I can see why Apple would get mad over those Tab cases. They look identical to the iPad 2's Smart Cover! Or is that just me?
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 Now Suing Samsung over Tablet and Phone Case Designs [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree on that point. Back in 2007 Walt Mossberg did an interview with Steve Jobs. He said when he finally came back to Apple that they thought the only way Apple could succeed was if Microsoft failed. But Steve told them don't worry about beating Microsoft but concentrate on what Apple is doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scf6dV4FSf8&feature=fvwrel
So I think they are not trying to use this to beat their competition as much as protecting their own idea's and intellectual property.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41F) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)
Your theory conflicts with this quote.
I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apples $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong Im going to destroy Android, because its a stolen product. Im willing to go thermonuclear war on this
Sounds like Jobs was going to be relentless when it comes to Android.
linuxcooldude said:
Your theory conflicts with this quote.
I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apples $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong Im going to destroy Android, because its a stolen product. Im willing to go thermonuclear war on this
Sounds like Jobs was going to be relentless when it comes to Android.
which coincides with my quote:
So I think they are not trying to use this to beat their competition as much as protecting their own idea's and intellectual property.
Also probably had to do with the fact Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the board of Apple at one time, then surprise-surprise Android was released.
Last edited:
That's not at all how it happened though. Google bought Android, founded by Andy Rubin, which was a secretive mobile software company. The hype in 2005 when this purchased was made was that Google was going to be going into the phone business.
Andy's previous work was at Danger Inc. where he made the Hip Top software that powered the T-mobile Sidekick around 2001 ish :
(that frankly looks like an HTC Dream each time I see it).
In 2003, Rubin went own to found Android Inc and start a new project.
Flash forward to 2006, Apple invites Eric Schmidt (this is important, Apple are the ones that invited Schmidt, not the other way around) on their boards, full well knowing about the Android purchase and Google's plans, which have been hyped in the tech press.
So frankly, this "Eric was on the board and released Android after spying on Apple bit!" is all pure fantasy on part of some forum goers.
Till Steve found the pinch to zoom capability from the iPhone incorporated into Erics own android OS prompted Steve to hide the iPad from Schmidt. Which luckily he did or else the gPad could of been the outcome of that.
I can't imagine taking a bath in that. I've got bigger cereal bowls.
What do you mean that's my problem?
It would be nice if these cases could be settled once and for all, but I won't hold my breath.
Really? Pinch to zoom was shown on an HTC phone at early 2.010 and Schmidt resigned Apple board on August 2.009.
And pinch to zoom was not an Apple invention, it was shown prior to the iPhone release in other phones
Still with this Schimdt stole from Apple?
Jobs NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing nothing and Jobs NEVER accused Schmidt of using his position to help Android development
Apparently Steve saw one being used when at Google offices at an earlier date before it was eventually released for Android.
Not sure of any other pinch to zooms, but considering the iPhone was one of the first to have the capacitive touch screen, don't see how the pinch to zoom would at all work effectively on any other type of screen.
Jobs got angry IN 2.010, after the release of the HTC Smartphone and AFTER Schmidt resignation
You don't seeing it working effectively doesn't make it less real before the iPhone release. Pinch to zoom was an old idea in 2.007
'Painters don't create; paint companies do'
'Musicians don't create; instrument makers do'
Your logic.
In summary, without creative design, layout and aspirations from Apple and other companies like them, Samsungs 'innovations', which are more linear transitions of Moore's law, would be worthless.
No, that's not his logic.
his logic is that Apple and Samsung are musicians or painters
Completely wrong logic.
And I love that you used instruments makers as an example of something not being innovative or having creative design. I guess you consider craftsmen in all varieties not creative and/or innovative. That's unfortunate that you can see how wrong that is.
Actually, there's a pretty easy trick to doing pinch zoom on even single-touch screens, as long as the user holds one finger steady while the other moves. But that's a different topic.
As far as capacitive screens go, I was developing on them in 1991 on desktop sized monitors, but they did come later for handhelds. Synaptics, famous for their laptop trackpads, was heavily demoing their version in 2006 with the Onyx prototype phone (YouTube video here).
The first handheld device that was publicly announced with multi-touch and pinch zoom was this Linux based smartphone, November 2006.
Of course, since it wasn't from any big name company like Apple, few outside the industry paid any attention. Also, since it was kind of a developer prototype, it took a year before it actually came out, I think, and at first to lower costs didn't have multi-touch.
Anyway, there are some who think that Apple immediately copied the pinch gesture that was shown in its PR info. I don't think so, because as we keep saying, everyone was moving forward at that time with such R&D... and pinch was a known gesture as far back as 1993.
Apple has IP on pinch and zoom now ?
And what is Honeycomb if not the "gPad" as you put it ? Frankly, you're living in quite the fantasy world I'm sorry to say, that's not at all how it went down.
----------
Samcraig, how dare you say instrument makers are creative ! Guitars are bland and all alike, none of them are recognized by their brand and model at all. Forget the Fender Stratocaster, the Gibson Les Paul and other such iconic designs, they are nothing!
