ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices

[MegamanX]

Hm?

That screenshot IS from an iPhone and has been manipulated in photoshop to change the titlebar.
It's a screenshot that Laura Scott uploaded in December 14 2008 to Flickr.

And they did this in 2011, when even a half-brained intern ad the ad agency should have known that you shall:
1. Not take pictures from the internet to use them in your ads
2. Take pictures of the product YOU'RE selling
3. Not take pictures from the product your COMPETITOR is selling.

It's like you handed in a print of the Mona Lisa in art classes at school and said that you painted it.


This shows that Samsung simply does not care about these things.
That they have no scruples to use stuff that others created for their own benefit.

And yet it happens all the time.

Those things are farmed out to OMG ad agencies. They tell them what they want and the agencies does it.

They get it back and say it is good. They do not look at it very closely and sure as hell would not look at it close enough to see that screen shot.

It is mostly the Apple fanboys who scream it is Samsung doing it on purpose.

Stupid mistake and chances are that ad agency lost a very very nice contract and will never by hired by samsung again.

 

[samcraig]

nevermind. wrong reference.

 

[SILen(e]

They do not look at it very closely and sure as hell would not look at it close enough to see that screen shot.

Well, Apple does!

And that was not some unimportant picture hidden deep in a slideshow, it was one of the most prominently placed ones ON SAMSUNGS OWN WEBSITE for the product.

And then you're also responsible for the actions of those you are paying for marketing. IF they paid some outsider to do this, this was not on ad shown only in a small south american country, it was part of an official product picture, like those.

And what if Samsung had outsourced the design of their smartphones?

What if the design agency simple had designed a phone looking like this, WITH the original logo on the back?

"Oh, that was only the stupid design agency!" ?

 

[Renzatic]

"Oh, that was only the stupid design agency!" ?

So what's your argument? That Samsung is so brazen with their copying, so desperate to get attention, that they willingly used bits of pieces of their competitors products to give themselves a boost, hoping against all hope that no one would notice?

I'd say it's more likely they wanted a shot of Google Maps, and just picked the wrong one to use.

edit: Megaman X agrees with me. That's how I know I'm right.

 

[MegamanX]

Well, Apple does!

And that was not some unimportant picture hidden deep in a slideshow, it was one of the most prominently placed ones ON SAMSUNGS OWN WEBSITE for the product.

And then you're also responsible for the actions of those you are paying for marketing. IF they paid some outsider to do this, this was not on ad shown only in a small south american country, it was part of an official product picture, like those.

And what if Samsung had outsourced the design of their smartphones?

What if the design agency simple had designed a phone looking like this, WITH the original logo on the back?

"Oh, that was only the stupid design agency!" ?

again same answer I gave before.

But then again you are showing a MASSIVE lack of understanding of the industry.

Chances are the specs for the ad say show google maps. Stupid mistake was not ad agency not verify that the maps look different. If it was not for some fan boys pointing it out I never would of noticed. Hell VERY FEW people would noticed. They see oh look it has google maps.

I suggest you learn how stuff works first because it is very clear you do not understand.

 

[SILen(e]

Oh, they knew enough about the differences to remove the iOS titlebar showing connection to the AT&T network and to replace it with the Android title bar with some text in Korean (so we can guess it was a korean agency or more likely in-house) - still showing an adress somewhere in the US.

"Yeah, Joon-ho from your ad agency calling, we wanted to ask for a picture of the Android notification bar, we found a great looking picture of Google Maps on mobile, but the phone is running on AT&T and we'd prefer to change it to something Korean, thanks."

Whoever did this at least knew enough about what he was looking at (not difficult, because the picture is titled "iPhone screenshot of Maps app") and the product he was creating the picture for to change the bar at the top of the screenshot.

