Among all Samsung phones, the Galaxy Nexus has the least resemblance to the iPhone.
Instead of rolling your eyes, maybe take a look and read why it was barred... Had nothing to do with the way it looks.
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
Instead of rolling your eyes, maybe take a look and read why it was barred... Had nothing to do with the way it looks.
We keep hearing about that "leaked information", I take it's some mythical Steve Jobs knowledge that was stolen by evil companies from his rainbow palace of greatness.
These court cases only involve patents like "if you perform a gesture on the screen, you unlock your phone" or "display a suggestion if you type the word wrong" (i.e. spellcheck). Tell me, where's that crucial leaked information, that secret ingredient?
These are kids fighting on a playground. They are fighting over trivial patents only because the law allows them. That's all it is.
And here's some food for thought:
Android (most of it at least) is open source. At every Google's developer conference you have a lot of talks where Android developers explain precisely how certain things are done in the OS, starting from the rendering process and finishing on thread management. All of this is available for free. Everyone can learn and contribute to technological progress.
And then you have iOS. A closed system with more limited functionality, which has lately introduced a few concepts which were seen on Android before. At WWDC you have speeches about how awesome, revolutionary, life-changing Apple is, and how "everyone is trying to copy them". You have a couple labs about "user interface design" and how to market your app, so it sells and makes you and Apple money. We know little about what's happening under the hood because only a few things are explained.
Now, tell me. Who is stealing from whom.
----------
"Resemblance" does not only refer to the looks.
And if you read about why it was barred, you can come to the same conclusion - there is little resemblance.
1. As far as infringing on Android IP... it's kind of hard to sue someone for using code from an open source platform.
2. Since iOS is based off many proprietary technologies from Next and Apple, there aren't any modern mobile operating systems older than it. (In fact, one of the infringement claims is from a patent dating back to 1994; IP that was used in both Mac OS and Newton OS.)
If the android OS is 'open source' then why do google refuse to provide source code upon request during the preliminaries... Why does/isn't Sammy allowed to disclose it during hearings? It is 'open' baring 'secret sauce' components which remain under the hood until superseded.
Most of what you said is "Opinion". With exception to "it did weigh a TON, was thick and ate batteries...." So true was what it did compared to an iPhone. Your statement of "it did it better" is opinion, not fact. If it was fact, it would have taken off before the iPhone and still been the de-fact-o standard that the iPhone is. Not to mention WM would have owned the world by now. Any new phone out there (Droid, MS, RIM). Its immediately compared to that of an iPhone. Even if the reviewer states the the opposing phone is superior or better or worse or whatever. It's still compared to the iPhone. Hence my statement of it being "standard", or the benchmark.
I'm not saying that your opinion of any other phone being better then the iPhone is wrong. It may very well be better for you and others. Just didn't make the cut like the iPhone did. Like it or not, its what it is right now.
At the end of the day we can go over and over which is better. Still doesn't help with what the case at hand is. Whom, owns what patents for what, when, and if they still do. What's cross licensed or just stolen, copied, etc.
Kurwenal was referring to the three judges who remanded the case back to Koh.
I believe Kurwenal's point was that Samsung's lawyers were unable to get the design patent attack prong negated.
(Actually, they thought they had done so, with Koh's original decision. But the two pieces of prior art evidence ... the Knight-Ridder concept and the Compaq tablet... didn't last on appeal and Samsung had no chance to come up with more.)
Personally, I think Samsung should bring up fanboy concept art to prove what an obvious design it was. For example, these pre-iPad MacBook tablet fan concepts, which have the critical flat black front, even borders and edge trim:
Heck, Sport Illustrated's tablet concept from 2009 also had it all:
It's hard to see, but even the 1973 "Tomorrow People" sci-fi show had a flat screen tablet with black borders and metal trim:
It seems pretty evident that Apple's iPad design was not a unique idea at all, even in the details.
In other words, Samsung could claim that Apple didn't invent that design. They simply chose it and made it popular. That makes it fair game for others to choose as well.
.
Last edited:
Wrong, iOS inherits a lot of technologies from Next, Mac OS, Newton OS, and Mac OS X... All around way before Android which wasn't even released into the wild as a beta until the end of 2007. The first official release wasn't until almost a year later in September of 2008, which gave them plenty of time to ape most of the iPhone's features including user interface and interaction.
Just because a particular feature may have appeared in Android before iOS, doesn't mean that Apple copied or stole an idea from Android... More than likely it came from another operating system Apple developed.
There is only one example that may show that Apple was "inspired" by Android, and that's the notification center, but it was also improved upon by Apple.
I think people forget that Apple had MANY things out before there was ever a smartphone to use it on. OS wise and software wise. As if Apple only came out in the late 2000's and intro'd a phone that was a copy off of what everyone else was doing before it.
Android is open source, Google Apps are not open source, binary drivers and firmware are not open source
The bit I don't get is that if the design was so obvious and if there is an abundance of prior art;
- why didn't someone do it before Apple?
- why do they have to scramble around to find prior art, rather than just showing the prior art that influenced their design?
Personally, I think it's clear that Android (both the OS and the devices) did borrow ideas from Apple, the same as Apple borrowed ideas from others. The only question is whether they did it legally or not.
I don't understand why some people are criticising Apple for their use of courts and patents to attack the competition and defend their products. Apple had to remove push email in Germany due to Motorola taking them to court over an ancient pager patent. Plus Google and Samsung are just as bad, arguably they are worse as they primarily use FRAND patents to attack.
I think some people conveniently forget how revolutionary the iPhone was when it came out. Most of their competitors laughed at them and said it would never sell, yet within 6 months they were all rushing out products to compete - a new "iPhone clone" category of mobile sprung up as a result.
