Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Targets Samsung With New Lawsuit Over 'Galaxy' Line

theelysium said:
My original post had a hyper link. You are blind. Taking a former disgruntle employee's word is like taking info from an anti-fanboy. You know that. I am not digging any hole. There is nothing to dig. I am correct and you are grasping at straws. Mackido also shows flaws about Apple, therefor it's not that bias.

You just want to be contrary and be all anti Apple. Well good for you. Yes, I would put a footer of Wikipedia, you're so trying to find something cool to slam me with. At least you are putting forth some effort.
Click to expand...

I just can't let your assumptions slide. Now you're resorting to calling me a 'anti-apple,' when I am a proud owner of many iDevices.

Based on your comments above it seems like you're stuck in a bind. You dug yourself in a hole by claiming that Xerox and Apple were all chummy when they were not, as a LAWSUIT was filed against Apple by Xerox back in the late 80s. Are you STILL standing by your statement that Xerox had no issues with Apple? Even when the then CEO of Apple admitted that a lot of their 'innovations' didn't come from within the confines of Apple's office, but at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto? I gave a very simple claim, your hubris is what keeps you emphatically denying of what are facts.

TLDR; Xerox had issues with Apple 'infringing' upon Xerox PARC's IP, and filed a lawsuit. Things were not rosy between Apple and Xerox at the time. theelysium denies a lawsuit was ever filed based on his posts.
 
When you are the premium brand (or perceived to be the premium brand for all your android fans who are going to flame on this) you need to protect that. Incredibly hard to build up a reputation like that. The apple logo on the back and build quality is part of that but so is the look and feel.

If samsung builds an iphone clone and starts doing buy one get one free and then offers it on a pay as you go network after time that would erode the iphone brand. Of course apple needs to protect that.
 
pkson said:
Wikipedia is wrong on that.
The LG Prada (which really looks nothing like an iPhone, seriously) is resistive. You can ask any LG Prada phone user. (Oh, right, they're gone now.)
Click to expand...

That's just BS. Read LG Prada Review on GSM Arena: "The Capacitive Touch Screen Technology utilized in the creation of the LG Prada touchscreen display makes use of a glass panel with a capacitive (charge storing) material coating. When you touch the display the change in frequency allows the circuits situated in the corners to calculate the coordinates of your touch and thus the controller "knows" exactly what item you've touched on the screen."
 
pkson said:
Wikipedia is wrong on that.
The LG Prada (which really looks nothing like an iPhone, seriously) is resistive. You can ask any LG Prada phone user. (Oh, right, they're gone now.)
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment, but I have seen several reviews claiming the Prada was capacitive. It is not relevant in anyway, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the Prada. If LG has an applicable patent, they should sue Apple and Samsung :)
 
Spoony said:
When you are the premium brand (or perceived to be the premium brand for all your android fans who are going to flame on this) you need to protect that. Incredibly hard to build up a reputation like that. The apple logo on the back and build quality is part of that but so is the look and feel.

If samsung builds an iphone clone and starts doing buy one get one free and then offers it on a pay as you go network after time that would erode the iphone brand. Of course apple needs to protect that.
Click to expand...

Isn't buy one get one free more at the discretion of the carriers than Samsung?
 
paradox00 said:
Samsung blatantly ripped off virtually every design element of the iPhone, which the iPhone did not do with the Prada. Here are some examples:

#1 Size of the grid - both 4 x 4 (Prada was 2 x 3)
#2 Shape of the icons - both square (Prada was circle, win/mac/palm are app dependent)
#3 Placement of the dock - both bottom (obvious, but still copied... Prada was on the side)
#4 Size of the icons in the dock - both the same as the icons in the grid (Prada had smaller icons)
#5 Page indicators - both use dots (As far as I know the Prada had no such thing)
Click to expand...

Did you stop and think about some of the stuff you just posted? You actually believe the number of icons in a grid should be protected? No one else can use a 4x4 grid because apple uses it?

