I'm guessing the average Joe is more familiar with tap or pinch to zoom than they are SAMOLED+ screen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm guessing the average Joe is more familiar with tap or pinch to zoom than they are SAMOLED+ screen.
Well it's a shame that Apple is not an American mfg company. It is only a design company located within the USA. Think of all the jobs we could have here....
Spot on man!!! SPOT ON! People dont realize what apple is doing. Consumers are going to get screwed. Apple has become what they were against in the 80s. Just own it!! Apple doesnt equal freedom anymore. Apple = $$$$ at any cost.
You don't give a rats a** because you take it for granted as it its just part of the phone when, in fact, its part of the iPhone.
Last edited by a moderator:
In cases like pinch to zoom - my opinion is - Apple can protect it's code on how to do it and I'm ok with it. I'm not ok with protecting the concept.
So when Apple is forced to take off the LTE label on the new iPad, and when Apple gets sued because of Siri, it's the consumers damn fault for being absolute idiots and not researching enough about the product beforehand, making them entitled jerks. But if a consumer somehow mistakes a Galaxy tab for the new iPad it's Samsung's fault now?
You're holding it wrong
Someone said in an earlier post that you can't protect the code. Not sure how true that is though.
care to back it up with facts? multitouch phone existed before iphones. maybe they werent' so cool. so how is the other posters comment rubbish?
No. The iPhone just made smart phones enomously POPULAR because of the Apple mystic. There was NOTHING I couldn't do on my Windows CE (I think it was actually windows mobile 6.x) that the iPhone could do except for playing DRM protected music and MULTI-TOUCH, the latter which was significant but overall the iPhone brought nothing earth shattering to the smart phone markt. I did NOT buy the 1st iPhone because at the time I thought it was a dated phone, especially with no 3rd party apps nor any 3G nor a file system nor replaceable battery nor external storage, which was at the time about 2 years behind most other smartphones.
Of course, the iPhone STILL doesn't hve some of these things, and there are software things that I could do on my Windows mobile phone that you still can't do on an iPhone, like different keyboards and dialer skins and home screen tabs, widgets, etc. All of which I got back when I switched to the S3 / Android.
Last edited:
Exactly the opposite - Apple's rivals should go ahead and innovate: come up with a better way to zoom rather then 'tap to zoom' -there were zoom methods before, find a better one. ditto for 'slide to unlock', 'pinch', 'twist' etc etc.
Why is it up to Apple to rejuventate/reinvent the MP3 player, the smartphone, the tablet?
Yeah, right. Over 1,000 posts of trolling and owning all the iPhone that existed after the first and every iPad that existed and an AppleTV. I just came here to troll. Jeez...
What does that have to do with a discussion about patents?
As for the whole patent issue, people can run around screaming that these patents and software patents in general shouldn't be allowed. But the fact is that they are. Whether or not it should have been, Apple was granted patents on these features. As such, they have to try to protect them. I can't really fault them for that. If the patents should be invalidated...that's a whole different discussion. But do you really expect Apple to just stop trying to protect the patents which it legally owns? That's not logical.
i hope apple is putting this much effort into innovating their new lineup.
otherwise
Apple is the new Microsoft.
otherwise
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Last edited:
come up with a better way to drive a car without using round tires.
I digress. I'm more against patent hoarding then I am against patents themselves. In other words - Apple should be negotiating the use of their patents. Not preventing people from using them.
But that's there business model, not mine. And up to date it has been working for them. Not so sure it's the way for the future though.
Laughable.
I had the highest end Windows phone and loved it a lot before the iPhone was release but to say that it was anywhere near the level of the iPhone is laughable.
You didn't read my previous post, right? This has nothing at all to do with brands. Brands are completely irrelevant to design patents. Branding is _expressly excluded_ from design patents. This is about making products that _look_ similar enough to confuse the customer, and when a court has to compare the products for similarity, the branding is excluded from the comparison.
And what grounds would Apple have to sue a reseller? Every reseller is expected to sell what they have on sale. Manufacturers have the duty to respect the laws and not produce products that can be confused, in the presence of design patents.
Samsung has competitors, who will gladly accept money from Apple. Apple also has the cash to create manufacturing capacity very, very quickly. Losing Apple as a customer would be fatal for Samsung.
How to not have problems with Apple...
Don't steal from Apple.
Read my signature...pretty clear if you ask me...
Don't steal from Apple.
Read my signature...pretty clear if you ask me...
For everyone saying that that iPhone was revolutionary, blah, blah... I ask you: So what? Why do you guys have this belief that just because you come up with an idea first, you should have exclusive rights to that idea? There's a difference between patenting an invention that produces a result, and patenting the result itself. Apple is complaining about the latter.
I understand that Apple is working within the confines of existing law, but I also strongly disagree with the "inventions" Apple has been patenting.
I always compare it to something like a car engine. I can understand a patent covering the inner workings that aren't so obvious, even when you have the ability to examine the engine up close and personal. But Apple is trying to patent the idea of putting an engine in a car.
If you can look at something and figure out almost instantly how it works, I don't see how that is patentable. Great design? Probably. Should you be able to get a piece of paper that gives you exclusive rights to that design? No.
I understand that Apple is working within the confines of existing law, but I also strongly disagree with the "inventions" Apple has been patenting.
I always compare it to something like a car engine. I can understand a patent covering the inner workings that aren't so obvious, even when you have the ability to examine the engine up close and personal. But Apple is trying to patent the idea of putting an engine in a car.
If you can look at something and figure out almost instantly how it works, I don't see how that is patentable. Great design? Probably. Should you be able to get a piece of paper that gives you exclusive rights to that design? No.
Because if the world of patent law were entirely like the world of technological patent law a company would be able to patent the toaster. Therefore the Slot-Machine Shaped Toaster would be illegal.
I own Apple products, but I am so angry with this.
Apple plays fair, pure and simple. If they don't own it, they buy it or license it.
Cupertino's 5 Best Acquisitions (Siri, Emagic, Next, Fingerworks, Nothing Real)
Coverflow
Apple Licenses Amazon.com 1-Click Patent and Trademark