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

[rjohnstone]

Advertising is a service ?

More or less.
The advertising services are built into Google's apps.
Google Play (market), GMail, Google Maps, etc. are all monetized ad platforms in Google's version of Android.

 

[chr1s60]

"Oh, yeah, forgot about that massive document picturing and telling us how we should copy the iPhone. Oops."

-Samsung

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Thanks for that one.

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

Yes.

What is clear is many people here have no clue how development or engineering works. It is a hell of a lot easier to reference something out there working to explain what you want.

First question a good engineering ask is "Is there anything out there that does this or something like it that I could adapt for my current problem" There is no point to re invent the wheel every time.

Of course people who understand how referencing something that is good is not the same as coping. It was refrencing the iPhone because the iPhone has good UI design.

 

[boronathan]

Yes.

What is clear is many people here have no clue how development or engineering works. It is a hell of a lot easier to reference something out there working to explain what you want.

First question a good engineering ask is "Is there anything out there that does this or something like it that I could adapt for my current problem" There is no point to re invent the wheel every time.

Of course people who understand how referencing something that is good is not the same as coping. It was refrencing the iPhone because the iPhone has good UI design.

Again, nitpicking the definition of "copy" is the only defense. It's still not a good one no matter how many ppl say it

 

[BaldiMac]

Of course people who understand how referencing something that is good is not the same as coping. It was refrencing the iPhone because the iPhone has good UI design.

Sure, but referencing something that is good and then doing it the same way is the same as copying.

 

[Peace]

Yes.

What is clear is many people here have no clue how development or engineering works. It is a hell of a lot easier to reference something out there working to explain what you want.

First question a good engineering ask is "Is there anything out there that does this or something like it that I could adapt for my current problem" There is no point to re invent the wheel every time.

Of course people who understand how referencing something that is good is not the same as coping. It was refrencing the iPhone because the iPhone has good UI design.

So samsung was merely trying to make their GUI better when they used 132 pages to reference the iPhone ?

That sounds like the iPhone was the only one that had those little changes.

There was no other phone they could have referenced ?
I find that laughable.

 

[Renzatic]

A patent doesn't require a ground breaking idea.

Cool! I'm gonna go out and patent tires!

If not truly unique, please post a prior art example specific to the claims in context.

Lets see...window posting files in order by date...

Explorer and Finder?

A window comparing and contrasting a current document to a previous one? Photoshop? Any number of word processors? Some modelling programs?

You know. Pixologic made a setup that can send any model made within Zbrush to a 3D editor of your choice and back again with a click of a button so you can keep your modelling up to date among multiple programs. That's interesting, and difficult to do. I don't think they've applied for a patent for it.

Apple has taken ideas that have been seen elsewhere, built it into the OS, and slapped a patent on it. What did they invent? What have they done here that no one else has? Why do they deserve a patent?

It's about as stupid as Amazon's one click buying patent.

 

[JAT]

This kind of "copying" doesn't bother me.

It should. I didn't realize it was like this. This document is ridiculous. For months I haven't bothered to really support one side or the other on these legal issues. (not that anyone cares about my opinion, of course) But this basically validates some of the worst Apple fanboy opinions that I've read on the net. In my mind, every single one of those snide posts from those disagreeing with Apple (or outright haters) saying, "show me where they 'copied'" has been answered. Semantics questions answered. My god, it even gives credit to the racist comments that occasionally pop up.

Samsung went line by line with the UI, "imitated" it as much as possible, then attempted to make it look a little less "copied". My presumption is the 3rd item was to avoid losing in legal entanglements.

I was basically assuming Apple was just pleasing their irate CEO, the dead one, and would lose the case easily. But, this is crazy, now I understand why he was pissed off. IDK that it can stand up to patent court for a legal win for Apple since these patents are tough to legally prove regardless, but this answers the question for me.

They should have looked again later. The glass on the 4/4s is far superior in design and coolness to the plastic of the 3 series. Samsung is still stuck on plastic in their phones. Copying fail.

 

[Rafagon]

Lousy Samsung! Rotten, rotten company. Of course they looked to the iPhone for solutions to their Galaxy S--they don't have anyone with brains working for them!!