No sir.
Just like Samsung doesn't innovate. PVA ? Pfffft, linear progression from TN panels to IPS to Samsung's PVA. Same for SAMOLED screens. Samsung is not an innovator, only a component manufacturer, just like Gibson and Fender aren't creative at all, they make bland guitars that all look a like.
Umm... no thats not my logic. Nice try though... really!
My logic is more like this... Lotus claims they have the best technology and best engines in their cars; however those engines are made by Yamaha/Toyota. So Lotus doesn't technically have the best engines... they source the best engines and slap on a Lotus Emblem. Yamaha did the design, Toyota built it (2ZZGE same engine in the Celica GTS, Matrix XRS, etc.), shipped it to Lotus, and Lotus assembled the car. Same as Apple does with Samsung parts.
Hey, let's all attack the (misinformed) example and ignore the point!
This statement is a perfectly reasonable theory. At least as reasonable as the one posted by samcraig that he replied to.
This statement is a perfectly reasonable theory. At least as reasonable as the one posted by samcraig that he replied to.
Hey, let's all attack the (misinformed) example and ignore the point!
This statement is a perfectly reasonable theory. At least as reasonable as the one posted by samcraig that he replied to.
I honestly think it's both. There's definitely a need to protect one's IP - but at the same time a lot of these suits aren't over IP that really (in my opinion) matters much. So Apple throws a ton of patents into the mix to get injunctions/stall competition (especially during the holiday season) to try and minimize sales.
Smart strategy if not somewhat transparent.
Which is absurd, since Samsung don't produce anything for an overall design that could be considered innovation. Some of the components Apple uses in its products come from Samsung (RAM, CPU etc, the CPU of which is not designed by Samsung anyway, but is simply manufactured by them); that is the extent of their involvement. Apple makes the decision of how best to utilise these components, innovating in terms of heat dispersion design, aesthetics etc. Samsung does not, and its completed products are quite obviously derivative of Apple's designs; they do not innovate.
Furthermore, that is not what his comment implied. His comment implied that Samsung innovate by supplying the parts, which are standardised throughout the industry, that Apple uses in its designs/products.
----------
Completely wrong logic? Do you know what logic is?
btw, I consider craftsmen to be innovators and creative (when they develop a new design). Samsung, in relation to Apple, would be the equivalent of the wood cutters/metal smelters. My logic is sound, and not wrong just because you say it is. If it's wrong, explain it.
Yes, you're absolutely right, there is no innovation in semi-conductors and electronic parts. IPS panels, PVA panels, OLED, NAND Flash, they've always existed in nature and Samsung and other semi-conductor farms just grow them on trees.
Apple is able to make innovative products because the semi-conductor industry innovates new parts, new techniques to make parts more efficient/smaller and new technologies all together.
Get a grip.
----------
Completely wrong logic. Samsung is Gibson's to Apple's Les Paul.
Again, your logic is flawed for it's based off a false premise; that is, Apple doesn't design any of the components. The only things Apple doesn't have input in on the design are the RAM DIMMs and other small STANDARDISED components. If Apple were in Lotus' place, it would be Lotus designing the engine specifically for the car. Yamaha would be the equivalent of ARM, and Toyota the equivalent of Samsung.
Is it just me, or do most of the illogical creationist-types come out when a thread has almost petered out, so the majority of rational people simply skip? It seems that way.
----------
I'm a software developer and physicist, Mr flat Earther.
Logic is the reasoning conducted based on valid and substantiated premises; the arguments I am refuting are based on flawed premises, much like your genetic integrity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, you're absolutely right, there is no innovation in semi-conductors and electronic parts. IPS panels, PVA panels, OLED, NAND Flash, they've always existed in nature and Samsung and other semi-conductor farms just grow them on trees.
Apple is able to make innovative products because the semi-conductor industry innovates new parts, new techniques to make parts more efficient/smaller and new technologies all together.
Get a grip.
----------
Completely wrong logic. Samsung is Gibson's to Apple's Les Paul.
Nice straw man; misconstrue my statement in the extreme, and criticise it. Bravo, sir; you are worthy of a Republican. The main companies that innovate in semi-conductor technology are Intel, AMD, TSMC and ARM; Samsung, in that area, are a very small player and thus to not release anything truly of note.
New techniques to make parts smaller? It's a linear progression in die shrinks, you derp; have you heard of Moore's law? It's as much a linear progression in that industry as moving from primary to high school (if you knew anything of what's involved in that industry, which clearly you don't). We're a few more die shrinks away from advances halting in the semiconductor industry, due to quantum fluctuations occurring within the circuits.
Out of those companies, I'd probably put AMD and ARM at the head of innovation in actual architecture, in making their GPU/CPU integration more complete.
In IPS panels and OLED displays, I'm not as well versed on these as I am the semiconductor industry; if however, your knowledge on them is like your knowledge of the semiconductor industry, then I don't put much stock in your words.