HTC with their "S" phones? I think most of their phones also came out with that naming convention after the 3GS as well. An attempt to muddy the waters? Inspiration? Who knows. Food for thought.
For whatever it's worth, there are a few phones with S appended as part for the same: Desire S, Wildfire S, Nexus S. Not all are from Samsung. But all came after iPhone 3GS, I believe?
I'd much rather get a phone call from Angelina Jolie than Hidung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potsie Webber
From everything I've been reading thus far, it's appears Samsung will lose and lose big. But this is a California jury, so they just might say not guilty -- remember the O.J. trial??
Completely different standards for a civil trial, compared to a criminal trial.
Civil trial = "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. ~50+%)
Criminal trial = "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. ~99+%)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76
Man, Android looked like a car wreck back then - the whole thing was a complete mess of inconsistent fonts, weird font sizes, clashing colours and seemingly random screen layouts.
Interesting thing is, I remember my first reaction to Android back then was, "gosh, it reminds me a lot of the Windows/Microsoft aesthetic…" For me the entire aesthetic of early Android was more derived from a Windows/PC vibe than an Apple (or any other) one…
Samsung's customizations modified it to look more iPhone-esque… and that's where they've gotten into trouble… the copying is undeniable… it's just a matter of determining whether that caused "harm".
I suppose it could be argued that most Galaxy sales were "taken" from a potential iPhone sale, because people thought they were getting "almost the same as" the iPhone, but for less money...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
Do what I do… ignore the articles that carry little interest for you, and only read the ones of interest...
AI has increased the frequency of their articles pretty significantly. I only read 40~60% of them at most… some are "threads" I'm following, other topics I could care less about…
Just like any "news" site, I'm selective based on what's interesting to me… try doing the same here? You'll no doubt enjoy it more...
Deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Close but not completely accurate.
There's no claims that Samsung deleted emails or anything else after they were sued by Apple. It's that they didn't start keeping all email communications applicable to Apple and it's products when they first knew, or should have known, that that a lawsuit was likely. According to the court that should have been about 6 months prior to the lawsuit. Oddly tho, that's not when Apple considered a lawsuit would be likely, saying that was determined about four months later than the court thinks it should be. That's the reason Apple gives as to why they supposedly didn't keep a specific record of appropriate emails either. The difference, and the reason the court probably won't view the two in the same light, is that Apple says they didn't actually delete any as far as they know, unlike what happened in the home offices of Samsung in Korea.
FWIW other Samsung locations most often used a different email system (Outlook or others) which didn't automatically delete after two weeks according to court docs. It's generally only the Korean home offices that are under the gun.
Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
You do have the option of not reading it, and getting lost.... so to speak....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I've never considered that before, but now that I do, I think it's a little bit of a stretch. What do they say the S stands for, anyway?
If you say, 'speed', I'm gonna go ballistic.
And no, that was not a meta-speed joke.
Sport(y)?
But then, I always thought the GS in 3GS stood for "Graf Spee", you know, after the Battleship...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Doesn't it bother you one whit to be such a relentless Samsung apologist and shill?! Seriously, do you have no shame?
Not at all. I've not at any time opined that Samsung is innocent which indicates you just don't pay attention. If you disagree with something I've posted or think it inaccurate just speak up. Trying to argue an imaginary issue isn't constructive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1985
Of course! This is the most obvious way in which you can make improvements to your product - By comparing it to a successful competitors' Product, what's new in it guys, GROW UP!
Okay apart from the sarcasm, this document is..... well, unbelievable. But I'm pretty sure Samsungs' counsel will find a way to justify this too.
What this document clearly establishes is the way Samsung was focused on copying everything the iPhone did better (126 items in this document or so). So, it establishes clearly that they are indeed 'the copycat'. But copying is not illegal, unless what is copied is protected by law. Much of what was copied was not protected explicitely.
It will be easy to decide for a judge or a jury that Samsung is a copycat (they clearly are). It will be more difficult to decide if they are an illegal copycat.
I am laughing all the way.
Sorry shareholders, this is not a 'copy cat' doc as the title suggests, at least not yet. I think Apple lawyers would have hard time proving that.
I honestly don't know why you are saying this report proves copying? Or, is it because you, as Apple shareholders, are working in this site promoting your goods (shares)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1985
I'm wondering..... how do both companies manage to acquire such sensitive documents?
I suspect by referrals from other documents. Like being mentioned in an email, another document etc. It is very, very hard to remove the proof of existence of a document. Because, how are you going to find and then alter for instance all the other documents where it is mentioned?
Yes, but based on what we've seen, there's almost nothing Samsung could possibly say that wouldn't be shredded in cross examination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
I don't know who to blame, AppleInsider for getting sucked into the Apple vs Samsung/HTC/(Insert any other big mobile manufacturer here) flame war and losing touch with what made this blog interesting.
Or Apple, who by all accounts in the media these days have gone from the most exciting consumer electronics company to a large 'Suing Company' with a side business in consumer electronics.
However, when you see that Apple seems to be able to patent anything nowadays: (This is ridiculous) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/08/apple_patent/ , it hardly seems surprising.
How long until Apple patent the patent?
Do you know what is more boring?
Your post, filled as it is with catchphrases of those who want to minimise the enormity of the blatant rip-off of Apple they have done.
Why not go post that garbage on somewhere like Endgadget so you can bask in the glory of +1's from the mindless Android fans over there, where comments like "Apple copied the rectangle, I hate them.", "Innovate don't litigate" get hundreds of upvotes.