 

[ShiftyPig]

Samsung should be held liable solely for constantly referring to it as the (hyphenated) i-Phone. They can't even copy the word iPhone without uglying it up.

 

[linuxcooldude]

What is clear is many people here have no clue how development or engineering works.

Also to reverse-engineer something. Some of the ideas in the document were clearly to be added to the Samsung interface as noted in the "Directions of improvement" sections.

 

[paul4339]

Samsung should be held liable solely for constantly referring to it as the (hyphenated) i-Phone. They can't even copy the word iPhone without uglying it up.

It's a translation... see page 132.

 

[samcraig]

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'.

I believe they need to prove intent AND execution. Intent alone isn't actionable in this case, is it?

Sounds like a knee jerk reaction about a patent that you have no knowledge on how it works.

Where was your indignation with all the "knee jerk reactions" to this document with all the people who never read it but felt appropriate to comment as if they had?

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.

You should try and be less condescending. I've read a lot about this trial. More than most it would appear based on comments in this thread (not directed to you).

Again I say intent AND execution is what's important. They could have a 500 page document on how they should copy iPhone. Unless they actually execute on it - it's just an internal document of a wish list.

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.

That's why I asked - how many of these 132 elements were actually implemented.

It should. I didn't realize it was like this. This document is ridiculous. For months I haven't bothered to really support one side or the other on these legal issues. (not that anyone cares about my opinion, of course) But this basically validates some of the worst Apple fanboy opinions that I've read on the net. In my mind, every single one of those snide posts from those disagreeing with Apple (or outright haters) saying, "show me where they 'copied'" has been answered. Semantics questions answered. My god, it even gives credit to the racist comments that occasionally pop up.

Samsung went line by line with the UI, "imitated" it as much as possible, then attempted to make it look a little less "copied". My presumption is the 3rd item was to avoid losing in legal entanglements.

I was basically assuming Apple was just pleasing their irate CEO, the dead one, and would lose the case easily. But, this is crazy, now I understand why he was pissed off. IDK that it can stand up to patent court for a legal win for Apple since these patents are tough to legally prove regardless, but this answers the question for me.

They should have looked again later. The glass on the 4/4s is far superior in design and coolness to the plastic of the 3 series. Samsung is still stuck on plastic in their phones. Copying fail.

As stated above - doesn't matter what their intention was - even if it looks bad. What matters more is whether or not they executed on it.

ETA: and no document of this kind justifies racial slurs. Period.

 

[JAT]

Whew. Okay. Knowing there might be people out there who like Domino's made me question my whole worldview there for a second. Kinda scared me a bit.

It's actually really changed. I tried it last year for the first time in....20 years? Surprisingly better. Not that I choose it much.

Still won't eat Pizza Hut.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Sure, but referencing something that is good and then doing it the same way is the same as copying.

But really it has only been the die hard fanboy army that has been screaming it is a direct copy.

No one is arguing that it was not heavy inspired by and references back to iOS. But it is not coping.
Fanboy army screams anything that is a touch screen based OS is a copy.

So samsung was merely trying to make their GUI better when they used 132 pages to reference the iPhone ?

That sounds like the iPhone was the only one that had those little changes.

There was no other phone they could have referenced ?
I find that laughable.

Well look at the references points you have. You have Android stock (no need to reference that one) and iOS. Those are the 2 good and popular touch based OS. If they wanted to refrences any other phone OS the only one that really would be useful for them would be HTC sense. The others are either to close to stock or not any better for what they are looking for. Motoblur not much use because it has a difference type of design core.

iOS is really the best one to start from.

 

[JAT]

As stated above - doesn't matter what their intention was - even if it looks bad. What matters more is whether or not they executed on it.

Only legally.

To me, as a person, things have been made clear. Don't get me wrong, I drive a 2005 Accord clone, aka the 2006 Sonata. But questions have been answered.

 

[Peace]

But really it has only been the die hard fanboy army that has been screaming it is a direct copy.

No one is arguing that it was not heavy inspired by and references back to iOS. But it is not coping.
Fanboy army screams anything that is a touch screen based OS is a copy.


