I read that whole document what you called "copycat document". IMO, that is not a copycat document.
That is a competitive analysis with a trend leading product or design. Basically all companies do this.
Have you seen that Sony inspired iPhone design? That strikingly resembles later iPhone 4.
Your so-called "Sony design" can also be compared physically to Sony's "Clié" line of Palm OS personal digital assistants that Sony marketed from 2000 to 2005, then dropped. Nothing Sony "designed" at that time ever reached the market in the shape of a phone or came remotely comparable to the iPhone in concept.
The Clié models were rectangular. They had touchscreens with apps generally manipulated with a stylus. They played music and they took photos, but data transfer was primarily accomplished by physically connection to a computer with a cable or or cradle or - in a few late models - using Sony Memory Sticks. They didn't have network or wireless capability, but you could say that they had a "candy bar" form factor that later became the preferred shape for smartphones. I loved the capabilities of the Cliés I owned and was pissed off when Sony backed away from the business. In the day, it was the pony that knew a few tricks, but not all. I carried a Clié and also a separate cell phone. Although Treo and BlackBerry smartphones debuted in 2002 and 2003, I always thought they were kludgy, overlarge and overpriced. It took Apple to pull the form factor and all the other devices' pony tricks together in early 2007 when Jobs announced the iPhone. Remember what he said at the unveiling?
“Today, we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device.” He repeated the list for emphasis, then asked, “Are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone.”
Isaacson, Walter (2011-10-24). Steve Jobs (p. 474). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
No, I don't even know what a "Goophone" is, but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Samsung infringed on Apple's intellectual property by copying or too closely imitating certain features of the iPhone. Samsung has already admitted this. (Whether or not an experienced consumer such as yourself would ever confuse a plastic Galaxy with an iPhone has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.)
I said I never seen anyone confused with plastic Galaxy. That anyone includes, young, old, too old, geeks, non-geeks & etc, but not me. Not confused and all got what they wanted. And who are those confused people?
The first jury trial verdict would hardly guaranty fact. And I don't think Samsung admitted they infringed Apple's IPs.
What game is over? That game of profit margin that corporations are supposed to win? I hate to tell you but, Apple is taking the lion share of profit in mobile phones, computers and app store sales. Android only has marketshare with people who don't have the money to buy an Apple product yet.
A phone that resembles an iPhone so much that consumers are confused...
I have to agree with this. I was just at a large music convention over the weekend for an app I sell. On multiple occasions, I had users come up and ask if the app will run on "their iPad". When I ask what model they say "Tab something?" or "Aries"... they have Android tablets but *think* they have an iPad. We underestimate how clueless some users can be when it comes to technology.
Sadly, this is commonplace. I've had to tell a number of potential users that they don't have an iPad. They go to Best Buy, return it, and buy the real thing. So to think that customer confusion doesn't exist would be incorrect.
The picture in the OP doesn't prove a thing. Correlation does not prove causation. If Apple had been making phones and peripherals as long as Samsung then you could just as easily have a picture showing Apple as the copier. Since Apple started to make phones later we don't have pictures of older generation Apple phones.
And people forget that large companies like Samsung do their own R&D but they also have people coming to them all the time who want to sell their ideas/technology.
Also, a lot of these ideas are actually thought of at the same time since everyone is working on similar projects.
Juries will keep deciding against Samsung - pointing out the painfully obvious. And Samsung will keep gaming the system in order to stall, reduce fines, appeal, and so on.
I fully support Apple's continued efforts, though. There's absolutely no reason to let up on this.
FOSSPatents is quickly souring on Apple's patent litigation based on recent articles.
Yesterday: "...after Apple sent one of the named inventors on its "slide to unlock" '721 patent to the Wall Street Journal for a pretrial story, I figured that it was going to place particular emphasis on this patent because[I] it's the easiest one of their patents-in-suit to explain and the one with which one can mislead a jury into believing that Samsung "copied" Apple's patents-in-suit.[/I]
But to me, after 3.5 years of following Apple's Android litigations on a cross-jurisdictional basis, "slide to unlock", an invention over which I attended more court hearings and trials than presumably anyone else on this planet, stands for quite the opposite of what Apple's trial counsel says and implies. The litigation track record of this patent, more than of any other, has over the years changed my perspective on Apple's Android lawsuits from "bullish" to "bearish". There comes a point when failure after failure is just too much, and [I]I recognize that I had overestimated the leverage Apple could gain from its patents [/I]... I think John Quinn absolutely nailed it when he said that Apple is trying to win from the jury in that San Jose courtroom what it has lost in the marketplace. "
From today: "... the most important concern here is that Apple has now been suing Android device makers (initially HTC, a dispute that was settled in 2012; Motorola since 2010 and Samsung since 2011) for 49 months. Yes, 49 months ago to the day, Apple filed its first Android lawsuit, and Steve Jobs, who called this a "holy war" in an internal email and according to his official biography was prepared to "go thermonuclear war", said the following:
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions [...] [C]ompetitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
The same Steve Jobs said in an interview you can see on YouTube that good artists copy and great artists steal and that Apple had, in his opinion at the time, stolen shamelessly from others.
