View Single Post
Old 11-18-2012, 08:30 AM   #615
PatNY
Zennist
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
PatNY's Avatar
 
Posts: 909
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness View Post
This idea of correcting errors is fascinating. It only makes sense if you assume that the only correct way to make a smartphone is Apple's and that anything falling short of that standard is an error. While Samsung certainly felt that way, the reality is that these are design choices, and that God does not look down on the world and decree that there is one, true smartphone UI. Windows phone chose to design differently. Blackberry, for a long time, was designed differently. When you write that Samsung was only correcting errors, you are in effect saying that Samsung copied Apple. The two are synonyms in your argument. Ergo, you still haven't disputed anything I've said. Confirmed it, actually.
How are duplicate icons on a UI screen not an error? How is the keyboard obscuring a text field not a UI error? Can you answer that specifically?

There is no patent for errorless UI screens, legible type, or uncluttered space. Oh, unless you're Apple and you think you can get away with patenting anything under the sun.

And I never said that Samsung "was only correcting errors." Read again. I said that in those first 10 instances in the document, two were corrections of errors, and another 4 were increasing legibility or uncluttering screen space. And that therefore based on those first 10 examples, you mischaracterized the nature of the document.


Quote:
Their true intentions were to copy as much as possible while changing just enough to avoid getting caught. It didn't work, mostly because they forgot to change anything.
Nope. Their true intentions were just as stated in the document. To fix errors and improve the UI but to try avoid infringing on Apple. It didn't work because their efforts collided with an out of control U.S. patent system and a jury run amok!

Quote:
Both apps are blatant copies. There are several others I haven't yet posted here, too. I can see some more slides are in order to make you understand.
No. The second one clearly isn't. There very well may be others that are, so be my guest if you want to keep exercising your formidable copy and paste skills. That won't change the fact that the contacts icon is very different.

--Pat
PatNY is offline