Or (lol) size of icons should be protected too? Really? :eek:
 
Wth?

This is stupid. Apple should be confident that other tablet and touch devices "developed" and released, can't hold a candle and are simply copycats.
I personally think that if other developers didn't chase after Apple's pie, it could cause them to half-ass their innovations.

:apple: let it go.

luv you...:cool:
 
SandynJosh said:
Well first Apple's and Samsung's lawyers have to do the prenuptial mating dance before suits can be filed. This is done to show that Apple tried to resolve things with Samsung before resorting to taking it to court. This also guarantees an additional percentage of legal costs paid to both sets of lawyers.

If Apple were to sue anyone than Samsung makes the most sense as they have insider knowledge of Apple's performance goals, budgets and designs.

While obviously Samsung had signed NDAs it will be very difficult to prove that their Galaxy engineers created the Samsung Galaxy in a sterile environment, especially since the Galaxy ended up looking like the iPad in many ways.

It's easy today to say that Apple's design is the "obvious" way for a tablet to look, you just need to go back to the designs proposed at CES in January 2010 to see what seemed obvious before the world got to see the iPad.

What Samsung is doing here is taking advantage of all the design costs that preceded the current state of the components Samsung is providing to Apple and launching their Galaxy without incurring those costs to develop unique components for their own end products.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to give you props for explaining things so nicely for people.

If I may add some inside info.. Before Samsung had ANY proper "competing" products as they do now, they went and bought a bunch of iDevices for their R&D offices. Before ANY Apple iDevice was exposed to the Korean population (which is their lifeline) they tried making touch screen phones, all with a button or two below the screen, but nothing came close. Only when the iPod Touch was released in Korea, and then years later, the iPhone 3GS, did they release the Galaxy motif.

As much as some might try to see this in a unbiased/objective view (which is noble), the truth of the matter is, that's what Samsung did.
 
Phil A. said:
I'm surprised it's taken this long, to be honest: I've thought for a long time that Samsung's phones in particular are pretty much a blatant rip-off of Apple's industrial design and user interface.
HTC have shown that they can produce an innovative and different interface with their Sense UI, but Samsung seem to just want to rip-off Apples look and feel
Click to expand...

x2 Apple has to protect their designs from all copiers no matter how poor their sales. If they allow one company to copy, I believe they implicitly allow anyone to copy. Samsung's copies are blatant rip-offs and they need to be called on it.
 
Not true at all!

The iphone was not officially out but all the pictures and specs were already leaked out on the internet at that time. So, Prada was just an early copy version of the prototyped iphone.

rjohnstone said:
There was at least one phone that "looked" like an iPhone before anyone new what the iPhone looked like.
Does the Prada ring a bell? Probably not to most of you, but it was first to market with that basic "look".
As for the UI, old WinMo phones had grids of icons on the desktop, so again, not a unique "look".
Next one will be arguing about the spacing or the number of icons per row. Nit picking I say.

The iPad is not "innovative" in it's looks or design either. It's minimalism at it's best. So simplistic that it will be tough to defend in court. It is a logical basic design for a tablet.
As for how it functions, it's technically the iPhone with a larger screen. So the argument of functionality fails as many devices functioned similarly prior to the release of the iPad. Screen size is irrelevant.

Now I do believe with the icons Samsung chose to use combined with the layout, one could logically argue that Samsung was copying the overall UI from iOS. I believe that is where Apple's case is with the phones.
Easy for Samsung to remedy. Ditch the TouchWiz UI... it sucks anyway.

Still failing to see the argument on the Galaxy tabs though... Honeycomb looks nothing like iOS ad Samsung hasn't uglied them up with the old TouchWiz UI overlay.
Click to expand...
 
2 points :

1- Everyone who said "You lose patents if you don't defend them", please get up, walk to the blackboard, and write the following sentence 100 times :

"I was thinking of Trademarks when I claimed you could lose your patents for not defending them. You do not lose patents for not defending them, you only lose one portion of the damages for sitting on them for too long. You can lose patents if someone displays prior art (basically, that your patent implements something that already exists) or if a court rules it invalid".

