Ok where is the actual evidence in that link you provided? I could care less what Samsun accuses, just like I'm sure you'd say the same with Apple. And with the first pic it's TouchWiz more than the hardware that's a rip off.
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's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok where is the actual evidence in that link you provided? I could care less what Samsun accuses, just like I'm sure you'd say the same with Apple. And with the first pic it's TouchWiz more than the hardware that's a rip off.
The problem is Samsung's Legal team isn't doing their client any justice by publicly releasing excluded evidence during the Trial. They should have waited till after the Trial no mater what the outcome of their case was. The last thing their legal team should be doing is pissing off the Judge and possibly cause jury problems with stunts like this.
I don't even know where to begin with your first two obvious assertions which discount the fact that if you're going to be on a BoD - you've been invited. And you've been vetted.
As for Eric (not Google) sitting on the board at Apple. It was at their invite. It was above board. And any conflict of interest was avoided and has been documented and illustrated a few times in this thread alone. Please tell me you actually read the thread and not just the last page or two.
As for your last point. It's not a question of whether or not they have a patent alone. It's if Samsung violated patents AND if the patents will even hold up as valid according to the judge and jury.
Apple has plenty to lose here if they fail to convince the judge and jury.
I don't really see the big deal with the outside looking the same. When you come down to it, there really aren't a whole lot of ways to design a rectangle with a screen on it. You don't see TV manufacturers suing eachother because their flat panels look the same do you? Would be like suing someone for writing something on paper because you also wrote on paper.
If Apple goes after them for the outside look and feel then they need to go after every other smart phone company because they all look like this now.
Instead the need to focus on the interface. They have a legitimate claim that the grid of icons and the look of the icons could cause confusion. People also need to look past the outside of the phone and look whats in it. It's the content that matters, not the shell any longer.
There has never been any evidence that Google had ever seen an iPhone before launch. The UI designs of Maps and YouTube were done by Apple. Google only handled the back end, the data and the icons. That's all.
I showed that Eric Schmidt was willing to break an agreement. If he's willing to break an agreement and give the phone to his mistress, how far of a jump is it to give it to a Google employee? Are you going to tell me that is where Schmidt's morality begins when no one takes him seriously?
Here's the funny thing: Jobs' initial comments were quite mild. When he was on his death bed he gave the truth and said he wanted to destroy Android and was willing to go to thermonuclear war to do it.
I never pushed one element that was fiction. I told you about the timeline, how it fits and Google's unusual change in course of direction from '06 to '07. Either you believe or not.
It would be a hell of a feat to have something working in November for a public demo when they were only supposed to have access to the iPhone in late June. Considering it is coming from a company that never made an OS it's even more incredible.
You know what, I was gonna say about how it's a good thing patent trolls didn't exist back then, but that would be wrong. Engineers have been screwing each other over for much longer than that. It's inevitable that this century's companies are copying the iPhone, just as last century's companies have copied the Model T Ford. And this is mostly a good thing.
If Ford had been the only company allowed to manufacture cars with that form factor, they would have probably lost steam after a few decades of monopoly. They didn't go out of business because of others copying them. 100 years later and we are still driving cars that are inspired by the Model T. And Ford is still a big player in that market.
Apple may well exist in 100 years. And if it does it will most certainly be a major part of whatever technology we have then. But they can't be the only company allowed to make that technology. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I mean they literally can't take the entire market to themselves. Other companies will always find a way. Stopping them now would be like stopping the tide. And it is Apple that has opened the floodgates.
Well if memory serves (and I know it's not the same) - Apple sent out cease and desist letters to distributors stating there was a ban on Samsung devices claiming that 3rd retailers were subject to prohibitions of the preliminary injunction back in Mid-July.
Shady is shady all around. That doesn't excuse Samsung. But these tactics (and they are tactics) are common.
Did I say I could? I provided facts that are well known. Make your own conclusions. I've seen your posts and you've jumped to bigger conclusions from an Apple rumor than I did in my posts in this thread but I'm guessing you were less critical regarding yourself.
