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

samcraig said:
I respect that. I've never put anyone on ignore. If I don't want to read someone - I either skip over their post or I read it and exercise self control not to post back. MOST of the time ;) But generally - like you, I'd rather read the opinion and then choose my course of action.

And I got that you were being mocking - I just thought it was a tangent on a thread that's already incendiary. Didn't mean to come off condescending to you either.

----------



Did I bash you?
Click to expand...

I never said you did. I was speaking generally.
 
113-2a2d85b945.jpg


"Fun factor"? Nice going Samsung.
 
spillproof said:
113-2a2d85b945.jpg


"Fun factor"? Nice going Samsung.
Click to expand...

Question - of these 132 pages (sorry - already deleted the PDF) - is there a # of elements listed that were actually incorporated.

IE - there are X number of notes "change this or do this" - but how many actually were executed on - and were they executed as noted or differently.
 
Peace said:
Thanks for that one.

Can any "reasonable" person say that is not trying to copy ?
Click to expand...

As I said, they looked at the entire iPhone behaviour and copied it bit-for-bit, feature-for-feature. All those little things that made iPhone, The iPhone were copied.

EDIT: For them, it's fun factor. For Apple, it's user experience. No wonder, Samsung couldn't think any of this by themselves.

And, No wonder Apple is pissed.

----------
samcraig said:
Question - of these 132 pages (sorry - already deleted the PDF) - is there a # of elements listed that were actually incorporated.

IE - there are X number of notes "change this or do this" - but how many actually were executed on - and were they executed as noted or differently.
Click to expand...

Someone with a Samsung phone shall take it up, although request is irrelevant. What they did in the final product is as relevant as what they discussed in these documents.

They showed clear intentions of copying each and every UI behaviour, element on the iPhone. Intentions to copy as well as taking it all the way to actually implement as discussed is IMO - 'copying'.
 
Renzatic said:
How about OH GOD NO! This is proof positive that Apple will attempt to patent ANYTHING to get ahead in the game. Autosaves have been around since who knows how long, and Apple's implementation with iCloud isn't vastly different than what's come before.

See people? This isn't Apple protecting their innovations, or the right to innovate in general. This is them gaming the patent system for their own advantage, and it'll do nothing but harm the industry as a whole.

...and I wish Apple was the only one that was doing it. The future of hardware and software looks bleaker every time a company gets away with something like this.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a knee jerk reaction about a patent that you have no knowledge on how it works.
 
dethmaShine said:
As I said, they looked at the entire iPhone behaviour and copied it bit-for-bit, feature-for-feature. All those little things that made iPhone, The iPhone were copied.

No wonder Apple is pissed.
Click to expand...

See my question above. I'm not going to rehash any debates about copying vs not copying. But I am curious how many of the notes were actually executed on. A few? Some? All? If All - that would be pretty drastic. So just curious if it's been noted "somewhere" how many were actually implemented as noted.

----------
dethmaShine said:
As I said, they looked at the entire iPhone behaviour and copied it bit-for-bit, feature-for-feature. All those little things that made iPhone, The iPhone were copied.

EDIT: For them, it's fun factor. For Apple, it's user experience. No wonder, Samsung couldn't think any of this by themselves.

And, No wonder Apple is pissed.

----------



Someone with a Samsung phone shall take it up, although request is irrelevant. What they did in the final product is as relevant as what they discussed in these documents.

They showed clear intentions of copying each and every UI behaviour, element on the iPhone. Intentions to copy as well as taking it all the way to actually implement as discussed is IMO - 'copying'.
Click to expand...

Intent isn't the same though. You can't win a patent infringement case on what they "might have done" - only what they actually did. Right?
 
samcraig said:
See my question above. I'm not going to rehash any debates about copying vs not copying. But I am curious how many of the notes were actually executed on. A few? Some? All? If All - that would be pretty drastic. So just curious if it's been noted "somewhere" how many were actually implemented as noted.
Click to expand...

I think most of them, otherwise Samsung would have objected this in the very first place. They would have objected on the grounds that — we didn't implement any of these suggestions (or some X% of suggestions) in the final product.
 
samcraig said:
You're right. It has no bearing. So why bring it up? It's indicative of one thing - that person's behavior. People are individuals last I checked. Can they be influenced by those around them - of course. But it certainly isn't indicative of a culture nor a company in whole.
Click to expand...

