Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book General > News

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-26-2012, 04:19 PM   #331
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,610
Karma: 31078679
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011 View Post
I'm not sure the judge will approve of this, would be fun if they were to be found in contempt of court...

Source
The purpose of the acknowledgement was to "correct the damaging impression" that Samsung had infringed Apple's design patent.

It's the last paragraph of Apple's statement, which, in extremely cleverly-worded English manages to distort the truth, and which risks contempt:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple statement
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.
Forbes' article best sums up what's wrong with the Apple statement:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...msung-apology/

Quote:
Both of these things stated are strictly true. A German court did so find. And Samsung did indeed lose in California. However, The jury in California decided that Samsung’s tablet did not breach the design patent. Various Samsung products breached various other patents: but not the tablet the design one. Note that Apple don’t say that it did: but a quick reading would give you the impression that that is at least what they are implying.

The German verdict is actually irrelevant. For that court shouldn’t have been hearing the case in the first place. Design patents (as opposed to technical ones) are European Union wide. A case concerning such an EU design patent should only be heard once (with subsequent appeals, sure) rather than fought 27 times, once in each country. Given that the case first appeared in the English courts (no, not the UK ones, we have one legal system for England and Wales, another for Scotland) then that’s the only EU court system that should consider the matter. With, as before, allowances for appeals up to the Court of Appeal (and, if anyone wants to take it that far, the Supreme Court and then the European Court).

That Apple statement is something of a masterpiece actually. Absolutely true in each and every word and sentence and rather misleading as a whole.
Graham
Graham is offline  
Old 10-27-2012, 05:54 AM   #332
TGS
Country Member
TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.TGS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
TGS's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,046
Karma: 7673161
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denmark
Device: Liseuse: Irex DR800. PRS 505 in the house, and the missus has an iPad.
I'm not sure whether Apple wants to claim that the Samsung Galaxy is not as "cool" as the Apple product - as confirmed by the UK court, or the Samsung Galaxy is as "cool" as the Apple product - which seems to be implied by the German ruling. They can't have it both ways - either the Samsung Galaxy is like the Apple product and therefore is "cool", or it isn't, and therefore it isn't...if you see what I mean.
TGS is offline  
Old 11-01-2012, 12:04 PM   #333
afv011
Captain Penguin
afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afv011's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,854
Karma: 2076640493
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: nook*, nexus 10
Apple ordered to rewrite "Samsung did not copy" note

We saw it coming.

Quote:
The court had ordered Apple to post an acknowledgment of the ruling on its website. Apple complied with this order by posting what amounted to a non-apology to Samsung. However it’s now in hot water for posting “incorrect” and “untrue” information, according to the Court of Appeal in London. Appeal Court judges today criticized Apple’s public statement, in which it inserted four paragraphs including details of ‘similar German lawsuits’ which the court says are not true.

“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Bloomberg quotes Judge Robin Jacob saying. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
Source
afv011 is offline  
Old 11-03-2012, 08:51 AM   #334
jjallenupthehill
Enthusiast
jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
I've been following this thread for a lot of posts, and I have to say that a lot of people seem to be missing the point. Either that or there is a lot of disingenuousness, ignorance or plain stupidity.

Let's be completely clear, Samsung obviously and shamelessly completely ripped off Apple. External design and interface, even the charger. Look at the design. You don't need any fancy arguments to see what is plainly in front of your eyes. We could debate the evidence at length, but when even the Samsung lawyers couldn't tell the difference at a distance, that pretty much is the acid test.

Let's look at one of the most ridiculed claims - rounded corners. On the face of it, fair point, round corners are everywhere. But look at the 2 phones. Why that particular radius? Why that curvature on the bezel? Why that bezel width? Why that particular shape and size speaker at the top. There are no slots, details, mouldings or protrusions like there are with other Android phones. If you look here you can see that in 2007 they were picking up on the same themes as Apple, started by the iconic LG Chocolate and Prada Phones. You can also compare with the HTC phones of the time, no blatant ripping off there. From the F700 you can see there are clear design themes which emerged, but there is no sign of a rip off yet. Apple took up the themes that were around and refined them to the point of minimalist elegance that they do with everything else. Samsung saw how much better the iPhone was in design terms than their similar F700 device and simply ripped it off.

Let's turn to the interface. Almost all phones at the time had a grid layout with icons. Apple introduced the dock at the bottom - based on OS X. Apple introduced the interface with the tiled icons. Why did Samsung use that icon grid with icons that size? Why that many rows,and why the dock on the bottom? Notice that like Apple, their icons are also based on a tile format with rounded corners. Almost every other phone at the time had picture icons that weren't in a tile format. Look at the Samsung icon at the bottom right - that's a ripped off iTunes icon!

They have even blatantly copied the sliding screens and dots to indicate which screen you are on. Then if you look what happened when Apple introduced Siri, Samsung rip that off too, with their voice feature - and, look at that icon.

Then you can start to look at the Galaxy Ace. See an emerging theme?

Apple didn't sue all the other phone manufacturers who were influenced by the iPhone, just the biggest one who totally and utterly blatantly copied it.

The worst thing about this is that Samsung are better than this. They make all sorts of elegant devices at a good price point. Their design simply isn't as good as Apple's, as their own documents acknowledge, but it's a good company making good stuff. If it had been an unknown Chinese company that had done this, everyone would simply dismiss it as another example of product plagiarism from a country which doesn't protect copyright.

Except it came from Korea, from one of the largest electronics manufacturers in the world. It's shameful. If I were Tim Cook, I simply wouldn't comply with the UK judge's recent ruling, I would just pay the fine without blinking. The UK judgement was absurd in every respect.

As for the clear anti Apple sentiment that has been expressed here and elsewhere, this is not only more ignorance and disingenuousness, but also bigotry and hypocrisy. People will happily buy L'Oreal shampoo and drive Audis instead of supermarket own brands and Skodas, but they rail vociferously at people for buying Apple products...
jjallenupthehill is offline  
Old 11-03-2012, 09:13 AM   #335
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
kennyc's Avatar
 
Posts: 31,576
Karma: 62071073
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Galaxy SIII; Xoom; Kindle Fire
Apple loses right to trademark iPhone in Mexico:

Quote:

Apple has lost the right to use the word “iPhone” in Mexico after its trademark lawsuit against Mexican telco iFone backfired.

Judges sitting in Mexico’s 18th District Appellate Court have ruled that iFone is the only company allowed to use the “iPhone” or “iFone” brands in the North American country.

While that’s true it’s not really enough of the truth for us to be able to understand the story.


As a result Apple lost the right to trade using the iPhone brand, and the ruling could be applied retroactively: iFone may be able to claim a cut of the profits Apple has made using the iPhone name in Mexico since it launched five years ago.
....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ame-in-mexico/
kennyc is offline  
Old 11-03-2012, 09:58 AM   #336
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,610
Karma: 31078679
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
Apple loses right to trademark iPhone in Mexico:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ame-in-mexico/
However, the article makes it clear that this is only for use of the trademark in running telecommunication services, not for selling phones, so their Apple's iPhone business shouldn't be affected. (Though they may have to pay out compensation with regard to a service like FaceTime.)

Quote:
Apple can use iPhone for the phone, or for a gaming device, because they have that trademark in that sector. What they can’t use it for is telecommunications services: which isn’t really all that important to the company even if it’s worth attempting to get the trademark in that class.
Graham
Graham is offline  
Old 11-05-2012, 10:59 AM   #337
pl001
Evangelist
pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pl001 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 449
Karma: 4818038
Join Date: Dec 2010
Device: Nook, Nook Color, EVO3D, Surface RT, Galaxy S5
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill View Post
I've been following this thread for a lot of posts, and I have to say that a lot of people seem to be missing the point. Either that or there is a lot of disingenuousness, ignorance or plain stupidity.

Let's be completely clear, Samsung obviously and shamelessly completely ripped off Apple. External design and interface, even the charger. Look at the design. You don't need any fancy arguments to see what is plainly in front of your eyes. We could debate the evidence at length, but when even the Samsung lawyers couldn't tell the difference at a distance, that pretty much is the acid test.

