Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone

[gnasher729]

So because Apple popularized a form factor, they're now the sole owners of said form factor, and any phone that comes out thereafter are halfassed copies of the originator, despite the innovations they may or may not bring?

That's a flimsy argument at best, and only works if your intention is to set up the competition to fail no matter what they do. It's an argument even Apple fails at if you were to look deeply enough.

Your argument is a strawman as far as the Galaxy tablet is concerned, and completely missing the point for the Galaxy Nexus phone. Apple isn't "sole owner of the form factor" and has never made any claim they are. Apple has a design patent, which is for one specific design, consisting of many elements that all need to be copied for infringement, and the Galaxy tab seems to have copied all of them. In Germany Samsung released a modified tablet with the exact same form factors, but some design changes to stop it from infringing on Apple's design patent. (That's the definition of a "strawman" argument: You claim that your opponent made some argument and refute it, when the opponent didn't make that argument at all).

For the Galaxy Nexus, that case isn't about design or form factor at all. If the Galaxy was shaped like a twenty inch football, it would still be infringing.

 

[Oletros]

Good for Tim. It's not Thermonuclear. However it kicks Eric the Two Faced Slime Ball right where it counts.

And how exactly Eric Schmidt screwed Steve Jobs?

It is curios, because Steve Jobs NEVER ever accused Eric Schmidt of nothing, and I don't think that Jobs was a person that wouldn't say anything about anything if he thought he was right?

But eh, don't let reality wake from your sweet dreams

 

[Bezetos]

Only if you keep asking questions that until proven in court NO ONE CAN ANSWER. I gave my opinion based on what I have seen. I don't get to make the final judgement nor you or anyone else in these forums. No one here has proof of anything either way. If we did, google and apple will want to speak with you!

Dude, are you kidding me, you are allowed to say that they have copied the whole phone but in order to specify what they have copied you have to wait for the court to state that? That makes no sense at all. You simply keep avoiding the question, and you're not doing it cleverly.

How can you have an opinion that is based on nothing at all? If you say it's based on what you have seen, what have you seen? Why can't you explain why you think they have stolen the whole phone without hearing a decision from the court? That makes no sense!

Just simply tell me (your opinion!) what you (you!) think (You think! Not what the court says.) they have stolen from Apple if you keep saying they stole the whole phone.

You just keep avoiding the question and you think we can't see it.

Start answering questions, otherwise you're just wasting our time. Well you're not really wasting it because you just prove that they have stolen nothing at all because you fail to specify what was stolen (and don't say "the whole phone" again because every time you say that a puppy dies somewhere).

 

[Glideslope]

And how exactly Eric Schmidt screwed Steve Jobs?

It is curios, because Steve Jobs NEVER ever accused Eric Schmidt of nothing, and I don't think that Jobs was a person that wouldn't say anything about anything if he thought he was right?

But eh, don't let reality wake from your sweet dreams

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD, and brought them back to Google. This was a massive breach of trust on Eric's part. You would never see someone like Larry Elision
do that to Steve. Eric and Larry were equally close to Steve during Eric's time on Apple's BOD.

People can say what they want about Steve. He was no angel. However, if you were allowed into his world and broke the trust ( research Buddhism )
it was no different than taking a part of his sole.

So, do a little more research on what happened. You can even use a Galaxy 2 10.1 if you'll feel better.

Android will die a slow death. WIN8 Mobile will be the final nail.

No dreams here.

 

[Lennholm]

So wait, the original iPhone sucked!? really?

And again, speed does not determine whether or not the web experience sucks or not. You can have slow speeds on fast connections. Doesn't make it suck either. Two different things. Not to mention you had WiFi as a speed option. The browser was what made the web great on the iPhone. Clearly backed by the fact of its heavy use from the start. Subsiquently,all the slow downs caused on the AT&T network by the many iphone users. That sucked, but still proves the point that it was so heavly used. If speed ment that much. It clearly wouldn't have made the iPhone that great in your opinion. But that did not happen. Obviously. As we are 6 revisions from the original and still going. Still not fully 4G and still selling well. still long lines of people waiting for the next new iPhone.

