The Apple Execution Dazzle Thread
- Thread starter rpg.314
- Start date
Don't think that really matters. Apple is the Press darling. If it was MS or another company that people don't like instead of apple they would have lost. Plain and simple
The question in front of the jury was not whether or not they think the US patent system is sensible. It was whether or not Samsung violated the patents and trade dress of Apple with the current set of rules.
I don't think there's any question that Samsung blatantly copied pretty much anything they could possibly think of. Once you agree on that, it's a small step to also agree they infringed patents and trade dress. So their decision makes total sense, Apple or not. This was a jury with quite a bit of engineering and legal knowledge, not a bunch of hobos.
Those who, other than Samsung lawyers, who bring up the rounded corners or the phone icon are spectacularly missing the point. Somehow they always forget to mention that even the icon for the photo collection, a flower, was copied. For me, this has always been exhibit nr. 1 if you wanted to prove blatant copying: you can simply NOT make the case that a flower is the only way to represent photos.
Trade dress is not just one particular small detail. It's the totality of the whole product. Personally, I never thought much about other Android phones. Take HTC phone: up to the OneX, they were all butt ugly, and after that very nice actually, but never once was my reaction one of directly copying an iPhone. With the Samsung Galaxy S on the other hand, it was comically obvious, a bad copy, sure, but a copy nonetheless. It's no surprise Google explicitly warned Samsung about this.
Note that they did NOT found Samsung infringing wrt to copying the iPad and a bunch of other phones, despite the rounded corners. That by itself was clearly not sufficient for them.
So the jury did their job within the rules they were given. Just as much as an opponent of, say, the death penalty, when member of a jury, is expected to put his personal opinions aside when judging a murderer.
The real question then is if the current legal framework makes sense. That's a whole different discussion.
If you think that it's acceptable to make pure copies of somebody else's product, e.g. the flower icon, then the law needs to change. Blaming the jury for being Apple fanboys won't help you with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone copies, including Apple, but only Apple tries to patent things that should never be given patents in the first place and then sue everyone.
Are you seriously suggesting that having one bigger button makes some Samsung phones "blatantly obvious copies? You specificly mention Galaxy S, too - it has one big button, yes, it also has 2 (or was it 3?) other buttons on the front, and the back of the phone isn't even straight, it has notable bumb at the bottom.
Also, regardless what the jury was or wasn't supposed take into account sensibility of US patent system, how can you in any remote way defend for example pinch-to-zoom being taken into account on any front - a feature done by others a long, long time before Apple?
I'm quite sure the "rubberband effect" was also done by others before.
edit:
This is a good read: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone
Are you seriously suggesting that having one bigger button makes some Samsung phones "blatantly obvious copies? You specificly mention Galaxy S, too - it has one big button, yes, it also has 2 (or was it 3?) other buttons on the front, and the back of the phone isn't even straight, it has notable bumb at the bottom.
Also, regardless what the jury was or wasn't supposed take into account sensibility of US patent system, how can you in any remote way defend for example pinch-to-zoom being taken into account on any front - a feature done by others a long, long time before Apple?
I'm quite sure the "rubberband effect" was also done by others before.
edit:
This is a good read: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone
Everybody copies. Everybody patents individual things.
But you're cherry picking again, which is what I would do too if I were in the untenable position of having to defend Samsung.
This jury did not condemn Samsung for a little detail here and there. They condemned a shameless copying operation. (A very profitable one at that.) I am not sure at all that the same jury would condemn HTC.
You have to look at the totality of the case, not some detail here and there. Same thing goes for the Apple patents: the beauty of the original iPhone is that suddenly it did make things look obvious that weren't obvious before. Can you honestly say you were not blown away by the original 2007 iPhone introduction keynote? Pinch to zoom, screen bounce, double tap, on-screen keyboard, whole new ways of UI interactions, etc. in one incredibly well thought out coherent whole. (Android still has trouble creating that same coherent feeling.) There was nothing evolutionary about it, they got the whole basics down on their first try. Bickering about pinch to zoom being obvious is not seeing the big picture. But in the patent system, you have to break down your invention and break it down into very small pieces.
So: what's your opinion about that flower icon?
But you're cherry picking again, which is what I would do too if I were in the untenable position of having to defend Samsung.
This jury did not condemn Samsung for a little detail here and there. They condemned a shameless copying operation. (A very profitable one at that.) I am not sure at all that the same jury would condemn HTC.
You have to look at the totality of the case, not some detail here and there. Same thing goes for the Apple patents: the beauty of the original iPhone is that suddenly it did make things look obvious that weren't obvious before. Can you honestly say you were not blown away by the original 2007 iPhone introduction keynote? Pinch to zoom, screen bounce, double tap, on-screen keyboard, whole new ways of UI interactions, etc. in one incredibly well thought out coherent whole. (Android still has trouble creating that same coherent feeling.) There was nothing evolutionary about it, they got the whole basics down on their first try. Bickering about pinch to zoom being obvious is not seeing the big picture. But in the patent system, you have to break down your invention and break it down into very small pieces.