Simply a fun fact/opinion that I thought might be worth sharing. One comment of over 600 in this thread. It remains that it's potentially indicative of how he was raised, however, and since the man that raised him is among Samung's leadership, perhaps it is pertinent to the company. I can see and respect your reasoning as to why it might not be necessary, though.
 
samcraig said:
Just curious. Is this Samsung commenting on their own UI and limitations. Or are they showing stock Android here and indicating that stock Android doesn't have this option but that it's a good feature to have?
Click to expand...

None of those screens are stock Android as far as I can tell. (I own a Nexus device.)

They're all early Touchwiz UI skins from the first of the Galaxy series phones Samsung released. (I9000)
 
samcraig said:
See my question above. I'm not going to rehash any debates about copying vs not copying. But I am curious how many of the notes were actually executed on. A few? Some? All? If All - that would be pretty drastic. So just curious if it's been noted "somewhere" how many were actually implemented as noted.

----------



Intent isn't the same though. You can't win a patent infringement case on what they "might have done" - only what they actually did. Right?
Click to expand...

I cannot really say as I don't know much about law. All I can say is that the intent proves that Samsung was willing to copy and the impact has been shown on all of these products from software/hardware design/behaviour to packaging and marketing.
 
samcraig said:
See my question above. I'm not going to rehash any debates about copying vs not copying. But I am curious how many of the notes were actually executed on. A few? Some? All? If All - that would be pretty drastic. So just curious if it's been noted "somewhere" how many were actually implemented as noted.

----------



Intent isn't the same though. You can't win a patent infringement case on what they "might have done" - only what they actually did. Right?
Click to expand...

You should read more of this trial. It's not just about "patents" It's about patent and design disputes.

This document proves samsung was trying to emulate ( design the galaxy phone ) the user experience the iPhone has.
 
Not that i like the suing games but this one will cost Samsung some hard cash!
I love Galaxy phones but to be honest they did copy lots from Apple so its fair to pay the penalty for copying.

On the other hand some of the items shown are so generic that i think its a bit ridiculous to argue about. Like having a long button for call-end, i mean so what if samsung takes that "idea" from another phone, this is a generic thing.
Its like saying car1 has a same looking side window as car2....
 
dethmaShine said:
I cannot really say as I don't know much about law. All I can say is that the intent proves that Samsung was willing to copy and the impact has been shown on all of these products from software/hardware design/behaviour to packaging and marketing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If it happens once, ok. If it happens twice, ok. If it happens thrice, hmm. If it happens over 132 pages of a design document, that's copying.
 
Samsung Vs. Apple

Just because they see short comings does not mean it is copying.

1. Android on Motorola supported copy/paste *BEFORE* iOS.
2. Drop down notification was on android long *BEFORE* iOS.
3. Notifications on lock screens have been available on Android *BEFORE* iOS.

There are plenty of features that Apple "borrowed" from Android.
Don't get me wrong, I own two iPads, 4 Macs, and a few iPods.
I also own Android phones.

If Apple implements a larger iPhone, is that copying because Android has had larger screens for years. Is Apple just now seeing the shortcomings of screens for touch interface that are too small?
 
linuxcooldude said:
Sounds like a knee jerk reaction about a patent that you have no knowledge on how it works.
Click to expand...

I've read up to claim 17, and it's proof that anything can be patented. Beyond the auto-saveness of it, you've got a window that shows previously saved documents listed in order by date, another window showing the selected document, and another showing an earlier version of the document to compare and contrast against.

It's....uh....yeah. A neat idea, but not truly unique or groundbreaking.
 
Renzatic said:
I've read up to claim 17, and it's proof that anything can be patented. Beyond the auto-saveness of it, you've got a window that shows previously saved documents listed in order by date, another window showing the selected document, and another showing an earlier version of the document to compare and contrast against.

It's....uh....yeah. A neat idea, but not truly unique or groundbreaking.
Click to expand...

A patent doesn't require a ground breaking idea.

If not truly unique, please post a prior art example specific to the claims in context.
 
techwhiz said:
Just because they see short comings does not mean it is copying.

1. Android on Motorola supported copy/paste *BEFORE* iOS.
2. Drop down notification was on android long *BEFORE* iOS.
3. Notifications on lock screens have been available on Android *BEFORE* iOS.

There are plenty of features that Apple "borrowed" from Android.
Don't get me wrong, I own two iPads, 4 Macs, and a few iPods.
I also own Android phones.

If Apple implements a larger iPhone, is that copying because Android has had larger screens for years. Is Apple just now seeing the shortcomings of screens for touch interface that are too small?
Click to expand...

Yes Apple copied Android. And Samsung copied apple. The problem is, even when presented with such obvious evidence, there are some who won't admit either one. That's delusion.

As far your last point, Android is software, so a bigger screen is not Android specific.
 
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