So by your definition vanilla Android (not Touchwiz which was a clear attempt to copy) is not a copy but took some inspiration.
Btw still find it strange that the lawyers couldn't see the difference, it has a Samsung logo on it . Oh well not the first Samsung cock-up .
edit: typo
No I said nothing like that. Most car companies follow design ideas the way most newer models have smaller almost triangular windows for the back seat sides. This is following a trend in the industry. To take details which are so closely associated with a brand and paste it onto your companies product crosses this line. The use of a large screen without a physical keyboard is not a feature that is in dispute since it is a logical step in the evolution of phones, however the layout of icons and their design is something quite different. The iPhone eliminated the "butt call" for modern phones, I believe this is a true innovation since nobody solved this problem before them. Apple is know for finding the most elegant and simple answers to complicated devices when a company like Samsung just copies that solution instead of creating their own the law should stop them.
Funny you mention that... because I believe we would have even MORE choices if those companies weren't able to just copy anything they feel like. They would be tasked instead with coming out with something innovative themselves.
Heck... who knows what great ideas are at Samsung engineering, that won't see the light of day because the marketing/sales department said it all has to all look and work like Apple?
Instead... we get 1 iPhone, 10 wannabe iPhones, and "Sorry...late to the party but we'll catch up some day because we can't compete like this" device.
Wow... what a choice... :no:
Does innovation guarantee success? It only guarantees that you'll be different. Do you really think that the market would support 4,5,6 different OSs, and ecosystems? SJ himself said that devs would not support a third OS.
As far as I know it's not the case with Schmidt either. There's as much evidence that Schmidt acted unethically as there is for Levinson or Campbell. In effect zero unless you count FTC concerns over the sharing of directors.
So I know it's a popular theory that Schmidt was stealing from Apple, put out there by a small number of Apple fans. Do you have any independent reports that show Schmidt stealing from Apple, or any Apple statements to that effect? If not is it logical for you to be so anxious to believe it happened despite any evidence for it, or could it instead be more an emotional response?
But are board members excused from meetings concerning new products? They get an 18 month preview:
Go back and read my posts. Nowhere do I infer that Schmidt was stealing from Apple. That's the reason I brought up the issue of ethics. I believe it's unethical for him to have remained on the Apple board during a time when Apple was developing the iPhone and Android subsequently switched direction to fast-follow the iPhone interaction model. Just as a person who could be seen as having a conflict of interest bows out of a negotiation or other situation even if that person's ethics are unassailable and that person would never allow such conflict to come into play. It's optics and it's the right thing to do. And yet, Schmidt did not inform Apple that Google was engaged in fast-following the iPhone interaction model and Schmidt did not instead step down from the Apple board during this critical period in the development of the two companies' products.
My apologies. I mistakenly thought you believed in the fairytale of how Schmidt stole from Apple.
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
In the case of Eric Schmidt he did excuse himself for the iPhone meetings of the board, that became clear with the communication by Apple when Schmidt quit the board.
“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”
There are two stories going around, the one about Eric Schmidt knowing about the iPhone before release and that of Android suddenly changing course after the presentation of the iPhone (which DED is making an attempt to defend here). Both stories can't be right at the same time, they contradict each other. If Eric Schmidt saw the iPhone before release then Google wouldn't be surprised. It's one or the other or neither, but the Eric Schmidt story seems very unlikely to be true.
Schmidt would have been a terrible spy if Andy Rubin was taken by surprise when the iPhone was publicly revealed. Sounds much more likely that if he knew any of the details he wasn't sharing them with the head of Android development.
In the case of Eric Schmidt he did excuse himself for the iPhone meetings of the board, that became clear with the communication by Apple when Schmidt quit the board.
There are two stories going around, the one about Eric Schmidt knowing about the iPhone before release and that of Android suddenly changing course after the presentation of the iPhone (which DED is making an attempt to defend here). Both stories can't be right at the same time, they contradict each other. If Eric Schmidt saw the iPhone before release then Google wouldn't be surprised. It's one or the other or neither, but the Eric Schmidt story seems very unlikely to be true.