So: what's your opinion about that flower icon?
The Ars article is interesting but not relevant at this point: Androjd was not the key issue on trial here. Samsung copying Apple's design was. That may be a too subtle point for some but I think it was very important one to this jury, otherwise they would found all Samsung device as infringing.
Seriously? You actually believe this? Apple is the world's and history's only patent troll evah!
LMAO
Oh yeah and Microsoft never sued anyone out funneled funds into proxies (SCO) to do the same.
No, not the only patent troll, but in the phone business it's the only one suing everyone with completely senseless patents which should have never been granted (ie something as basic as "rounded rectangles", "flat front surfaces", things other did before (pinch-to-zoom, rubberband effect) etc).
I have the original Samsung Galaxy S Fascinate and when I bought it I didn't think about it looking like an iPhone, but others commented about it when they saw my phone. It's obvious Samsung copied Apple with their custom apps interface though.
The thing that blew me away when the iPhone came out wasn't the UI interactions. It was the capacitive touch screen. I'd never seen that before and it opened up possibilities that didn't previously exist. I had a touch screen phone at the time and it was resistive and needed a stylus to work well.
The thing that blew me away when the iPhone came out wasn't the UI interactions. It was the capacitive touch screen. I'd never seen that before and it opened up possibilities that didn't previously exist. I had a touch screen phone at the time and it was resistive and needed a stylus to work well.
They're not the only company that does this by any stretch, but they do it on a pretty massive scale.
Samsung's Galaxy-series for example evolved from Samsung F700, Apple managed to debunk Samsungs tries to get it's designer to testify though, calling it "irrelevant"
Wether F700 was "copied from Apple" is another thing, but IIRC Apple never claimed it was.
If Galaxy-series are copies of iPhone, iPhone is copy of LG Prada, Prada came first, iPhone is pretty much just as close to it as Galaxy-phones are to iPhone (aka, not really that close, given the limited possibilities you really have when doing touchscreen phones)
Yup and there were about 3 months between the prada being shown and the iphone being shown so if Samsung had enough time to rip off the iphone in 3 months then surely apple could have ripped off the prada.
Not to mention alot of evidence benfitial to samsung was not allowed in the case. Next go around it shoul be an easy win for samsung
I guess the whole crisis of design (and the flower icon
) simply never happened.If you really believe that, it doesn't make much sense to discuss any further.
It really boggles my mind that people don't think Samsung deliberately tries to copy as much as they could get away with. If you want to argue that they should be allowed to do so, fine, you may even be able to convince me that it should be allowed. I'm not at all happy with the verdict.
But to argue that Samsung didn't do it? It's been their modus operandi since their very beginning.
But to argue that Samsung didn't do it? It's been their modus operandi since their very beginning.
Insightful, thoughtful, and, let's not overlook it, funny. You win, sir!
Are you serious with this? Apple uses a flower for gallery-icon = no-one else can use any flower for gallery icon, ever?I guess the whole crisis of design (and the flower icon
Apple uses tons of really generic looking icons which can be find on pretty much any phone before and after iPhone, wtf makes that "flower" so special that no-one else can use any flower-icon for similar app? The only thing common between the two is the fact that they're flowers, not even same looking ones ffs.
Let's take a look:
Samsung F700
Samsung Galaxy S:
Apple iPhone:
LG Prada:
Are you seriously claiming that...
...Galaxy S is copy of iPhone more than iPhone is of LG Prada and that Galaxy S is based on iPhone look, not F700 (since Apple apparently never claimed F700 copied them)
Samsung said there was a crisis in design...
You're switching the arguments again: I'm arguing that Samsung blatantly copied, to the smallest inconsequential detail: the icon for a photo collection. If that not allowed by law (note the conditional), then they deserved what they got.
Just to clear this once and for all: Are you claiming that it's pure accidental that their first major phone after the iPhone happens to have the flower icon? Can you say that with a straight face?
No? Good. They copied even that. Should they be allowed to do that? Different question completely. Go change the law. I'll support you.
Absolutely. At least you got that right.
They didn't copy Apple's icon, no matter how in crisis they were, they used same theme (ie a flower) for similr application, but the icons aren't even close to each other:
Here's a picture to refresh your memony
What features of Samsung Galaxy S resemble more iPhone than they resemble F700?
edit:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Starts to look like the jury's decisions won't stand based on quick read
Here's a picture to refresh your memony
What features of Samsung Galaxy S resemble more iPhone than they resemble F700?
edit:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Starts to look like the jury's decisions won't stand based on quick read
Last edited by a moderator: