Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit Over iPhone Design Officially Reopened

[Radon87000]

So apple customers wanted a bigger screen because Samsung had one?

In essence, yes. The competition you are talking about is all Samsung. Samsung=Android considering their market share

OLED on AW is a perfect application, with burn-in and color shifting, not so much on a smart phone.

It's the same technology with same susceptibility to burn in. No doubt just like how they followed Samsung on this one they will follow on the smartphone too. Multiple rumours have pointed to an OLED iPhone so better gear up for it . My wallet is ready.

Maybe Samsung mobile division will turn a profit at some point. They need all of the help they can get after the Note 7 fiasco.

They are the only ones making profit in the Android world. But they don't really care all that much because if the mobile division goes down it hardly affects them unlike a certain other company . It's because if this which enables them to take risks and come out with real innovation like curved displays, foldable displays, optical finger print sensors etc

Finger print reader was available before use on smartphones; which doesn't make it an innovation. What makes it innovate is the way apple has integrated it into their ecosystem.

Samsung is coming out with optical fingerprint sensors in a month or so from now

 

[I7guy]

In essence, yes. The competition you are talking about is all Samsung. Samsung=Android considering their market share

Certainly hyperbole as this is pure conjecture.

It's the same technology with same susceptibility to burn in. No doubt just like how they followed Samsung on this one they will follow on the smartphone too. Multiple rumours have pointed to an OLED iPhone so better gear up for it . My wallet is ready.

Right now, nothing to gear up for.

They are the only ones making profit in the Android world. But they don't really care all that much because if the mobile division goes down it hardly affects them unlike a certain other company . It's because if this which enables them to take risks and come out with real innovation like curved displays, foldable displays, optical finger print sensors etc

So now Samsung mobile division doesn't care if they lose billions. But you might be right, Samsung experiments, while Apple does its homework, imo.

Samsung is coming out with optical fingerprint sensors in a month or so from now

Thanks to Apple who showed the value of innovation in fingerprints; for whatever it buys one.

 

[MarsViolet]

Right, I guess I am emphasizing what you are emphasizing.

Emphasis on emphasizing. This is getting weirdly meta.

 

[Radon87000]

Certainly hyperbole as this is pure conjecture.

You call facts hyperbole?Notice that big blue component occupying three quarters of the chart?Thats Samsung in Android

Samsung=Android.If they wanted to they could take over the other miserable 20% or so and become a monopoly in the market.So yes Apple customers looked at Samsung and wished for a big screen just like how Apple customers currently look at OLED and wish for OLED which Apple is going to implement this Sept

Right now, nothing to gear up for.

Considering Kuo's track record,you should

So now Samsung mobile division doesn't care if they lose billions.

Yes.In fact they rubbed it in the faces of the doom prediction analysts by naming their next flagship Note 8

But you might be right, Samsung experiments, while Apple does its homework, imo.

Back when Steve was alive,things were opposite.Now Apple follows Samsung around and using Steve's legacy earn billions

Thanks to Apple who showed the value of innovation in fingerprints; for whatever it buys one.

An optical fingerprint sensor is worlds away from being compared with a traditional one

 

[tooltalk]

In the legal system either you win or don't win. That's all that counts.

Honey, your premise was that "if Samsung had a case, ..." and Samsung certainty did and won. Whether Obama felt Apple had to be protected is a political issue and it doesn't make the decision invalid all of sudden. Apple was accused and found to have stolen Samsung's ideas. Period.

 

[I7guy]

You call facts hyperbole?Notice that big blue component occupying three quarters of the chart?Thats Samsung in Android

Samsung=Android.If they wanted to they could take over the other miserable 20% or so and become a monopoly in the market.

Yes they could become a monopoly and still lose billions.

So yes Apple customers looked at Samsung and wished for a big screen just like how Apple customers currently look at OLED and wish for OLED which Apple is going to implement this Sept

Still conjecture.

Considering Kuo's track record,you should

He's very good at nailing it, two days before launch.

Yes.In fact they rubbed it in the faces of the doom prediction analysts by naming their next flagship Note 8

Now they have to sell them.

Back when Steve was alive,things were opposite.Now Apple follows Samsung around and using Steve's legacy earn billions

Apple is a publicly traded company and its apples legacy. Timmy, not Stevie invented the iPhone 6. Jobs would never have allowed a bigger phone and Samsung is still chasing Apple.

An optical fingerprint sensor is worlds away from being compared with a traditional one

Hyperbole. The fingerprint reader today is optical, I'm editing for ultrasonic..
[doublepost=1484563005][/doublepost]

Honey, your premise was that "if Samsung had a case, ..." and Samsung certainty did and won. Whether Obama felt Apple had to be protected is a political issue doesn't make it invalid all of sudden. Apple was accused and found to be have stolen Samsung's ideas. Period.

