Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces

Krazy Bill said:
Wow. Look at all the Apple pom-pom waving here.

Yet another patent suit where 12 people represent the entire world. Let the consumers decide this. :(
Click to expand...

So if someone else copies your idea and as long as the copier sells more, you lose? Uh huh. Krazy indeed.
 
babyj said:
That is your opinion, not a fact. The jury are the ones that get to decide what it says and what it is.
Click to expand...

KnightWRX said:
Sure it is. I even said so. Jumpy much ?



Actually, I'm pretty sure only Samsung gets to decide that. The jury however gets to form an opinion on what they think it says and what they think it is.
Click to expand...

Samsung decides nothing. The jury is the one that makes the decision in this trial not samsung. and the jury's decision is the one that counts. Not samsungs.
 
KnightWRX said:
Sure it is. I even said so. Jumpy much ?
Click to expand...

You originally stated it as a fact, then backtracked when you were called on it.

Not sure what you mean by the jumpy bit.

KnightWRX said:
Actually, I'm pretty sure only Samsung gets to decide that. The jury however gets to form an opinion on what they think it says and what they think it is.
Click to expand...

Samsung can decide whatever they want, it won't mean jack.

All that matters is what the jury think.
 
Damn & Wow ........Seriously :eek::eek::eek:

This is not new, the only new thing is that we now got it on paper, was so obvious samsung was a copy cat right from the days of Nokia.

Samsung must have a department called the CC department
and a Category of Phones called Samsung CC Phone I II III

*CC - Copy Cat
 
Why did Samsung even bother to defend this case?

If your company policy is to copy the competition, it's redundant to claim innovation and pointless to expect anything other than a short time advantage gained from what is effectively a deliberate copycat spoiler product.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but if a company's only purpose is to make money by imitating its most successful rival, and customer of its services, who are they flattering? Certainly not Apple and surely not their own company's shareholders. And not their customers because ultimately they are damaging their brand irrevocably.

Apple should claim all Samsung's profits from Galaxy S sales, and do the same for the Galaxy Tab when it becomes clear this company wide policy extended to the tablet range -which we can all see it obviously did.
 
samcraig said:
I would think the definition of "copying" is probably the very center of both the defense and prosecution. How does one define/what criteria can be used to prove or disprove copying. On some levels - it's purely subjective or at least a very grey area.

IE - is changing the color of an icon that otherwise looks the same make it not copying? Does rounding corners to a different degree make it not copying? Does changing a process from 3 steps to 1 step - copying or process improvement. Perhaps semantics. But vital to both sides and their arguments.
Click to expand...

there was no innovative effort in Samsung design. IPhone had it, so they did it. That's copying. Of course, Samsung will argue the semantics, but that's like me saying i didn't copy your homework, i just looked at your answers and figured out your answers were the best way to improve my homework. It's a shoddy defense
 
Agree! Crap is crap.
boronathan said:
there was no innovative effort in Samsung design. IPhone had it, so they did it. That's copying. Of course, Samsung will argue the semantics, but that's like me saying i didn't copy your homework, i just looked at your answers and figured out your answers were the best way to improve my homework. It's a shoddy defense
Click to expand...
 
boronathan said:
Well kinda. Yes, they "improved" but that came from doing exactly what Apple did. In other words they didn't take apples ideas and try to expand them, they simply implemented exactly what Apple had into their own ui.

it's copying. Whether that's enough to sway the jury remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly expand on a better location for an end call button? Or a calendar icon with the date on it? So because Apple did it better, they have to remain at the status quo?
 
boronathan said:
But that's not the point. Even if they had six million other documents, they choose to do exactly what Apple did, so what those other documents say is moot. this is the only one that matters here because it, in black and white, says "we see apple does it this way, so go ahead and do it the same way".

It doesn't say "we see apple does it this way, so let's think of a better way" or "let's keep that in mind, and improve it"

Nope. It says "Apple did it, it's better, go ahead and copy it"
Click to expand...

Many of the comments don't say copy Apple. That's open to interpretation. People will read what they want to out of Samsung's statements or suggestions.

And fact is - if these other documents exist - isn't it possible the same comments exist and things were culled/adjusted from them too. There's no proof that ONLY Apple's document was the one used to alter Samsung's designs.

Isn't it possible they had - for example - 3-4 documents and they pulled the best from each. maybe there's a Summation document which outlines which pieces from which competitors they wanted to build off of. I don't know. I doubt if anyone here knows.

Perhaps 100% complete conjecture. But as I've said on previous threads - I am neither an Apple "fan" or Samsung "fan." I'm just a guy who just enjoys technology and the right tool for the right job for me. In fact I WAY more Apple tech than any other. I'm in no way a hater or anti-Apple. I just don't automatically jump to the conclusion they are always in the right.