If you change mind on copying and stealing and want to wage a holy war, you need thermonuclear patents. And if you accuse others of "stealing", you firstly need to prove that you own what you say they steal.
Steve Jobs regarded Android (according to his biography) as a "stolen product". If Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) said so, I could understand it.... If Oracle subsequently overcomes Google's fair use defense (through a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial), then we have a case of theft. ... A[B]nyway, in 49 months of Apple litigation over Android, not a single line of copied Apple program code has been discovered. (Yes, Android uses different programming languages than Objective C, but not even a translation of Apple program code to other programming languages ever showed up.)[/B]
After 49 months of holy, supposedly-thermonuclear war and in light of Apple's counsel claiming that Apple could have taken 50 patents to this trial and proved that Samsung infringes all of them, I can't see, with the sole exception of "rubber-banding", a single feature -- and I mean something that people would describe as a feature in a few words, not a small aspect of one feature -- of which Apple has proven in court that it can prevent Android device makers from delivering it to their customers in a way that provides great functionality and an uncompromised user experience."
A few days ago ErictheHalfBee commented that Florian calls them as he sees them when I mentioned the possibility that Mueller might not come down on Apple's side as firmly in this newest patent case. http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/174347/iphone-ip-wars-nokia-vs-apple-vs-htc-motorola-samsung#post_2503707 It looks as tho that's coming to pass. AI has normally been quick to quote FOSSPatents opinion on Apple/Samsung court skirmishes. Note he's gone completely unmentioned by them the past week tho several Mueller blog/s have posted.
The courts will never grant Apple that amount of money or anything even close. The courts are already sick and tired of Apple's whining. Although I'd like to see Apple run Samsung and Android, it's not going to happen. Apple's smartphone market share is so pitiful, the game is already over.
Every time this troll posts is an opportunity to remind readers that Odo epitomizes the investment concept of "buy high, sell low." He has been in a perpetual sulk ever since mid-2012, when he became intoxicated with the Apple investor bubble and bought in near the stock's overinflated all-time high, only to see his stake slip by a couple hundred bucks a share. Odo has become a Gollum, every so often belching his bitterness from his slimy crevice of despair, blaming Apple in complex and bizarre ways for his own missteps.
I hope that Apple doesn't fall for the obvious red herring of the whole "Google" argument, but if they do, it may be interesting to see what they make of Google's deliberate pilfering of Oracle's code.
FOSSPatents is quickly souring on Apple's patent litigation based on recent articles.
Yesterday:
"...after Apple sent one of the named inventors on its "slide to unlock" '721 patent to the Wall Street Journal for a pretrial story, I figured that it was going to place particular emphasis on this patent because it's the easiest one of their patents-in-suit to explain and the one with which one can mislead a jury into believing that Samsung "copied" Apple's patents-in-suit.
But to me, after 3.5 years of following Apple's Android litigations on a cross-jurisdictional basis, "slide to unlock", an invention over which I attended more court hearings and trials than presumably anyone else on this planet, stands for quite the opposite of what Apple's trial counsel says and implies. The litigation track record of this patent, more than of any other, has over the years changed my perspective on Apple's Android lawsuits from "bullish" to "bearish". There comes a point when failure after failure is just too much, and I recognize that I had overestimated the leverage Apple could gain from its patents ... I think John Quinn absolutely nailed it when he said that Apple is trying to win from the jury in that San Jose courtroom what it has lost in the marketplace. "
From today:
"... the most important concern here is that Apple has now been suing Android device makers (initially HTC, a dispute that was settled in 2012; Motorola since 2010 and Samsung since 2011) for 49 months. Yes, 49 months ago to the day, Apple filed its first Android lawsuit, and Steve Jobs, who called this a "holy war" in an internal email and according to his official biography was prepared to "go thermonuclear war", said the following:
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions [...] [C]ompetitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
The same Steve Jobs said in an interview you can see on YouTube that good artists copy and great artists steal and that Apple had, in his opinion at the time, stolen shamelessly from others.
