My God, this picture is like the picture with the icons, charger, etc.
They're both totally wrong. The FT700 was not presented in 2.006 and released in February 2.007
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
My God, this picture is like the picture with the icons, charger, etc.
They're both totally wrong. The FT700 was not presented in 2.006 and released in February 2.007
As the others have pointed out, you're only off by a year. A very early prototype was shown in February 2007.
http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
Yep, I agree, and I should've been clearer that I was just using your post as a jumping off point.
As we all agree, it'd be nice if we could actually discuss the case instead of constantly having to correct a few who just regurgitate stories they heard somewhere. OTOH, if not repeated too much, even that is useful and informative to a lot of casual readers.
Back to the thread. Here are some handy links:
The California Court's special webpage set up for this case.
The orginal complaint document from April 2011, although a lot of it has been dropped to streamline the case.
An old Verge article covering the original complaint. Again, a lot of it no longer applies, so be careful repeating sections of it. (Also, personally I disagree with his instant analysis that the icons infringe. Especially the phone icon, since I have shown that it predates the iPhone.)
The Forbes blog of daily events. This has a more up to date list of complaints. Not sure how she will link each day.
Any others?
"Samsung has yet to make its opening statement in the case, but its filings made so far have shown how it will attempt to undermine Apple's case by arguing that Apple had copied some of its design ideas from others and that it has refused to properly license key technologies controlled by Samsung."
If the above is accurate, then Samsung's defense is really "they started it"?!
Good luck Samsung. Let's just say that defense didn't work with my mom when I was a kid and I got a good whooping to prove it.
If the above is accurate, then Samsung's defense is really "they started it"?!
Good luck Samsung. Let's just say that defense didn't work with my mom when I was a kid and I got a good whooping to prove it.
That's your interpretation. Another interpretation would be that Samsung intends to show that what Apple is basing their complaint on is unfounded because Samsung had already designed a phone which Apple is calling similar. In addition, Samsung is also going to show that Apple refused to license key technologies which undermines Apple's claim that Samsung fails to innovate and only copies.
See what I did there?
https://twitter.com/#!/ZDNetRachel/apple-v-samsung-journos
Twitter list with people twitting from the courts.
That's kinda the point, no? It's all interpretation and why the "who started it" argument, never ends with a winner on either side. Just two soar behinds and non the better for it.
No. Unless I'm mistaken by your post - you were classifying Samsung's argument as childish and "he started it."
I'm saying Samsung isn't necc. saying Apple started it. What they are doing is stating that they couldn't copy something if they already made it.
There's a difference.
Correlation v. Causation
Correlation is not causation. This image by itself is a massive logical fallacy. Here's why they may look the same after the iPhone:
Before the release of the iPhone large touch sensitive screens were exorbitantly expensive. When Apple started producing iPhones that required millions of touch screens the simple process of market economics drove down the price thus making it feasible for other manufacturers to also use touchscreens as the main input method.
Did Apple invent the touchscreen? No. Case dismissed. Apple, pay Samsung's fees and post a message on your website saying, "We are morons that try to sue people for using technology we didn't invent."
Correlation is not causation. This image by itself is a massive logical fallacy. Here's why they may look the same after the iPhone:
Before the release of the iPhone large touch sensitive screens were exorbitantly expensive. When Apple started producing iPhones that required millions of touch screens the simple process of market economics drove down the price thus making it feasible for other manufacturers to also use touchscreens as the main input method.
Did Apple invent the touchscreen? No. Case dismissed. Apple, pay Samsung's fees and post a message on your website saying, "We are morons that try to sue people for using technology we didn't invent."
this sums up the lawsuit.
During these apple vs Samsung court cases I have developed a love/ hate relationship with apple. I like their products but I don't agree with their practices. They are only suing Samsung because their getting their behinds kicked by Samsung. Apple is getting knocked off their smartphone throne and they don't like.
They have basically kept the same design of the iPhone/iOS since 2007. People get tired of that. I got tired of that which is why I went and got a galaxy s2.
Apple has the masses thinking they invented all the technology that the iPhone has. Apple should be sued for deceiving the public.
Samsung will probably lose because I bet 80% thr jury has iPhones and will believe anything apple says because it's cool and trendy.
That is a bit of a stretch to say it was copied. Unless there is something comparible to IOS inside.
