This crap is putting me off the iPhone more than anything else. It's starting to leave a bad taste in the mouth.
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 Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Something called "Android", yes. Something even remotely resembling the iOS clone Android that came to market, NO.
Pot, kettle?
----------
What clone?
----------
the iPhone
Ah, you're just trolling. Thanks for clarifying, I won't waste my time
----------
Have you used Opera Mobile (no Mini) or Access browser before the iPhone?
I don't think anyone is saying they can't innovate. But, just like the argument of Mac OS before Windows OS. Who did it first? What, if anything was copied to make the other, if at all? Did they approach the same problem from different ways? Or was it, "That's hot, we need to do that exact same thing!" approach.
To others points of "what did they copy?" I don't know exactly what Apple is saying was copied. Just going by look and feel I can see what looks similar enough between the two. To say its an exact COPY is not what I think any of us know 100%. That's for the courts to decide. Not for us to have opinions over that some how = FACT. None of us are Judges for Patent law. So, there is no way we could say and make the case for it being copied or not. Having the argument over whether its right or not, or if the laws should be changed is a valid argument anyone can make.
I'd have to say that for anyone saying Apple took ideas from others and just combined them into the iPhone and sold it. May very well be a valid point. BUT, and the KEY BUT here is. Who patented what? When? Do they still own the patent? Did they sell it off, or what? Did Apple or any other company take an idea and make it work around said existing patents? Or are they just strait up copies of the original? Again, all for the courts to decide.
Jobs Rationalizing Apple's Theft
Picasso had a saying - 'good artists copy, great artists steal'
- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs
Picasso had a saying - 'good artists copy, great artists steal'
- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs
Exactly.
Judge Koh also indicated that she thought Samsung probably infringed on the three other patents (data tapping, slide-to-unlock, word completion), but those were not important enough to justify an injunction.
Only the search box met that criterion, and only because Apple convinced her (mostly via Apple customer surveys!) that customers bought the iPhone 4S because of Siri.
Which begs the question: what does Apple think drives the sales of the iPhone 4 and 3GS, which they withheld Siri from?
You people and your little fantasy soap operas!
Everyone sues everyone, it's a crappy part of tech business these days
Ok... so why the Galaxy nexus? Why not, you know, everything running ICS?
(FWIW I am not disagreeing with you, but if the infringing patents are software there are far more devices than just this one that should be guilty of said infringement)
Have you used Opera Mobile (no Mini) or Access browser before the iPhone?[/QUOTE]
Opera yes, and even Chrome on iOS now. I like Chrome so far. ITS DIFFERENT! for starters, and I'm not minding the speed difference (practically nothing in my view) to Safari (So far). I didn't like Opera (even on a full blown desktop). I do like Chrome (even on the desktop). I also use Safari 90% of the time on any computer I use. Still EDGE has nothing to do with anything other then the speed at which you can get your webpage to your mobile device or file off the net to your mobile device. That all to itself. Waiting for a page sucks. And waiting for a download sucks if its slow. Doesn't prevent me from getting the page in all its glory (without Flash of course for iPhone). Doesn't stop me from getting that download. Heck we have slow downloads on full blown 50Mb connections. Can't help it if the other end is slow that moment or what have you. But to say that Edge made the web suck on the iPhone (or any phone) is just an opinion of the user. Comparing a blackberry phone of the early iPhone 1 days. The Blackberrys web sucked in totality compared to the iPhone. I had the page on the iPhone, the Blackberry game me something well, less full. And there was no Droid then either. Windows CE was terrible (IMO), but I liked it for texting at the time (same with blackberries).
Opera yes, and even Chrome on iOS now. I like Chrome so far. ITS DIFFERENT! for starters, and I'm not minding the speed difference (practically nothing in my view) to Safari (So far). I didn't like Opera (even on a full blown desktop). I do like Chrome (even on the desktop). I also use Safari 90% of the time on any computer I use. Still EDGE has nothing to do with anything other then the speed at which you can get your webpage to your mobile device or file off the net to your mobile device. That all to itself. Waiting for a page sucks. And waiting for a download sucks if its slow. Doesn't prevent me from getting the page in all its glory (without Flash of course for iPhone). Doesn't stop me from getting that download. Heck we have slow downloads on full blown 50Mb connections. Can't help it if the other end is slow that moment or what have you. But to say that Edge made the web suck on the iPhone (or any phone) is just an opinion of the user. Comparing a blackberry phone of the early iPhone 1 days. The Blackberrys web sucked in totality compared to the iPhone. I had the page on the iPhone, the Blackberry game me something well, less full. And there was no Droid then either. Windows CE was terrible (IMO), but I liked it for texting at the time (same with blackberries).
Sorry but again you're not telling the truth. It's not about being good enough, it's about popularity and how the phone was marketed. The iPhone did not change anything in terms of internet. There were 3G phones available at that time. They had a superior internet connection. The browsing experience was comparable, maybe except the pinch to zoom you had thanks to the multi-touch screen.
The iPhone was and still is a very popular smartphone, I can't argue with that. But this has nothing to do with being "the first to do something" or "introducing a new idea". Many of the new feature introduced to the iPhone were already available on other platforms. However, iPhone was the more popular phone. This is the crucial fact. It's popularity has nothing to do with being first to introduce something.
Is this a yes or a no?
It was an easy question, did you used Opera or Access Netfront before the iPhone?
