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.
Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple made a bigger version because it was what their customers wanted.
Galaxy phones STILL look like the 3GS.
...
Good job cherry picking the phones. Where are the other Samsung phones you left out of that picture?
And their customers want was based on Android phones and i am one of them so they have to copy them
That wasn't my picture. That's what Apple kept presenting to the court in 2011/2012.
Anybody even slightly interested in this topic should definitely read the Amicus Brief. It is an amazing history lesson.
nonsense. apple doesnt ripoff the look & feel of their competitors. it's apple that everybody in the industry copies -- from laptops to phones. ripoffs w/ the same exact design language (space gray, gold, rose gold; black chiclet keys, etc etc). get real.
ruy5tiyoiu4567olukgjghfgdet467568i7uop;.l,jhvghcfgf
That section starting on page 7 in the document is fascinating reading for anyone even slightly into design philosophy.
That section starting on page 7 in the document is fascinating reading for anyone even slightly into design philosophy.
Nothing new.
I remember when this came out, and people were criticizing Jony Ive for copying Dieter Rams... dropped like a bomb!
Copying things like color or app icon picture or being touch screen isn't illegal. It is only illegal when you copy protected stuff like patents, copyright stuff and trademarks.
Notice the lawsuit was for copying things like rounded corners and rubber bounce scroll feature. Yeah it looks like these were copied but should they be stuff that is patentable?
What's sad is what could've been even better than the iPhone if they were forced to start from scratch. Being blown away by innovation means starting from a blank slate if you want to truly to leapfrog to get ahead in the market.
Right, but wrong. The lawsuit contained these items, though was not the flagship of the case. That is part of the larger picture; namely, the look and feel of the product. There were hundereds of other software and hardware patents which were being disputed.
Let's also not forget that the 'look and feel' extended to:
Chargers
Packaging
So many other things. Operating system icons, etc.
Come on people, thinking Samsung are in the wrong here does not mean you think Apple are in the right about all similar cases.
You can despise Apple for the same stuff. You can even hate Apple and never want one of their products. But open your eyes here. Samsung are flagrant rip-off merchants.
Your quote is 100% wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. No one has to hate on Apple to realize the actual facts of the case and why the damages have been reduced and most likely will be reduced further. Examining the facts, instead of making up your own, might help you see a more clear picture.
Let's examine your fact: "... every other company is siding with Apple on this." The amicus briefs filed thus far in this case says keysofanxiety has no idea what he's talking about. Briefs can be found here. A fairly decent overview of some of the briefs can be found here. One of the ironic things in that Foss Patents link is something I've said for a while now (bolded):
"One major caveat is that Apple might still be able to orchestrate something big as well. I doubt it for two reasons, though. First, the interpretation of the law that Apple is defending in this case is not really in the interest of a lot of companies. I wholeheartedly believe that Apple itself, if it weren't the beneficiary of an outsized damages award in this particular case, would be the most logical amicus curiae supporting Samsung in this context. Second, some potential Apple allies have now declared themselves in support of neither party, stopping short of supporting Apple's position in its entirety. Some companies just want to ensure the Supreme Court won't weaken design patents too much..."
That last sentence? The one about design? That's what these companies are. They don't want to see the strength of design patents lessened. Can't blame them. More importantly for Apple though, they benefit more from loosing the damages case with Samsung.
I am a samsung fan and only recently got an iphone.
Yes obvious samsung tried very much to copy.
newer models are slightly different to apple but some older models almost look dead ringers.
as photos above.
I still like samsung but everywhere in every industry will always be copy cats.
Yes obvious samsung tried very much to copy.
newer models are slightly different to apple but some older models almost look dead ringers.
as photos above.
I still like samsung but everywhere in every industry will always be copy cats.
Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.
The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.
I remember back in the days saying to myself "wow that Samsung is an iPhone design ripoff but in bigger size."
I took Samsung a long time to build their own design and signature.
[doublepost=1470325319][/doublepost]
Right, but wrong. The lawsuit contained these items, though was not the flagship of the case. That is part of the larger picture; namely, the look and feel of the product. There were hundereds of other software and hardware patents which were being disputed.
Let's also not forget that the 'look and feel' extended to:
Chargers
Packaging
So many other things. Operating system icons, etc.
Come on people, thinking Samsung are in the wrong here does not mean you think Apple are in the right about all similar cases.
You can despise Apple for the same stuff. You can even hate Apple and never want one of their products. But open your eyes here. Samsung are flagrant rip-off merchants.
Absolutely!! The truth is out there with images both look and feel.
Really? What services has Dieter Rams provided to Apple? Or Michael Kors or Terence Conrad?
It's not selective reporting. It's based on when the amicus briefs were filed. This is simply the latest brief that has been filed. For the record, even if you lumped all the briefs together, regardless of date, you'd find the majority either support Samsungs position or take a neutral stand of supporting neither position. Briefs are here. Nothing selective about that.
Nice try. This image has already been debunked as another sleazy Samsung tactic. They used a graphic from their old slider designs and simply removed the sliders. Wouldn't expect anything less from them.
[doublepost=1470325759][/doublepost]
You know exactly what that document is about..not sure why you're acting as though it's a "misunderstanding".
Last edited:
Uh, you read that wrong. Really wrong. To be fair, it is a horribly written sentence. In fact, so horribly written one could be forgiven for thinking it was intentionally written to give the impression that all those companies support Apple's position. That's not what that sentence says... at all.
Well, the lawsuit is not about simple drawings, but basically manufacturing a real phone lookalike and selling it for profit.
I think most peoples have a hard time realizing how hard Industrial Design really is and how good Apple is at it.
One of the quality researched by someone like Jonathan Ive is the design feeling "natural and unavoidable". Making it like it's just obvious that a phone should look that way. And really Apple accomplish that with their design (mostly), their product like it's almost too simple, it define how you think a phone or a tablet or a computer should look like. However, that's only after the fact, because in reality, before it all, when you start from a blank sheet it is anything but obvious, it's actually really really hard to get to such a natural and simple design that work so well.
Even if everything you said was true, it's simply a rehash that has nothing to do with the issue before the Supreme Court.
I can't believe you think people are so stupid and lazy that you would selectively edit the original post to change its meaning, then assume that no one will simply scroll back up to read the original text for themselves. That's... amazing.
