Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design

smoledman said:
So Apple copied the LG Prada, but they're allowed to get away with it because LG doesn't have the deep pockets to sue them.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this? Are you incapable of acknowledging that Apple had the design for the iPhone 4 already in 2006, before the Prada was released? I guess it's fun to post falsities.
 
kdarling said:
Jobs did not start publicly ranting about Android until they turned on multi-touch in 2010, THREE YEARS AFTER the iPhone was first shown off, and over a half year after Schmidt left the Apple board.

...

Even by mid 2009, when Schmidt left the Apple board, and after Android phones had been selling for half a year, Jobs STILL had nothing bad to say publicly about Android

...

It wasn't until early 2010, after Google finally enabled multi-touch and some other features also used by the iPhone, that Jobs publicly went ballistic over Android and started accusing it of copying.
Click to expand...

These corrections (in red) should help.
 
faroZ06 said:
What's so groundbreaking about an unstable, popular OS that is a copy of the Apple one? There was nothing new about Windows other than its popularity.
Click to expand...

Easy, it created an industry standard, when there were TONS of OS"s in existence, and pretty much NONE of them were compatible with each other.

And clearly you've never used old Macs, because they aren't stable at all either.

And as far as Windows being unstable....never really ran into any issues post Windows NT 4.0/Windows mE.

Using the same logic, whats so ground breaking about the iPhone and iPad? Or the iPod?

None of them brought anything to new to the table, they were just the most popular.
 
LordVic said:
there are only so many design elements you can do and use when you've narrowed yourselves down to simplicity. What does apple want? Everyone to start making circlular screen phones?
Click to expand...

Suppose Samsung made a phone that looked exactly like the iPhone 4 at the same time that Apple made the iPhone. The iPhone and the iPhone 4 designs are different enough if you ignore the minor details like the home button and dock connector. The iPhone 4 and some of the Samsung phone designs are too similar. And some other Samsung phones look nothing like the iPhone. It's not like Apple has patented the only smartphone design.

250px-Iphone_4G-3_black_screen.png
apple_iphone.jpg
The overall design is pretty different, right?
 
Last edited:
JohnDoe98 said:
Why do people keep saying this? Are you incapable of acknowledging that Apple had the design for the iPhone 4 already in 2006, before the Prada was released? I guess it's fun to post falsities.
Click to expand...

reason this keeps coming up is because Apple is claiming that the design / look and feely stuff for the iPhone is completely original, was first to market, and should be exclusively their right to sell.

The LG Prada, Despite not being a comercial success is evidence that the concept for a candy bar shaped touch screen only device with the roughly same shape and design elements was already in development and production by other companies.

Those other companies don't have to be succesful with it, Just show that they already had it.

the fact that the Prada was out before the iphone shows that apples design patents had prior art to influence it. Which means they should not be capable of holding the patents for those design elements.

Without those patents, They have nothing to sue others on (for design elements at least).

This is why we keep seeing the Prada being brought up. Being released to the consumer before Apple's iphone indicates that prior art DOES exist.
 
think Samsung responded well to Apple's opening statements

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ith-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/

I need some clarification on one piece

But before the jurors who were selected yesterday even got a chance to step into the courtroom, Samsung went on the defense, asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to reconsider a request to allow exhibits the Korean company says shows that its smartphone designs were in progress before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.

[SNIP]

Judge Koh dismissed Samsung’s request, saying that she had already ruled three times on the exhibits and they would not be presented to the jury.
Click to expand...

what exactly is she not letting in? seems from the liveblog they were able to display roadmaps
 
samcraig said:
Why - none of the pictures shown there have anything to do with the three major trade dress issues that the trial is based on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely irrelevant. Does it show a propensity and willingness to ride the line of trade dress infringement on Samsung's part? Yes it certainly does.
 
imageWIS said:
Do Braun's patents on their calculator still had validity? If so they could definitely sue Apple.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If apple violated patents, they should be sued too.

I don't get why some here think it's ok for companies to sue Apple, but not the other way around.
 
KnightWRX said:
Who sued Apple over the design of the iPhone or iOS ? I see a lot of utility patent suits, not many design suits.
Click to expand...

My reply had nothing to do with patents. The quote you replied to didn't talk about patents. I thought the point of your reply was about Eric Schmidt. I just point out that there are heck of a lot of coincidences surrounding this situation.
 
LordVic said:
reason this keeps coming up is because Apple is claiming that the design / look and feely stuff for the iPhone is completely original, was first to market, and should be exclusively their right to sell.