If you don't give protection to companies that create game changers, there will be less incentive for them to come up with them in future which will be bad for everyone. You can compete without blatant copying, look at the way Microsoft have responded with the Metro interface.
Inspired vs. copied. It's like looting vs. foraging for tech geeks.
Also, I wouldn't consider the notification center improved upon exactly, because it's really truly honestly not vastly different.
mjtomlin said:
Not to get too off topic, but how exactly did Apple improve on notifications over Android? Apple's implementation is like Froyo and older, ICS' notification center (and JB's) blows iOS' implementation out of the water.
How does this make me wrong?
iOS is closed and more limited? True.
It has lately introduced a few concepts that Android had before? True.
Where am I wrong?
See, I won't be that kind of person like Apple fanatics and Apple itself and say that "someone stole an idea". Companies doing similar things is not "stealing" for me. But don't make me laugh saying that those new features likely come from another operating system Apple developed. There's no reason to believe it's more likely. It might be the case when it comes to some features but let's not try to make it sound like they are not looking at competitors.
There are many other examples. A few of the iCloud concepts for starters. Many of the new iOS features like "do not disturb mode". But again, I'm not stating that Apple was stealing something.
And the argument "they got inspired and improved it" can be used by both Google and Apple. Plus, did they really improve it that much?
----------
The source code is available as we speak.
What's your point?
Yep. And, just to add fuel to the fire, over the weekend, Judge Koh denied 14 (14!) motions for summary judgment filed by Samsung. The game is far from over, but it was a bad week for Android -- and you throw on top of that confirmation that the FTC is investigating Google over FRAND.....
Yah, you and I are making sort of the same point. You look at that patent (the design patent) and you have to think "no way this is valid." But the thing has survived a full onslaught by Samsung's very large litigation team, at least so far. The prior art, no doubt, will play better in front of a jury later this month than it has before the judges. But, some degree of damage will have been done and I doubt Apple gives a rat's a** about the bond.
(sorry, missed this initially)
I keep asking here and I never get an answer, so maybe you can give me one.
What did, exactly, Android steal from iOS?
Nobody could answer me this to date. All I get is stupid answers like "the whole phone" (hi djphat2000!) or "you know, the user interface and stuff".
I want a precise description of what was stolen. What exactly was used in iOS, that hasn't been used by any other phone before and is of substantial importance, that was "stolen" from Apple by Android.
Nope, it's not a moot point.
When something is already used by others, even if you didn't know it, you cannot patent it.
That's what a prior art search is supposed to find.
The FTC is also likely to investigate if the buyers of the Nortel patents (e.g Apple and Microsoft) might be thinking of holding back licensing as promised.
Neither investigation will probably go anywhere.
More importantly, the FTC has recently told the ITC that withholding imports would hurt US customers more than it would help the patent holders. That might begin to affect court judges as well.
Yes, it's all about the damage to Android sales. Apple isn't fighting to protect IP that probably shouldn't have been granted in the first place... they're out to slow down the competition.
Good point about juries being more open to prior art.
Forgive me, but that's an opinion. Assuming they can't keep up the pace (of which they created) thru fair competitive means. Not being a fan boy or hater in either direction here, but every company should have the ability to protect there work (patents) to the fullest extent of the law. Now if Apple is wrong on this. They lose there case, and life continues. If they are proven right, Samsung and or any other company in said violation will Cease and desist. And if they figure out a way to get around the injunction or fix the issue at hand, then swell. They go back to selling there products.
This case is needed in order to get past this point. If Apple is right, and they prevent Samsung from selling a product that infringes on theres. Good for them. Samsung and Google will have to figure out a better way to compete on whatever feature was in question. Maybe they find a better way of doing it, or the just drop the feature all together. But, that's how its supposed to work. Not a free for all were you and anyone else can copy anyone else and just get away with it.
Before Apple got into this market, Google made it clear that its primary reason for getting into this space was to make sure Microsoft didn't dominate the mobile market like it did with the desktop market. This was to ensure that Google had a fair playing ground to compete with Microsoft's mobile ad business. There were no restrictions in the mobile device category like there was placed on the desktop. Meaning Microsoft was free to only support its ad network in its mobile OS. If Microsoft became a dominant player in the mobile space, this would effectively lock Google out of what was becoming a very large market.
Google's Android was a clone of Blackberry/WinMo the two best selling mobile operating systems in the US. at the time. From Google's own files (released during the Oracle trial)...
http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/googles-first-android-phone-prototype-was-a-blackberry-lookalike/301732
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/google-phone-2006-first-android_n_1455345.html
And of course a prototype in the wild captured in late 2007...
http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild
Furthermore I'm not saying Google stole anything, but it is clear that they went back to the drawing board to create something that was more like the iPhone then what they initially intended on releasing. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the entire user interface and interaction was completely changed to attempt to resemble the way the iPhone worked.
After the release of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, it was painfully obvious this is exactly what they did. The touch interface was half-assed as if it had been bolted on; it only worked in some parts of the OS and it didn't support multi-touch.
We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience. This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features. The fact is the iPhone was very unique in how you used it, the interface, the interaction. And I'm not talking about a grid of icons, I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch.
This is why copy and paste took so long. You couldn't simply click and drag... there is no clicking on a touch interface. If you put your finger down and dragged it, the interface panned or scrolled. On devices previous to the iPHone, in order to pan or scroll, you used scroll bars. So copy&paste were much easier and obvious to implement, because outside of the scrollbar was the content that could be selected/highlighted.
Last edited: