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 Marketing Chief Phil Schiller Appears On the Witness Stand in Apple/Samsung Damages Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right, that's why only all the others except Samsung manage to look different.
If there were one more way one can make a cell phone,
this Samsung phone could look different too.
Sadly, there isn't.
It is very common in the auto industry to use the same platform. It is done in agreement between the different brands. If Ford had copied a Jaguar without Jaguar's consent, I doubt Jaguar would be very happy about it.
Sorry - I just find this statement funny "But Samsung's devices caused consumers to "question our design skills in a way they never used to," Schiller said."
To me that sounds whiny. As if all of the sudden Apple had to justify their design decisions because they had competition.
----------
Can you explain how anyone can confuse something so blatantly labeled Samsung as an Apple device - regardless of whether or not the body of the phone looks similar to the iPhone. Which - in fact, they look pretty different in many aspects.
To me that sounds whiny. As if all of the sudden Apple had to justify their design decisions because they had competition.
----------
Can you explain how anyone can confuse something so blatantly labeled Samsung as an Apple device - regardless of whether or not the body of the phone looks similar to the iPhone. Which - in fact, they look pretty different in many aspects.
Looks like Samsung's got somebody else on the payroll.
If that's all it takes for that then 99% of the people here work for Apple.
Not even remotely. The courts have already decided this - Samsung were found guilty of stealing the idea, on the facts of the case.
I think we'd all agree that competition is a good thing, but competition doesn't involve waiting for another company to invest in research and product development, design and manufacture so that you can then steal their ideas and turn out 'cheap' replicas (cheap in this sense meaning nothing more than that you haven't had to spend money designing, developing, refining, and testing your own product, so have significantly lower overall operating costs).
It is, absolutely. That is part of what needs to be addressed in US patent law. However, it isn't at all what Apple has done here. The patents Samsung were already found guilty of infringing were filed by Apple in direct relation to the development of Apple's own product. They were not generic patents.
And what choice will the consumer be left with if the law were to allow companies that steal intellectual property get away with it? Why would Apple, or anyone else, spend money on innovating new products if they know anyone else can come along, copy them and undercut them.
This isn't a matter of just Apple, but every company out there which seeks to develop new products. It costs a lot to do that, whether it be a radical new product or innovating an existing idea. That development costs considerable sums of money, yet if a competitor can simply rip off all the work, they can make something very similar for a lot less. It stops being economic to produce new things, so no-one will do it because they're all waiting for someone else to spend the money.
This isn't what the law says. No-one is stopping any company from looking at an idea and finding out how to make it work. What they are not allowed to do is take the very narrowly specified and very specific intellectual property of another to do it. The fact that over time Samsung has engineered solutions which in subsequent products have not infringed Apple's patents shows that it is possible to make 'remotely similar' products without stealing someone else's work. They just wanted to do it the cheap and easy way first - which has already been determined to have been illegal.
Samsung
I hope they are required to pay the 300 plus million to detour them for re-committing the shameful rip-off crime again in the future. The more I think about it. It's just parasiting off of apple and apple is calculating how much Samsung financially feasted off of their tech bounty just by latching on to their design and siphoning the benefits with the effort of just sinking in its wormy teeth.
I hope they are required to pay the 300 plus million to detour them for re-committing the shameful rip-off crime again in the future. The more I think about it. It's just parasiting off of apple and apple is calculating how much Samsung financially feasted off of their tech bounty just by latching on to their design and siphoning the benefits with the effort of just sinking in its wormy teeth.
Holy cow so many fanboys here. Come on now lets be honest. Do they really look THAT similar? I have used iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, 2009 MBp, and 0 Samsung product. I considered myself as Apple favoritism but these law suits are just plain dumb. And the fact that Apple claimed infringement for rounded corner phones, its more funny how some people take this seriously.
I had plenty of Samsung phones before the iPhone released. They had all-touch screen phones, widgets(aka apps), green call button, and ROUNDED CORNERS!!
To all the young users out here, ask anyone that worked in the cellphone store for long time. All the "cellphone enthusiasts" were seeking to get latest LG/Samsung phones back in the days. And they both offered all-touch screens and apps functionality.
Now i know tons of Apple fanboys will bash on me. Telling me to prove my point or something stupid sh**. Let me tell you this. Go to hell. If you are that interested, google yourself and do a research.
I had plenty of Samsung phones before the iPhone released. They had all-touch screen phones, widgets(aka apps), green call button, and ROUNDED CORNERS!!
To all the young users out here, ask anyone that worked in the cellphone store for long time. All the "cellphone enthusiasts" were seeking to get latest LG/Samsung phones back in the days. And they both offered all-touch screens and apps functionality.
Now i know tons of Apple fanboys will bash on me. Telling me to prove my point or something stupid sh**. Let me tell you this. Go to hell. If you are that interested, google yourself and do a research.
Did you read and understand my questions? It pertains to the phones in question. Not to retail boxes. Not to chargers. Not to anything but the phones in question.
Last edited:
People don't buy items based on the look of the round opening on the bottom of the computer, or on the basic shape of the charger, or how the insides of the packaging are arranged.
So no, those things are not misleading. If they were, we'd have to have different shape and color packaging, and power plugs, and remote control buttons, for every flat screen TV made. But we don't.
As has been pointed out by wiser heads many times, such things are NOT what mislead people into buying something else from a store. SALESPEOPLE do that
"People don't buy items based on look."People don't buy items based on the look of the round opening on the bottom of the computer, or on the basic shape of the charger, or how the insides of the packaging are arranged.
As has been pointed out by wiser heads many times, such things are NOT what mislead people into buying something else from a store. SALESPEOPLE do that
I can't believe the amount of hypocritical nonsense you guys post.
You should try googling stuff like "counterfeit" "design patents" or "trade dress," you might learn a things or two.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I creatively edited someone else's post and took it out of context I could make my point to. I prefer to stick to facts. That's the second time you clearly didn't read or understand someone's post.
Instead of trying to school us. How about you answer my original question(s)?
Yes, I'm biased. After all I'm an engineer and I understand most of the stuff at the center of the court case.
Also, I find both the "blatant tactics" and the "abstract patent" to be bad. But the abuse of the patent system is still much much much more harmful to everybody, including the blissfully ignorant consumers.
It also vacuums and thus infringes?
I've seen them both in a shop: one can hard confuse them.
I know that was his point! My point was that while accusing someone from being dishonest he used an image of a phone that was not even involved and made the difference seem larger than it really is, thus making the exact same mistake himself.
If you agree and make the complain that presenting the device in a dishonest way is wrong, then don't do that yourself, that was my point.
For what it's worth, the original Galaxy was 8mm taller and 2mm wider.
Samsung Design Studio
This is how Samsung design all of their products
----------
I have to say these 2 are completely different.
1) The Apple people have Identification & the Samsungs one don't
2) The blue in the shirt colour is almost entirely different (and I am betting the sizes are also different).
3) People are smiling in the Apple Store
4) The Apple store have customers & Samsung have customer. Actually I take that back. He's another stock boy. in the background I think
This is how Samsung design all of their products
----------
I have to say these 2 are completely different.
1) The Apple people have Identification & the Samsungs one don't
2) The blue in the shirt colour is almost entirely different (and I am betting the sizes are also different).
3) People are smiling in the Apple Store
4) The Apple store have customers & Samsung have customer. Actually I take that back. He's another stock boy. in the background I think
9? I'm 30 now mate, you work it out. The LG Prada doesn't count because it wasn't a remotely similar product. It wasn't multi-touch, it wasn't capitative. It was completely different technology - whats more it awful, and yes I used it a girlfriend at the time had it. Terrible, terrible phone, like the Samsungs which followed with similar limited "touch".
There was no multi touch devices prior, there were no swipe commands, there was no software remotely similar, there was no accelerometer, there was no full glass touch screen. Afterwards ALL these things are standard in smartphone. And if you're on about something like the Nokia N95 doing more "stuff" well, yes, in a way it did, but then a 20010 desktop computer running Windows did more "stuff" than the first iPad and they were about as comparable in form factor too. The only thing that made the Nokia N95 similar to an iPhone was the phone app...
I can see who the moron is here.
LG Prada had a capacitive screen.
Accelerometer were already used by Sony-Ericson and Nokia
LG Prada had a full glass touch screen.
Swipe command were used by HTC in WM 6.5 with an stylus in their gallery app
Cute.
Only - you realize that Samsung employees are in blue because that's their corporate color, right? Their logo is blue. What color should they wear to maintain corporate identity? I guess we know your marketing savvy.
One is an Apple store and another is a picture taken at (I believe) a Best Buy. Since pictures only capture one moment in time - isn't possible these two pictures don't represent how busy each one is overall? Is it possible one was taken during setup in the morning and the other well into the afternoon.
I'm not going to argue that Apple stores are incredibly busy - they are. But you're reaching here just to be cute.
Capacitive, yes, I was wrong. Multi-touch no. Usable? Barely? Comparable, not really. Ever used one, because I did? The lag was immense. It was very similar to the horrendous touch tech Samsung used afterwards. Touch sure - but like comparing the first colour TV's to a 1080p model today. They both do colour, and thats about it.
The thing you're failing to accept is that none of these phones were remotely similar to an iPhone and after it everything was. Everyone was amazed by the iPhone during Jobs demo. But if you don't think so, and you think it was all already out there, then thats up to you.
Yes - people were amazed. That didn't equate to sales at the start though. That was an uphill climb at first.
White for example. Their logotype is blue with white text on a white background usually.
It's obvious to most people who are not in denial that they do borrow heavily from other companies, look at the recent Dyson law suit for another example.
White shows dirt much faster. And white is the absence of color in the logo. Those who want to find fault will find fault. We see what we want to see, right?
If you want to argue about vacuums and phones that's one thing - if you have evidence to support your argument.
But commenting on a shirt color when there's a perfectly legitimate reason why the company would use that color is pretty silly.
If Apple used green as their color and then Samsung used a similar green - there would be a point to be made. They aren't doing that. They are using one (the only real) corporate color.