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

I'm getting so sick of all these legal cases... I used to own a Samsung Galaxy S, now that device was clearly "borrowing" some of iPhone 3GS's design but Galaxy S2 and especially S3 are clearly different from Apple's products.

Besides who can forget that Steve Jobs once quoted "Good artists copy, great artists steal"? It's not like Apple has never copied anything and invented everything.
 
LagunaSol said:
You spoke to Jobs a lot did you?
Click to expand...

I spoke with him in the distant past when a friend made an Apple II expansion board, but that's beside the point.

Read his biography and you'll see that he didn't go ballistic over Android until 2010, as I stated.

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.
Click to expand...

Jobs said a lot of things when he was playing to a crowd.

Let's try this: please search the USPTO and list those 200 iPhone related patents and patent applications he talked about, and which ones are important. If you don't know how, I'll help:

Out of all those, there are only about a dozen that Apple considers worth using in lawsuits. Of those dozen, Apple only has three utility patents in play in their major California trial against Samsung: the end-of-page bounce, the scroll lock, and tap-to-zoom. The other four are design patents and some are really duplicates.

That's about five (5) patents in the most important case Apple has. Not 200.
 
Oletros said:
Can you understand that Apple owns some patents on multitouch gestures and some patents on multitouch screen manufacturing but hey doesn't own multitouch technology on smartphones as a whole
Click to expand...

Yes, but can you understand that it has a right to protect that which it owns? You can't just make a sweeping statement that "Apple doesn't own multitouch" when it clearly does own elements of a multitouch technology.

Apple doesn't own connectors either, but when it creates a unique connector then it has a protectable right.
 
poloponies said:
Yes, but can you understand that it has a right to protect that which it owns?
Click to expand...

And what has to do protecting your IP if you think that it has been infringed with the claim done that Apple patented multitouch?


poloponies said:
YYou can't just make a sweeping statement that "Apple doesn't own multitouch" when it clearly does own elements of a multitouch technology.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can say that, because they own elements of that technology, they doesn't own the technology and that is the only thing I have said.
 
samcraig said:
You're aware this is a discussion forum, right? You don't HAVE to be pro-Apple. Just most people are.

And someone can express frustration about a company on a given topic and that doesn't mean they shouldn't be on this forum and/or express their opinions.
Click to expand...

Imagine that, people being pro-apple on site called macrumors.com I never would have guessed. :eek:

If I want to read posts b**ching about Apple there are any number of tech sites where I can get it in droves - CNET, Engadget, ArsTechnica, TheVerge, SlashGear, Gizmodo, ZDNET, etc. etc. etc. Why does that ***** have to be bought over here? And why do some, who obviously are not fans of Apple, feel the need to correct perceived wrongs posted on an Apple fan site. I don't spend my time on Google or Microsoft or Samsung fan sites defending Apple. Not sure why others feel the need to spend so much time defending Google or Samsung on an Apple fan site. :confused:
 
LordVic said:
While I agree that this maybe the case.

What Apple is effectively saying though is that since they were the first POPULAR usage of the technology, they should be the exclusive use of the technology / design.

See the fault of this logic and why people are getting frustrated with Apple?

What would have happened in the PC industry if Apple had blocked every single GUI that came out after them from being sold? Because thats what they're effectively attempting to do with mobile devices. "Candy bar touchscreen phones didnt do well till we sold them, so nobody should be able to sell them but us!"\


If there's a legitimate technological innovation that Apple invented then they have every right to protect it. But Popularization of an idea and suing everyone else for following suit with the concept isn't right.

Apple did not invent any of the cellular technology in their phone.
Apple did not invent the glass of their phone
Apple did not invent the touch capability of their phone
Apple did not invent multi touch technology and gestures.
Apple did not invent a rectangular phone shape.
Apple did not invent putting a camera in a phone.
Apple did not invent the grid shortcut layout.
Apple did not invent the ARM cpu, nor the multicore ARM cpu.
Apple did not invent high DPI screens.
Apple did not invent ... (add your own).

Yet apple filed 200 patents on the iphone and has proceeded to sue the crap out of Samsung for using one or many of these technologies, as well as many other manufacturers.

This is why there's such negativity towards Apple whenever theres' new news on lawsuits.

Do i Think that Samsung changed gears post iphone? Yes. Do I believe that their marketing gimmickry has copied many of apples designs? yes. There is clear inspiration.