If you change mind on copying and stealing and want to wage a holy war, you need thermonuclear patents. And if you accuse others of "stealing", you firstly need to prove that you own what you say they steal.
Steve Jobs regarded Android (according to his biography) as a "stolen product". If Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) said so, I could understand it.... If Oracle subsequently overcomes Google's fair use defense (through a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial), then we have a case of theft. ... Anyway, in 49 months of Apple litigation over Android, not a single line of copied Apple program code has been discovered. (Yes, Android uses different programming languages than Objective C, but not even a translation of Apple program code to other programming languages ever showed up.)
After 49 months of holy, supposedly-thermonuclear war and in light of Apple's counsel claiming that Apple could have taken 50 patents to this trial and proved that Samsung infringes all of them, I can't see, with the sole exception of "rubber-banding", a single feature -- and I mean something that people would describe as a feature in a few words, not a small aspect of one feature -- of which Apple has proven in court that it can prevent Android device makers from delivering it to their customers in a way that provides great functionality and an uncompromised user experience."
A few days ago ErictheHalfBee commented that Florian calls them as he sees them when I mentioned the possibility that Mueller might not come down on Apple's side as firmly in this newest patent case. http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/174347/iphone-ip-wars-nokia-vs-apple-vs-htc-motorola-samsung#post_2503707
It looks as tho that's coming to pass. AI has normally been quick to quote FOSSPatents opinion on Apple/Samsung court skirmishes. Note he's gone completely unmentioned by them the past week tho several Mueller blog/s have posted.
This looks like it will be a boring case. Apple will win and Samsung will have to pay a small "fine" (small when compared to their position in the market).
Since you seem to enjoy the fact Meuller is critical of Apple recently, then what do you think of Oracle? He's absolutely convinced Judge Aslup screwed up the first trial and Oracle will prevail when the appeals court hands down their decision (expected any day now). If anyone is going to cause significant problems for Android, it'll be Oracle. What Google stole from Oracle is far worse than Samsung from Apple.
This looks like it will be a boring case. Apple will win and Samsung will have to pay a small "fine" (small when compared to their position in the market).
Since you seem to enjoy the fact Meuller is critical of Apple recently, then what do you think of Oracle? He's absolutely convinced Judge Aslup screwed up the first trial and Oracle will prevail when the appeals court hands down their decision (expected any day now). If anyone is going to cause significant problems for Android, it'll be Oracle. What Google stole from Oracle is far worse than Samsung from Apple.
I think Alsup may well have tossed the copyright claims for the wrong stated reason. I'm no lawyer but expert (!?) opinions seem to lean that direction. I also think Google's use of API's will be deemed fair use if that happens, tho probably in a separate trial. I see it having little to no effect on Android, but that's just my opinion.
I said I never seen anyone confused with plastic Galaxy. That anyone includes, young, old, too old, geeks, non-geeks & etc, but not me. Not confused and all got what they wanted. And who are those confused people?
The first jury trial verdict would hardly guaranty fact. And I don't think Samsung admitted they infringed Apple's IPs.
Well, it certainly looked to me like they admitted it during the damages retrial. You may not agree... and that's fine. But consider this: They could have managed to communicate that the trial at that stage was no longer about whether or not they had infringed without also saying "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property." So, at the very least it's quite clear that Samsung wanted the jury to think they were admitting it at that point! They were comfortable with that perception. It's difficult to imagine any innocent party being comfortable with that! As a result, I tend to see their somewhat self-serving comment as an expression of guilt.
Well, it certainly looked to me like they admitted it during the damages retrial. You may not agree... and that's fine. But consider this: They could have managed to communicate that the trial at that stage was no longer about whether or not they had infringed without also saying "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property." So, at the very least it's quite clear that Samsung wanted the jury to think they were admitting it at that point! They were comfortable with that perception. It's difficult to imagine any innocent party being comfortable with that! As a result, I tend to see their somewhat self-serving comment as an expression of guilt.
I understand that was a damage retrial, not about whether Sammy infringed Apple's IPs. And since then, I think, they appealed the first case.
Comments
I read that whole document what you called "copycat document". IMO, that is not a copycat document.
That is a competitive analysis with a trend leading product or design. Basically all companies do this.
Have you seen that Sony inspired iPhone design? That strikingly resembles later iPhone 4.
Your so-called "Sony design" can also be compared physically to Sony's "Clié" line of Palm OS personal digital assistants that Sony marketed from 2000 to 2005, then dropped. Nothing Sony "designed" at that time ever reached the market in the shape of a phone or came remotely comparable to the iPhone in concept.