Let's look at one of the most ridiculed claims - rounded corners. On the face of it, fair point, round corners are everywhere. But look at the 2 phones. Why that particular radius? Why that curvature on the bezel? Why that bezel width? Why that particular shape and size speaker at the top. There are no slots, details, mouldings or protrusions like there are with other Android phones. If you look here you can see that in 2007 they were picking up on the same themes as Apple, started by the iconic LG Chocolate and Prada Phones. You can also compare with the HTC phones of the time, no blatant ripping off there. From the F700 you can see there are clear design themes which emerged, but there is no sign of a rip off yet. Apple took up the themes that were around and refined them to the point of minimalist elegance that they do with everything else. Samsung saw how much better the iPhone was in design terms than their similar F700 device and simply ripped it off.

Let's turn to the interface. Almost all phones at the time had a grid layout with icons. Apple introduced the dock at the bottom - based on OS X. Apple introduced the interface with the tiled icons. Why did Samsung use that icon grid with icons that size? Why that many rows,and why the dock on the bottom? Notice that like Apple, their icons are also based on a tile format with rounded corners. Almost every other phone at the time had picture icons that weren't in a tile format. Look at the Samsung icon at the bottom right - that's a ripped off iTunes icon!

They have even blatantly copied the sliding screens and dots to indicate which screen you are on. Then if you look what happened when Apple introduced Siri, Samsung rip that off too, with their voice feature - and, look at that icon.

Then you can start to look at the Galaxy Ace. See an emerging theme?

Apple didn't sue all the other phone manufacturers who were influenced by the iPhone, just the biggest one who totally and utterly blatantly copied it.

The worst thing about this is that Samsung are better than this. They make all sorts of elegant devices at a good price point. Their design simply isn't as good as Apple's, as their own documents acknowledge, but it's a good company making good stuff. If it had been an unknown Chinese company that had done this, everyone would simply dismiss it as another example of product plagiarism from a country which doesn't protect copyright.

Except it came from Korea, from one of the largest electronics manufacturers in the world. It's shameful. If I were Tim Cook, I simply wouldn't comply with the UK judge's recent ruling, I would just pay the fine without blinking. The UK judgement was absurd in every respect.

As for the clear anti Apple sentiment that has been expressed here and elsewhere, this is not only more ignorance and disingenuousness, but also bigotry and hypocrisy. People will happily buy L'Oreal shampoo and drive Audis instead of supermarket own brands and Skodas, but they rail vociferously at people for buying Apple products...
Apple may have been the first to popularize many design features, but that does not make them the originators of them.

That Siri Icon? Looks a lot like Google Voice that was around long before Siri. A grid of Icons? That was common at the time. A dock on the bottom? Same. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. The misinformation floating around about what Apple "invented" is mostly nonsense. They copy just as much IF NOT MORE than anybody else has, that much is indisputable. Singling out Samsung as disgraceful while giving Apple a free pass is ridiculous.

Next time you walk through the door at Best Buy (or other generic retailer), look at the big wall of TVs from a distance far enough away that you can't read the name on them. If you can accurately name each brand, then we can talk about the validity of some of some of Apple's claims. Of course, if you can actually discern the difference between those TVs, I would argue you are also perfectly capable of telling the difference between a Galaxy Tab and an iPad.
pl001 is offline  
Old 11-05-2012, 05:45 PM   #338
Hellmark
Wizard
Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Hellmark's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,521
Karma: 3638167
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland Heights, Missouri, USA
Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill View Post
I've been following this thread for a lot of posts, and I have to say that a lot of people seem to be missing the point. Either that or there is a lot of disingenuousness, ignorance or plain stupidity.

Let's be completely clear, Samsung obviously and shamelessly completely ripped off Apple. External design and interface, even the charger. Look at the design. You don't need any fancy arguments to see what is plainly in front of your eyes. We could debate the evidence at length, but when even the Samsung lawyers couldn't tell the difference at a distance, that pretty much is the acid test.

