I love the newbies that think they have a perspective on the past of tech. So easily they forget Apple was given access BY Xerox and compensated Xerox handsomely for their visit. The sad thing was Xerox was a photocopy company run by a bunch of sales guys that did not have the vision to see tags future.
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.
Google Plays a Bigger Role in Latest Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love the newbies that think they have a perspective on the past of tech. So easily they forget Apple was given access BY Xerox and compensated Xerox handsomely for their visit. The sad thing was Xerox was a photocopy company run by a bunch of sales guys that did not have the vision to see tags future.
Wrong!
It is implemented in the home button, which itself happen to be at the bottom of the display.
I don't understand how folks can make this argument when Apple has billions of excess dollars at its disposal. Apple is not a resource-limited entity.
You obviously have no idea what patents are for. You can copy a function as long as the implementation is different which is clearly is for the S5.
I also think you have a lot to learn about business and marketing. If a competitor comes out with a "feature" that your product doesn't have an uninformed customer, like yourself, would say, that's better because it includes this "feature" and this product doesn't. Thereby ignoring all the similarities and focusing on the one differentiating factor. Leaving out this gimmick will cause lost sales to your competitor.
You obviously have a short memory too because Apple will be bringing out larger phone. That's a fact. If Apple diehards had it their "way", (but then again it's not really their choice, it's Apple's, they just agree with everything Apple do, no matter what it is) they would still be using 3.5" screen with their puny "retina" displays (960x 640 pixels btw). Would you argue that Apple are copying the Samsung and other Android manufacturers in terms of screen size. Not really because that is the trend.
And what about all the clone games that come out in the App store, for example after Flappy Bird disappearing so many clones of that game appeared. I feel bad for Sega and Nintendo having their classic games and ideas ripped off by app developers. There's nothing they can do, it's competition.
There isn't an idea or implementation in the world that isn't being copied. If one guy can do it another guy will try to copy it and make it better. Look at occulus rift and true player gear's VR implementation, they look so similar. Yet you don't see them suing the pants off each other.
Thanks. Could be.
There are conflicting reports. CNET says it's not in the home button.
It'd be nice to see a tear down.
You don't seriously think it was just a coincidence that S5 got fingering scanner just after the 5S, do you?
However I wouldn't go that far and say they did copy it. They did implement it their own way (apart from the location bit)
Likewise it isn't coincidence that Apple copied the idea from Motorola? And I seriously doubt Samsung developed and implemented the idea of a fingerprint scanner in a month, and no they don't base business decisions on a high end model based on what a fans rumour website say's.
Is it coincidence that HTC also implemented fingerprint scanners too? Apple copy Motorola, but EVERYONE must be copying Apple right? No one else copies Motorola.
Nope, as said the scanner is in the home button, and it would be stupid to put the scanner in the power button!
Neither is claiming Samsung copy Apple all the time, because they flat out do not. Apple copies just as much in that case, it copied the idea of a fingerprint scanner from Motorola.
And you cannot state Samsung copied Apple's colour choice when Apple copied it from someone else themselves.
You cannot selectively 'choose' that Apple never copies anyone, yet Samsung always copies Apple. Because that is a false statement to make.
Oh dear god, here we go with the Motorola thing again! Why can't people see that there was nothing attractive about the way Motorola did it, which by the way was a total FAILURE! Totally different implementation. So yeah.... Apple must be attracted to failed ideas! Like the multi-touch screen before iPhone.
And btw....what do you mean by "And I seriously doubt Samsung developed and implemented the idea of a fingerprint scanner in a month" What month you talking about? iPhone 5S have been out since September 2013. That is at least 4 months. A company like Samsung who releases so many products through a year can do quite a lot in 4 months time. But yeah, you believe what you wan't to believe, lol.
So, you just want to totally ignore the FACT Motorola did it before Apple then, because you didn't like it being on the back of the phone? Not a very good argument is it, Apple never copied the idea from Motorola, well Samsung never copied the idea from Apple then, because the logic is exactly the same.
And Apple didn't invent multitouch screens either, so your attempt to mock my comment fell on it's face there.
But you are right on the launch dates of the S5 and the 5S. I must have been thinking of something else.
You have no idea how Samsung works do you. I have family and friends who work and have worked at Samsung both in US and Korea. If the upper management tells you to do something or even briefly mentions something, their wish "shall" be granted immediately. Got projects you're currently working on? Doesn't matter, the entire team will work day and night, weekends to get the job done. On top of that, Samsung has huge manufacturing powers.
No, I won't be surprised if things do get done in a month.
Regardless of whether the patent is interpreted to require different algorithms, how would one implement search for a heterogeneous distributed database without basically copying the claims of this patent? Querying each database would likely require different algorithms because the databases could have completely different implementations.
Last edited:
Google doesn't sell anything or make any money off Android. They have some direct devices, but they are still manufactured by someone else and the sales are pretty meaningless.
So Samsung operates like any other big corporation then. And no, I don't believe they would get a device like a fingerprint scanner done in a month, but as I already stated I was wrong about the timescales between the two launches.