QuarterSwede, polaris20, get up to that blackboard now!

2- Apple already lost the "look and feel" case in the 80s/90s. If they are bringing suit against Samsung, it certainly can't be just for look and feel. Do we have a list of patents they are suing over if this is indeed a patent lawsuit ?

Also, the TouchWiz UI Application drawer might look like the iPhone Home screen, but the TouchWiz UI homescreen does not. Anyway, what kind of a look and feel leg does Apple stand on when they copied a icon grid UI that was implemented 50,000 times before the iPhone ?

My 2003 Sony Ericsson T610, complete with Symbian and J2ME stack, SDK, phone emulator, apps and App store (on Rogers) is seriously doing :rolleyes: at Apple for this :

Sony-Ericsson-T610-Virgin-Pay-As-You-Go-0.jpg
 
There was a company that sued Apple a couple of weeks ago over some IP infringement. That suit was wrong, wrong, wrong to a lot of people. If I felt I had the time, I would just dig that thread up and start copying the comments from it and compare and contrast it with what those people think about Apple suing.

But I don't have the time, so I'm just going to point this out.
 
johnntd said:
The iphone was not officially out but all the pictures and specs were already leaked out on the internet at that time. So, Prada was just an early copy version of the prototyped iphone.
Click to expand...

WRONG. nobody knew what the iPhone looked like until January of 2007. From what I remember at the time, the original iPhone wasn't released until summer of that year. And if you're going to make a bold claim such as this, at least source where you got this 'claim' from.

The LG Prada's design was shown during the International Forum Conference back in September of 2006.

I feel like a freshman high school teacher in this thread. seriously?
 
Looks like apple has jumped on the bandwagon of frivolous lawsuits.

Apparently apple feels threatened.

I hope they don't win, apple sucks when they feel like they have no competition...I mean look at the iPod nano.
 
What did Apple patent here? Absolutely nothing.
Patened form factor will get you nowhere in court. Same goes for UI.

Getting patent approved is one thing but proving it in court is whole another issue. Apple has nothing on this one.
 
I still don't get it. If the iphone was so obvious why did it take 2 years and android for these handset makers to get any foothold?

Also if all of them could have just 100% copied the iphone which it seems a lot of you are saying it's ok to do b/c a grid is just a grid and obvious and a screen can only be a rectangle why didn't they do that from day 1? Copy it down to the size, shape, design of the icons, where the search screen is, the double click home screen for the multi tasking tray? Don't use android and rely on Google.

In fact use a metal band, glass on the back and front.

KIRF the iphone 100%. Is this illegal? If this is illegal than what samsung is doing is also illegal.

I even thought a galaxy S was an iphone when i first saw it and I think i'm decently tech savy.
 
iEvolution said:
Looks like apple has jumped on the bandwagon of frivolous lawsuits.

Apparently apple feels threatened.

I hope they don't win, apple sucks when they feel like they have no competition...I mean look at the iPod nano.
Click to expand...

They don't feel threatened. They don't want a KIRF cheapining their premium brand. They don't want the iphone to feel like some cheap plastic samsung iphone copy.
 
Spoony said:
They don't feel threatened. They don't want a KIRF cheapining their premium brand. They don't want the iphone to feel like some cheap plastic samsung iphone copy.
Click to expand...

How is their galaxy s line cheap, when it has a pricier screen, a higher quality cpu that most Android devices, at least the lower costing models.
 
Spoony said:
They don't feel threatened. They don't want a KIRF cheapining their premium brand. They don't want the iphone to feel like some cheap plastic samsung iphone copy.
Click to expand...

of all the claims being made, this makes the most sense from Apple's perspective. they're protecting their brand, but i personally don't feel that this lawsuit will go anywhere. if apple wins, it would set a huge precedent in the tech industry, and lawsuits will be flying all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back