When does POTUS have influence over the courts?

 

[Sevendaymelee]

The funniest part of this all that Samsung did copy Apple in the early days. Fast forward today it's Samsung who's got innovative ideas and Apple same old, same old (+ expensive).

Minus the whole exploding batteries thing...

 

[TechGeek76]

Yes they could become a monopoly and still lose billions.

Still conjecture.


He's very good at nailing it, two days before launch.


Now they have to sell them.


Apple is a publicly traded company and its apples legacy. Timmy, not Stevie invented the iPhone 6. Jobs would never have allowed a bigger phone and Samsung is still chasing Apple.


Hyperbole. The fingerprint reader today is optical, I'm editing for ultrasonic..
[doublepost=1484563005][/doublepost]
When does POTUS have influence over the courts?

Your maniacal defense of Apple is getting rather tiresome, we get it, you like Apple. But thank god for block, don't have to see this tripe anymore.
[doublepost=1484575742][/doublepost]

Honey, your premise was that "if Samsung had a case, ..." and Samsung certainty did and won. Whether Obama felt Apple had to be protected is a political issue doesn't make the decision invalid all of sudden. Apple was accused and found to have stolen Samsung's ideas. Period.

You are NEVER going to change his mind. Ever.

 

[Radon87000]

Yes they could become a monopoly and still lose billions.

Then they have nothing to fear as they are the only option

Still conjecture.

Please stop denying facts.Apple customers wanted a large screen because they knew what a large screen could do.They must have looked at the competition.The only competition was Android.And Samsung has an almost monopoly over Android.Same applies for OLED. I guarantee if Samsung was not around Apple would be using LCD even beyond 2020

He's very good at nailing it, two days before launch.

He's very good at nailing game changing features a year in advance.For example,OLED. He reveals the minor unknown stuff 2 days in advance

Now they have to sell them.

Looking at the competitors market share,I dont think thats much of a challenge

Apple is a publicly traded company and its apples legacy. Timmy, not Stevie invented the iPhone 6. Jobs would never have allowed a bigger phone and Samsung is still chasing Apple.

Stevie saved Apple from bankruptcy,no Timmy.Stevie invented iPhone,not Timmy.Stevie invented iPod.Not Timmy.Stevie invented iPad,not Timmy.Stevie invented Mac.Not Timmy.

 

[I7guy]

Your maniacal defense of Apple is getting rather tiresome, we get it, you like Apple. But thank god for block, don't have to see this tripe anymore.
[doublepost=1484575742][/doublepost]
You are NEVER going to change his mind. Ever.

Thought you may have had a thought related to the thread topic, silly me.

 

[Radon87000]

When does POTUS have influence over the courts?

Not the point.Samsung won the case and Apple resorted to desperate measures to win.Its thanks to the home ground advantage they won. They would have been much less fortunate had it been any other country

 

[I7guy]

Then they have nothing to fear as they are the only option

Sure, that's a great business plan.

Please stop denying facts.Apple customers wanted a large screen because they knew what a large screen could do.They must have looked at the competition.The only competition was Android.And Samsung has an almost monopoly over Android.Same applies for OLED. I guarantee if Samsung was not around Apple would be using LCD even beyond 2020

I'll stop "denying facts", if you stop making "facts up". Deal? You have no proof of Apple's thinking. And what's with the hyperbole?

He's very good at nailing game changing features a year in advance.For example,OLED. He reveals the minor unknown stuff 2 days in advance

He's seemingly nailed things on the head, 2 days before launch.

Looking at the competitors market share,I dont think thats much of a challenge

Not denying a few people will buy them. That's not much of a challenge either.

Stevie saved Apple from bankruptcy,no Timmy.Stevie invented iPhone,not Timmy.Stevie invented iPod.Not Timmy.Stevie invented iPad,not Timmy.Stevie invented Mac.Not Timmy.

Great. Stevie saved apple and Timmy took them further by inventing the iphone 5z and iphone 6. We know Stevie invented the ipad, and look at where he left it today.
[doublepost=1484576775][/doublepost]

Not the point.Samsung won the case and Apple resorted to desperate measures to win.Its thanks to the home ground advantage they won. They would have been much less fortunate had it been any other country

Okay and apple isn't the only one abusing the legal system, if that is your point. But the legal system is all we have here.

 

[TechGeek76]

Not the point.Samsung won the case and Apple resorted to desperate measures to win.Its thanks to the home ground advantage they won. They would have been much less fortunate had it been any other country

You're never going to convince him otherwise. It's pointless.

 

[Shlooky]

The timing couldn't be worse for Samsung as their CEO will be arrested for accepting bribes and so on.

 

[kdarling]

When does POTUS have influence over the courts?

Through power delegated from the White House to his United States Trade Representative, the POTUS can veto an ITC import ban.

Obama Administration Vetoes Partial Ban on Apple Products - MacRumors

In 2013, knowing they were in real trouble, Apple appealed to the White House instead of letting Federal courts decide its fate. The result was that for the first time since 1987, a President interfered with an ITC decision. People talk about Korea protecting Samsung. The US protects Apple as well.

---
Note that the ITC can only ban FOREIGN made imports. So there's another incentive to build devices in America.

Also, IIRC Apple was banned in the first place because they tried to claim patent exhaustion. That is, that they had already paid IP royalties to one company and thus should not pay another. The problem with that, was that such legal protection only exists for chips bought in the USA. To avoid paying taxes, Apple bought their chips outside the USA. Another reason to do more in your native land.

You have no proof of Apple's thinking.

Oh the contrary, he's correct. No company gets to claim natural market progression if they've publicly dissed a certain option. For example, if Samsung removes their headphone jack, after dissing Apple for doing so, then no Samsung fan can claim that the removal was going to happen anyway.

Likewise, we know that Apple brought out larger phones not because it was a natural progression for them, but because Samsung was doing so well with them. Ditto for smaller tablets.

• "We've put a lot of thinking into screen size and we think we've picked the right one."
  - Tim Cook on 4" iPhone, dissing larger displays of competitors, Quarterly call, Jan 2013, 21 months before they relented and came out with their own larger displays.

• "There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touch screen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps."
  - Steve Jobs dissing smaller than 10" tablets, Apple quarterly earnings call, 2010, before iPad mini

We even know from the trials that Apple only began thinking about the iPad mini because an Apple VP used a 7" Samsung tablet and saw that it was pretty darned useful, despite what Jobs had claimed above.

 

[I7guy]

Through power delegated from the White House to his United States Trade Representative, the POTUS can veto an ITC import ban.

Obama Administration Vetoes Partial Ban on Apple Products - MacRumors

In 2013, knowing they were in real trouble, Apple appealed to the White House instead of letting Federal courts decide its fate. The result was that for the first time since 1987, a President interfered with an ITC decision. People talk about Korea protecting Samsung. The US protects Apple as well.

---
Note that the ITC can only ban FOREIGN made imports. So there's another incentive to build devices in America.

Also, IIRC Apple was banned in the first place because they tried to claim patent exhaustion. That is, that they had already paid IP royalties to one company and thus should not pay another. The problem with that, was that such legal protection only exists for chips bought in the USA. To avoid paying taxes, Apple bought their chips outside the USA. Another reason to do more in your native land.

But POTUS still does not influence the courts, except through the ability to appoint justices to the supreme court was my point. I never said, POTUS couldn't issue executive orders and POTUS has done many things outside of the court system.

Oh the contrary, he's correct. No company gets to claim natural market progression if they've publicly dissed a certain option. For example, if Samsung removes their headphone jack, after dissing Apple for doing so, then no Samsung fan can claim that the removal was going to happen anyway.

Likewise, we know that Apple brought out larger phones not because it was a natural progression for them, but because Samsung was doing so well with them. Ditto for smaller tablets.

• "We've put a lot of thinking into screen size and we think we've picked the right one."
  - Tim Cook on 4" iPhone, dissing larger displays of competitors, Quarterly call, Jan 2013, 21 months before they relented and came out with their own larger displays.

• "There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touch screen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps."
  - Steve Jobs dissing smaller than 10" tablets, Apple quarterly earnings call, 2010, before iPad mini

We even know from the trials that Apple only began thinking about the iPad mini because an Apple VP used a 7" Samsung tablet and saw that it was pretty darned useful, despite what Jobs had claimed above.

So to note, there was a market, from whatever you quoted. There is a market for apple customers. Obviously there was a market was my point, there were larger phones at that point, someone at apple just needed to see it, Steve was resisting to the very end, and that year was nuts for Apple. It took Tim 3 years to get an iphone 6 out the door after discussing this with Steve who was amenable? They just happen to use a Samsung phone to see how the concept could apply to the iphone.

So in essence the iphone was used as a role model since 2007, but the screen sizes that apple ultimately used was determined by what was already on the market.

 

[Radon87000]

But POTUS still does not influence the courts, except through the ability to appoint justices to the supreme court was my point. I never said, POTUS couldn't issue executive orders and POTUS has done many things outside of the court system.


So to note, there was a market, from whatever you quoted. There is a market for apple customers. Obviously there was a market was my point, there were larger phones at that point, someone at apple just needed to see it, Steve was resisting to the very end, and that year was nuts for Apple. It took Tim 3 years to get an iphone 6 out the door after discussing this with Steve who was amenable? They just happen to use a Samsung phone to see how the concept could apply to the iphone.

So in essence the iphone was used as a role model since 2007, but the screen sizes that apple ultimately used was determined by what was already on the market.

Not just screen sizes even screen technology

 

[tooltalk]

When does POTUS have influence over the courts?

ever heard of presidential pardon?

But POTUS still does not influence the courts, except through the ability to appoint justices to the supreme court was my point. I never said, POTUS couldn't issue executive orders and POTUS has done many things outside of the court system.

@I7guy: of course it does. The Whitehouse publishes guidelines on how patents laws are to be applied time to time. These are taken into accounts and cited by lawyers and judges when the ITC/Federal Appeals courts decide on these matters. Obama can effectively nullify court decisions/convictions he doesn't like -- the pardon power has been controversal for decades. Why do you keep making wildly speculative comments on subjects you are unfamiliar with?

Obama can and did whatever he wants to do as POTUS without any justification and his decision can't be appealed. Obama's didn't reverse the decision because Apple was such a true original innovator or Samsung a shameless thief; either legally or technically.

 

[kdarling]

But POTUS still does not influence the courts, except through the ability to appoint justices to the supreme court was my point. I never said, POTUS couldn't issue executive orders and POTUS has done many things outside of the court system.

Actually, this was neither an executive order, nor was it a regular court.

ITC decisions are made by administrative law judges, who interestingly are considered to be part of the executive branch. And the intervention was not by executive order, but by the Trade Representative (although the end result is the same).

The point people were trying to make, albeit partly technically incorrect, is that instead of trusting an appeals court to take their side, Apple relied on Executive branch intervention to get past a government import ban.

It took Tim 3 years to get an iphone 6 out the door after discussing this with Steve who was amenable?

That Jobs discussion was about making an iPad mini, another case where Apple copied the successful decisions of Samsung, just as Samsung had copied the success decisions of Apple.

Neither one invented anything really new. They were just smart enough to offer something different.

 

[I7guy]

ever heard of presidential pardon?


@I7guy: of course it does. The Whitehouse publishes guidelines on how patents laws are to be applied time to time. These are taken into accounts and cited by lawyers and judges when the ITC/Federal Appeals courts decide on these matters. Obama can effectively nullify court decisions/convictions he doesn't like -- the pardon power has been controversal for decades. Why do you keep making wildly speculative comments on subjects you are unfamiliar with?

Obama can and did whatever he wants to do as POTUS without any justification and his decision can't be appealed. Obama's didn't reverse the decision because Apple was such a true original innovator or Samsung a shameless thief; either legally or technically.

I really never knew the executive branch could overturn Supreme Court decisions if you are including those which is what I was thinking about. Of course who hasn't heard of presidential pardons you are correct there.

 

[Hushpuppy!]

The funniest part of this all that Samsung did copy Apple in the early days. Fast forward today it's Samsung who's got innovative ideas and Apple same old, same old (+ expensive).

And what innovative features do you speak of? Lmfao.

 

[tripmusic]

Yes stealing isn't right, how dare you steal rectangular shapes and rounded corners? Please this so ridiculous, by this metric Apple stole phablet idea from Samsung, and Samsung should sue right?

Yea, but even the colors of the icons are very similar
[doublepost=1484625338][/doublepost]

And what innovative features do you speak of? Lmfao.

The ability to make itself explode and catch fire?

 

[trifid]

Yea, but even the colors of the icons are very similar
[doublepost=1484625338][/doublepost]
The ability to make itself explode and catch fire?

kdarling made an excellent post #160 where he posted this:

If someone is going to argue that Samsung copied colors, shouldn't it be fair to accuse Apple of doing the same? Even Apple's phone shape seems copied from Skype, and was just given a slight angle.

 

[I7guy]

kdarling made an excellent post #160 where he posted this:


If someone is going to argue that Samsung copied colors, shouldn't it be fair to accuse Apple of doing the same? Even Apple's phone shape seems copied from Skype, and was just given a slight angle.

Sure they can try, but will it worth the time and expense, especially now since the damage phase is moving forward.

 

[Radon87000]

And what innovative features do you speak of? Lmfao.

Curved Edge Display
Wireless charging
S-Pen
OLED Technology
VR (This alone makes it a gamechanger)

Basically mostly everything which is rumored on the iPhone 8