I am not sure about other people on this forum - but just as a PSA, if your post contains company names that are not their formal name (IE M$, ScamSung, SameSung, Scroogle, Crapple, etc) - you might as well not post because you completely devalue your post.
If you can't communicate your ideas without resorting to that childish behavior - maybe you should step away from the keyboard until you can.
If you can't communicate your ideas without resorting to that childish behavior - maybe you should step away from the keyboard until you can.
The main difference between the Atrix's implementation and Apple's implementation is that Apple uses a newer generation of sensor from Authentec. If you were to substitute the Atrix's sensor for the one on the 5s, the implementations would be quite similar. Both sensors are located on the primary button for waking up the device -- the home button for the iPhone, and the power button for the Atrix. The improved performance of TouchID is largely due to its newer sensor, which can acquire high resolution images of a finger without swiping. As usual, being the first to get its hands on the new style of sensor, Apple has tried to patent every possible way one can interact with the sensor.
These Lawsuits will go on for the next decade, easily. Google is more "front and center" because they have a greater chance to get smacked (remember the Cafe with SJ, Erik.) Apple will not stop until you are gone, and Lucy H. Koh is certified Incompetent.
Besides, we endure all this because of a lack of reform in the US Patent System. Anyone see that changing in the next Decade? Thought not.
Google, and Amazon can be, and are just a motivated to use the legal system for an emotional rescue.
Money exchanges hands, Law Firms grow, and we see very little in the end product. Reguardless of it being Apple, Google, or Amazon.
By the way, where were Rubin's Google Glass in his pic?
Besides, we endure all this because of a lack of reform in the US Patent System. Anyone see that changing in the next Decade? Thought not.
Google, and Amazon can be, and are just a motivated to use the legal system for an emotional rescue.
Money exchanges hands, Law Firms grow, and we see very little in the end product. Reguardless of it being Apple, Google, or Amazon.
By the way, where were Rubin's Google Glass in his pic?
I wonder why this ridiculously laughable idea gets rehashed any time this topic comes up. Are people not reading the responses to it? Maybe lawyers talk really loudly and Jony and Craig can't concentrate?
Quite right! They need to stop this lawsuit madness and instead focus on copying each other! Why do we have to have all tech companies innovating when you can have one or 2 of them and the rest copying? And how would benefit us consumers if all tech companies did focus on innovation instead of ripping off each others ideas?
Not sure what point you are trying to make since this trial has nothing to do with copying. Patent infringment =/= copying. Also innovation doesn't occur in a vacuum. Let's say company A comes up with a notification center and it's a hit. Company B sees it and decides they would like to add that feature to their devices. Instead of copying A's implementation, B creates their own way of implementing a notification center. Company A screams bloody murder. We patented that. I say BS. You can't (or shouldn't be able to do so) patent an idea.
The above is just an example so let's not argue the specifics of a notification center. The point I'm tying to make is Company A innovated a way to make a notification center. Company B, inspired by A's idea, innovated another way. If A is allowed to have their implementation as the only implementation that stifles innovation.
All of it is built on or inspired by someone else's ideas from the past.
How so? The trial is over seven utility patents. Not design patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
A list of the patents and the accused devices is in this old MacRumors news article.
(Just remove Samsung patents 087 and 596 from that list... they withdrew them without prejudice so they could be used later on.)
--
You can read Apple's amended complaint here. In paragraph (3), they themselves point out that this trial is NOT over trade dress, as was the case in the earlier trial.
"While Samsung’s new products infringe many of the same design patents, utility patents, trademarks, and trade dress rights that are at issue in the Earlier Case, Samsung’s new products also infringe additional utility patents, some of which issued after Apple filed the Earlier Case. "
Apple makes no other mention of trade dress in this case, which they would if that was what it was about.
.
Last edited:
Apple is just trying to squash serious competition. Apple should innovate rather than put out the same thing with some minor tech upgrades. Apple used to innovate and have the wow factor, now they don't
I loved the 1st iPad. Then the second one came out, and it was just like the 1st gen, and so on. Samsung is hungry, they are constantly evolving their products.
If Apple will get the fire back, they won't have to worry about Samsung.
I loved the 1st iPad. Then the second one came out, and it was just like the 1st gen, and so on. Samsung is hungry, they are constantly evolving their products.
If Apple will get the fire back, they won't have to worry about Samsung.
The problem with responding to quotes without knowing the complete context is you usually end up being wrong, as is the case here. The OP asked what this case was about. The quote I replied to was nothing but oft repeated conjecture, not a synopsis of the case. I am not a fan of misrepresenting personal opinion as fact. That was the reason for my response to original quote.
For what it's worth, your comments come off a bit more respectable without juvenile "words" like Samesung, Scamsung, Crapple, and the like. Yes, I know Crapple wasn't yours. It's just an example "words" that relegate comments to fanboy status in my book. I am more than willing to engage in civil, intelligent discourse. We may not agree and that's totally okay. I often learn a lot from people I disagree with. I'm sure you will be one of those people. <-- not sarcasm.