Hmm.. okay.. You and other's have shown the weakness in my post.. so I now reply with... http://www.gsmarena.com/qtek_2020-1167.php
Is that not a touch screen phone pre-dating the iphone? If so.. then it is clear that phone styling was already exploring touch screens which dominate the front aspect of a device with minimal hardware buttons! Is the basis of Apple's flimsy court case that ONLY an Apple designer could have come up with a phone which was slab-like, with a touch sensitive flat screen display and few hardware buttons?
Hahahahaaaaa!!!
Regardless, in the eyes of Apple one cannot innovate unless they invent and it doesn't take away from the fact that Apple "borrowed" ideas from another company and then tried to trade dress them.
Video of what Android looked like months after the release of the iPhone
You can see the old Blackberry-like prototype, and the new touch-screen equipped one but all access to menus is still done trough the physical buttons.
Certain functionalities like copy-paste were only accessible through menus until updates down the road finally made all features accessible directly from touch interaction.
I'm not saying Android didn't have good ideas (notification were pretty neat even in the Blackberry-like phone), but touch input came as an afterthought rather than back-bone of the tech.
software is completely irrelevant in this particular lawsuit.
Apple is sueing Samsung on the concept that they are copying the look of the devices.
Basically apple is saying "nobody else can make a phone that features a prominent touch screen with glass surface, one button and rounded corners"
thats all this sums up to.
iOS and android is completely irrelevant in this particular case. Apple is arguing that Samsung changed their entire design strategy post iPhone to rip off the iphone and steal sales
Actually. no
649, if you were rounding to the hundred, would be $700.
649 to the tenth would be 650, and 650 would round to 700.
Are you serious? You've got to be joking; $649 is closer to $600 than $700. You don't round twice. $649 is rounded to $600 if you are rounding to the nearest hundredth. I hope you're not an accountant.
And if you still don't believe me, here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gsHclS6Kb-59ZHqtQ&sig2=hTZV7HosWMI-G6nj5_F-4Q
Really? And I thought that the action was brought up regarding very specific patents and premises. Guess I over-thought how complex the justice system is.
FYI, design includes everything about interacting with a device, so please don't make statements about iOS or Android being irrelevant. Each have features that dictate physical characteristics of devices, so please do not oversimplify here, the media has already done an incredibly piss poor job.
Hmm.. okay.. You and other's have shown the weakness in my post.. so I now reply with... http://www.gsmarena.com/qtek_2020-1167.php
Image
Is that not a touch screen phone pre-dating the iphone? If so.. then it is clear that phone styling was already exploring touch screens which dominate the front aspect of a device with minimal hardware buttons! Is the basis of Apple's flimsy court case that ONLY an Apple designer could have come up with a phone which was slab-like, with a touch sensitive flat screen display and few hardware buttons?
I'm not arguing with you on the shape and design point of your post, but there is a difference between a "Touch Screen" phone which uses finger and swipe gestures and a phone with a Screen that needs a Stylus to function, which is the pictured phone.
Besides the trade dress (see below), there are also a handful of utility patents that are in dispute between the two companies. Touch gestures from Apple, and radio patents from Samsung.
Close. From their original complaint:
One of Samsung's aims will be to prove that the last parargraph is incorrect; that major parts of the design are indeed functional. E.g. that rounded corners are for comfort, not for ornamentation.
Damn right, one thing I hated about my Zune back in the day: no rounded corners.
thank you
that clarified a bunch for me. it will be interesting to say the least to see what they come up with.
Speaking of their legal team, I had a few seconds and looked them up:
http://www.quinnemanuel.com/
The firm partner who begged Koh to allow the "Sony" evidence, John B. Quinn, has an especially interesting bio:
It goes on to list many "Top Litigation Lawyer" type awards.
Now we need to look up Apple's lead lawyer.
Is that any better? Samsung is photoshopping Apple software on to their devices in their advertising, and they are trying to argue they are not copying Apple.
----------
Hmm.. okay.. You and other's have shown the weakness in my post.. so I now reply with... http://www.gsmarena.com/qtek_2020-1167.php
Image
Is that not a touch screen phone pre-dating the iphone? If so.. then it is clear that phone styling was already exploring touch screens which dominate the front aspect of a device with minimal hardware buttons! Is the basis of Apple's flimsy court case that ONLY an Apple designer could have come up with a phone which was slab-like, with a touch sensitive flat screen display and few hardware buttons?
But that's not what Apple is arguing. Similarly, Apple is not arguing they invented touch technology, nor telephony.