But like so many have said, Many of the things Apple is claiming are not their own to claim. the list of things goes on and on. The only lawsuit so far I think has had any legitimacy was the slide to unlock feature that Android instituted and they should have come up with another unlock mechanism.
Click to expand...

i completely agree and i don't think i said what i wanted to say well. i do not think apple should be claiming ownership. touchscreen wise, they were the ones that did it the best out of all the companies back in 2007 - and by doing that set the new standard in industry.

they should not be able to claim ownership on any of this. its just what the market is now
 
Oletros said:
And what has to do protecting your IP if you think that it has been infringed with the claim you did that Apple patented multitouch?




Yes, you can say that, because they own elements of that technology, they doesn't own the technology and that is the only thing I have said.
Click to expand...

I agree with someone earlier. You're a contrarian. Why does it matter whether or not they own all multitouch patents. They're suing for whatever patents they own. If you have a point, please get to it.
 
samcraig said:
Huh? They weren't pioneers in the touch screen industry. They assembled a great product.

Touchscreens were utilized for YEARS before Apple.

The industry was already shifting.

Your distorted view of history is baffling.
Click to expand...

utilized yes, but done well...no.
as i said in another quote, i didn't say what i wanted to say well.
apple should not be able to claim ownership over any of this.

however i do not think we would have ANY of the modern tablets or touchscreen devices if apple had not released the iPhone.
 
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a big part of this case is about consumer's mistaking Samsung's products for Apple's due to alleged copying. Where is the usual talk about consumer entitlement? Everyone was crying about how stupid consumers must be if Apple can be sued for Siri and the 4G label, and that obviously consumers should research products before buying them, enough to know whether or not Siri is in beta, and whether or not the iPad 3 is compatible with LTE in their country.

So they're supposed to know all of that through research, otherwise they have a huge sense of entitlement, and yet they aren't even expected to turn the product around to make sure they are buying the correct thing?

I just don't see the consistency in the arguments of people who support Apple.
 
Oletros said:
Exacly what Android copied from iOS?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the question. We will see how all the court battles turn out. It's not my decision or yours. You enjoy giving your opinion, so do I. This is not about our personal opinions, the courts will decide the matter, and it will be a long and drawn out fight. We'll be watching from the sidelines.
 
progression of smart phones

While phones made by Samsung do look like the iphone in some ways, in many ways they're not. Beyond the biggest difference in the OS, these phones look and feel different.

Additionally, phones, like all things, are fads and they are designed to satisfy needs of form/functionality/etc. that are popular at the time that can't be copyrighted.

I bet that many phones look like the iphone during this time and not just those made from Samsung.

How can that be copy right infringement when a person who buys a Samsung phone knows that they're not buying an iPhone?
 
Oletros said:
Those were not pictures, but renders, and if you read the links there were more form factors
Click to expand...
Renders or pictures, they still show the same development process and chassis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oletros said:
Did Android Really Look Like BlackBerry Before the iPhone?
Click to expand...
OK, so Android is open source and can run on any kind of device. Granted.

However, why do you think there are more candybar touchscreen smartphones, like the Samsung Galaxy SIII, than QWERTY smartphones, like the infamous prototype or the G1?

It might have to do with this quote from the article you linked:
Now, does this mean that the iPhone had zero influence on Android's early development? Of course not.
Click to expand...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oletros said:
I kn ow [sic] what an hypothesis is, but you have anything remotely plausible to support it or it is only thin air and wishful thinking?
Click to expand...
The hypothesis is plausible, it all fits with the sequence and consequences of the observed events. It's not "wishful thinking," as you derisively put it, it's just my hypothesis. It could be totally untrue, but I do not think that it is. You are entitled to your own, equally valid hypothesis.
 
T.Smith4 said:
So I don't usually comment, because all these arguments get pretty crazy. But this is what Android was going to look like up until the iPhone was released. There is no question why Apple is fighting so hard to protect its IP.
Click to expand...
Read this article, and you'll find that no side of this trivial argument is blameless.
 
easylost said:
While phones made by Samsung do look like the iphone in some ways, in many ways they're not. Beyond the biggest difference in the OS, these phones look and feel different.

Additionally, phones, like all things, are fads and they are designed to satisfy needs of form/functionality/etc. that are popular at the time that can't be copyrighted.

I bet that many phones look like the iphone during this time and not just those made from Samsung.

How can that be copy right infringement when a person who buys a Samsung phone knows that they're not buying an iPhone?
Click to expand...

Wow the Samsung phones look so much like the iPhone you could fool some people in a man on the street test.
 
Oletros said:
No, now you have ONE render of ONE of the three form factor prototypes

----------



When hyperbole wins, credibility loses
Click to expand...