Slow speed is a relative description. If the content is lightweight and optimized for a slower connection, like WAP was, the experience doesn't suck. However, if the content is not lightweight and it takes a long time to load on the slower connection, the experience does suck. The fact that it had WiFi doesn't mean much since it's a cell phone. The fact is, the first iPhone was limited to EDGE, but didn't load (was in fact incapable of loading) the lightweight content that was suitable for this slow speed.
Whenever I'm out of reach of 3G and only have EDGE on the iPhone 4, the browsing experience does indeed suck because of the slow page load.
So yes, the original iPhone did suck. That's why it and iPhone OS 1 was never released in many other countries, it was simply inferior to what people in these other countries were used to.
I'm not in the US, so I'm not speaking from experience with the sub-standard quality of mobile usage in the US in 2007, I guess the original iPhone seemed amazing to you, apparently.

I'll repeat......
You don't get to make that final judgement call. The courts do!
Otherwise your just giving an opinion which again does not equal fact and or law.

Right back at ya'. No court have said that the look of the Android home screen is a copy of the look of the iOS home screen, that's the claim YOU made. The pictures I posted was a direct response to your opinion that the Android home screen is a copy of the iOS home screen.
Didn't you also say that you based this opinion only on screen shots you've seen? Must've been those cherry picked non-representative screen shots Apple used then. Well I just provided two actual screen shots for you to base a more informed opinion on, you're welcome.

Btw, I wrote a response to your link to the article about the Android prototypes but since Safari Mobile is so unresponsive when typing in text areas it took so long I was logged out during that time and the message was lost. I don't feel like re-typing it since quite frankly, that prototype has been brought up and refuted so many times on these forums already.

 

[SirLance99]

This is another proof that innovation matters less in American market.. Access to the market is more important than innovation..

Here is a life cycle of a company.. Company invents a product. Captures local US and then global market. And then IT STOPS INNOVATING. It starts lobbying for tax credits. It starts off shoring.. Its only focuses on M&A. It starts manipulating patent laws. Sometime gets into creative accounting. (e.g. Microsoft and its Windows and its worst browser war). Apple was one of the rare companies which focused more on innovation than on market access... It deserves legitimate patent protections. But then again if Apple could have leaned to open source.. But they wanted to drink the whole coo-laid. Software/Hardware control + Consumer content control + search control.. Now give me a brake... Create a ecosystem so that it benefits everybody. Remember Google found out consumers on internet, how can Apple walk away just like that... If only Facebook is wise enough to understand that ??????

 

[Oletros]

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD

A, yes, it is common hatred, nothing more

 

[Bezetos]

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD, and brought them back to Google. This was a massive breach of trust on Eric's part.

Source please. "Common knowledge" is sometimes an urban legend.

 

[rumors-reader]

...I typed a letter wrong in his email address, and I couldn't touch where I wanted the cursor to go. Either I go to the beginning of the word or the end of the word and delete back to where I need to change the letter, and retype the rest. WASTE OF TIME.

Before you leave the address field, tap & hold on the email address. A loupe appears which allows you to place the cursor anywhere in the email address and change the typo. It's the same feature used for editing any text on an iOS device.

Ironically, my colleague uses an Android phone and it turns out Android does the same thing, except he didn't realize you could do this.

 

[Bezetos]

Before you leave the address field, tap & hold on the email address. A loupe appears which allows you to place the cursor anywhere in the email address and change the typo. It's the same feature used for editing any text on an iOS device.

Ironically, my colleague uses an Android phone and it turns out Android does the same thing, except he didn't realize you could do this.

I don't think this is correct. On Android if you tap once an arrow appears below the text which you can move between characters. If you tap and hold you select the whole word. It's completely different.

 

[SirLance99]

Courts in Europe, however, when presented with exactly the same suit, found that Apple's claims had no merit whatsoever. They don't have any merit in the United States, either, but the suit accomplishes the same thing here as it did in Europe: it stifles competition for a few months. Once the trial is actually held, Apple will lose here, too; their claims are ludicrously broad. They'd have better luck trying to patent the rectangle, which is essentially what they are doing here.

