Defending Samsung is not a bad thing. You're the one putting a negative connotation on it not me.
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.
Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Defending Samsung is not a bad thing. You're the one putting a negative connotation on it not me.
Sort of like taking this one document and immediately drawing the conclusion that it provides unequivocal proof Samsung copied, huh?
And that's called trying to put words in my mouth. Try reading my posts again.
The document is just evidence. It may not directly say "copy i-phone" on it, but then it would go from evidence to an admittance (And KnightWRX, please spare me the lesson in Law and the proper use of admittance in a court of law, this is not a legal forum). But in my opinion, this is a huge problem with our legal system and the way it works. People have abandoned all common sense. Unless they have the "smoking gun" as many of you have referred to on this board, or unless they witness the crime themselves they do not see guilt. The jurors in the OJ trial did not see the smoking gun, or the weapon(s) used, therefore OJ must have been innocent.
As far as the "copy i-phone" stamen in the doc (or lack of) If I decide to make a Rolex ripoff, and in my lab I have Rolex watches lying around, and I have a huge document with photos of Rolexes and my watch, component by component and my final product looks and feels and acts like a Rolex because none of my documents had the word copy, Im good? C'mon. use some common sense.
As far as the "copy i-phone" stamen in the doc (or lack of) If I decide to make a Rolex ripoff, and in my lab I have Rolex watches lying around, and I have a huge document with photos of Rolexes and my watch, component by component and my final product looks and feels and acts like a Rolex because none of my documents had the word copy, Im good? C'mon. use some common sense.
No, many others have added the connotation on it in this thread, stating that they are Samsung lovers or something (some may be, but not most of the guys I'm seeing).
Oh Snap, I forgot to add Geckotek to that list. Apologies.
And yes, i have a strong affinity for apple, that's why I'm here, It IS a Macrumors forum after all, not a TechRumors, or a SmartphoneRumors site. I dont troll the android forums.
While I see similarties where Samsung borrowed design queues, I don't see a copy anywhere. If those design queues are patented, Samsung should remove the product and change it. If they are not, then it doesn't matter. It's pretty much that simple in my eyes. Just because I saw you wear a polo shirt to school and ran out and bought a similar one; it may make me unorginal, but unless there's a law against it, it doesn't make me legally responsible.
----------
I have a strong affinity as well, that's why I'm here too. But I'm not blinded like you are. I don't recall a sign on the front page of this website saying "upon entering, you must leave all common sense and reason behind and worship Apple."
How did he put a negative spin on it. He just said "View Post
Once again, you confuse arguing the facts of the case with "defending Samsung"."
Where's the negative spin?
We are all blind to both the material and immaterial things we use and enjoy, just some of us are too blind to see or admit it.
The Question...
The Answer...
Still waiting Craznar
The Answer...
simple... shrink the handset, keep the actual button dimensions the same
Waiting for you to say you're wrong (although to be honest it's just because you have made such a big deal out of it, rather than any opinions on the Samsung/Apple debacle)
Still waiting Craznar
Patents aren't the only thing in question. There is also trade dress and copyright.
How did he put a negative spin on it. He just said "View Post
Once again, you confuse arguing the facts of the case with "defending Samsung"."
Where's the negative spin?
He already said there is a negative connotation sam. You really, REALLY have to stop arguing and nitpicking everything. This is no better then oletros questions.
Contribute to the conversation rather then trying to act as if you are not aware of what's happening.
I think some (not saying you) are using copy to imply that there's little to no difference between Samsung's phones and the iPhone. That everything about the UI is a copy from iOS. There's a big difference though between some elements being similar or being copied vs "Samsung are thieves" "they don't innovate they just copy" etc. These are hyperbolic statements. And the ones I take more issue with.
And I think we can both at least be honest about that. There are some forum members here who not only haven't read the document - but haven't read much about the actual case ,evidence,, etc other than sensationalistic headlines and then come here and either post their opinion as fact and/or regurgitate forum "lore." as facts. And that does nothing to further the discussion.
So to bring it back to your Rolex analogy - I put this forward - out of the 132 pages - how many of the comments were actually implemented. Is the document damning if they incorporated 3 or 4 out of the 132. What about 20 of the 132. Where's the "line." I ask sincerely.
