Don't forget the F700 phone.
----------
Samsung showed the F700 at CEBIT in 2006 and released it in Feb 2007. Hardly a copy.
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
Don't forget the F700 phone.
----------
Samsung showed the F700 at CEBIT in 2006 and released it in Feb 2007. Hardly a copy.
He's evaded the question every time I've asked it, pursuing only his smily spam and calling me vain (is that an insult ? insults are against the forum rules, if not the damn smily spam...).
----------
That history was proven as false. The F700 was announced in February 2007, shipped in December 2007. It was however based on designs from 2006 according to Samsung internal documents shown in this case.
Free is free. You can continue to reinvent the meaning of free if you'd like.
The kindle fire is useful to many and it doesn't use Google services. You can't say something is not free because of the way you utilize it.
It's like winning a car on a game show and then complaining that's it's not free because you decided to put aftermarket wheels on it.
Google doesn't charge for Android. You haven't proven that they do.
Yup, people are forced to use Apple in Enterprise.
Heard of BYOD??
"Apple's iOS remained dominant in the sector over quarter two and was trailed by Android and Windows Phone activations which accounted for 37 percent and 1.2 percent of the market, respectively."
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/15...ing-lead-in-enterprise-through-q2-report-says
It isn't used as a means to say that LG Prada influenced the industry, but that people were simultaneously coming up with very similar designs. The other nugget that is extractable from the LG Prada parade is that Apple wasn't the first to do that. Another salient point is the design was obvious because of the technology that was coming out, not because Apple's release of the iPhone.
You are right. The fact that Judge Koh refused Samsung's requests to show proof of their earlier designed phones that do in fact pre-date the iPhone's launch will allow them to get an appeal, if necessary that is.
I have not been able to find out what her reasoning was for refusing Samsung's prior art and proof.
I would also like to know why the jury pool is down to 9, from what I thought was a standard 12 member jury (or is it 10 in CA for civil cases?) Still the juror that just left because her employer will not cover her salary should have known this prior to showing up for jury duty. You are notified weeks in advance and clearly they failed to find out. That juror should have been replaced prior to starting the case. One again Judge Koh is setting the stage for an automatic appeal.
----------
Correct again. If other phone mfg's were heading in that direction (as noted by the F700 phone) and the LG Prada then its pretty clear that Apple's claims to a rectangle with rounded corners is a BS patent claim. Prior art that the USPTO failed to consider and failed to research, big shocker.
Even though I use Apple products this case is becoming more about Apple not liking a serious competitor like Samsung.
If they have an issue with Android, per the Jobs quote (which should also have been allowed since it shows a bias towards Android and the top Android OEM) they should go after Google for an OS that incorporates features, concepts or similarities. No Apple is content suing the OEM's because they clearly don't want to go after Google.
Right but that doesn't seem to be what the lg prada ppl are saying. i know Apple wasn't the first and I'm sure the tech was going that way, but there are ppl who seem to imply that the sudden onslaught of phones that followed the iPhone had very little influence from the iPhone. The iPhone wasn't the first but to deny it's influence on the industry seems a little ridiculous.
Gorilla glass
But apple was the first to implement Gorilla Glass. In Job's biography, the author detailed Jobs' meeting with the president of Corning... Gorilla glass was developed decades ago and shelved because they couldn't think of a use for it. Jobs gave them one... and now Corning is a supplier to the industry.
But apple was the first to implement Gorilla Glass. In Job's biography, the author detailed Jobs' meeting with the president of Corning... Gorilla glass was developed decades ago and shelved because they couldn't think of a use for it. Jobs gave them one... and now Corning is a supplier to the industry.
If the new iPhone has Gorilla Glass 2, you will admit that Apple is copying Samsung?
That doesn't constitute copying. Corning started marketing from there. Apple was the first to borrow that tech, but don't knock Apple's competitors for using what amounts to a standard.
Not very relevant seeing how most of those are mockups that happened to be in 2008 around the same time rumors about what Apple was doing began to circulate...
Ahhh... but then you are making a leap to state that Samsung went to Corning because Apple had used Gorilla Glass and wanted to copy them.
Two problems with that.
1. Apple didn't acknowledge that they were using Corning or Gorilla Glass for quite awhile. In fact it wasn't until this past year they flat out stated they did. In 2011's supplier report Corning was omitted. (source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/02/apple-name-drops-corning-as-iphone-glass-manufacturer-we-feign/)
2. Isn't it very likely that once Corning sales people saw a use case for the glass, they then pitched the glass like crazy to all the electronics manufacturers for various devices?