That's the point Apple is trying to make.
"Find another way and stop stealing our stuff..."
A bit off topic but: Seems like Dieter Rams doesn't feel that his designs were stolen. In fact, he thinks rather highly about Apple and their design philosophy.
Here is an interesting interview with him in German
Online translation should not be too difficult.
LOL, I was picturing this same thing with the Model T Ford in my head when I first saw the Apple version of the phones.
You realize that between his first comment and the destroy comment - a lot had happened both in public and behind closed doors between both companies?
Do you realize that Android wasn't a threat and Steve believed it would fail (based on his comment) and wasn't too worried. Like many things (in his bio) he probably thought he could will it away. Render it irrelevant. Until it didn't. And wasn't.
And this last part is conjecture. A man dying. In pain. And no doubt medicated well is likely to speak in hyperbole. Knowing you have a short time escalates things emotionally.
Hum, evidence of Samsung calling out Apple ? It's in the link. I didn't claim that Apple got a ruling against them, I couldn't find the follow up story to what happened the next day in court. I claimed Apple got called on it. It just so happens the Samsung legal team called them.
Again, I back up my statements.
You mean like Apple did in the UK with their mouthing off, resulting in the ruling about them having to publicly apologize to Samsung on their website ? Again, works both ways.
So you must be one of the following people:
Laurene Powell
Lisa Brennan-Jobs
Reed Jobs
Erin Jobs
Eve Jobs
Mona Simpson
If not, you don't know anything about this subject.
How you cannot distinguish fiction from facts is beyond me. You trying to caracterize the person does not provide factual evidence that what you say happened. Steve and Apple never accused Eric of anything, only had glowing praise for the man. How can that not be enough ? Why must you try to infer things that even the interested parties don't ?
I agree.
It does not matter, as if anything like that happened, it was already AFTER the iPhone was demoed in public.
One more time: according to that "death bed" biography you're talking about, Jobs didn't make that comment until three years after the iPhone was shown off... right after Google enabled some multi-touch items.
Ah, now it makes sense. You must not be a developer. For your scenario. they wouldn't need access. The demo in January was enough. Heck, within weeks of the demo there was a complete Javascript library available to emulate the iPhone in a web browser... all without anyone having an actual device in hand.
Android came from the same people who did the Sidekick, and had been doing smartphone OSes since at least 2000.
I am not referring to one Corps members sitting on the BoD of another Corp. I am referring to tech Corps members being on the BoD for smaller companies, such as multi-touch, OS, etc...
Yes, I am aware that Eric was invited by Apple. However is it really far stretched to believe that if you were sitting on the BoD of a possible future rival that you would not be privy or rumors to some extent of the direction of your rival and implement some form of similar solution, action in your own product. If you are uncertain of what I am referring to, never mind. Its human nature, to look out for your own best interest.
I will agree with you one one thing, Apple does have a lot to lose. Though I never said either Samsung or Apple is in the right here. A phone like a TV, tablet all use screens to view information/data. There is only so many way you can design a product around this requirement.
I feel all these design and utility patent cases are out to lunch, as mentioned earlier there are only so many ways you design a product. We can see this with the iMac minimal design, MBA and Pro retina minimal design. You get the point.
How many times must that damn picture be proven wrong before it sinks in ?
Android hasn't changed at all. Otherwise, HTC couldn't have made this phone in 2011 :
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_chacha-3787.php
Android is the same as it always has been : An Operating System with a proper driver architecture that supports many input and output peripherals. Of which touchscreens are 1. Of which physical keyboards are another.
----------
So the only conjecture people are allowed to post here is conjecture that vilifies Eric Schmidt and Google, but not conjecture that Steve might not have meant what people trying to find a reason to hate thinks he meant ?
No, sorry, it's all or nothing. Either conjecture is accepted or it isn't.
I'm in the camp that's happy that people express their opinions, as long as they don't try to pass it off as fact. And shut up and accept it when facts prove them wrong about their opinion.