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 vs. Samsung Lawsuit to Drag Into Eighth Year With Retrial Scheduled Next May
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you understand the difference between ripping off, and licensing? How is Apple stealing if they are licensing from Wacom, and purchasing displays from Samsung? Samsung did not perfect the stylus (which is actually an active pen), they purchased and licensed the technology from the Japanese company, Wacom, who assisted with integrating it into the Note line.
Like hundreds of posts on here, you are taking Jobs’s stylus comment fully out of context. It was a humorous remark made to help highlight the main feature of iOS, which was Multitouch.
Jobs also said the iPod would never have video...
Yes but that’s not the point. The point was Apple wasn’t the first. By far
You are using data from 2014? It's almost 2018. You can't "literally crush" someone when you sold more of something 4years ago. Geez. I'm not the one making the wild statements like "literally crushing". If you make statements like that then the expectation is some 10x plus domination where the opposing company is at the point of throwing in the towel. Not that you are selling half as many, and your flagship has slowly lagged the market to the point you are rushing something out. I suppose you will say Apple is crushing the competition in PCs too?
As I said earlier, if Apple wins at all on this one, then Samsung has a very strong case to turn around and sue Apple for copying them with the iPhone X, I mean seriously look at it, it is just a much a copy of the Note 8 as Samsung copied the iPhone.
The Android iOS battle will always be an intriguing one.
What Microsoft has done to every other desktop OS....NOW we can talk about crushing
September 17:
What Microsoft has done to every other desktop OS....NOW we can talk about crushing
September 17:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think about it...the border is about 30km from the HQ of Samsung...if Trump attacks...the cannons go off and attack Seoul location of Samsung....then there goes Samsung in the rubble ....this could actually happen.
wow .. pretty long.. I remember using IPAQ https://www.gsmarena.com/hp_ipaq_rw6828-1606.php 2006 then iphone
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone-1827.php 2007 . That time.. 3G+ quick rock with mine 6120 classic https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6120_classic-1958.php ..(2007) while in 2008 out iphone out in my country..
I do confuse why IPAQ to IPHONE come from.. and where it exist..
My Conclusion was, the name is copycat and the bezel and technology original iphone that time it's pretty really joke.
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone-1827.php 2007 . That time.. 3G+ quick rock with mine 6120 classic https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6120_classic-1958.php ..(2007) while in 2008 out iphone out in my country..
I do confuse why IPAQ to IPHONE come from.. and where it exist..
My Conclusion was, the name is copycat and the bezel and technology original iphone that time it's pretty really joke.
[doublepost=1509072525][/doublepost]
You are going to have to show us the design patent on the Samsung Note 8 to make any determination.
Given that smartphones have been around for quite some time now, it is much harder to claim design features.
It is quite possible Samsung has a design patent on the screen that curves around the edges of the phone as that was different from what has been done. But you need to see the design patent first.
[doublepost=1509074258][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1509074662][/doublepost]This lawsuit has dragged on for so long because it went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
They then remanded to the lower courts to argue further over the damages amount.
A jury of people already decided there was patent infringement of Apple's design patent.
Probably none of us were in that jury box making that decision with all the evidence presented.
It is now just a matter of how much should Samsung pay.
I know PalmOS devices. I owned four of them. I owned Handspring devices. Nothing looked like iPhone. Nothing. Samsung copied iPhone. With the screens off, the first copies were striking. Turned on, it’s just silly.
Yeah, because the fact that Samsung released their phone in the above example AN ENTIRE YEAR BEFORE THE IPHONE somehow magically makes that "fake news," and the fact that I'm pointing out what complete nonsense your reply is on my 2017 13" non-touchbar MBP that is currently charging my 128GB Matte Black iPhone 7, which itself is updating the software on my Series 2 38mm Space Gray AppleWatch Sport to the latest WatchOS 4.1 beta, all while watching Rick and Morty with my son on my GD ATV4, CLEARLY MAKES ME A SAMSUNG SHEEP.