Schmidt would have been a terrible spy if Andy Rubin was taken by surprise when the iPhone was publicly revealed. Sounds much more likely that if he knew any of the details he wasn't sharing them with the head of Android development.
That would make him quite the a stand up guy, humble, and filled with integrity. Why are so many people having a different view of him? Could it be because he's not? Not to provoke anything here; I just don't know anything about him.
I basically see every single touch screen phone that is on the market as being a cheap imitation of the iPhone. And unsurprisingly, it's also usually cheap people who opt for the cheap imitations.
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
Tell that to millennia of Judeo-Arabic-Christian forms of jurisprudence.....
Are you speaking of defense or of punishment? There's a difference. One is taking the law into one's own hands. The other is the rule of law.
I am talking about both. If you don't know that, I am not sure that you know much about the origins and principles of the type of law we practice in the US today.
Good point(s).
That would make him quite the a stand up guy, humble, and filled with integrity. Why are so many people having a different view of him? Could it be because he's not? Not to provoke anything here; I just don't know anything about him.
Do you think Apple would have invited him to serve as a director if there were questions about his honesty and ethics?
My apologies. I mistakenly thought you believed in the fairytale of how Schmidt stole from Apple.
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
Schmidt, as a software engineer, was particularly at risk of poor optics and conflict of interest. I'm familiar with his background as a former software guy myself. I have less familiarity with the other two so have chosen not to speak on them other than peripheral to the Schmidt situation.
Thanks replying, thanks for the link. But...this doesn't tell me if he's an integer person. The article writes about 'Don't be evil' which as I understand it was never Google's 'tagline', or whatever you want to call it. Supposedly it was someone else who wrote it about Google, and the world tagged it as it being theirs'. Whatever.
The tax avoidance portion of the article; I'm all for it. Companies' main drive is to make money, and if one can pay less tax legally, they should. Be it Apple or Google. Or a much smaller international one; I don't care as long as it's legal.
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
You'll notice that I wrote usually, which means that there are sometimes exceptions to the rule.
Thanks replying, thanks for the link. But...this doesn't tell me if he's an integer person. The article writes about 'Don't be evil' which as I understand it was never Google's 'tagline', or whatever you want to call it. Supposedly it was someone else who wrote it about Google, and the world tagged it as it being theirs'. Whatever.
The tax avoidance portion of the article; I'm all for it. Companies' main drive is to make money, and if one can pay less tax legally, they should. Be it Apple or Google. Or a much smaller international one; I don't care as long as it's legal.
That Apple would consider him an admirable, knowledgeable and ethical person worthy of helping direct the company should be proof enough for you. Unless of course you think a record of ethical business dealings isn't highly important to Apple and something they would expect and look into before bringing him on board.
I am talking about both. If you don't know that, I am not sure that you know much about the origins and principles of the type of law we practice in the US today.
In this situation, I believe a plaintive's defense for counter spying on a defendant (someone the plaintive accuses of spying) under the notion that "well, we spied on them because they spied on us, therefore quid pro quo" would fail due to the plaintive having unclean hands. This is what I am speaking of. You might be speaking in broader terms and therefore we are in disagreement due to each carrying a different argument.
That Apple would consider him an admirable, knowledgeable and ethical person worthy of helping direct the company should be proof enough for you. Unless of course you think a record of ethical business dealings isn't something Apple would expect and investigate.
Good point!
Just finished the rest of the article. LOL-ed at this piece:
"He had a history with April Fools' pranks: one 1 April while he was an executive at Sun, colleagues dismantled a working Volkswagen Beetle and re-assembled it in his office."
Supposedly still on YouTube, but I can't find it...
...then perhaps apple owes a portion of its revenue to LG since they came out with the full touch screen prada in advance of the first iphone announcement.
