Apple Renews Motion Calling for U.S. Ban on Samsung Products

[Renzatic]

Evidently you were't around or haven't seen pictures of the phones that were available before the iPhone came out? The samsung phones look more like the iPhone than other phones, if you want to believe in fairy tales thats fine, I have a slightly used bridge that I'd like to sell you,.

Yeah, the first two Galaxy phones did look a lot like the iPhone, but they both came out nearly 3-4 year afterwards. If they had internal access to both the software and the hardware, you'd think they'd have been able to release a knock-off device in a more timely manner.

 

[fourthtunz]

Henry's got me on ignore for being an Apple Hater, but for the sake of correctness, I'm gonna go on record by stating he's not entirely right. Xerox itself didn't see much of a future in computers, let alone GUIs, but PARC did, and was able to convince them to release the Star, which sold for...well, not great, it started at $10,000 USD back in '81, but it was on the market.

Apple licensed the rights to the GUI from Xerox around that same time, and expanded upon it, eventually releasing two products, the Lisa, which was a flop for the very same reason the Star was, and the Macintosh, which sold fairly well it's first year, but tapered off after that. The first truly commercially successful GUI based system was actually the Amiga 500, which pretty much blew everyone away back when it came out, and sold a ton for its time.

And yeah, Apple did come up with some interesting GUI concepts that weren't covered by the Star, though not as much as some people tend to believe around here. Their biggest contribution to the GUI was drag 'n drop, the universal menu, and the trash can. Impressive stuff, but they hardly deserve credit for graphical user interfaces because of it.

And yeah, the Star did have overlapping windows before the Mac.

----------



I wanted to. Hell, I tried to. But I was so damn hungry, man. And they knew it!

Apple covered themselves even though they could have pulled a Samsung
as their resulting gui was far enough from xerox that the could have probably gotten away with it. The first window os was a bad copy and they still had to pay money to apple for it.
I had a toaster on an Amiga 2000 and it was a fine machine but the Mac was a better machine in the end, though those Amigas were ahead of their time.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple covered themselves even though they could have pulled a Samsung
as their resulting gui was far enough from xerox that the could have probably gotten away with it. The first window os was a bad copy and they still had to pay money to apple for it.
I had a toaster on an Amiga 2000 and it was a fine machine but the Mac was a better machine in the end, though those Amigas were ahead of their time.

I'd say they have more similarities...

Than they do differences...

Also, Macs and PCs both kinda sucked during the heyday of the Amigas. If there were any justice in the world, we'd still be using them to this day.

 

[fourthtunz]

Yeah, the first two Galaxy phones did look a lot like the iPhone, but they both came out nearly 3-4 year afterwards. If they had internal access to both the software and the hardware, you'd think they'd have been able to release a knock-off device in a more timely manner.

How can we know here in the blogosphere what exactly they were privy to?
If apple did this I'd being saying the same thing about †hem.
I bought the original iPhone in 2007 and there was nothing on the market like it.
As lord vic says Samsung is in many other markets, and they are being sued in some of those as well.

----------

I'd say they have more similarities...

Than they do differences...

Also, Macs and PCs both kinda sucked during the heyday of the Amigas. If there were any justice in the world, we'd still be using them to this day.

Amazing that the worst OS won out!
And all from a copy of dos and mac OS,
cheat, cheat, always beat!

 

[Renzatic]

How can we know here in the blogosphere what exactly they were privy to?
If apple did this I'd being saying the same thing about †hem.
I bought the original iPhone in 2007 and there was nothing on the market like it.
As lord vic says Samsung is in many other markets, and they are being sued in some of those as well.

Ask yourself this: why would Apple, one of the most secretive companies in the tech industry, hand a prototype of their OS to a large company that doesn't have a need for it? All Samsung were responsible for were building SoCs to order for them. They wouldn't have anything to copy from them, save for the processor, which wasn't that far out of the ordinary back then.

