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

Oletros said:
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.
Click to expand...

The op said why sue the guy when he's giving the stuff away for free. What he meant was Android is free and Google gives it away free to anyone who wants it. The op didn't mean eric schmidt is standing on a corner handing out Android to companies.

If you weren't deliberately being obtuse i apologize, but that's sure what it read like. Maybe it is just a language barrier.
 
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...
We know Apple didn't copy the Prada... it's idiotic to even assume this.

What we do know is that LG actually showed their product BEFORE anyone knew what an iPhone was going to look like.
So we know for a fact that another company was building phones that had similar external design features to an iPhone.

Remember... nobody knew about any of Apple's previous design prototypes until a few weeks ago.
But it's obvious that Apple would have gone through several prototypes before reaching the final design.

I can guarantee LG went through the same process.

Samsung has also provided proof that they were researching this style of phone as well.

The absurdity here is for anyone to think Apple "invented" the rectangle touch screen phone design.
 
boronathan said:
The op said why sue the guy when he's giving the stuff away for free. What he meant was Android is free and Google gives it away free to anyone who wants it. The op didn't mean eric schmidt is standing on a corner handing out Android to companies.

If you weren't deliberately being obtuse i apologize, but that's sure what it read like. Maybe it is just a language barrier.
Click to expand...

Android has nothing to do with this. It is industrial theft and the one doing it was Schmidt, not Google. Apple can't sue Samsung because Schmidt did industrial theft.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Well remember around 2007 capasive touch screens had dropped to the point in cost that they were both good enough and cheap enough to use in phones. Windows mobile 6.5 did not support multi touch and really only supported resitive touch screens.

Around the iPhone that changed and what you needed as an OS that could use it (Android).

That combonation made touch screens popular because they go from a rather poor touch screen type to a good touch screen type.
Click to expand...

Android meant there was suddenly a purpose/reason to add an expensive component like a capacitive panel to the bill of materials. The proliferation of Android devices then brought the cost down of capacitive panels.

Why would capacitive screens be dropping in cost if the only widely licensed smartphone software at the time (Win Mobile) didn't even support them? That makes no sense.
 
Looking at that pic on the first post I can see where Apple is coming from, after the iPhone there was a fundamental shift in design from Samsung and I assume other makers but can't that be said about most things when there is a leap in technology or design, did Ford sue other car manufactures after they launched the model T ?

And back with tech what about the iMac, there are lots of PC AIO computers now all design along similar lines, even some Chinese ones basically copying the same design as Apple.
 
Oletros said:
When your first fact is false, the rest can't be better
Click to expand...

Then I guess Engadget, Zdnet, Slashgear and Cnet were all wrong.

But it would probably be better next time to state actual proof because it doesn't take more than a Google Image search for 'early Android prototype' to see a hundred pictures of the same device coming from numerous articles and tech sites.

Edit: I also forgot this nugget as well

Original Android Prototype Revealed During Google, Oracle Trial

android_before_after_iphone-11352344.jpg


So please tell me where I'm wrong?
 
Oletros said:
Android has nothing to do with this. It is industrial theft and the one doing it was Schmidt, not Google. Apple can't sue Samsung because Schmidt did industrial theft.
Click to expand...

apples goal is to get money. so yes, they will and did sue Samsung for what they believe is theft of their ip.
 
Rennir said:
Has Apple ever used this diagram in court? Seems like it would be very effective in arguing its case.
Click to expand...

These images are more about accessories, not smartphones, but they might discredit Samsung more. I don't exactly know how the court works. Oh, and I would not say that Samsung copies Apple for most of their products, but they do for a handful.
 
LordVic said:
nice fair judge... refusing to let defense present their own defense... so much for fair and impartial courts?
Click to expand...

not allowing evidence happens everyday in every courtroom in every state. If the judge did something out of bias, during a Samsung appeal it'll come out.

Conspiracy theories are crazy.
 
faroZ06 said:
These images are more about accessories, not smartphones.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't these demonstrate a pattern of copying by Samsung that would help them prove their cases? And why not sue over accessories? Unless they didn't/can't patent these?
 
ganymedes13 said:
Then I guess Engadget, Zdnet, Slashgear and Cnet were all wrong.

But it would probably be better next time to state actual proof because it doesn't take more than a Google Image search for 'early Android prototype' to see a hundred pictures of the same device coming from numerous articles and tech sites.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the date of the picture you have posted? And no none of them were all wrong, all of them posted this picture in November 2.007

----------
ganymedes13 said:
Then I guess Engadget, Zdnet, Slashgear and Cnet were all wrong.
Click to expand...



Have you looked at the date of the picture you have posted? And no none of them were all wrong, all of them posted this picture in November 2.007

ganymedes13 said:
But it would probably be better next time to state actual proof because it doesn't take more than a Google Image search for 'early Android prototype' to see a hundred pictures of the same device coming from numerous articles and tech sites.
Click to expand...

I bet you that you won't find that picture you have posted is from 2.006.
 
LagunaSol said:
Baloney. How many CEOs leave due to "personal reasons?" Or to "spend more time with family?" Never because they "boinked the VP's wife" or were "utterly incompetent." Companies tend to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public, something you should know working in PR. The "official statement" at Schmidt's departure offers no credible evidence whatsoever about the actual circumstances or internal opinion of the man.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. They state something generic like "personal reasons" - they don't include a quote from a CEO praising their contributions to the company.

dethmaShine said:
He's good at schooling people too.
Click to expand...