[doublepost=1509077150][/doublepost]
Hate to break it to you, but the OG iPhone was itself complete garbage. Overpriced garbage at that. It wasn't until Steve started listening to customers and righted the ship with the 3G and iPhoneOS 2.0 that things finally got to where they should be. As for my Prada, yeah it was sluggish, but if you do your homework it got fantastic review scores, and itself was a tank. Mine survived two years of heavy use, multiple drops and three trips through the washing machine before I replaced it with an iPhone 3G.
Design patent, in its reasonable power, is meant to offer protection from counterfeiters. Despite the similarities, Samsung is not attempting to deceive consumers that their phone is an iPhone.
Granting powerful companies the ability to own aesthetic or sensory abstractions is a huge mistake. Eventually, they will want to own colors and emotions too. Years ago, I drew a satirical spoof of a famous apparel logo that a friend marketed to haters of that brand’s culture. In no way could it be confused for that brand. In no way would it appeal to that brand’s admirers as an equivalent alternative. Nonetheless, that brand’s holder, General Mills, threatened to sue for trademark infringement. My friend didn’t have the resources to defend his business and signed away his rights without a fight. He would have won if he’d had his day in court. How do I know? Because someone had a similar idea and did go to court and won. In fact, the story was mentioned in Time magazine.
Consider a product that is accustom to imitation: food. What if chefs could patent recipes? Imagine the damage it would do to commerce if another chef couldn’t use the same ingredients in his salad? If the first chef wants to “brand” his salad and protect its identity from counterfeiting, fine. But to say the salad’s nonproprietary ingredients can’t be inspiration for other salads is something only big companies benefit from. Entrepreneurs and consumers would be the casualties.
Granting powerful companies the ability to own aesthetic or sensory abstractions is a huge mistake. Eventually, they will want to own colors and emotions too. Years ago, I drew a satirical spoof of a famous apparel logo that a friend marketed to haters of that brand’s culture. In no way could it be confused for that brand. In no way would it appeal to that brand’s admirers as an equivalent alternative. Nonetheless, that brand’s holder, General Mills, threatened to sue for trademark infringement. My friend didn’t have the resources to defend his business and signed away his rights without a fight. He would have won if he’d had his day in court. How do I know? Because someone had a similar idea and did go to court and won. In fact, the story was mentioned in Time magazine.
Consider a product that is accustom to imitation: food. What if chefs could patent recipes? Imagine the damage it would do to commerce if another chef couldn’t use the same ingredients in his salad? If the first chef wants to “brand” his salad and protect its identity from counterfeiting, fine. But to say the salad’s nonproprietary ingredients can’t be inspiration for other salads is something only big companies benefit from. Entrepreneurs and consumers would be the casualties.
And who will hear this “noise?” Macrumors members?!
Apple sued Samsung for copyright infringement, not for marketing purposes. Lets get real here.
Ermmmm it’s now Apple that are playing catch up and copying many of the features made popular or first used on android and other operating systems.
Are you looking forward to being able to unlock your phone using your face - old android feature.
Do you enjoy the swipe up to access WiFi etc?
Guess what the swipe to access was an android feature long before Apple made it on IOS
Are you looking forward to the fancy new screen on the iPhone X with its new screen ratio?
Guess what that new screen ratio was on LG and Samsung phones last year.
To my mind the fact that Apple were ever granted a design patent for a rectangle with rounded corners and a grid of brightly coloured icons in the first place is the most stupid part of the whole situation.
All phones are as someone else mentioned converging and becoming very similar, we have to wait again for an innovation that will change things on a new level.
Apple stole patents from VirneTx and made billions off those patents and the outright theft of those patents was far worse than anything Apple claimed Samsung "stole" so Apple certainly had no problem with and thinks it's ok to steal.
