No, I meant both together. I can only guess why you want to make that distinction.
And I disagree with your dismissal of multi-touch.
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
No, I meant both together. I can only guess why you want to make that distinction.
And I disagree with your dismissal of multi-touch.
No offence, but did you read more than five words of what I typed before you went on your keyboard rampage? And Samsung does not care about what the governments of the country's it sells it's products in tells them to do... hmm lets think about that shall we? Yes I would believe you are totally wrong.
I find it hilarious how you ask me to ignore quite a lot of stuff there
So, no, you are utterly unable to state what Samsung has copied, instead you went on a boring factless rampage based on what you've read on an internet forum.
So did it matter then that Apple completely stole the trademarked design of the Swiss Federal Railways clock and stuck it in iOS6? They neither asked for permission to do so or paid to do so, they paid after when legal action was being threatened though.
So using your logic, Apple likes to steal just as much, they are the scum of the copying earth just as much, they steal and hope to get away with it, or are arrogant enough to hope no one will question it.
See, how does the shoe feel on the other foot?
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?
The lawsuit isn't about us, the consumers. It's about a company that wants to make money off of something they state that they did first..and hold patents for.
Simple. They're separate features.
Being finger friendly was the big difference that attracted people to the iPhone.
Allowing more than one finger was not the critical piece.
Okay, although I'm not sure why, since multi-touch is nowhere near as important on a tiny phone screen as being finger friendly.
Apple noted this themselves with their one-handed ad showing how the whole iPhone screen was touchable with a single thumb.
They also acknowledged it by allowing double-taps to simulate pinch.
Heck, Android didn't enable m/t for over a year (because of Schmidt bending to Jobs' demand), and it still sold well without it. The Palm Pre had m/t, and it wasn't a major factor.
I think you are presenting your unsupported opinion as fact in order to fit your ongoing storyline.
We know that a multi-touch, finger-friendly UI revolutionized the smartphone industry. We don't know if either of those features would have done the same on their own.
I gave a rebuttal to every talking point you had while you didn't with this recent post. Yet I'm some how the one on a rampage and accused of ignoring your post.
Let's think about that shall we?
For the record I hope Samsung gets nothing
BUT
The courts need to send a loud clear message to Apple to stop this cr@p!
What is really at issue here is Apple doesn't believe anyone one else should be allowed to have a touch screen phone with a successful app ecosystem since apple got there first. This is what needs to be debated in court rather than skirting around the central issue. It is unfair to new players in the market to simply NOT know if Apple is going to try to sue them out of business. A simple YES or NO would help everyone.
Personally i think it would be really sad if iOS was the only successful mobile touch screen OS. And not because i dislike iOS or Apple but because the competition between Apple and Android has dramatically improved BOTH platforms.
Remember how ugly Android used to be? Competing with iOS helped them fix that.
Remember when iOS lacked notification center and quick controls? It was Samsung that made Quick controls a thing on mobile phones even before Google added it to stock android and I would argue that all parties (apple, google and samsung) are better off offering phones where you don't have to go into the settings to change simple things like brightness and wifi.
This legal crap that Apple is pulling (I don't much care for the patents Samsung is trying to defend either) has the potential to hurt the entire mobile industry and it really needs to stop!
BUT
The courts need to send a loud clear message to Apple to stop this cr@p!
What is really at issue here is Apple doesn't believe anyone one else should be allowed to have a touch screen phone with a successful app ecosystem since apple got there first. This is what needs to be debated in court rather than skirting around the central issue. It is unfair to new players in the market to simply NOT know if Apple is going to try to sue them out of business. A simple YES or NO would help everyone.
Personally i think it would be really sad if iOS was the only successful mobile touch screen OS. And not because i dislike iOS or Apple but because the competition between Apple and Android has dramatically improved BOTH platforms.
Remember how ugly Android used to be? Competing with iOS helped them fix that.
Remember when iOS lacked notification center and quick controls? It was Samsung that made Quick controls a thing on mobile phones even before Google added it to stock android and I would argue that all parties (apple, google and samsung) are better off offering phones where you don't have to go into the settings to change simple things like brightness and wifi.
This legal crap that Apple is pulling (I don't much care for the patents Samsung is trying to defend either) has the potential to hurt the entire mobile industry and it really needs to stop!
At the end of the day, it's great to have as much competition as possible. Great for choices...
Last edited:
Are you claiming that patents have no consumer benefits?