Nobody knew Apple was using Corning's glass when they started selling the glass to other companies.
----------
It's called product evolution, it happens all the time, with or without Apple.
There are several ways to create a touch screen. You can't deny the placement of the icons in those early post iPhones was an attempt to look like the iPhone running IOS
Last edited:
Anyone who gets under samcraig's skin has done a good deed
----------
Its called hearing rumors and preparing to match a competitor. Nothing wrong with that, just clarifying that Apple did have an impact on their product development. Some call it copying, I suppose.
I would agree if samcraig was a troll but he's not.
Apple did have an impact, so did all the Asian companies such as Samsung in the evolution of the iPhone. Namely, the high res camera on the iPhone 4.
That's to publish on the play store. I can create an apk and sideload it for free as well as distribute it to anyone i want.
Google charges to use their play store service, not to use Android.
I concede to that, the dock makes it look a bit too much iOS but the homescreen is still totally different, the app drawer is not the main screen. But the rest of the claims are null, we'll just wait for the jury to decide on that.
samcraig isn't a troll, but he can sometimes get a little self righteous (especially when teamed up with Knight) so it makes me happy to see him squirm
But yeah, I think its foolish to try and fight over this and who copied who. This isn't like the biopharmaceutical industry where stumbling across the next cure for a disease is very rare these days (almost nonexistent in in the last few decades).
----------
Yeah, but its still a charge if you want to distribute something "legit" on the store.
samcraig isn't a troll, but he can sometimes get a little self righteous (especially when teamed up with Knight) so it makes me happy to see him squirm
Samcraig and Knight might seen to be too self righteous to some but they bring factual points with sources unlike Ochyandkaren who can't form a coherent argument and seem to take out statements out of his behind.
samcraig isn't a troll, but he can sometimes get a little self righteous (especially when teamed up with Knight) so it makes me happy to see him squirm
But yeah, I think its foolish to try and fight over this and who copied who. This isn't like the biopharmaceutical industry where stumbling across the next cure for a disease is very rare these days (almost nonexistent in in the last few decades).
----------
Yeah, but its still a charge if you want to distribute something "legit" on the store.
Yes it is, but it's not a charge for Android. It's already been established that you have to pay for Google services, but Google services is not a part of the Android software. That's free.
Also, you can distribute "legit" apps on slideme or getjar without paying Google.
Well if its so clear to them that Ochyandkaren is wrong, why bother continuing an argument? The problem with those two is that they argue for the sake of winning not informing. That is self righteous.
And on those rare occasions that you prove them wrong, they simply add you to their ignore list. It makes them seem so desperate to win that they will ignore you just to keep up an illusion of victory in their minds.
Absolutely the iPhone had an influence. Likewise, the iPhone design was not created in a vacuum. It was a result of decades of industry advancements.
While Apple sat on the sidelines for two decades, phone makers had evolved multiple form factors, from clamshell to the basic touchscreen display slab that Apple used. The industry had figured out the best place to put internal antennas, which Apple used as well. The industry had figured out that physical power, volume and home/menu controls were a good idea even with a touchscreen device. Most importantly, others had created the radio chips and indeed the entire world cellular network. Apple had only to use them.
Moreover, all the major software elements of a smartphone had been hammered out long before the iPhone implemented them: phone functions, texting, user apps, settings page, camera, video player, web browser, location services, and others like video recording and MMS that took longer for Apple to include.
In other words, the hugely critical, and design time consuming, starting point was already plainly laid out for Apple due to the work of others. They had only to copy and refine from there. And in fact, they added very little new base functionality: offhand, visual voice mail is all that I can think of.
As for the touch UI, don't get me started on how obvious the base design elements were to those of us in the field. The fact that phone makers had not implemented such in mass consumer devices, does not change that. There were no big surprises in the first iPhone demo in this area.
So, considering the entire iPhone, one could argue that Apple was influenced as much or more by the previous smartphone R&D of others, than the relatively surface enhancements that Apple themselves contributed to the smartphone definition.
Seems to me like everyone was copying Sony, including Apple. It would be funny if this case was dismissed and Sony sued both Apple and Samsung for a fortune. I've bought so much Sony kit over the years it's really sad to see them in their current position.