Both are great companies and the biggest problem for me with this lawsuit is how badly we need patent reform. It's a broken system.
 
babyj said:
You originally stated it as a fact, then backtracked when you were called on it.

Not sure what you mean by the jumpy bit.
Click to expand...

Can you quote me where I state it as a fact ? Jumpy means it seems you're looking to attack me and my posts instead of taking the time and reading them. You're "jumping to conclusions".

babyj said:
Samsung can decide whatever they want, it won't mean jack.

All that matters is what the jury think.
Click to expand...

For this court case, sure. But that's not a fact, it's the jury's opinion.

----------
Peace said:
Samsung decides nothing. The jury is the one that makes the decision in this trial not samsung. and the jury's decision is the one that counts. Not samsungs.
Click to expand...

The documents purpose is not a court matter. If I write a document, I get to decide what its use is and what its purpose is. If it is used in a court of law, that is another matter and not what was claimed. The Jury can very well form an opinion, one that mirrors that of a few posters in this thread who have condemned Samsung on it.
 
KnightWRX said:
Samsung didn't want this admitted for the very reason you see in this thread. The context of it can be twisted to say things it doesn't and to present as something it is not.
Click to expand...

That's silly: it was introduced as evidence in a trial. How it's perceived in the public is not relevant. The other party has its chance to refute whatever Apple says in court.
 
boronathan said:
there was no innovative effort in Samsung design. IPhone had it, so they did it. That's copying. Of course, Samsung will argue the semantics, but that's like me saying i didn't copy your homework, i just looked at your answers and figured out your answers were the best way to improve my homework. It's a shoddy defense
Click to expand...

There's a difference in homework and business though. The analogy, to me, isn't appropriate.

And I am not suggesting Samsung didn't copy anything or at the very least - wasn't very original. That's really irrelevant - don't you ultimately think? The only thing that really matters (to the court - not public opinion) is whether or not they violated the patents in question. And whether or not - if the damages Apple seeks are warranted. And if warranted - to what degree.
 
samcraig said:
Many of the comments don't say copy Apple. That's open to interpretation. People will read what they want to out of Samsung's statements or suggestions.

And fact is - if these other documents exist - isn't it possible the same comments exist and things were culled/adjusted from them too. There's no proof that ONLY Apple's document was the one used to alter Samsung's designs.

Isn't it possible they had - for example - 3-4 documents and they pulled the best from each. maybe there's a Summation document which outlines which pieces from which competitors they wanted to build off of. I don't know. I doubt if anyone here knows.

Perhaps 100% complete conjecture. But as I've said on previous threads - I am neither an Apple "fan" or Samsung "fan." I'm just a guy who just enjoys technology and the right tool for the right job for me. In fact I WAY more Apple tech than any other. I'm in no way a hater or anti-Apple. I just don't automatically jump to the conclusion they are always in the right.

Both are great companies and the biggest problem for me with this lawsuit is how badly we need patent reform. It's a broken system.
Click to expand...

Again though, it would be irrelevant. Apple is arguing that they copied then. This document shows that they did. If there are other documents with the same level of detail, Samsung will introduce them when they present their case (if they have some sense).

I'm not going to hold my breath on that happening because i don't believe such docuMents exist :p
 
wkadamsjr said:
How can you possibly expand on a better location for an end call button? Or a calendar icon with the date on it? So because Apple did it better, they have to remain at the status quo?
Click to expand...

Just look at other oems to see different ways to do what Apple did. In fact, look at stock Android itself.
 
boronathan said:
Again though, it would be irrelevant. Apple is arguing that they copied then. This document shows that they did. If there are other documents with the same level of detail, Samsung will introduce them when they present their case (if they have some sense).

I'm not going to hold my breath on that happening because i don't believe such docuMents exist :p
Click to expand...

No they won't because discovery is closed. If it's not already admitted, it's not going to be seen/shown. That's how court cases work. But I'm sure you know that.
 
KnightWRX said:
The documents purpose is not a court matter. If I write a document, I get to decide what its use is and what its purpose is. If it is used in a court of law, that is another matter and not what was claimed. The Jury can very well form an opinion, one that mirrors that of a few posters in this thread who have condemned Samsung on it.
Click to expand...

Well in this case we are discussing it IS a court matter.

Save the irrelevant conjecture for another thread.
 
samcraig said:
No they won't because discovery is closed. If it's not already admitted, it's not going to be seen/shown. That's how court cases work. But I'm sure you know that.
Click to expand...

Discovery involves letting both sides know what you're going to present. So Samsung knew this was coming. Unlike tv there are no surprise witnesses or 11th hour exhibits pulled out of apples butt. But I'm sure you know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back