That's why we so called Fandroids (I refer to myself as Android user but you will call me Fandroid nevertheless) are just ridiculing you Apple sheeps.
Google sheep ridicules Apple sheep. Fails to recognize irony. News at 11.
That's why we so called Fandroids (I refer to myself as Android user but you will call me Fandroid nevertheless) are just ridiculing you Apple sheeps.
Perhaps it's not as simple as you make it out to be? Anyone who thinks this trial is about rounded rectangles is obviously drinking the Samsung kool-aid.
Uh ?
Box :
![]()
Homescreen:
,,![]()
This can be solved by a single statement.
Phones before iPhone, phones after.
I remember what mobile devices were like before the iPhone, there was nothing out there that could touch it.
link, i think you will change your mind if you see it.
Uh?
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
Did you think I wasn't talking about the oem box?
By the way, in your example, check out 1:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfa1z3iuyf4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Funny that they need to advertise the app drawer, huh? Uh? Indeed.
What the hell is this?
And I'd like to mention the prequel to Episode IV. Episode 3: The LG Prada. I remember what devices we're like before and after.
Uh?
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
Did you think I wasn't talking about the oem box?
By the way, in your example, check out 1:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfa1z3iuyf4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Funny that they need to advertise the app drawer, huh? Uh? Indeed.
What's most annoying about this is how upside down the interpretation is. The apple "innovation" here is adding the lines to the icon, not the shape, color or phone design. So none of the images below are actually copying Apple.
And that's the irritating thing about Apple law suits. They modify some existing design in a trivial way, say they were the first and then claim the world.
How many times do customers turn off their phones prior to buying? The vast majority of the time, you'll see the default home screen when on display.
Furthermore, deception is just one form of damage that can occur when someone copies someone else's product. You also reduce the value of the owner's IP by flooding the market with lookalikes. Again, you stymie innovation with copycats, because the infringing entities are just riding on the laurels of another and thus reducing the motivation to come up with something truly new.
And the only thing similar with the mini PC to the Mac Mini is that it is colored silver on the sides, is the color silver patented by Apple or what?
That computer doesn't look like any Apple product, it has seams.
and the minicomputer doesn't really look like the Mac mini.
Bold prediction: Nothing will come of this meeting.![]()
Check out 2:50. Oh why homescreen! And the box in the video is the one I showed. Not to mention the box I showed would be included in this trial under the trade dress claims for boxing, the fonearena.com box (is that site the only one that even got that box ?) wouldn't since it's quite different (overly huge and all) from Apple's boxing.
Again, you missed the point completely however in your haste to bash. The point was there isn't a "THE" box and that the App Drawer is not the homescreen, no matter what. And this lawsuit isn't about advertisement, it's about design patents... do we have to repeat this stuff again ? Again, you seem to have missed 2 years worth of discussion on this lawsuits, no matter your claims of lurking.
Rinse and repeat, over and over, that's all we do around here.
We've already established that you have advanced intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Macrumors after your years of learning the forum culture, knight. No need to rinse and repeat that,![]()
i like how your moving goalposts now and saying that fonearena is "the only one that got that box"
my original post which you "uh?d" to, stated that they have the app drawer on their box.
Like we've established that for a claimed lurker, you sure don't seem to have read much on the topic. Why not just admit you're new to the forum instead of trying the lurking masquerade ?
I did not move goalposts or say that fonearena is the only one that got that box, I asked a question. Notice the question mark in my post ? All the other unboxings and references I can find have the black box with no drawings.
So... answer the question please instead of denigrating it as if it was posted as a statement of fact. It wasn't. Don't misrepresent my posts, that's just plain bad faith and shows quite the lack of character on your part.
Yes, and I uh'ed it because they don't have the app drawer on their box, they might have it on 1 box showed by fonearena as far as I can see, the black box everyone else has doesn't have the app drawer nor even the device itself.
You stated the phone drawer was used on the box. That statement is misrepresentative by the fact there's more than 1 box and even more than that, the black box seems more widespread in general. That was my point, which you've now missed twice.
Are you doing this on purpose ? (this is a question, I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you are, like the fonearena box, I'm asking where that box comes from and who else got it... not to mention that box is not even relevent as it's not in the trade dress claims since it doesn't match Apple's boxing).
I bolded some parts because you seem to read diagnoly and read whatever you want to read instead of what I actually write. Not the first time. I don't want to outright dismiss you as a poster around here.
You are correct, knight. I discovered macrumors last month. I never lurked here. I'm brand new. You have years of experience. Your dad can beat up mine. Arn and you go wayyy back. Is the pissing contest over now? Seriously, how old are you? Very immature behavior.