The Clié models were rectangular. They had touchscreens with apps generally manipulated with a stylus. They played music and they took photos, but data transfer was primarily accomplished by physically connection to a computer with a cable or or cradle or - in a few late models - using Sony Memory Sticks. They didn't have network or wireless capability, but you could say that they had a "candy bar" form factor that later became the preferred shape for smartphones. I loved the capabilities of the Cliés I owned and was pissed off when Sony backed away from the business. In the day, it was the pony that knew a few tricks, but not all. I carried a Clié and also a separate cell phone. Although Treo and BlackBerry smartphones debuted in 2002 and 2003, I always thought they were kludgy, overlarge and overpriced. It took Apple to pull the form factor and all the other devices' pony tricks together in early 2007 when Jobs announced the iPhone. Remember what he said at the unveiling?
“Today, we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device.” He repeated the list for emphasis, then asked, “Are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone.”
Isaacson, Walter (2011-10-24). Steve Jobs (p. 474). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Apple is the #2 smartphone manufacturer by unit sales. And as a result... they have the 2nd highest market share out of all manufacturers.
If that's game over... then what hope do #3, #4, #5, #6 and below have?
If being #2 is a failure... god help the DOZENS of companies who sell even fewer phones than Apple.
No, I don't even know what a "Goophone" is, but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Samsung infringed on Apple's intellectual property by copying or too closely imitating certain features of the iPhone. Samsung has already admitted this. (Whether or not an experienced consumer such as yourself would ever confuse a plastic Galaxy with an iPhone has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.)
I said I never seen anyone confused with plastic Galaxy. That anyone includes, young, old, too old, geeks, non-geeks & etc, but not me. Not confused and all got what they wanted. And who are those confused people?
The first jury trial verdict would hardly guaranty fact. And I don't think Samsung admitted they infringed Apple's IPs.
You English sound Korean!
Again, you are going to want to work on your English skills to pass as believable and not a paid Samsung troll.
What game is over? That game of profit margin that corporations are supposed to win? I hate to tell you but, Apple is taking the lion share of profit in mobile phones, computers and app store sales. Android only has marketshare with people who don't have the money to buy an Apple product yet.
A phone that resembles an iPhone so much that consumers are confused...
I have to agree with this. I was just at a large music convention over the weekend for an app I sell. On multiple occasions, I had users come up and ask if the app will run on "their iPad". When I ask what model they say "Tab something?" or "Aries"... they have Android tablets but *think* they have an iPad. We underestimate how clueless some users can be when it comes to technology.
Sadly, this is commonplace. I've had to tell a number of potential users that they don't have an iPad. They go to Best Buy, return it, and buy the real thing. So to think that customer confusion doesn't exist would be incorrect.
The picture in the OP doesn't prove a thing. Correlation does not prove causation. If Apple had been making phones and peripherals as long as Samsung then you could just as easily have a picture showing Apple as the copier. Since Apple started to make phones later we don't have pictures of older generation Apple phones.
And people forget that large companies like Samsung do their own R&D but they also have people coming to them all the time who want to sell their ideas/technology.
Also, a lot of these ideas are actually thought of at the same time since everyone is working on similar projects.
Nothing like an Apple/Samsung article to bring out the trolls. Half my screen is "This post is hidden because the user is in your block list".
AI should change the text to: "This post is hidden because the user is an idiot."
Slurpy, just block him. He isn't worth it.
Personally, I don't want Slurpy blocking anyone. I love it when he tears idiots a new one.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Ladies and Gentlemen - the Architect of the Matrix!
Ergo! Vis-à-vis! Concordantly!
Have you seen the award for $1.5bn that Carnegie Melton University has won from Marvell Technology? At $2bn I think Samsung are getting off lightly.
I fully support Apple's continued efforts, though. There's absolutely no reason to let up on this.