For some - it won't matter - even if it's just one element.
The document itself is only really damning if it was executed on. And even then - there's a lot of grey area as proven by Google v Oracle.
Sorry, I get too simple in my explanations. But what I'm unclear on is this, does the definition of trade dress cover the UI? It wasn't in the definition I looked up (but that definition could be incomplete or dated). And what copyrights is Apple saying were violated?
Thanks for the "tip." You know - it's all in the timing. I was writing my post before he clarified his statement. I can't get inside his head - I can only read what was actually in print. And what he wrote wasn't negative. I'll try and not hit respond so fast next time
yes, but it's the abundance of similarities and coincidences that i feel are wrong. And in fashion the law is different when it comes to design. I've worked in the past with clothing designers and there does allow an amount of copying of design, not of name though. so you can see Prado, or guchi or Rolax.
The reason I'm a little irked about what Samsung did, is because I feel they cheated. Apple spent tons of energy and manpower and years of work to break into a market that was somewhat stagnant, and they did it very well. and all the people that went in to designing a beautiful UI, and developing a sleek phone, basically got their ideas and hard work hijacked. Samsung simply spent a couple of hours writing up a powerpoint presentation, and became a major player in the phone industry.
Imagine creating a beautiful, well thought out website, or mobile app. spending tons of energy, and time and hard work. And you are the talk of the town. only to have someone come and basically rip off 75% of your site in a matter of hours and claim fame. Happens every day, not only to multi billion dollar corporations. In my opinion, it's not right.
----------
First of all, just to clarify, i don't give a rats @** about either company. I don't get paid by either, i do not own stock in either, and I know no one who works for either. I use Apple computers and I have Samsung appliances at home. Samsung actually makes very good products, so I'm not being Biased (at least I don't think so).
But regarding the document and how many items were "copied", that might not matter. Are they trying to prove the number of copies, or are they trying to prove "intent" with the document? I think it clearly shows intent. My opinion. Whether the intent is enough to condemn... only the Jury will decide.
True - but Apple also had the benefit of studying years of products and technologies before entering into the market. Millions of hours and dollars in R&D. And they borrowed (not going to argue semantics, etc) from the entire industry. Some they have paid for - some they are still working out their "deals." Samsung was already in the phone industry. And was a major player. It's not like it was a brand new company that came in after Apple and simply copied the iPhone without any past history in the industry. I think if that happened - it would be a very different scenario.
All companies game whatever system they can until they are caught and then they either stop or buy their way out of it pretty much. Look at all the companies paying pennies on the dollar for taxes. Yes - their are tax loopholes - but that sucks too, doesn't it?
Personally I don't believe these cases have anything to do with ego of design or patents. It's about money. Period. Samsung is serious competition where before it could be argued there was little against Apple. If Samsung wasn't selling their phones - Apple probably wouldn't care about these patents. Or at least care a LOT less.
All companies game whatever system they can until they are caught and then they either stop or buy their way out of it pretty much. Look at all the companies paying pennies on the dollar for taxes. Yes - their are tax loopholes - but that sucks too, doesn't it?
Personally I don't believe these cases have anything to do with ego of design or patents. It's about money. Period. Samsung is serious competition where before it could be argued there was little against Apple. If Samsung wasn't selling their phones - Apple probably wouldn't care about these patents. Or at least care a LOT less.
It does get tiresome. It's the same 3 ostriches in every thread. If you told them the sky was blue, they'd agree until you told them Apple said the sky was blue.
And herein lies your problem. Being "irked" means you are already approaching this subject with an opinion of right and wrong instead of legal vs illegal.
To be fair, Samsung did a lot more than that, they still had to change the UI, edit the code, test, etc.... They just didn't do most of the R&D that Apple already did.
While I do see your points, I go back to "was it illegal?"
----------
How did I do that?
Edit: Oooooh! You must think I own a Samsung?!? LOL
I used mobilenotifier and the alpha came out 2009 from memory 6 to 12 months after android demoed there s
Why is that a problem? He was very clear that he wasn't talking about legality. As he said, this isn't a legal forum.