Must hurt bad having to stare at a huge "Sucksung" made OLED screen on your iPhone X for the next 24 months then
and if Samsung had made a touch screen phone that looked like this instead of the iPhone we wouldnt have this case or endless years of arguing. But they did copy Apple's design instead... which looks nothing like this Prada phone. There were a million ways they could have made their touch screen phone look different. But they went the blatant rip it off copy. I have Samsung products. I have Apple ones. The fact is when Samsung introduced their phones they wanted casual purchasers to buy their knockoffs.LG KE850 was announced and released before the first iPhone 2G. Even before then I was using Compaq iPAQ PDA that was the forefather to smartphones.
[doublepost=1509105089][/doublepost]
Didn't Lucy Koh rule against Apple on eBook pricing? That was another cringe-worthy decision. How could Amazon loss-lead on their books yet Apple copped it for price fixing? You had a choice where to buy your ebooks and load them onto you iDevice.
Er... yes, Apple's lawyers cherry picked a Samsung publicity image that was used by virtually every retailer selling Samsung phones. Anyway, the Android App drawer is closer in function to the iOS home screen than Android's widget-based home screen.
Meanwhile, here's the app drawer on a HTC hero (about a year post-iPhone) - which is what I had at the time:
https://goo.gl/images/izufR1
Note that although, functionally, it is a rectangular grid of app icons with a lower row of function buttons, the visual style is significantly different to the iPhone, whereas the Samsung directly imitated the style of the iPhone icons and function bar. E.g. yeah, its got a phone handset icon on the call button, but it hasn't got a white handset on a shiny green button with rounded corners.
I actually prefer Android phones (and I had a Windows phone pre-iPhone, which was nothing like the iPhone and had a horrible UI), but the iPhone legacy in all of Android is quite obvious. However, the original Galaxy S really stood out from other Android phones in the extent to which it tried to mimic the iPhone.
I think Apple have been hoist by their own petard in that they tried to make their design patents too broad, and probably unenforceable.
Also, I'm pretty sure it was a reference to the little toothpick styluses that came with pre-iPhone WinCE devices that you needed because the tiny icons and on-screen keyboards on their cruddy resistive touch screens were too small for fingers.
Not sure how much use an Apple Pencil is going to be on an iPhone, though - I had a Galaxy Note and never found the stylus (which was a good one) more than a gimmick. Once you get to a 10" tablet, though, its another matter.
That story is nicely... not debunked, exactly, but put into perspective here:
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html
Particularly note:
"Xerox's venture capital arm had recently made an investment in Apple, and had agreed to show Apple what was going on in its lab."
... so no, it wasn't stealing.
There are some interesting links showing (e.g.) how much re-design work went into turning Xerox's mouse into a practical industrial design.
I agree with the above (been rocking Galaxy phones since the S4 and have a Note8 now).
However, it doesn't rewrite history. Back then, Apple changed the game but more relevantly patented their stuff. So if the patent was granted, and Sammy infringed (which the courts said it did), then they need to pay up.
That said, both Apple and Samsung are playing the game, messed up rules and all.
They can fight in the courts all they want. All I really care about is products.
[doublepost=1509115198][/doublepost]
Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that Apple was pulling from the app drawer and not the real homescreen.
I'm also aware that Google, not Samsung is responsible for the "copying" in question. I assume Apple chose Samsung because it didn't stop there with them (they copied packaging style, ads, etc). I don't know the real reason.
Still, the row of icons is suspect, to say the least, wherever it's at. I don't recall any device prior to the iPhone implementing it the way Apple did, and Android's app drawer is obviously "iOS-inspired". A good example of a different implementation is, say, Windows phone's tile interface. So whether Jobs is the source of the leak is irrelevant. The question is whether Android copied iOS.
Nevertheless, this is all arguable and debatable, and I don't have any (investigated) facts to support my position, other than the anecdotal memory of seeing the iPhone's look and feel like no other before it, and then Android comes out and it seeming basically an enhanced version of the same thing. I really don't care that much.
In the end, I'm glad Android exists, as I prefer it to iOS.