Well look at the references points you have. You have Android stock (no need to reference that one) and iOS. Those are the 2 good and popular touch based OS. If they wanted to refrences any other phone OS the only one that really would be useful for them would be HTC sense. The others are either to close to stock or not any better for what they are looking for. Motoblur not much use because it has a difference type of design core.

iOS is really the best one to start from.

So by your own admission samsung was trying to emulate the iPhone.

 

[x-machine]

Sorry to all those who says its not worth 're-inventing the wheel' thats just a joke. This isnt a wheel thats been around forever, it's a new technology and proves that great inventions can still be made. Samsung would do well to realise this and try to do something new for themselves.

How else do we drive innovation if we just rely on whats been done already?

 

[JAT]

But really it has only been the die hard fanboy army that has been screaming it is a direct copy.

No one is arguing that it was not heavy inspired by and references back to iOS. But it is not coping.
Fanboy army screams anything that is a touch screen based OS is a copy.

Your hate has made you weak.

 

[samcraig]

Only legally.

To me, as a person, things have been made clear. Don't get me wrong, I drive a 2005 Accord clone, aka the 2006 Sonata. But questions have been answered.

Perfectly reasonable to have your own court of opinion. I go back and forth on how I feel about the document not knowing all the facts. But that's because I'm a big picture thinker (not that you aren't!) - and having been on a few juries - I know there is always so much more to a case than what gets presented, etc.

 

[JAT]

Perfectly reasonable to have your own court of opinion. I go back and forth on how I feel about the document not knowing all the facts. But that's because I'm a big picture thinker (not that you aren't!) - and having been on a few juries - I know there is always so much more to a case than what gets presented, etc.

I just mean I don't really care about that outcome. Frankly, I don't think most debating it here do, they just like debates. Or really like/hate Apple.

The legal outcome isn't going to truly block Samsung from making smartphones, it isn't going to bankrupt either company if they lose, it isn't going to change my buying habits (unlike most here, I actually own a Galaxy product), it probably isn't even going to change Samsung's "R&D" methodology. The patents in question just aren't enough to accomplish anything.

 

[BaldiMac]

But really it has only been the die hard fanboy army that has been screaming it is a direct copy.

No one is arguing that it was not heavy inspired by and references back to iOS. But it is not coping.
Fanboy army screams anything that is a touch screen based OS is a copy.

Blah, blah, fanboy, blah.

Again, to say that it is not copying is just as irrational as your "die hard fanboys." The real question is whether or not the copying was legal.

 

[Renzatic]

It's actually really changed. I tried it last year for the first time in....20 years? Surprisingly better. Not that I choose it much.

Still won't eat Pizza Hut.

Eh. Maybe it's just the stores around here and how they make it, but I've always found it to be about the blandest pizza around. It's not terrible awful horrible, but not exactly a moving experience, either. Just kinda...food.

Pizza Hut is alright, but I'll tell you one thing. Of all the big pizza chains I've eaten at, nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to old Godfather's. Since they went out of business around here, I haven't eaten nearly as much pizza. And even worse, when a new pizza place opens up that's comparable to them, they're almost guaranteed to close down a couple months later.

It's a cold, cruel world we live in.

 

[Peace]

I just mean I don't really care about that outcome. Frankly, I don't think most debating it here do, they just like debates. Or really like/hate Apple.

The legal outcome isn't going to truly block Samsung from making smartphones, it isn't going to bankrupt either company if they lose, it isn't going to change my buying habits (unlike most here, I actually own a Galaxy product), it probably isn't even going to change Samsung's "R&D" methodology.

While I agree with you mostly. There is a court of public opinion that affects purchasing decisions. If samsung loses they have a huge black eye compared to the already ( seemingly ) hated Apple.

 

[JAT]

It's a cold, cruel world we live in.

Ain't that the truth. My favorites are all local. So I probably can't even recommend them to you. There's a cheap one in a ****** part of town that is surprisingly good (the sauce, it's like crack!), a couple local chains, and one that dropped down to ONE location, but surprisingly has held on for more than a decade like that.