Gaaah! This zombie meme drives me crazy, particularly since it is so easily disproved by a quick trip to Wikipedia:
Quote:
(LG Prada): It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3]An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] Sales started in May 2007.
(iPhone): Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple"...Jobs unveiled the iPhone to the public on January 9, 2007, at the Macworld 2007 convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.[32] [It] went on sale in the United States on June 29, 2007.
So, the "official press release" of the LG Prada was 1/18/07, nine days after Jobs officially introduced the iPhone...which they'd been working on, in secret, for 3 years. There were leaked images of the Prada on the internet perhaps a month or two earlier and certainly the concept of the phone was established earlier by LG.
So, did LG copy the iPhone with the Prada? Obviously not. Did Apple copy or borrow from the Prada, or otherwise change the design of iPhone a month before it was introduced to the world? You'd have to be the most blinded Fandroid to believe this.
Comments
Tell that to millennia of Judeo-Arabic-Christian forms of jurisprudence.....
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Are you speaking of defense or of punishment? There's a difference. One is taking the law into one's own hands. The other is the rule of law.
So by your definition vanilla Android (not Touchwiz which was a clear attempt to copy) is not a copy but took some inspiration.
Btw still find it strange that the lawyers couldn't see the difference, it has a Samsung logo on it
. Oh well not the first Samsung cock-up 
.
edit: typo
No I said nothing like that. Most car companies follow design ideas the way most newer models have smaller almost triangular windows for the back seat sides. This is following a trend in the industry. To take details which are so closely associated with a brand and paste it onto your companies product crosses this line. The use of a large screen without a physical keyboard is not a feature that is in dispute since it is a logical step in the evolution of phones, however the layout of icons and their design is something quite different. The iPhone eliminated the "butt call" for modern phones, I believe this is a true innovation since nobody solved this problem before them. Apple is know for finding the most elegant and simple answers to complicated devices when a company like Samsung just copies that solution instead of creating their own the law should stop them.
Potentially a huge monkey wrench. Makes me scared as well.
Does innovation guarantee success? It only guarantees that you'll be different. Do you really think that the market would support 4,5,6 different OSs, and ecosystems? SJ himself said that devs would not support a third OS.
But are board members excused from meetings concerning new products? They get an 18 month preview:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156083/new-products-are-presented-to-apples-board-6-18-months-prior-to-launch
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
But are board members excused from meetings concerning new products? They get an 18 month preview:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156083/new-products-are-presented-to-apples-board-6-18-months-prior-to-launch
In the case of Eric Schmidt he did excuse himself for the iPhone meetings of the board, that became clear with the communication by Apple when Schmidt quit the board.
“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”
There are two stories going around, the one about Eric Schmidt knowing about the iPhone before release and that of Android suddenly changing course after the presentation of the iPhone (which DED is making an attempt to defend here). Both stories can't be right at the same time, they contradict each other. If Eric Schmidt saw the iPhone before release then Google wouldn't be surprised. It's one or the other or neither, but the Eric Schmidt story seems very unlikely to be true.
Schmidt would have been a terrible spy if Andy Rubin was taken by surprise when the iPhone was publicly revealed. Sounds much more likely that if he knew any of the details he wasn't sharing them with the head of Android development.
EDIT: Pipped by Chipsy 8-)
Good point(s).
That would make him quite the a stand up guy, humble, and filled with integrity. Why are so many people having a different view of him? Could it be because he's not? Not to provoke anything here; I just don't know anything about him.
I basically see every single touch screen phone that is on the market as being a cheap imitation of the iPhone. And unsurprisingly, it's also usually cheap people who opt for the cheap imitations.
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
I am talking about both. If you don't know that, I am not sure that you know much about the origins and principles of the type of law we practice in the US today.
Do you think Apple would have invited him to serve as a director if there were questions about his honesty and ethics?