I think it's fair to say that software patents have no consumer benefits. And they are nothing but harmful to developers. The purpose of a patent is to get someone to disclose a novel idea in exchange for granting him a temporary monopoly in order to instruct the public how to solve a specific problem. Software patents do not help disseminate ideas. All they do is prevent software engineers from doing their jobs. The very job of a software engineer is to apply general principles to synthesize solutions to new problems. Software patents rarely describe a solution to a specific problem (which would be contained in actual source code) but instead tend to lay claim to general ideas, like that of searching multiple databases from a unified interface. The only reason a programmer would need to learn about a software patent would be to check if his own solution infringes that patent.
Last edited:
Based on what we have read on the internet? Based on the bleeding facts! On the fact that it have already been found guilty of copying. And on the fact that they have already confirmed they were experiencing design crisis.
And by the way, if you or anyone can't see similarities here..... then I think there is something extremely wrong with your senses (particularly your eyes)
Dude.... they even copy the Apple store style. Even the staff's dressings!!
Oh... I get it. There isn't any other possible way it can be designed
Attachments
The complaint is a predecessor from the original complaint based off the trade dress that led into this particular case. Fruits of the poison!
Once again THIS trial has nothing do to with trade dress - no matter how you try to move the goal post.
Exactly, the damages are a fraction of what the R&D would cost and you have to have the talent to begin with, which clearly, they don't. Net win for them. I do think a lot of software patents are ridiculous as they are features that are standard fare for those of us who have been writing business software for years.
Also, design patents are not easy to judge. There is a lot of grey area and those with the ability to comprehend the intricacies of the designs generally have little understanding of the law and vice-versa. However, most in the general public have little understanding of either of these. They root for the favorite platform or against their hated one and have no concept of the cost and talent that it takes to come up with the designs and architecture that have made a company like Apple so successful. As a result, they can't comprehend the level of thievery that Samsung has resorted to. Nor do they understand the business model they have made out of resorting to this pattern of thievery for years against other companies.
Software and design patent awards and enforcement is not a simple subject, but so much of what Samsung has been doing is way beyond the grey area and needs to be addressed.
No... Apple's legal department's work has no affect on it's engineering... nice strawman.
"negative energy" ah, so you're a dirty hippie, got it.
iWatch? All talk.
Apple TV? All talk
Tim Cook? All talk
Net effect? The consumer loses while Fat Cat Apple profit takes via old style iPhone's & other premium priced products that the cult like buyers keep purchasing cause their "cool" to be seen with.
You've got to give Apple credit for pulling off such a coup.
The new mac pro and iMac are pretty nice!
Samsung have same implementation as Motorola (swipe to read) and I doubt Samsung is using an older sensor on their S5.
Last edited:
Are you claiming that patents have no consumer benefits?
That is not what I mean. I am only saying that we need to step back and stop thinking about ourselves for every little (or big) lawsuit that comes up between companies. Patents and things like this definitely do have an end effect on consumers and I'm not denying that in the least, but in reality it's one company vs. another and if Apple is upset or claiming one thing then all the power to them.
If any one of us had come up with a patent, however small or large it doesn't matter, and another company was believed to have ripped off your patent, then you would be angry too. Apple just wants what Apple states that they deserve. Consumers aside.
Quite the contrary. Damages laid against Samsung so far are six times what Apple spent altogether to create the iPhone.
According to every history, Apple only spent about $150 million total creating the first iPhone. And that includes millions buying test equipment that every phone maker needs forever, like test chambers, dummy heads, cell site emulators, etc.
They were able to do it for cheap, because the really hard, expensive and time-consuming development was already done, to the tune of billions of dollars and decades spent by companies (like Samsung) preparing the worldwide cellular infrastructure, chipsets, antenna technology and smartphone market... along with 90% of the basic design and requirements for smartphones.
Without Apple, we'd still have smartphones. Without companies like Samsung, there'd be no iPhone.
For sure Samsung tried to design close to Apple at the beginning. Of course, now there's similarities going both ways.
As for some of those tired old pictures, heck, anyone could come up with a bunch showing how Apple copied others as well. For minor examples:
Dude.... they even copy the Apple store style. Even the staff's dressings!! Oh... I get it. There isn't any other possible way it can be designed
Actually, why is Apple using blue shirts when blue is Samsung's color? Shouldn't Apple have picked silver or white shirts instead?
See how silly some of this stuff is?
Apple bought out Authentec, which seem to be the only company making non-swipe sensors. I would guess that part of the reason why Apple bought the whole company rather than simply licensing its technology was to guarantee exclusive access to the technology.