Let's look at one of the most ridiculed claims - rounded corners. On the face of it, fair point, round corners are everywhere. But look at the 2 phones. Why that particular radius? Why that curvature on the bezel? Why that bezel width? Why that particular shape and size speaker at the top. There are no slots, details, mouldings or protrusions like there are with other Android phones. If you look here you can see that in 2007 they were picking up on the same themes as Apple, started by the iconic LG Chocolate and Prada Phones. You can also compare with the HTC phones of the time, no blatant ripping off there. From the F700 you can see there are clear design themes which emerged, but there is no sign of a rip off yet. Apple took up the themes that were around and refined them to the point of minimalist elegance that they do with everything else. Samsung saw how much better the iPhone was in design terms than their similar F700 device and simply ripped it off.

Let's turn to the interface. Almost all phones at the time had a grid layout with icons. Apple introduced the dock at the bottom - based on OS X. Apple introduced the interface with the tiled icons. Why did Samsung use that icon grid with icons that size? Why that many rows,and why the dock on the bottom? Notice that like Apple, their icons are also based on a tile format with rounded corners. Almost every other phone at the time had picture icons that weren't in a tile format. Look at the Samsung icon at the bottom right - that's a ripped off iTunes icon!

They have even blatantly copied the sliding screens and dots to indicate which screen you are on. Then if you look what happened when Apple introduced Siri, Samsung rip that off too, with their voice feature - and, look at that icon.

Then you can start to look at the Galaxy Ace. See an emerging theme?
The stuff you pointed out wasn't unique to apple or samsung. Having icons in a grid? You could argue that was on palm pilots and the like. My wife's old BlackBerry she retired years ago had that. The dockbar, etc, have been with android for years, before Samsung started pushing it. The svoice thing? A redressing of things already in android. Voice recognition isn't new on phones. Blackberry, android, etc all had it before Siri.

As far as chargers? How are they anything alike? Because they use the usb cables as the cords? That is something largely the entire market did, partially out of pressure from the EU for uniform charging standards.

Last edited by Hellmark; 11-05-2012 at 05:50 PM.
Hellmark is offline  
Old 11-05-2012, 09:07 PM   #339
JD Gumby
Cynical Old Curmudgeon
JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JD Gumby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,085
Karma: 8495224
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Device: Kobo Mini, Kobo Arc, HTC Desire C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellmark View Post
The stuff you pointed out wasn't unique to apple or samsung. Having icons in a grid? You could argue that was on palm pilots and the like.
Frankly, icons in a grid have been standard since at least Windows 95... (no, it does not matter if it took longer for it to migrate onto handheld computers)
JD Gumby is offline  
Old 11-05-2012, 09:54 PM   #340
tubemonkey
monkey on the fringe
tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
tubemonkey's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,358
Karma: 84322551
Join Date: May 2010
Device: FireHDX8, FireHD6, FirePhn, Nex7, K4S, ClipZip
Apple Patent Suit Is Dismissed

Quote:
A federal judge on Monday threw out Apple’s lawsuit against Google’s Motorola Mobility unit that claimed patent abuse, a setback for the iPhone maker in its efforts to gain leverage in the smartphone patent wars.

The two rivals were to square off in Federal District Court in Madison, Wis., on Monday over the library of patents that Google acquired along with Motorola for $12.5 billion in May. Apple contended that Motorola’s licensing practices were unfair.

But Judge Barbara B. Crabb questioned late last week whether she had the legal authority to hear Apple’s claims, and on Monday she dismissed the case.
tubemonkey is offline  
Old 11-06-2012, 06:44 AM   #341
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
http://www.mobileburn.com/20804/news...one-technology

FTC staff will recommend suing Google for antitrust violations related to smartphone technology

Quote:
Google has attempted to be anticompetitive and block competitors from accessing key smartphone technology, which should be cause for the commission to sue Google, according to FTC staff members. BusinessWeek reports that its sources say that staff members from the FTC will recommend that Google be sued, and a majority of the agency's five commissioners are likely to agree.
murraypaul is offline  
Old 11-06-2012, 07:22 AM   #342
Dave_S
What Title ?
Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Dave_S ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,325
Karma: 1856232
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bavaria Germany
Device: Sony Experia Z Ultra
They are rattling a lot of sabers at the regulatory agencies

Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
FTC staff will recommend suing Google for antitrust violations related to smartphone technology
I am curious how this even relates to the thread subject of Samsung versus Apple, but what the heck!