Anyway. if you want to know a bit more about him this article has some background.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/eric-schmidt-is-the-executive-chairman-of-google-really-the-arrogant-defender-of-tax-avoidance-that-his-critics-claim-8418153.html
My apologies. I mistakenly thought you believed in the fairytale of how Schmidt stole from Apple.
So speaking to your suggestion that as a matter of ethics Schmidt should have recused himself from iPhone related discussions that 's just what was reported by independent news organizations. Schmidt did voluntarily bow out whenever discussion of the iPhone arose in Apple Board meetings. Still unethical?
Very odd that you seem to have no apparent concerns about either Levinson, now part of yet another Google project (is he stealing information on Apple's health initiatives to benefit Google latest health-focused investment Calico?) or Bill Campbell who had an opportunity to play both sides against the middle. Two of the three remained involved with both Google and Apple after Schmidt had already stepped away and one is still involved in some manner.
Schmidt, as a software engineer, was particularly at risk of poor optics and conflict of interest. I'm familiar with his background as a former software guy myself. I have less familiarity with the other two so have chosen not to speak on them other than peripheral to the Schmidt situation.
Thanks replying, thanks for the link. But...this doesn't tell me if he's an integer person. The article writes about 'Don't be evil' which as I understand it was never Google's 'tagline', or whatever you want to call it. Supposedly it was someone else who wrote it about Google, and the world tagged it as it being theirs'. Whatever.
The tax avoidance portion of the article; I'm all for it. Companies' main drive is to make money, and if one can pay less tax legally, they should. Be it Apple or Google. Or a much smaller international one; I don't care as long as it's legal.
Sorry but that last line I find offensive. I may now use an Android device but I started out with the first 3 iPhones. My reasoning in changing to Android was features that were then lacking and some that still are from the iPhone and the greater choice and customisation available. I can afford any iPhone right now so brand anyone who buys anything but an iPhone as cheap is utterly wrong.
You'll notice that I wrote usually, which means that there are sometimes exceptions to the rule.
That Apple would consider him an admirable, knowledgeable and ethical person worthy of helping direct the company should be proof enough for you. Unless of course you think a record of ethical business dealings isn't highly important to Apple and something they would expect and look into before bringing him on board.
I am talking about both. If you don't know that, I am not sure that you know much about the origins and principles of the type of law we practice in the US today.
In this situation, I believe a plaintive's defense for counter spying on a defendant (someone the plaintive accuses of spying) under the notion that "well, we spied on them because they spied on us, therefore quid pro quo" would fail due to the plaintive having unclean hands. This is what I am speaking of. You might be speaking in broader terms and therefore we are in disagreement due to each carrying a different argument.
Good point!
Just finished the rest of the article. LOL-ed at this piece:
"He had a history with April Fools' pranks: one 1 April while he was an executive at Sun, colleagues dismantled a working Volkswagen Beetle and re-assembled it in his office."
Supposedly still on YouTube, but I can't find it...
...then perhaps apple owes a portion of its revenue to LG since they came out with the full touch screen prada in advance of the first iphone announcement.
Gaaah! This zombie meme drives me crazy, particularly since it is so easily disproved by a quick trip to Wikipedia:
(LG Prada): It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] Sales started in May 2007.
(iPhone): Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple"...Jobs unveiled the iPhone to the public on January 9, 2007, at the Macworld 2007 convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.[32] [It] went on sale in the United States on June 29, 2007.
So, the "official press release" of the LG Prada was 1/18/07, nine days after Jobs officially introduced the iPhone...which they'd been working on, in secret, for 3 years. There were leaked images of the Prada on the internet perhaps a month or two earlier and certainly the concept of the phone was established earlier by LG.
So, did LG copy the iPhone with the Prada? Obviously not. Did Apple copy or borrow from the Prada, or otherwise change the design of iPhone a month before it was introduced to the world? You'd have to be the most blinded Fandroid to believe this.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of such folks.