Plus Samsung had their own OS line to build on top of. Why'd they wait for Android to prove itself a potential success before making their iPhone knock-off 3 years later if they knew EXACTLY what Apple was doing long before then.

Yeah, Samsung had their big book of pictures of iOS, showing what it did, and diagramming how they could improve upon their own OS. But...

A: it was built using what was then a publicly available piece of hardware.

and...

B: using the competiton's products as an example of where to improve your own isn't illegal, so long as you don't copy it directly. In much the same way Apple was inspired by Xerox, and based their own designs upon their work, so Samsung was of Apple. Yeah, Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement, but not over the entire work, just a few bits and pieces that aren't necessary for the greater whole (screen bounce, double-tap to zoom, and single-finger multi-finger differentiation, all low level software patents).

Oh, and probably trade dress with the first two Galaxy phones. It's hard to deny they didn't take a page from Apple's book.

Amazing that the worst OS won out!
And all from a copy of dos and mac OS,
cheat, cheat, always beat!

How could you accuse MS of stealing the GUI from Apple, when Apple didn't even invent it to begin with?

 

[fourthtunz]

Ask yourself this: why would Apple, one of the most secretive companies in the tech industry, hand a prototype of their OS to a large company that doesn't have a need for it? All Samsung were responsible for were building SoCs to order for them. They wouldn't have anything to copy from them, save for the processor, which wasn't that far out of the ordinary back then.

Plus Samsung had their own OS line to build on top of. Why'd they wait for Android to prove itself a potential success before making their iPhone knock-off 3 years later if they knew EXACTLY what Apple was doing long before then.

Yeah, Samsung had their big book of pictures of iOS, showing what it did, and diagramming how they could improve upon their own OS. But...

A: it was built using what was then a publicly available piece of hardware.

and...

B: using the competiton's products as an example of where to improve your own isn't illegal, so long as you don't copy it directly. In much the same way Apple was inspired by Xerox, and based their own designs upon their work, so Samsung was of Apple. Yeah, Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement, but not over the entire work, just a few bits and pieces that aren't necessary for the greater whole (screen bounce, double-tap to zoom, and single-finger multi-finger differentiation, all low level software patents).

Oh, and probably trade dress with the first two Galaxy phones. It's hard to deny they didn't take a page from Apple's book.

I'm not sure what they gave samsung, but I know what they had before the iPhone and it was crap. you do the math.
Apple is winning in court and I think they should be, us agreeing or not will not change the outcome.
Cheers!

 

[Renzatic]

I'm not sure what they gave samsung, but I know what they had before the iPhone and it was crap. you do the math.
Apple is winning in court and I think they should be, us agreeing or not will not change the outcome.
Cheers!

They've won a trade dress dispute, and 3 or 4 low level patents that were easily worked around. If the whole issue of iOS versus everything else that has to do with touch is a war, then that guilty verdict against Samsung was a skirmish they won, but they're far from being able to claim a total victory.

 

[titanz91]

Funny how you don't even verify history before making nonsense replies. Apple did not copy Xerox. They invited Apple and Steve Jobs to their R&D lab and showed him the concept of a mouse with point and click icons. Xerox made it very clear that they had no idea what to do with this concept nor were they trying to go to market with it. Steve talked Xerox into letting him and Apple have the concept and develop something from it.

Next time, please do your homework.

What I said was accurate and you've said nothing to prove a point. My point being, that it was NOT Apple's idea, and even though they were invited, they copied someone elses idea. Sure, they took it in a wonderful direction, but my point still stands valid, in that, Apple still copied Xerox, permission, acquisition or not. Nice attitude by the way.

----------

Stop the hate, you're starting to look foolish. Getting permission from a company to use their idea is not copying. For goodness sake. Sheesh.

How is it not? If you gave me permission to copy a test you did, for example, if I copied your work and just added some of my own bits and pieces, would I not have copied you still even though I got your permission?

