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

[LagunaSol]

You could stop taking what he said out of context:

You can stop pretending that his "context" was rational.

So Apple was merely a copycat...of the copycats that copied its work with the Newton? At what point of the "lineage" does actual innovation occur?

Never, based on the Google nuts' philosophy. Everything is obvious, everything is free for the taking. No one really did it first, and if they did, surely someone thought of it before them anyway.

This is how Google wants you to think (as they busily scan authors' books without the authors' permission).

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

Okay, I'd say Siri is all Apple's. They were the first to do exactly what Siri does. But using your voice to look up information, like Google Now, which does most everything Siri does in a more straightforward, less personalized sorta way, is still allowed to be used by other people.

Like I said, the implementation is unique, but not the concept itself. People have been yakking away at their computers and TVs to make them do stuff in some shape, form, or fashion since about forever now. Just because Apple made a clever and neat form of it, doesn't mean they now own the concept of voice recognition and response.

It also doesn't mean someone can take Apple's implementation of the idea and copy it wholesale. They have to improve upon Apple's ideas as much as Apple improved upon others.

 

[LagunaSol]

Jules Vernes, Stanley Kubrick, Gene Rodenberry are the greatest inventors of our time if you ask me. They came up with the ideas, all that's left is implementing them.

The "idea" part is the easy part. The "implementing" is the challenge.

I can think up wild stuff all day long. Unfortunately that doesn't make me an "inventor."

 

[samcraig]

You can stop pretending that his "context" was rational.

You're the last person who should be using the word rational.

The "idea" part is the easy part. The "implementing" is the challenge.

I can think up wild stuff all day long. Unfortunately that doesn't make me an "inventor."

The idea part isn't easy if there's nothing that came before it to model on. Don't be so quick to dismiss conceptual thinking as easy. The difference between you thinking up random crap all day and the minds KnightWRX mentioned is obvious to probably everyone but you.

----------

Siri was purchased - it wasn't originally Apple's. I give credit for integrating it and tweaking it - but not at all for creating it.

Okay, I'd say Siri is all Apple's. They were the first to do exactly what Siri does. But using your voice to look up information, like Google Now, which does most everything Siri does in a more straightforward, less personalized sorta way, is still allowed to be used by other people.

Like I said, the implementation is unique, but not the concept itself. People have been yakking away at their computers and TVs to make them do stuff in some shape, form, or fashion since about forever now. Just because Apple made a clever and neat form of it, doesn't mean they now own the concept of voice recognition and response.

It also doesn't mean someone can take Apple's implementation of the idea and copy it wholesale. They have to improve upon Apple's ideas as much as Apple improved upon others.

 

[Renzatic]

Siri was purchased - it wasn't originally Apple's. I give credit for integrating it and tweaking it - but not at all for creating it.

Yeah, I know. I wanted to argue it straight up on merit, though, so I didn't bring it up.

Cuz regardless if Apple bought the tech or invented it inhouse, Siri is currently theirs.

 

[Geckotek]

For one thing, the link to the article said android phones being shipped, not how many sold. Many articles in the past mentioned in particular that Samsung used devices shipped as to be taken as sold. But did not mention things like devices being returned by the store to the manufacture.

Being shipped is not representative on how many were purchased by the buyers.

Second, marketshare is not always as important as profit share. Android does not sell phones, it is an operating system. Android is split between all the different phone manufactures, each with their own marketshare.

So trying to pass off Android off as It's own marketshare is inaccurate. What really matters is how each phone manufacture is competing against the other phone manufacturers.

For one thing, I wasn't discussing the whole sold vs shipped. I was simply stating that market share was important. And while profit share is also important, market share is STILL important.

And if you want to compare Samsung vs Apple, then that's fine too. Still doesn't change the fact that Apple cares about their market share vs Apple. Why do you keep taking this conversation down tangents and away from my one and only statement on the subject?

So you have failed to prove the fact that Apple doesn't care about market share. Anybody that thinks they don't is delusional.

 

[LagunaSol]

The difference between you thinking up random crap all day and the minds KnightWRX mentioned is obvious to probably everyone but you.

Puh...lease. You'll probably argue that the first working time machine won't be patentable because of prior art.

Samsung lawyer: "Your honor, we read about it in a book once. There were these awesome things called Morlocks. TimeTravel Inc. deserves no credit for this!"

There's a significant gap between science fiction (of which I am a huge fan) and science fact.

And what Wells and Verne and Asimov and Kubrick and da Vinci came up with was nothing more than "random crap" to many of that time.

 

[KnightWRX]

Okay, I'd say Siri is all Apple's. They were the first to do exactly what Siri does.

Didn't they buy Siri ? How soon we forget. Otherwise, Gene and Stanley has them beat on the "idea" of talking to a computer.

 

[lucas107]

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/

The "idea" part is the easy part. The "implementing" is the challenge.

I can think up wild stuff all day long. Unfortunately that doesn't make me an "inventor."

check my link one page back on the bottom edit here it is
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/

 

[Geckotek]

Siri was purchased - it wasn't originally Apple's. I give credit for integrating it and tweaking it - but not at all for creating it.

Not 100% true. Apple was involved in starting the project that Siri evolved from. They spun it off, then bought it back later.

 

[samcraig]

Puh...lease. You'll probably argue that the first working time machine won't be patentable because of prior art.

Samsung lawyer: "Your honor, we read about it in a book once. There were these awesome things called Morlocks. TimeTravel Inc. deserves no credit for this!"

There's a significant gap between science fiction (of which I am a huge fan) and science fact.

And what Wells and Verne and Asimov and Kubrick and da Vinci came up with was nothing more than "random crap" to many of that time.

So then you must think the stuff that Steve Jobs and his crew thought up and patented years ago but never built is random crap too.

Again - don't minimize conceptual thinking. It's ignorant.

----------

Not 100% true. Apple was involved in starting the project that Siri evolved from. They spun it off, then bought it back later.

I would love to see a reference (sincerely) I don't see anything referenced via
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_(software)

 

[Renzatic]

Didn't they buy Siri ? How soon we forget. Otherwise, Gene and Stanley has them beat on the "idea" of talking to a computer.

Talking to a computer isn't exactly a new thing, but the way Siri acts and reacts to questions and statements is pretty specific.

Dunno if this means a talking digital assistant that makes jokes and responds naturally is now an Apple owned property exactly, but someone would have to go through great pains to get around being accused of copying it.

 

[Technarchy]

Puh...lease. You'll probably argue that the first working time machine won't be patentable because of prior art.

Samsung lawyer: "Your honor, we read about it in a book once. There were these awesome things called Morlocks. TimeTravel Inc. deserves no credit for this!"

There's a significant gap between science fiction (of which I am a huge fan) and science fact.

Hence the absurdity of Samsung trying to wiggle out of the blow back of their antics with, "...but we saw it in 2001 Space Odyssey"

 

[KnightWRX]

Talking to a computer isn't exactly a new thing, but the way Siri acts and reacts to questions and statements is pretty specific.

I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.

 

[Renzatic]

I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.

...welcome to the future, people.

 

[linuxcooldude]

For one thing, I wasn't discussing the whole sold vs shipped. I was simply stating that market share was important. And while profit share is also important, market share is STILL important.

And if you want to compare Samsung vs Apple, then that's fine too. Still doesn't change the fact that Apple cares about their market share vs Apple. Why do you keep taking this conversation down tangents and away from my one and only statement on the subject?

So you have failed to prove the fact that Apple doesn't care about market share. Anybody that thinks they don't is delusional.

I broke it down so you could understand my meaning when i initially replied to another poster.

But I also wanted people to know that marketshare is not "be all, end all" to everything. We can see that very clearly while Android may have the lead or so called marketshare, but when you break it down by manufacture, Apple still leads in total profits.

 

[NT1440]

Okay, I'd say Siri is all Apple's. They were the first to do exactly what Siri does. But using your voice to look up information, like Google Now, which does most everything Siri does in a more straightforward, less personalized sorta way, is still allowed to be used by other people.

Like I said, the implementation is unique, but not the concept itself. People have been yakking away at their computers and TVs to make them do stuff in some shape, form, or fashion since about forever now. Just because Apple made a clever and neat form of it, doesn't mean they now own the concept of voice recognition and response.

It also doesn't mean someone can take Apple's implementation of the idea and copy it wholesale. They have to improve upon Apple's ideas as much as Apple improved upon others.

No they don't own the idea, they own that implementation of the idea. Thats the (supposed) way the patent system works.

 

[TMay]

Jules Vernes, Stanley Kubrick, Gene Rodenberry are the greatest inventors of our time if you ask me. They came up with the ideas, all that's left is implementing them.

James Cameron and his bro are the real deal when it comes to implementing hardware.

 

[babyj]

Samsung have a track record for this kind of behaviour. Their first mobile phone was a failure so they got some Motorola phones for "benchmarking" so they could improve (copy) their mobiles. How much more proof do you disbelievers need????

In 1986, Samsung was able to release its first built-in car phone, the SC-100, but it was a failure due to the poor quality. In spite of unsuccessful result Ki Tae Lee, the then-head of the Wireless Development Team, decided to stay in the mobile business. He asked the company to buy ten Motorola mobile phones for benchmarking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Telecommunications

 

[LagunaSol]

You're the last person who should be using the word rational.

Says the guy who doesn't think Samsung ripped off the iTunes logo for their music app.

So then you must think the stuff that Steve Jobs and his crew thought up and patented years ago but never built is random crap too.

You coined the "random crap" phrase. I didn't.

Again - don't minimize conceptual thinking. It's ignorant.

I never did. But conceptual thinking is irrelevant until a practical application can be devised.

This entire thread is about how Samsung knocked off Apple's product. Bringing up "conceptual thinking" and sci-fi fiction is a nice diversion but has no relevance to the case at hand, where we're dealing with actual products and actual trademarks and actual patents.

The judge rightly shot down Samsung's silly (and late) "2001: A Prior Art Odyssey" strategy.

 

[babyj]

Siri was purchased - it wasn't originally Apple's. I give credit for integrating it and tweaking it - but not at all for creating it.

So you're now claiming that Charles Babbage actually invented the iPhone and all Apple did was tweak his designs a bit?

 

[Renzatic]

So you're now claiming that Charles Babbage actually invented the iPhone and all Apple did was tweak his designs a bit?

You know how the whole universe blew up at the beginning of time in some big event called...hell, I can't remember...the Big Space Kablooey or something? See, that's where everything comes from. Nothing is original, cuz it all came from that one giant explosion.

That's the point of invention. That one moment in time where everything came from. Rocks. Stars. Planets. iPhones. Arguing otherwise just means you're dumb.

 

[lucas107]

Says the guy who doesn't think Samsung ripped off the iTunes logo for their music app.



You coined the "random crap" phrase. I didn't.



I never did. But conceptual thinking is irrelevant until a practical application can be devised.

This entire thread is about how Samsung knocked off Apple's product. Bringing up "conceptual thinking" and sci-fi fiction is a nice diversion but has no relevance to the case at hand, where we're dealing with actual products and actual trademarks and actual patents.

The judge rightly shot down Samsung's silly (and late) "2001: A Prior Art Odyssey" strategy.

did you read this
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/ please do its the 3rd time i posted the link its very specific to this conversation but there is no comments on it. it shows 2 things that the idea can be from a fictional book making the patent claim not valid and that 2 people can come up with the same idea to a problem without any copying

 

[LagunaSol]

did you read this
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/19/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-73/ please do its the 3rd time i posted the link its very specific to this conversation but there is no comments on it. it shows 2 things that the idea can be from a fictional book making the patent claim not valid and that 2 people can come up with the same idea to a problem without any copying

Yes. Different country. Different time. No documented evidence for the reason behind the patent denial.

An entertaining and interesting story, but it won't help Samsung.

(That said, Samsung lawyers are probably scanning Donald Duck comics as we speak.)

 

[babyj]

That's the point of invention. That one moment in time where everything came from. Rocks. Stars. Planets. iPhones. Arguing otherwise just means you're dumb.

Or a creationist.