It seems as if Apple and Micro$oft refused to even negotiate on standards essential patents.

Quote:
Motorola Mobility had asked for royalties of 2.25 percent on the retail price of each product, which it has said was the standard opening offer it makes. It has said neither Microsoft nor Apple would negotiate.

Microsoft said in court papers the royalties would amount to $4 billion a year, a figure it would never agree to pay. Apple, in its own case, said the technology is worth, at most, $1 per unit.

“It’s hard to see the antitrust violations here as being very strong,” said Jorge Contreras, an associate law professor at American University in Washington. “They are rattling a lot of sabers at the regulatory agencies, but my suspicion is that those won’t go that far,” said Contreras, who participated in an FTC workshop last year on standards.
Source
Dave_S is offline  
Old 11-08-2012, 11:12 AM   #343
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,894
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill View Post
Let's look at one of the most ridiculed claims - rounded corners. On the face of it, fair point, round corners are everywhere. But look at the 2 phones. Why that particular radius? Why that curvature on the bezel? Why that bezel width? Why that particular shape and size speaker at the top. There are no slots, details, mouldings or protrusions like there are with other Android phones. If you look here you can see that in 2007 they were picking up on the same themes as Apple, started by the iconic LG Chocolate and Prada Phones.
The iPhone copied the radius and curvature of the F700 that was shown a year before (I see that you missed the important things on the thread like the fact that the F700 was first shown in 2006). Why would Samsung have to change their design just because Apple ripped it off?

Which model from Samsung are you referring to that doesn't have a slot, because the F700 did have a card slot?

To some people the shiny letters forming "SAMSUNG" count as a detail, I take it that that isn't your opinion?

And do you think that having the speaker on top is anything beside common sense, since the device is supposed to be a phone?
Sil_liS is offline  
Old 11-09-2012, 04:14 AM   #344
jjallenupthehill
Enthusiast
jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellmark View Post
The stuff you pointed out wasn't unique to apple or samsung. Having icons in a grid? You could argue that was on palm pilots and the like. My wife's old BlackBerry she retired years ago had that. The dockbar, etc, have been with android for years, before Samsung started pushing it. The svoice thing? A redressing of things already in android. Voice recognition isn't new on phones. Blackberry, android, etc all had it before Siri.

As far as chargers? How are they anything alike? Because they use the usb cables as the cords? That is something largely the entire market did, partially out of pressure from the EU for uniform charging standards.
I think you might be missing the point

Of course icons in a grid was the standard UI that almost all phones had. However, why that size, that spacing, that number, why rounded corners and why tiles?

If I asked you to design some phone icons on a grid, if you hadn't seen the iPhone UI, they would most likely look like all the other phone UIs that were around at the time. I'm a designer and I have been tweaking things like icons for over 15 years. I customised my Motorola Razr 2 Interface with new icons. I also customised my HTC Tytn2 interface after that. Yes they had grids, but the icons were smaller, the spacing between them was bigger, and they weren't in a tile format. Most phones at the time didn't have consistent tile format icons, but they did have a consistent appearance.

The thing is that when you immediately look at the two screens, you can see with absolute certainty that the one is a copy of the other. It's almost like the Samsung version was an early alpha of the iPhone UI.

The point about chargers is very important. Every other charger designed by everyone else is generic. It looks like the archetypal charger you get with Christmas lights to shavers. Same goes for laptop chargers. Apple's are unique. Designed to look nice, and much, much more compact. When Apple designed the iPhone charger in that completely novel cube form, there was nothing like it at the time. Samsung ripped it off utterly. Shape, size, rounding of the corners, even the positioning of the USB slot. It's so similar to Apple's and so different to everything else, that the only logical explanation is that they took the Apple device apart and copied it. Think about it, every other USB wall charger you have seen is a different size, shape and format, and designing the electronics to fit into a predefined box almost exactly like someone else's with the precise positioning of the charger slot in the same place makes no sense. Form follows function, things look the way they do based on the way their components fit inside. It's unquestionably a copy. Anyone denying this is blind or deluded. If you accept this, you have to accept the rest of the argument. Of all things, why copy the charger? It makes no sense. It's much more efficient to use one of the chargers you already make, because your factory is tooled up for it. Then look at the packaging design - why?