Yesterday:
"...after Apple sent one of the named inventors on its "slide to unlock" '721 patent to the Wall Street Journal for a pretrial story, I figured that it was going to place particular emphasis on this patent because[I] it's the easiest one of their patents-in-suit to explain and the one with which one can mislead a jury into believing that Samsung "copied" Apple's patents-in-suit.[/I]
But to me, after 3.5 years of following Apple's Android litigations on a cross-jurisdictional basis, "slide to unlock", an invention over which I attended more court hearings and trials than presumably anyone else on this planet, stands for quite the opposite of what Apple's trial counsel says and implies. The litigation track record of this patent, more than of any other, has over the years changed my perspective on Apple's Android lawsuits from "bullish" to "bearish". There comes a point when failure after failure is just too much, and [I]I recognize that I had overestimated the leverage Apple could gain from its patents [/I]... I think John Quinn absolutely nailed it when he said that Apple is trying to win from the jury in that San Jose courtroom what it has lost in the marketplace. "
From today:
"... the most important concern here is that Apple has now been suing Android device makers (initially HTC, a dispute that was settled in 2012; Motorola since 2010 and Samsung since 2011) for 49 months. Yes, 49 months ago to the day, Apple filed its first Android lawsuit, and Steve Jobs, who called this a "holy war" in an internal email and according to his official biography was prepared to "go thermonuclear war", said the following:
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions [...] [C]ompetitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
The same Steve Jobs said in an interview you can see on YouTube that good artists copy and great artists steal and that Apple had, in his opinion at the time, stolen shamelessly from others.
If you change mind on copying and stealing and want to wage a holy war, you need thermonuclear patents. And if you accuse others of "stealing", you firstly need to prove that you own what you say they steal.
Steve Jobs regarded Android (according to his biography) as a "stolen product". If Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) said so, I could understand it.... If Oracle subsequently overcomes Google's fair use defense (through a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial), then we have a case of theft. ... A[B]nyway, in 49 months of Apple litigation over Android, not a single line of copied Apple program code has been discovered. (Yes, Android uses different programming languages than Objective C, but not even a translation of Apple program code to other programming languages ever showed up.)[/B]
After 49 months of holy, supposedly-thermonuclear war and in light of Apple's counsel claiming that Apple could have taken 50 patents to this trial and proved that Samsung infringes all of them, I can't see, with the sole exception of "rubber-banding", a single feature -- and I mean something that people would describe as a feature in a few words, not a small aspect of one feature -- of which Apple has proven in court that it can prevent Android device makers from delivering it to their customers in a way that provides great functionality and an uncompromised user experience."
A few days ago ErictheHalfBee commented that Florian calls them as he sees them when I mentioned the possibility that Mueller might not come down on Apple's side as firmly in this newest patent case.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/174347/iphone-ip-wars-nokia-vs-apple-vs-htc-motorola-samsung#post_2503707
It looks as tho that's coming to pass. AI has normally been quick to quote FOSSPatents opinion on Apple/Samsung court skirmishes. Note he's gone completely unmentioned by them the past week tho several Mueller blog/s have posted.
This looks like it will be a boring case. Apple will win and Samsung will have to pay a small "fine" (small when compared to their position in the market).
Since you seem to enjoy the fact Meuller is critical of Apple recently, then what do you think of Oracle? He's absolutely convinced Judge Aslup screwed up the first trial and Oracle will prevail when the appeals court hands down their decision (expected any day now). If anyone is going to cause significant problems for Android, it'll be Oracle. What Google stole from Oracle is far worse than Samsung from Apple.
I think Alsup may well have tossed the copyright claims for the wrong stated reason. I'm no lawyer but expert (!?) opinions seem to lean that direction. I also think Google's use of API's will be deemed fair use if that happens, tho probably in a separate trial. I see it having little to no effect on Android, but that's just my opinion.
I said I never seen anyone confused with plastic Galaxy. That anyone includes, young, old, too old, geeks, non-geeks & etc, but not me. Not confused and all got what they wanted. And who are those confused people?
The first jury trial verdict would hardly guaranty fact. And I don't think Samsung admitted they infringed Apple's IPs.
Well, it certainly looked to me like they admitted it during the damages retrial. You may not agree... and that's fine. But consider this: They could have managed to communicate that the trial at that stage was no longer about whether or not they had infringed without also saying "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property." So, at the very least it's quite clear that Samsung wanted the jury to think they were admitting it at that point! They were comfortable with that perception. It's difficult to imagine any innocent party being comfortable with that! As a result, I tend to see their somewhat self-serving comment as an expression of guilt.
Well, it certainly looked to me like they admitted it during the damages retrial. You may not agree... and that's fine. But consider this: They could have managed to communicate that the trial at that stage was no longer about whether or not they had infringed without also saying "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property." So, at the very least it's quite clear that Samsung wanted the jury to think they were admitting it at that point! They were comfortable with that perception. It's difficult to imagine any innocent party being comfortable with that! As a result, I tend to see their somewhat self-serving comment as an expression of guilt.
I understand that was a damage retrial, not about whether Sammy infringed Apple's IPs. And since then, I think, they appealed the first case.