Goodness. Stop it, already.
"The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple..." What the heck arre they supposed to say? They know where there bread is buttered. It's like a paid witness on the witness stand. Give me a break. Who's stupid enough to give this any weight.
Quit crying apple, you do it too!
A thousand times this!!!! Anytime someone brings up those images they NEVER show that they were slider phones with the crappiest feature phone OS imaginable on them. Come on people, we ALL know Samsung ripped off the iPhone and its the ONLY reason they are even in the game with phones at this point.
By making a bigger version? How is this copying? That makes no sense.
And their customers want was based on Android phones and i am one of them so they have to copy themApple 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?
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.Goodness. Stop it, already.
"The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple..." What the heck arre they supposed to say? They know where there bread is buttered. It's like a paid witness on the witness stand. Give me a break. Who's stupid enough to give this any weight.
Quit crying apple, you do it too!
"Dieter Rams..."
This morning is a shiny one for sir Jony Ive.
...
Samsung didn't have a full touchscreen phone -- meaning, a phone that is fully operated by touch -- anywhere in the pipeline. It's not just the look. It's the feel. It's how it works.
They copied everything. Everything. The facts are there. Why ignore them?
And their customers want was based on Android phones and i am one of them so they have to copy them
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?
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.Of course I'm not asserting that. I'm stating the historical fact of what Samsung are like as a company. I'm stating the fact that every other company is siding with Apple on this.
But hey, easier to hate on Apple, right?
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.
![]()
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.
Really? What services has Dieter Rams provided to Apple? Or Michael Kors or Terence Conrad?Goodness. Stop it, already.
"The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple..." What the heck arre they supposed to say? They know where there bread is buttered. It's like a paid witness on the witness stand. Give me a break. Who's stupid enough to give this any weight.
Quit crying apple, you do it too!
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.I find this ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS.
For months all the tech blogs have been yapping their traps about "all the companies" supporting Samsung with amicus briefs and making it appear everyone is on their side and against Apple. Then we see something like this with the worlds top designers actually agreeing with Apple.
Selective reporting at its best.
You (and others) keep misunderstanding that document. But I'm not going to stop you. Just going to grab some popcorn.
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.Hmm.. Support from Google, that's odd
Another variation on the US's crazy IP laws. Most industrial design is derivative if you look hard enough. I bet there are designers out there that could show a sketch of an "iPhone-a-like", an iconic building, clothing, motor vehicle etc that looks like the " real thing" was drawn well before the branded item hit the streets. Only problem is, those visionary designers know full well that the companies mentioned in the article are so well financed and lawyer'd up that fighting them would be pointless. The big firms thrive on intimidating others.
Even if everything you said was true, it's simply a rehash that has nothing to do with the issue before the Supreme Court.Again, this dispute isn't about rounded corners and screens. That's what the Samsung lawyers unprofessionally huffed and everybody believed it.
Samsung didn't have a full touchscreen phone -- meaning, a phone that is fully operated by touch -- anywhere in the pipeline. It's not just the look. It's the feel. It's how it works.
They copied everything. Everything. The facts are there. Why ignore them?
Calvin Klein filed a brief. Hee hee.
Goodness. Stop it, already.
"The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple..." What the heck arre they supposed to say? They know where there bread is buttered. It's like a paid witness on the witness stand. Give me a break. Who's stupid enough to give this any weight.
Quit crying apple, you do it too!