 

[Lennholm]

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD, and brought them back to Google. This was a massive breach of trust on Eric's part. You would never see someone like Larry Elision
do that to Steve. Eric and Larry were equally close to Steve during Eric's time on Apple's BOD.

No, it's not common knowledge, it's pure speculation and accusations common among Apple fanboys. Neither Jobs nor anyone else at Apple has ever accused Schmidt of abusing information he may have obtained while on the board. Also, he was invited to join the board after it was well known that Google were working on their own mobile OS. Here's a thought for you; maybe Jobs invited Schmidt to the board because he wanted to keep track of what Google was up to with Android.
Why are you so emotional about Schmidt? Why this hate against a man you don't know on behalf of a company you just happen to be a fan of?
What would the iPhone had been if it weren't for Schmidt? Well, no Maps for starters, quite possibly no Youtube app either.

 

[chiefpavvy]

I notice not one replied to my much earlier musing about Steve Jobs being 100% correct that Android is a stolen product. Apple folks don't like to talk about it, fAndroids deny it, but the truth is out there. The core of Android is based on stolen intellectual property from Sun (Oracle) called Java. In fact, Android is really nothing more than a virtual machine running on Java. At some point, Google will be forced to pay for the theft of IP, the question is whether Android will continue to exist at that point as the cost of licensing and damages plus the loss of faith in the platform may well damn Android to the halls of history.

One can have a spirited argument about the other things - design, aesthetics, packaging, etc (which have all been stolen from Apple by others as well) but that is far more subjective than the FACT that Android is stolen IP.

 

[Bezetos]

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD, and brought them back to Google. This was a massive breach of trust on Eric's part. You would never see someone like Larry Elision
do that to Steve. Eric and Larry were equally close to Steve during Eric's time on Apple's BOD.

No, it's not common knowledge, it's pure speculation and accusations common among Apple fanboys. Neither Jobs nor anyone else at Apple has ever accused Schmidt of abusing information he may have obtained while on the board. Also, he was invited to join the board after it was well known that Google were working on their own mobile OS. Here's a thought for you; maybe Jobs invited Schmidt to the board because he wanted to keep track of what Google was up to with Android.
Why are you so emotional about Schmidt? Why this hate against a man you don't know on behalf of a company you just happen to be a fan of?
What would the iPhone had been if it weren't for Schmidt? Well, no Maps for starters, quite possibly no Youtube app either.

Exactly, Lennholm. It's pure speculation and I must add it's very naive.

It's a perfect example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Apple fans say that since Eric and Steve discussed mobile operating systems and because Android was released shortly after iOS (the Android beta was released only a few months after iOS), Android must have stolen from iOS.

Because if Apple fanatics even consider the possibility that iOS and Android are a result of both people working together on and discussing mobile operating systems, or worse, iOS was inspired by some suggestions from Eric and wasn't entirely devised by Steve "Super Jesus" Jobs, their heads will explode.

 

[Exio]

Apple; Patent trolling since 2007.

 

[Chlloret]

I don't think this is correct. On Android if you tap once an arrow appears below the text which you can move between characters. If you tap and hold you select the whole word. It's completely different.

Nope, just tried it on my Android Moto Defy. Exactly like on iOS here on the iPad. Maybe they changed it on newer Android Versions, you know, the ones nobody gets without buying every 6 month a new phone.

 

[Oletros]

The core of Android is based on stolen intellectual property from Sun (Oracle) called Java. In fact, Android is really nothing more than a virtual machine running on Java

You're joking, don't you?

1. Android IS not a virtual machine running on Java
2. Android has not stolen a **** from Sun (Oracle) as the judge and jury stated in the recent FINISHED trial

Do you read news?

 

[Bezetos]

In fact, Android is really nothing more than a virtual machine running on Java.