It's not immature (you want it to be, but really, try to understanding where I'm coming from and adressing the argument rather than resorting to ad hominems). I'm just pointing out to you that you probably don't know what has been discussed around here and you know what, to admit that would be a great show of character on your part. But then, you'd also have to admit that you need to take time to research what has been posted to not re-post things. That's all I'm saying. You appeared here out of nowhere and started shooting down every poster that has been debunking FUD and myths for years around here, by rehashing stuff that has been discussed to death as if it were new.
That shows 1 of either 2 things : - you're new here. Excusable, fixable with a little education (you can do so on your own by re-reading past threads or lurking for a bit and keeping your posts lower profile) OR - you have been lurking and are just doing it on purpose, knowing full well what the result will be (multi page arguments).
I'm just hoping it's the first one and that you're just too embarassed to admit it. I'm simply pointing out that you don't seem aware at all of what has been discussed about this topic, you keep saying you are yet it doesn't show in your post. Sorry if my questionning your knowledge of forum discussions is "immature" to you.
Rest of your post is your usual attacks on the arguer, not the argument. Sorry if I stop here with you, I made my point which was only to point out your misrepresentation of Samsung's apparent "App drawer usage on 1 box". You can't even admit that much. You probably didn't know about the boxes Samsung uses, that's fine. Now that you do, fix your speech about them.
This can be solved by a single statement.
Phones before iPhone, phones after.
I remember what mobile devices were like before the iPhone, there was nothing out there that could touch it.
Yup, and the default homescreen on even Touchwiz looks quite a bit different than the iOS springboard. What you usually see in these Samsung vs. Apple debates is a picture of the Android app drawer.
The default homescreen, at least on the Galaxy SIII, looks more like this:
Image
Superficially similar, but not an exact copy.
Innovation is only stymied if the "imitator" doesn't do enough to improve upon or differentiate their product from what's come before. The iPhone itself is an example of innovation through evolution of other's ideas, considering it's very obviously inspired by what's come before, but Apple didn't just flat out copy previous designs without any improvements of their own.
Just because Android looks similar to iOS doesn't make it a "copycat" product. Google has made plenty of improvements upon to the core ideas presented in the iPhone, in much the same way the iPhone improved upon ideas presented in Blackberries, Windows Mobile phones, and the rest.
Of course Samsung is an entirely different matter. Touchwiz is...well...I dunno if it's flat out copying, but it does toe the line on occasion.
Those screens simply look like colour versions of the Apple's Newton screen.
The image of the Samsung showing the app drawer, is the image that Samsung itself used when promoting the phone, that's why it's pertinent.
Whatever.... I'm ready for all of this foolishness to be done.
My point was that it was not a like for like comparison as the S2 was not showing its homepage, but rather the quick list of installed applications screen.
This is the default S2 homescreen. If you manage to confuse it with iOS might I suggest a career as an Apple expert witness
http://www.galaxys2x.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/galaxy-s2-752.jpg
(if the link doesn't work then this page shows it: http://www.galaxys2x.com/samsung-galaxy-s2--tips-tricks-and-secret-codes/ )
Right . . . . There's actually law (gasp!) that explains how the allegedly infringing designs are to be analyzed.
Read http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf and see what the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said about one of Judge Lucy Koh's prior ruling on this case. Focus on Pages 28 through 32.
On pages 30-31, the Court of Appeals sums up why Samsung is wrong in arguing that Apple is trying to protect a broad design concept (such as "an object with four sided object"):
"Samsung contends that the district court properly focused on overall visual appearance rather than on the 'design concepts' highlighted by Apple.
In our assessment, however, the . . . error was to view the various designs from too high a level of abstraction.
Fidler [the Fiddler Tablet, which goes back to 1994 and allegedly predated the iPad] does not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 104 ('The error in the district courts approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.').
Rather than looking to the 'general concept' of a tablet, the district court should have focused on the distinctive 'visual appearances' of the reference and the claimed design. Id. [In fact, the Court of Appeals spends a lot of time in Pages 28-30 comparing the detailed differences between iPad and the Fiddler Tablet -- Details matter!!!]
When those visual impressions are compared, it becomes apparent that the Fidler reference, with or without the TC1000, cannot serve to render the D889 patent [i.e., Apple's iPad design patent] invalid for obviousness.
In the alternative, Samsung urges us to consider several other tablet and tablet-like designs as suitable primary references. All of those references consist of rectangular designs with rounded corners dominated by a display area.
But those designs all suffer from the same problems as the Fidler reference, because all of them show either a thick surrounding frame in which a display is embedded or contain extensive ornamentation on the front of the tablet. [Again, details matter!!!]
The offered designs do not create the same visual impression as Apples claimed design and thus do not qualify as primary references."