The LG Prada, Despite not being a comercial success is evidence that the concept for a candy bar shaped touch screen only device with the roughly same shape and design elements was already in development and production by other companies.
Click to expand...

But here's the thing, one other company does not = other companies. Furthermore, the phones Apple is claiming are infringing their patents do not look like the Prada, they look like the iPhone almost to a T, as does their OS environment.

Those other companies don't have to be succesful with it, Just show that they already had it.
Click to expand...

There you go twisting grammar and facts to make your case plausible. So rather than engage in hasty generalizations, how about you show me the precedent Samsung had, not LG. There is no legal dispute between Apple and LG. I suppose Samsung could say in court "oh, we didn't copy Apple, we copied LG", but I don't think that would make for a persuasive defense. Do you? Again, either Samsung can make a credible case it had its own precedent, or it seems Apple's claims are pretty convincing. There is ample precedent showed in this thread that Samsung has made of habit of copying Apple's designs and trade-dress.

the fact that the Prada was out before the iphone shows that apples design patents had prior art to influence it. Which means they should not be capable of holding the patents for those design elements.
Click to expand...

But Apple has designs going back as far as 2005, meaning they didn't have the Prada to influence it.

Without those patents, They have nothing to sue others on (for design elements at least).
Click to expand...

Were the patents granted to them? If yes, the question is why?

This is why we keep seeing the Prada being brought up. Being released to the consumer before Apple's iphone indicates that prior art DOES exist.
Click to expand...

For LG it does.
 
G51989 said:
Easy, it created an industry standard, when there were TONS of OS"s in existence, and pretty much NONE of them were compatible with each other.
Creating a standard is not innovative. It's not like someone said "Oh, I have a great idea! Let's make a standard!"

And clearly you've never used old Macs, because they aren't stable at all either.
What does this have to do with anything? I've used a Mac SE, and it was stable.

And as far as Windows being unstable....never really ran into any issues post Windows NT 4.0/Windows mE.
My Windows 7 stopped being genuine. Windows 2000 and XP have issues with using keyboards and mice and sometimes with connecting to the network. I'm pretty sure that the yellow search dog in XP has never found anything in his life.

Using the same logic, whats so ground breaking about the iPhone and iPad? Or the iPod?

None of them brought anything to new to the table, they were just the most popular.
Syncing with iTunes is the big thing with the iPod, but I agree that it was not new or innovative but just very good. The iPhone was the first thing that really synced well with the computer, had an app store (later), had a good music player that also synced, and had a really app-centric OS. The iPad was nothing new really, just a big iPod touch. I never said that Apple was always innovative, especially not in the 90s; I was just saying that MS is not innovative.
Click to expand...

Replies are in bold since multiple quotes are annoying.
 
Last edited:
troop231 said:
It's quite obvious Samsung copies Apple in almost everything:
Click to expand...

Oh god. That's horrendous. Obviously most of that is not a part of this lawsuit, but it gives credence to the notion that samsung set out to copy, and nothing more. It shows the character of Samsung as a company, if nothing else. Furthermore, if those internal documents really are true (and if there's more)... that can be pretty damning.

Of course this is all assuming that Apple filed that patent before any prior art appeared.
 
boronathan said:
Oh we're playing some silly nitpicking game? Sorry didn't know. Go on...

:confused:
Click to expand...

The OP accused Eric Schmidt of industrial theft and then he said that Apple didn't sued because Google (not Schmidt) give things away.

Eric Schimdt don't gave anything, and if Apple thought he stole trade or industrial secrets they have sued him as quickly as they can.
 
kdarling said:
It wasn't until early 2010, after Google finally enabled multi-touch and some other features also used by the iPhone, that Jobs went ballistic over Android and started accusing it of copying.

Among other reasons, Jobs apparently thought that Apple owned a patent on all multi-touch devices and no one else should be able to use it.
Click to expand...

When Steve Jobs said "And boy, is it patented", about Multitouch during the iPhone 1 keynote, to thunderous applause no less, that was a warning shot.

Jobs learned from Microsoft with Windows, to nail down everything, and so he did. Samsung and Google thought they would be as lucky as Bill Gates.

They were wrong.
 
Technarchy said:
When Steve Jobs said "And boy, is it patented", about Multitouch during the iPhone 1 keynote, to thunderous applause no less, that was a warning shot.

Jobs learned from Microsoft with Windows, to nail down everything, and so he did. Samsung and Google thought they would be as lucky as Bill Gates.

They were wrong.
Click to expand...

But multitouch it is not a patent that Apple has
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back