 

[Jiten]

Surprises me how people choose to spend their time. I can't think of a more waste of time than working for either company's law team in this case.

Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the legal teams of both companies are handsomely compensated for their services.

 

[Lancer]

There is less incentive to spend time, effort and money on making better products if such innovations are not protected from copying.

I get that but right now only the lawyers are coming out on top.

 

[Septembersrain]

All this back and forth nonsense. I own both a Samsung Note III and an Apple iPhone 5c.

I think both companies, all companies actually, infringe on patents. Be that intentional or unintentional, it's not always black and white. The patent system it's very flawed to say the least. It used to be about protecting the little man and his idea. Now it's turned into a source of income for a monolith company.

I'm not bashing either side but I don't think Apple is going to completely win this. Even if they win in court, they'll just make Samsung look like a martyr. Look at the sales numbers for Samsung, it's like this whole thing has become a marketing strategy. They need to work together, get this resolved without involving everyone, and move forward. =)

Edit: Xerox did indeed sue Apple...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.

 

[s2mikey]

Please. Apple and every other tech company has been borrowing ideas and designs from one another since day one. This isn't new. How many different ways can a phone be designed anyways? Eventually they have to look similar because it's a phone and you can only make it look so different.

Apple needs to chill and make their products better and the they have nothing to worry about. Geesh.

 

[kdarling]

I can't think of one piece of apple tech that someone did before them. And I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about finished product where everyone else is standing there with their mouths open iPod, iPhone, iPad etc

I don't think there's anything wrong with concepts. Concepts are the inspiration for many later products.

For example, take the iPhone. It wasn't Apple's first finger friendly internal concept; a tablet was. Yet even if the tablet had never come out, the iPhone would've still been a good product, and the tablet still a good concept.

-

Nor do I think that something has to be wildly successful to have been a good idea, or to count as "first".

For example, one of the first finger friendly easy-to-use tablet designs was the 2000 Norwegian Freepad.



Like the iPad sold a decade later, its UI was created specifically to be touch friendly, and apps designed so that they would be "so easy to use, that your grandmother can use it."

Sound familiar? Its specs read just like an iPad would've back then... including having a dedicated app store.

The Freepad was even used in one of the first large scale USA textbook-on-tablet school tests back in 2003. (USAToday - 5.15.2003)

It just came out too soon, before widespread broadband and cheaper parts were available. It was before the market was ripe. Plus it didn't come from a well known company. It's another example of how commercial success often depends more on timing and marketing, than on the concept itself.

 

[HenryDJP]

What I said was accurate and you've said nothing to prove a point. My point being, that it was NOT Apple's idea, and even though they were invited, they copied someone elses idea. Sure, they took it in a wonderful direction, but my point still stands valid, in that, Apple still copied Xerox, permission, acquisition or not. Nice attitude by the way.

----------



How is it not? If you gave me permission to copy a test you did, for example, if I copied your work and just added some of my own bits and pieces, would I not have copied you still even though I got your permission?

You don't begin to get it do you? And don't waste your time replying, just stop while you're not ahead. I've viewed most everyone's reply to your ridiculous post and they are trying to straighten out your convoluted way of thinking and completely distorted version of reality as well. And talk about an attitude... Oy vey.

 

[kdarling]

Look at the Samsung phones before apple gave them the prototype.

What prototype?

Are you confusing Samsung and Foxconn? Chip suppliers have no need to know what the chips are going to be used in.

Apple bought CPUs and memory chips from Samsung. Samsung wouldn't have had any need for access to any prototypes, especially the outside case shape or UI design.

It was Foxconn that assembled the iPhone from parts made from many other sources. They would've made the prototypes.

--

As for "before and after" the iPhone debut, Samsung was already deep into touchscreen designs by 2006, and had even released an all touch phone (the Merit) in Korea that summer.



They were also working on a finger friendly UI codenamed "Ireen":



It's interesting to wonder how the Koh jury might've decided differently, if they had had been allowed access to such evidence. We already know that an appeals court that did have access to the evidence left out of the trial, agreed with Judge Koh that Apple had no right to an injunction over design.

Sumsung did not just copy a rectangular touchscreen

I think Samsung did deserve a fine for some of their phones coming a bit too close at first to the iPhone 3G "look".

And it wasn't even necessary. As Samsung later proved, they had no need to get so close, to be successful. In fact, it seems that the more they've differentiated themselves from Apple, the better they've done.

 

[melendezest]

So if someone steals your S4 and sells it to me it is ok. It wouldn't affect me directly so I should just move along.

I didn't say it's OK. I even pointed out that Apple is right for defending it's IPs.

My point is, as a consumer, this doesn't affect me (yet). While Samsung (allegedly) stole something from Apple, they provide something to consumers that Apple chooses not to.

And, as I neither work for Apple nor Samsung, and I'm not a judge nor juror in this case, I can just "move along" until something happens that actually impacts me directly.

 

[xgman]

I am so sick of Apple spending time on this. Apple, stop trying to be a corporate bully and come up with something new and exciting instead.

 

[nStyle]

Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the legal teams of both companies are handsomely compensated for their services.

Time = money. Waste of time AND money! I am referring to either team's management, not so much the individual employees.

 

[Renzatic]

My point is, as a consumer, this doesn't affect me (yet). While Samsung (allegedly) stole something from Apple...

This is a mistake a lot of people make around here. Patent infringement isn't theft. It's simply patent infringement.

And the fact is, about 98.65% of all infringement cases are accidental. This is especially true when it comes to software, where all kinds of nebulous things have been granted patents over the years. Even all the people here who hate Samsung with a seething passion can't claim they knowingly lifted Apple's IP, because Koh and co. found they didn't willfully infringe.

 

[melendezest]

This is a mistake a lot of people make around here. Patent infringement isn't theft. It's simply patent infringement.

And the fact is, about 98.65% of all infringement cases are accidental. This is especially true when it comes to software, where all kinds of nebulous things have been granted patents over the years. Even all the people here who hate Samsung with a seething passion can't claim they knowingly lifted Apple's IP, because Koh and co. found they didn't willfully infringe.

Agreed. That's why I said allegedly stole. Because many here believe that to be the case.

To me, whether or not Samsung stole from Apple, or Apple from Android, etc, is irrelevant. The courts and lawyers are involved, so I'll let them decide what's what.

 

[Renzatic]

Agreed. That's why I said allegedly stole. Because many here believe that to be the case.

To me, whether or not Samsung stole from Apple, or Apple from Android, etc, is irrelevant. The courts and lawyers are involved, so I'll let them decide what's what.

Well the point I'm trying to get at is that "stole" is the wrong word to use here. You can't steal intellectual property, just use it without permission. From a legal perspective, it's more like trespassing than it is theft.

Though one thing you are right about is that it none of the court verdicts matter much for us in the end. Yeah, Samsung was found guilty of infringing upon 3 or 4 of Apple's patents, and had to pay upwards of a billion dollars for their mistake. But none of those patents are essential technologies that their entire platform is built upon. They're convenience features, and can be changed fairly easily after the fact. In the end, all it cost Samsung were some short term losses and a few minor inconveniences. Nothing long term.

 

[GoodWatch]

Isn't apple one of Samsungs biggest customers?

----------



What about apple being one of Samsungs biggest customers?

I fail to see your point, but that's me I suppose. And an easy way to dodge the question, don't you think? Apple = GOOD, Samsung = Evil Empire

 

[Dave.UK]

You have missed a few things, and have a few inaccurate.
MacOS = Xerox (they got permission first, and later compensated Xerox for it, and on top of that they didn't reverse engineer it, they took the basic concepts and Apple invented the architecture that is now used by most modern computers)
Android = Google bought it (2005, tweaked it, released 2007)
Android = Samsung copies it (for free) from google
TouchWiz = Samsung original product, layered onto Android

That just goes to show how little you know about android!

 

[apolloa]

Sigh, this has NOTHING to do with copying, it's simply Apple trying to cease the moment, again, and twist US law and courts to ban a competitors products simply so it can increase it's market share and sales. Nothing more, it's most likely a far cheaper way to innovate then to actually make something innovative.

So yeah, when people say Apple doesn't innovate anymore, this is why, if they bothered to turn attention to ALL of it's products like the new Mac Pro then it would beat Samsung anyway.
As it is, the iPhone is screwed as anything it does now has now already been done, that's what they get for keeping the same small screen for years and years.

----------

That just goes to show how little you know about android!

yeah... hmmm... I'm pretty sure the hard work done by the good folk at Google has been completely ripped off by the hard copying done by the lazy folk at Apple.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Also, Macs and PCs both kinda sucked during the heyday of the Amigas. If there were any justice in the world, we'd still be using them to this day.

I used to think that way too, but the Amiga was designed by people that did not control it when Commodore bought it (i.e. Jay Miner and company) and Commodore were just plain inept. For example, the Amiga (later called the 1000) in 1985 was ahead of PCs and Mac s for graphics, but by the time AGA came out with the Amiga 1200 and 4000, PCs had VGA graphics for several years (since 1987 which is when the Amiga 500 that sold so well just came out and it had a whopping 32-color graphics save for HAM mode which was only good for pictures and not very high resolution at that. Now admittedly, VGA didn't take root overnight, but still the pieces were coming together and AGA didn't sell too many units at first either and so very few games supported 256 color mode on the Amiga right away and the next thing you know Commodore is out of business. Until the Amiga 3000 came out (1990) that included a built-in de-interlacer, just using 640x480 (in up to 16 colors) meant looking at the notorious NTSC interlace "flicker" which frankly looked god-awful in something like a terminal program. AGA was too little, too late.

If they had introduced AGA in 1990 with the A3000 and updated the A500 at the same time, maybe that would have slowed the bleed off, but I still think Commodore was simply too inept at marketing, etc. for the Amiga to have had a real chance. They found it easier to sell the C64, it seems which practically sold itself in the days of PC monochrome, Intellivision and Coleco consoles. Besides, keeping those custom chipsets up to par in the long run would have proved difficult at best, at least not without massive markets to support the chip development and they would still have to have competed with other companies that specialize in one thing like audio cards or video cards.

The other problem with the Amiga was the GUI. Yeah, it was OK for starting some programs (most games used to boot off 3.5" floppies, though and that was the real key to easy gaming on the Amiga; hard drives were uncommon for gaming folk since the A500 never came with one), but let's face it, the Amiga had a LOT more power in the CLI/SHELL interface and extra programs like Diskmaster II made moving files around a LOT easier (kind of like XtraFinder for the Mac today with dual-panes). Commodore never really got the primary icon GUI up to Mac standards, IMO and people HATED the CLI/Shell, which was too much like using MS-Dos (really more like UNIX in practice). Even today, how many use the CLI terminal in OSX? I do, but I'm a computer nerd compared to most and learned it in Unix/Linux.

Basically, what I'm getting at is the Amiga would have had to evolve a LOT faster on both the hardware and OS level to keep pace and still remain economically viable. That's a pretty tall order. The Mac almost didn't make it either in the 1990s (when Commodore kicked the can) because a better computer and GUI don't mean squat if the price is a LOT less and sadly that's STILL true today. Look at how many use malware-ridden PCs for no other reason than power-to-cost ratios and more software availability (the latter of which is a result of most using the platform, though and thus self-perpetuates). Apple has always kept Macs priced higher than the equivalent hardware for Windows and some people simply won't pay it even if the experience is better and there's less hacking and malware.