Samsung is not a bad company. Compared with everyone else, it makes cool stuff that looks like product designers had some influence over the design and appearance, rather than the engineers deciding where everything fits, and asking the designers to make everything look nice afterwards. Apple uses a completely different design-led, integrated approach. The concept comes first and the hardware designers have to make the technology work to realise the design.

For Samsung to act like cheap rip-off merchants does no-one any good and they themselves ought to be ashamed.
jjallenupthehill is offline  
Old 11-09-2012, 04:39 AM   #345
jjallenupthehill
Enthusiast
jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jjallenupthehill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
The iPhone copied the radius and curvature of the F700 that was shown a year before (I see that you missed the important things on the thread like the fact that the F700 was first shown in 2006). Why would Samsung have to change their design just because Apple ripped it off?
Actually, it didn't. Please don't feel insulted if I say that your point about the appearance and rounded corners is visually ignorant. This comment is in the sense of relating to a level of visual subtlety that people who haven't designed anything don't appreciate, which means most people.

The radius isn't the same and the appearance isn't the same. It's similar, and I think it could be fair to say that it was likely to have been a source of inspiration. In reality, we know it isn't a rip-off because we have all seen the prototypes Apple made when considering the shape. Lots of the prototypes were similar to other phones around at the time, or around now. If it was a rip-off, the iPhone would have the same proportions and detail design features of the F700. It doesn't. The point is that there is far less similarity between Apple's iPhone and the F700, than there is between the Galaxy and Samsung's own F700! It's also a golden rule of design that you don't copy something unless you can improve it. In terms of the phone appearance (the hardware is a separate debate) it's not an improvement, and it's not even an advance.

If I asked you to design a phone with curved edges and sides, and a flush bezel, it simply wouldn't look much like the iPhone. How come all the other Android phone manufacturers' devices aren't rip-offs? They were influenced by the iPhone, but aren't direct copies.

I keep coming back to the point about being a designer, because it's germane to the argument. When you design something, you don't just start with a shape, produce a single version, and then build it. You start with your concept, and look at all the details. For example the radius, the bezel width, the flush fit, the positioning of the audio output and volume buttons, the curvature of the edges, the positioning of the speaker ('the slot' - not a card slot) the shape and size of it. All these things arise by design, not by accident. One or two things could be coincidental, all of them can't be. Why didn't they even introduce different colours? With the plastic back it was easy. That at least would have been an innovation, and arguably an improvement. The Samsung designers clearly copied Apple, because they chose not to copy their own design.

If we accept your apparent logic, Samsung's refinement of their design looks more like the iPhone than the Apple refinement of their own phone

And your point about the logo is stupid. Sorry but you can't slap a logo on a rip off product, point at the logo and say, "See, it's different, look at that".

This is proving my point about disingenuousness

Look, just accept that you would have to be blind or prove that the Galaxy design existed in that form before the iPhone existed to disprove the claim that it's a complete rip-off. We know that Samsung can't prove that, and we know that Samsung looked at the iPhone's UI design. We definitely know that Samsung looked very hard indeed at Apple's charger and packaging.

So - having looked at the whole picture, what is the overwhelming conclusion that any normal person ought to draw?

Come on - be sensible
jjallenupthehill is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple vs Samsung US Ruling JD Gumby News 14 06-30-2012 04:49 PM
Samsung smartphones outsell Apple HansTWN News 99 11-15-2011 12:31 PM
Samsung surpasses Apple as No.1 Smartphone vender in Q3 =X= Android Devices 4 10-21-2011 11:56 AM
Another round in the Samsung vs Apple war covfam General Discussions 15 09-21-2011 04:30 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 AM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.