I be smarter already!

boronathan said:
Android is free...
Click to expand...

No... it's not.
 
rjohnstone said:
Samsung has also provided proof that they were researching this style of phone as well.

The absurdity here is for anyone to think Apple "invented" the rectangle touch screen phone design.
Click to expand...

Well, for my part I don't see any indication to think Apple thinks it invented the rectangle touch screen phone design, nor that only it should be allowed to design such products. I don't see Apple suing LG, Nokia, HTC, etc. for their designs of touchscreen phones that are rectangular and rounded in corners. They may have sued some of those companies for other patent infringements, but not in this regard. Only Samsung is being targeted in this particular regard.

People with an agenda against Apple claim it is because Apple wants to target Samsung first as it's the biggest fish in the pond. If that what you want to believe fine. I think such a belief is due to a cognitive bias. I also happen to think Apple has no apparent problems with the other companies who have designs that are sufficiently different from their own, as evidenced by the fact they didn't sue them. Apple could easily have sued everyone at the same time, if they so chose. They didn't. That's a fact. Apple didn't have to "start" with Samsung. I know conspiracy theories are fun an all, but from a neutral standpoint the only logical conclusion from the current evidence is Apple has a problem with Samsung specifically, in this particular regard.

You claim that Samsung has proven they were researching this type of design prior to the iPhone, for my part I don't see it, and according to Apple's legal briefs, they don't see it either. Let's see what the court think on the matter when it has all the arguments and evidence at its disposal, which we do not.
 
macMD said:
Based on the first line of "The mark consists of the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded silver edges, a black face, and an array of 16 square icons with rounded edges." I have to ask how can a company register a rectangular handheld mobile digital device when in fact every phone prior to the iPhone was a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device and in some cases had silver as the primary color which would mean the edges were silver.

I guess what I am asking is (and I know what the response will be) Samsung's success based on the perceived similarity or the actual product they are delivering, ANDROID.

When I see (and have used) a Samsung device I am not seeing an iOS device, when I had a Xoom I didn't compare it to my iPad.

It seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

By isolating one single quality out of that entire description, you've missed the entire point. That's like looking at the patent for a car and saying "It says "wheels"! Who do they think they are, trying to patent the wheel?" Nor is Apple arguing that the rectangular shape is the only similarity.
 
reckless2k2 said:
Most computers look the same. Most cars look the same. Many things look the same or similar. It just seems we as a society have just become so litigious and offended at everything. How about flattered? How about we try that one on. Flattery.

I'm an Apple fan but this is getting out of hand.
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar position. This is getting out of hand.

Surprised that no one has sued for the wheel?
What about car makers????
Ferrari vs Lamborghini. 4 wheels, seats, steering wheel, lights. I made that first....lol.
 
JohnDoe98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Patent in question in this case is design. so yes, the look and feel. if the iphone looks like the prada, and the samsung looks like the iphone... its not a far stretch to think that in fact, the design elements amongst the 3 phones are similar, and since it was Prada who possibly had the initial design, it is not apples design to sue upon.

That is why LG prada keeps being brought up. LG has never sued apple. So we can only assume that LG doesn't believe apple infringed (or doesn't care).

"oh, we didn't copy Apple, we copied LG", but I don't think that would make for a persuasive defence.
Click to expand...

actually, would be a decent defence against apple. Though it would open up possible litigation from Samsung. Not a wise defence, IMHO, but would put a wrinkle up apples nose.


But Apple has designs going back as far as 2005, meaning they didn't have the Prada to influence it.
Click to expand...
we have no evidence for or against when LG prada was in design. Therefore we cannot make any claims that the LG prada wasn't in developement long before, or immediately before. All we know is that the release date to the consumer for the LG phone was prior to the iphones release, And thus, could possibly have invalidating affects on the patent.


Were the patents granted to them? If yes, the question is why?
Click to expand...
The patent system is horribly flawed and extremely open to those who have the most money. Apple historically, Even back in their early days have had a shotgun approach to patents. File for everything. Attach with everything, And see what sticks. In the long run, Apple has had a lot of patents invalidated. The patent office isn't some infallible organization that knows everything. They award patents often frivolously for those who are willing to pay.

Apple abusing that doesn't make them anymore right.
 
Oletros said:
Have you looked at the date of the picture you have posted? And no none of them were all wrong, all of them posted this picture in November 2.007
Click to expand...

I edited my post to show the image but I'll post it again.

android_before_after_iphone-11352344.jpg


A key point in that Oracle Google lawsuit:

Google didn’t plan for its smartphone to have touchscreens initially, according to the documents detailed by The Verge, and would have featured average specs for phones back in 2006,
Click to expand...

Here is the link to the article from The Verge:

This was the original 'Google Phone' presented in 2006

Now how am I still wrong?
 
samcraig said:
I'm glad you're not a juror then. There's more to a story than what the prosecution pulls out.

Really? the case would be decided just on that image alone. Apple supporter or Samsung support (or no supporter) - that's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...


It seems like you know something that we don't. How much more to the story here do you know that the rest of us mere mortals do not?

Actually, it's not just that image but the products themselves. After Apple announced and released the original iPhone in 2007, every handset manufacturer blatantly copied the design and functionality of the iPhone. I personally can't remember seeing an iPhone-like handset before the iPhone.

So.... How about you enlighten us with more of this story, I'd like to hear it.
 
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