Yeah, it was a bold move for me to make on MR and I fully expect the wrath of posters here. I've been using Macs for the better part of my adult life (20+ years) so I get how great Apple products are. It's just the recent explosion of legal action that they are taking that sours my opinion of the company. What legal action has Google taken against Apple? Lord knows they have grounds to pursue Apple, but they don't. Apple's prodding a sleeping dragon here...
Priorities, I guess.
The web on a phone before the iPhone didn't suck any more than the web on the first iPhone sucked. Actually, it sucked less since the other EDGE only phones used WAP, which is a perfectly appropriate technology to use when limited to EDGE. Browsing WAP on an EDGE only phone sucked much less than browsing full HTML5 pages on the EDGE only iPhone.
So you're acknowledging that having to wait for a page sucks but then claim it doesn't matter???
Samsung gets screwed for Google stealing patented concepts.
If Apple's competition could put out a decent mobile OS this wouldn't be an issue.
And even though I like Apple, the iPhone is far from free from it's share of issues. The iPhone 5 needs to blow everything we've known about smartphones out of the water because the others are catching up.
If Apple's competition could put out a decent mobile OS this wouldn't be an issue.
And even though I like Apple, the iPhone is far from free from it's share of issues. The iPhone 5 needs to blow everything we've known about smartphones out of the water because the others are catching up.
I have an issue or two with these.
1) The internet back then may have not been as good as it is today on mobile device, but it surely didn't suck on some device, specifically Windows Mobile devices of yore. In most cases I was able to go full webpages(at least I did when I had my old WM device, which sites recognized as IE for desktops), but then that slowly started change as more and more mobile sites popped up.
4) I can't say for the other platforms really, but there were many apps for WM device, though many were good at best. I even remember playing an EA Tiger Woods Golf on my old HP iPaq Pocket PC.
6) I will give you that one, syncing my old WM Palm and Samsung devices to my iBook and Macbook Pro(on OSX) was a bit of a pain as I had to use third-party software. Under windows it was a bit better, and at the time like native Outlook support as that was the app I was using for email. That said I prefer ums and the way the iPhone and Android devices do it these days.
7) One could argue WM was more of a pocket computer than iPhone, because of the sole fact it gave you a full file browser(with access to all folders without the need of jail-breaking for rooting), like you would find on an desktop OS.
Home screen for starters (i'm sure it's changed now a bit, but at the onset it looked the same). Not that I can say that's "Patentable" but, I'm not in position to know that (did not develop the concept). Nor do I know if its something that can be patented. It may very well be, and it may very well by by Apple. Or it may not.
Click on a number link to dial or web link to bring you to a web page from a message. I don't know if someone else patented it before Apple or at all for that matter. If the court says Apple has the patent and Samsung or HTC infringed on it, that's for the court to decided. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant.
The bigger question is "what do you know about it?" I mean that literally, as in "KNOW" about it. One way or another. Do you know if Apple has a patent for said infringement in this case? Or are you just assuming they don't? Are you assuming they nor anyone else should have a patent on said instance? Or are you assuming the Android in use here did or did not? You and I are not the judge on this case. WE DON'T KNOW?
Again, most of this discussion is about "opinions" about what is and what is not fact. Asking someone else "what is it? What was infringed" Is not possible. We are not going to determine the outcome of it. Just don't assume you can speak for it as fact, and not really know anything about it, either way.
Perhaps you SHOULD have an agenda: get some education on corporate law and intellectual property law!
Yep!
Since when is stealing competition?
Too bad Steve's not here to see it, but good for him for not giving up.
So if someone steals from you (as you admit Google did), and profits from it at your expense, you suggest just lying down and taking it and losing millions of dollars in the spirit of "competition"?
---
I don't know if these and many other of the comments in this thread are laughable, disturbing, or just plain pathetic. What's certain is that they reflect a general lack of the most basic level of intelligence, intuition, and comprehension to even formulate cogent arguments. I suppose the education system takes some blame as well.
Oh well, at least some of the apologists in this thread don't make legal decisions, haha.
You talk arrogantly about people needing to familiarize themselves with corporate and intellectual property law yet you don't bring up any points relevant to that. You just copied and pasted a bunch of people saying basically "they stole the ideas. That's not fair. Yay, Apple."
So, educate us. Let's see your legal and otherwise superior education at work in some real talking points. Give us a good run down of the law, Matlock.
Can someone finally give an example of what Android precisely copied from iOS? At the moment we're talking about "look and feel", which to be honest is very vague.
I'm starting to hate this revisionist history geeks are sprouting. Saying the iPhone changed nothing and the phone was just dandy before 2007. Only real geeks do this sort of denial. But we had smartphones before! But we had touch screens before! It's always but, but, but. But there were tablets before!
Lol, what about the Android home screen looks like the iOS home screen?
Android 2.3 home screen:
But maybe you're right, maybe it looked exactly like iOS and was then changed. Oh wait, here's the Android 1.0 home screen:
Maybe we should define the question with the appropriate word:
steal = blatant copying of a patented design
influenced by = influenced by it's design
Cloned = ...well cloned!
I respectfully disagree. The rest of that quote, if i remember correctly, jobs went on to say if someone wants to create their own product the. Fine but don't blatantly copy ours.
While I do like to see competition, I do not blame Apple one iota for going after Samsung or anybody else for that matter. If technology was copied and stolen and there is a patent on it then I would go after them too. The reasons why we have patents is to protect the technology and innovations. If not what is the point of a patent that?
It doesn't mean that Apple hasn't done it in the past either-maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't know. But I say go for it Apple.
And for all of the people who keep saying that this phone doesn't look like the iPhone, for crying out loud read it it's about the software not the hardware.