Now it's getting ridiculous because you are changing your argument. You said that picture came from 2007 and acted as if there's no way to prove that the Android phone posted came from 2006. Well I just did. All of them were keyboard-based and all of them dated back to 2006 which does not help your argument. There were only minor cosmetic differences between them.

I'd like to know where I exaggerated anything in any of my posts from this story or mischaracterize anything untrue? You could just admit you were wrong but instead you decided to blindly attack and create confusion.
 
kdarling said:
Out of all those, there are only about a dozen that Apple considers worth using in lawsuits. Of those dozen, Apple only has three utility patents in play in their major California trial against Samsung: the end-of-page bounce, the scroll lock, and tap-to-zoom. The other four are design patents and some are really duplicates.

That's about five (5) patents in the most important case Apple has. Not 200.
Click to expand...

This is largely irrelevant.

The extent of all of Apple's patent's ability to play a role in current and future litigation is unknown. At this time 5 patents or even one is all Apple might find prudent enough to pursue at this time, but that doesn't make any and all other patents invalid or less important.
 
T.Smith4 said:
So I don't usually comment because all these arguments get pretty crazy. But this is what android was going to look like up until the iPhone was released. There is no question why Apple is fighting so hard to protect its IP.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2545...type_revealed_during_google_oracle_trial.html
Click to expand...

welcome to several pages back in the conversation. Did you read any of this thread - or just decide to post randomly thinking you were bringing something new? Curious.

Rogifan said:
Imagine that, people being pro-apple on site called macrumors.com I never would have guessed. :eek:

If I want to read posts b**ching about Apple there are any number of tech sites where I can get it in droves - CNET, Engadget, ArsTechnica, TheVerge, SlashGear, Gizmodo, ZDNET, etc. etc. etc. Why does that ***** have to be bought over here? And why do some, who obviously are not fans of Apple, feel the need to correct perceived wrongs posted on an Apple fan site. I don't spend my time on Google or Microsoft or Samsung fan sites defending Apple. Not sure why others feel the need to spend so much time defending Google or Samsung on an Apple fan site. :confused:
Click to expand...

No worries. It's not about bashing Apple or defending other Manufactures to me. The proliferation of lies, FUD, opinions, etc as facts is something I'm pretty likely to respond to. Perhaps futile - but I think most people who do the same, do so because maybe, just maybe the truth can come out for those that either a) don't know what's going on or b) believe anything anyone posts without actually doing the research.

One of the best examples of this is KDarling. What he posts are always factual and with sources. Yet some people still try to argue otherwise. With their opinions or retreads of other people's posts. Or blog entries. Or Op-Ed pieces. All of which aren't facts.
 
iMikeT said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a big exaggeration. Only a few companies did and only for a few of their models.
 
Interesting thread. Isn't this really simple. Apple created a product, patented it and sold it. It became popular and others copied.

Isn't the reason for patents to protect your innovations. I'm not sure of a rule that says when you become bigger and make more you should be okay about people infringing your patents.

Strategically I think it makes sense to take on Samsung because above all else you can show a culture of copying your products that will lend weight to your argument. Secondly they're a non-US company.

Once you win this you write to all the other companies and ask for royalties or halted sales. When you get this then you go for Google.

To take on Google first would have been a mistake.They're not retailing the product, they're loved by consumers and they're also US based. You wouldn't win this fight.

I hope Apple win against Samsung. Given the heavy "copy Apple" culture at Samsung you can bet the copies of any Apple product will appear faster and faster to market. Apple really needs to stop this.
 
T.Smith4 said:
So I don't usually comment because all these arguments get pretty crazy. But this is what android was going to look like up until the iPhone was released. There is no question why Apple is fighting so hard to protect its IP.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2545...type_revealed_during_google_oracle_trial.html
Click to expand...
Good lord not another newbie who doesn't know the difference between hardware and software. :rolleyes:

Android is SOFTWARE.

There were touch only devices as well.

Scroll through the picture gallery CNET put together back in 2007.
Edit: and before anyone stats screaming about it form being from 2007, hardware is neither designed or built overnight.
The Apple and Samsung prototypes clearly prove it takes time to come up with a workable design.
http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6454_7-6596827-2.html

emulatorhvgap_440.jpg
 
ganymedes13 said:
Now it's getting ridiculous because you are changing your argument. You said that picture came from 2007 and acted as if there's no way to prove that the Android phone posted came from 2006.
Click to expand...

The picture you posted in your first post is from November 2.007, I haven't changed anything
 
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