When Nokia used a picture of a woman using an iPhone 4 to promote their brand, they most likely really didn't know that they were showing an iPhone, because the stockphoto was named "Happy woman speaking on cellular phone", the dock connector which is giving it away is not that noticeable, it was very likely REALLY just some Australien ad agency and they didn't manipulate the picture in Photoshop to remove the obvious signs of it being an iPhone.

They didn't try to hide that they were showing an iPhone, they simply had no idea.

Samsung manipulated the clearly from an iPhone coming titled screenshot to hide this fact.

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah. Whatever. It's still a dumb thing to get all indignant over.

OMG! One little picture on a corner of a website shows a picture of Apple Maps on a phone that isn't an Apple! INTERNET RAGE!

 

[SILen(e]

On a corner of a website that belongs to a product meant to imitate the iPod Touch, made by a company that has been copying every aspect of the iPhone for years.

Gain marketshare by selling a carbon copy of a competitors product, when you have gained marketshare, you're free to create your own designs.

 

[samcraig]

On a corner of a website that belongs to a product meant to imitate the iPod Touch, made by a company that has been copying every aspect of the iPhone for years.

Gain marketshare by selling a carbon copy of a competitors product, when you have gained marketshare, you're free to create your own designs.

Hyperbole is hyperbole

The Galaxy line (for example) is not a carbon copy. Samsung has not been copying EVERY aspect of the iPhone for YEARS.

Do you honestly believe what you write as fact?

 

[SILen(e]

The Galaxy line (for example) is not a carbon copy. Samsung has not been copying EVERY aspect of the iPhone for YEARS.

Yeah, they stopped when they dominated Android and the Galaxy brand become known to the average Joe - but i mentioned that.

And they didn't copy every aspect, only the form of the device including details like the chrome bezel, the charger, they adopted the Dock Connector-like PDMI for their tablets, they cloned the boxart, they picked the girl (or one that closely resembled her) that was also in an Apple ad for their GalaxyTab tv ad, some very resembling icons and interface elements (for example S-Voice interface)....

BUT...

They didn't use the Apple logo!

So they didn't copy everything.




Your next step will be to post the famous picture of a Samsung F-700 QBOWL next to an iPhone, showing how 'Apple stole their iPhone design from Samsung'.

There, I linked to it for you

 

[samcraig]

Your next step will be to post the famous picture of a Samsung F-700 QBOWL next to an iPhone, showing how 'Apple stole their iPhone design from Samsung'.

There, I linked to it for you

No. Because unlike you I've got nothing to prove or some wild "vendetta." against either company. I'm technology agnostic. The right tool for the right job and I let the owners of their patents, trademarks and such fight amongst themselves in court without it affecting my decision on what to buy. I'm pretty sure that's most of the general public who doesn't care one way or the other. Only on forums dedicated to apple, android, and techies in general are things like this taken so personally and with such vitriol from bystanders.

p.s. As someone who worked for a cell phone manufacturer prior to the iPhone I can also tell you that several manufacturers (at least two) had full screen touch phones in the product pipeline. Clearly they didn't run iOS. But design wise - quite similar. And the app screen layout? Also similar. But I digress.

 

[SILen(e]

I'm pretty sure that's most of the general public who doesn't care one way or the other.

Duh!

That's exactly what this is all about!

The general public doesn't know and doesn't really care about this "computer and phone stuff".

That made it so interesting for Samsung to sell something that looks like the iPhone people knew from TV spots, but a bit cheaper.

That way Verizon sales reps were able to tell a customer "No, we don't have the iPhone, but we got something that looks the same and is even better!"

Apple did the "design" for Samsung and they also did the marketing, because people heard from the iPhone ads about this new smartphone stuff, asked AT&T or Verizon about the iPhone and got talked into buying a "Looks the same, has bigger screen, is cheaper" phon by Samsung.

(Especially in the US, where providers earn more money if people get cheaper phone, as the monthly fees are the same and the upfront cost hasn't really anything to do with the real cost of a phone)

 

[samcraig]

Duh!

That's exactly what this is all about!

The general public doesn't know and doesn't really care about this "computer and phone stuff".

That made it so interesting for Samsung to sell something that looks like the iPhone people knew from TV spots, but a bit cheaper.

That way Verizon sales reps were able to tell a customer "No, we don't have the iPhone, but we got something that looks the same and is even better!"

Apple did the "design" for Samsung and they also did the marketing, because people heard from the iPhone ads about this new smartphone stuff, asked AT&T or Verizon about the iPhone and got talked into buying a "Looks the same, has bigger screen, is cheaper" phon by Samsung.

(Especially in the US, where providers earn more money if people get cheaper phone, as the monthly fees are the same and the upfront cost hasn't really anything to do with the real cost of a phone)

No - you completely misunderstood what I said. Have a conversation with you is a challenge if you repeatedly miss the point. Have a great day.

 

[subsonix]

And yet it happens all the time.

Those things are farmed out to OMG ad agencies. They tell them what they want and the agencies does it.

Funny. What Apple ads contains Samsung screen shots?

 

[SILen(e]

I simply used the words you said about people not caring about the Apple - Samsung patent wars and put them in the context the patent war is all about - people don't care about details and when they don't care about details, they will buy whatever they know or can afford.

People don't know about smartphones but then Samsung released one in 2010 that looked like the only smartphone people ever heard about - the iPhone - and was also a bit more affordable.

I am sure that many buyers of a Samsung Galaxy S (1) wanted to buy an iPhone but got talked into buying a Samsung instead by the sales rep, with the arguments of it looking and working "just the same" - and being a bit cheaper upfront for the customer AND much cheaper for the provider (they part they don't talk about).

And if you look at Android manufacturer marketshare, the only company which is making a real profit (and a big one it is) selling Android devices is the one that has been imitating the only other company that is making a profit by selling smartphones (not a big one, but a Mt. Everest of profit!).

 

[DeathChill]

p.s. As someone who worked for a cell phone manufacturer prior to the iPhone I can also tell you that several manufacturers (at least two) had full screen touch phones in the product pipeline. Clearly they didn't run iOS. But design wise - quite similar. And the app screen layout? Also similar. But I digress.

Can you provide any sort of proof of this? I've seen you bring it up several times and I'm curious about what you mean by similar. The Prada was a full screen touch phone but nothing like the iPhone and iOS.

 

[otismotive77]

these lawsuits will only affect the consumer, less innovation higher prices.

 

[samcraig]

Can you provide any sort of proof of this? I've seen you bring it up several times and I'm curious about what you mean by similar. The Prada was a full screen touch phone but nothing like the iPhone and iOS.

Can I provide proof of documents that are over a decade old and when I worked for the company I worked for had signed a NDA? Even if I still had the powerpoint presos I wouldn't share them.

Now let me ask you - what do you mean the prada was a full touch screen phone but nothing like the iPhone and iOS. In look? UI? Functionality? Icons? What are you referring to when you make that statement?

----------

I am sure that many buyers of a Samsung Galaxy S (1) wanted to buy an iPhone but got talked into buying a Samsung instead by the sales rep, with the arguments of it looking and working "just the same" - and being a bit cheaper upfront for the customer AND much cheaper for the provider (they part they don't talk about).

Speaking of evidence. Do you have ANY that your above assertion is remotely true or accurate? Or are YOU just sure. I think the latter. Again - not based in any fact or reality.

 

[DeathChill]

Can I provide proof of documents that are over a decade old and when I worked for the company I worked for had signed a NDA? Even if I still had the powerpoint presos I wouldn't share them.

Now let me ask you - what do you mean the prada was a full touch screen phone but nothing like the iPhone and iOS. In look? UI? Functionality? Icons? What are you referring to when you make that statement?

In functionality methods and looks, I suppose.

http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense

But it often uses it's touchscreen to boring effect. There is no interface advantage here. You touch buttons on screen to scroll and click around, much like a Palm or WM6 Phone. The menu design itself is similar to that on any high end LG phone, like, say the Shine. The 3-inch diagonal comes in useful as the entirety of it becomes a viewfinder in camera mode. The touchscreen let's you drag the home screen's clock around, and that fishy in the photo above is actually "touchable". And it ships with some touchscreen games. But generally speaking, it operates just like a regular phone. No revolutionary usage models here, either.

I was just curious if you could provide any proof as I find it hard to believe that there was any reasonable competition to the iPhone at the time of release. If there was I think we would have seen some responses much earlier.

 

[samcraig]

In functionality methods and looks, I suppose.

http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense


I was just curious if you could provide any proof as I find it hard to believe that there was any reasonable competition to the iPhone at the time of release. If there was I think we would have seen some responses much earlier.

Design - there were a couple of things that had a similar look. I would never argue that iOS was a great UI and something that moved things forward. Elements were common from other UIs - but the experience was different. And for that I give Apple a lot of credit. That being said - one also has to remember that the very first iPhone (and first version of iOS) was lacking a lot of features that existed in a lot of phones at the time. But Apple made using the phone "fun." Like using a toy. Note I am not calling the original iPhone a toy. But it was fun to USE like a toy. Phones until then were more business oriented.

 

[subsonix]

Design - there were a couple of things that had a similar look.

The where released about the same time. The idea that Apple aped the UI from the Prada is ridiculous.

 

[samcraig]

The where released about the same time. The idea that Apple aped the UI from the Prada is ridiculous.

I never said anyone aped anyone. And I wasn't talking about the prada specifically.

 

[kdarling]

Chances are the specs for the ad say show google maps. Stupid mistake was not ad agency not verify that the maps look different. If it was not for some fan boys pointing it out I never would of noticed. Hell VERY FEW people would noticed. They see oh look it has google maps.

Indeed. Obviously someone lazy, or in a hurry, used the first Google Map image they found on the 'net. The ad itself was for a pretty unknown device. All in all, a comparatively minor goof up noticed by few.

Contrast that with the blatant, deliberate, repeated, obviously CEO sanctioned, revamps of websites that Apple / Jobs used in ads and live demos of Safari supposedly showing "The Real Internet".

Even iPhone fansites were astonished at the sheer audacity of Apple taking well known websites such as NY Times and National Geographic, and removing all evidence of missing Flash videos & menus in them.

For example, here's how Jobs would show NatGeo, with no problems appearing:


However, here's what the website REALLY looked like on an iPhone:


Jobs and Apple did this for a long time. Apparently they even told Mossberg that Flash would be coming soon for the iPhone, since he saw it as a critical missing feature. Finally Jobs switched gears and began to publicly deride Flash, and even show it missing. But that took a while.

Moreover, he used the modified sites to claim that his phone was FASTER (see above) at web browsing. Well duh, it wasn't downloading or running the Flash menus or videos.

Samsung's website pic was an obvious goof seen by few. Apple's widely repeated pics were obvious intents to deceive. There's no comparison.

 

[subsonix]

Indeed. Obviously someone lazy, or in a hurry, used the first Google Map image they found on the 'net. The ad itself was for a pretty unknown device. All in all, a comparatively minor goof up noticed by few.

It's not obvious at all. I agree, that it could be the case but put together with the rest of the copying Samsung did, I don't see why that is obvious at all. Or why Samsung should be believed by default.

Apple showing no-flash versions of websites may have been done with the knowledge of mobile optimized websites. Anyway, flash for mobile devices is dead, by now we all know that.

 

[Renzatic]

It's not obvious at all. I agree, that it could be the case but put together with the rest of the copying Samsung did, I don't see why that is obvious at all. Or why Samsung should be believed by default.

Because it's such a stupid thing to copy. Google Maps looked better on Android than Apple Maps did on iDevices back then. If they wanted to show off the features of the phone, they would've used an actual shot of it instead of the first picture they came across on the internet after searching for "smartphone map app".