"Android consists of a kernel based on the Linux kernel, with middleware, libraries and APIs written in C and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony. Android uses the Dalvik virtual machine with just-in-time compilation to run Dalvik dex-code (Dalvik Executable), which is usually translated from Java bytecode" via Wikipedia

Do you seriously think that you can post complete nonsense and get away with it?

 

[slattery69]

I notice not one replied to my much earlier musing about Steve Jobs being 100% correct that Android is a stolen product. Apple folks don't like to talk about it, fAndroids deny it, but the truth is out there. The core of Android is based on stolen intellectual property from Sun (Oracle) called Java. In fact, Android is really nothing more than a virtual machine running on Java. At some point, Google will be forced to pay for the theft of IP, the question is whether Android will continue to exist at that point as the cost of licensing and damages plus the loss of faith in the platform may well damn Android to the halls of history.

One can have a spirited argument about the other things - design, aesthetics, packaging, etc (which have all been stolen from Apple by others as well) but that is far more subjective than the FACT that Android is stolen IP.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1014_3-57440389/oracle-v-google-after-the-jury-verdict-what-happens-next/


Just to keep you up todate with that case you seem to have missed it

 

[kdarling]

Apple isn't "sole owner of the form factor" and has never made any claim they are.

Apple hired an expert to give testimony as to what Samsung could change in order to not infringe on Apple's design, and his Apple approved list for phones and tablets included:

• Front surface that isn't black
• Non-horizontal speaker slots
• Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners
• Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface
• Front surface that isn't entirely flat
• Profiles that aren't thin
• Cluttered appearance

Apple has a design patent, which is for one specific design, consisting of many elements that all need to be copied for infringement, and the Galaxy tab seems to have copied all of them.

The design patent in question is not very specific. It actually looks more like the Tab than the iPad, because it's missing the iOS Home button:



There's no doubt that a unpowered Tab looks a lot like an unpowered-up iPad at first glance, but that's because there's amost no decoration involved. The question is, should someone really be able to patent a generic design with so many functional elements (which cannot themselves be patented). Some judges think no, some yes. It's an interesting question.

It is common knowledge that Eric stole confidential details of iOS from the Time on Apple's BOD, and brought them back to Google.

Total myth.

Not even Jobs ever accused Schmidt of stealing any info.

What Jobs did do, was accuse Google of copying the iPhone design _after_ the iPhone came out.

If anything, Apple owes Google a great deal towards the initial success of the iPhone, due to Google Search, Maps and YouTube support, along with Google Cell Location services.

 

[Glideslope]

Exactly, Lennholm. It's pure speculation and I must add it's very naive.

It's a perfect example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Apple fans say that since Eric and Steve discussed mobile operating systems and because Android was released shortly after iOS (the Android beta was released only a few months after iOS), Android must have stolen from iOS.

Because if Apple fanatics even consider the possibility that iOS and Android are a result of both people working together on and discussing mobile operating systems, or worse, iOS was inspired by some suggestions from Eric and wasn't entirely devised by Steve "Super Jesus" Jobs, their heads will explode.

Just watch the next 12m. You'll remember me.

 

[Bezetos]

Just watch the next 12m. You'll remember me.

I have no idea what you are implying here.

Are you trying to say that this false rumour will suddenly proven to be true?

Because if it were true, we would have known about it by now.

 

[Oletros]

Just watch the next 12m. You'll remember me.

Are you saying that Schimdt will be judged for illegal activities?

 

[PolkHighBundy's]

C'mon

As someone who owned a iPhone 3GS but recently got the Galaxy Nexus, there is little to no similarities in the two phones, both form factor or software. The Nexus and ICS are, in my opinion at least, far superior to iOS (un-jailbroken). Anyone who think this suit has merit has not used both devices.

 

[Chlloret]

As someone who owned a iPhone 3GS but recently got the Galaxy Nexus, there is little to no similarities in the two phones, both form factor or software. The Nexus and ICS are, in my opinion at least, far superior to iOS (un-jailbroken). Anyone who think this suit has merit has not used both devices.

You compare a 3 year old device with a recently launched Smartphone sporting a OS that is not yet available to 90% of all users?
I would be really surprised if there are major similarities.