Apple awarded $1.05b settlement with Samsung

Started Aug 25, 2012 | Discussions
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: Apples legal action

Perhaps you have a different standard of "intellectual" regarding intellectual property.

T3 wrote:

CFynn wrote:

Yes the iPhone and iPad have a very nice UI - but what about that UI is so original ? Much better looking - and maybe better integrated - than what went before I agree - but should you be able to patent using good design?.

Go back and look at what the UI was like before the iPhone and iPad! The difference will be clear !!! And it's not just about being "original". You can have an "original" UI that's cr@p. The point about Apple's UI is that people like it, and their competitors like it so much that they try to emulate it, oftentimes emulating it quite closely. And yes, subtle things like "much better looking" are also very important, and more important than many people realize. Indeed, many people will choose one product over another simply because product A is "much better looking" than product B. So it's a factor that should not be trivialized. "Better looking" and "good design" are very important factors, and depending on just how blatant and slavishly a competitor copies your "better looking" and "good design", you should be able to take it to court and let a jury evaluate the issue.

I have to use an iPhone, iPad, a Galaxy Nexus and a Galaxy tab at work for some things - both systems are very "pretty" and have thousands of mostly useless apps - along with some good ones. Personally the smart phone I use is a Nokia n900 running Linux which is nowhere near as pretty but which I find far more useful, and far less frustrating, than either the iPhone or Nexus. At work I'm spending my time trying to get round some of the the limitations and restrictions of iOS and Android to enable devices running those operating systems to do things I can do on the n900 very easily.

If you prefer the N900, then use the N900. Simple.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: Apple: Shameless about stealing!!!

Apple also lost in the UK.

In the US the verdict was decided by a jury - consisting entirely of Americans.

jfelbab wrote:

ziggy25 wrote:

Is it a coincidence that in Korea Samsung wins the case but in the US Apple wins the case

Well in point of fact, Both Apple and Samsung lost in Korea. So is it a coincidence that Samsung lost in both courts? I think not.

"South Korea Court Says Samsung, Apple Infringed Each Other's Patents"

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: just imagine

Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

jfelbab wrote:

It you had actually researched what you posted you would find that most, if not all of the things you mentioned are in fact patented.

Rotary knob - http://www.patents.com/us-5513268.html
Pushbutton for car radio - http://patents.com/us-4020704.html
toggle switch - http://patents.com/us-7687730.html
Keyboards - http://patents.com/us-8125347.html (many listed)
Mouse - http://patents.com/us-8164568.html (many listed)
Steering Wheel - http://patents.com/us-8177019.html

As to smartphones in the pre-iPhone era, this is what they looked like:

Then along came the iPhone:

Revolutionary? If not, why does nearly every smartphone today try to look like the iPhone?

tko wrote:
Revolutionary?

Imagine someone had invented the volume control. No one else could use a rotary knob to adjust anything. The toggle switch, the push button switch.

How about push buttons for a radio? What about the computer keyboard? A mouse? The steering wheel in a car?

The point is, at one point in history these were considered just engineering as usual. Creating new and useful things.

Now inventing is a job for whichever company has the most money. The iPhone is cool. But in the world of inventions it's just a tiny blip. Style and interface. Like a B&O stereo versus a Sony. Pretty, but no different fundamentally from any other icon based interface.

I read the whole article you posted. Nothing interesting or new. Samsung liked the looked of the 3-D buttons. Apple has always made pretty products. But there was nothing patentable or revolutionary presented. Kind of like one car manufacturer copying the tail fins of another. Or making a light switch with rounded instead of sharp edges.

jfelbab wrote:

If you had spent millions on R&D to bring a revolutionary product to market, I suspect you wouldn't feel that this is just good business by the competition. If you review the court documents objectively, you would see that this was clearly improper action by Samsung. Just take a moment to acquaint your self with the evidence in this case.

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/?refcat=mobile

All that aside, the patent system is a mess. Yet it is what it is and laws are laws. We are a nation of laws and lawyers. Cheating and stealing is not a virtue that is highly regarded except in politics. LOL

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,166
Re: just imagine

57even wrote:

Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

It's not about the touchscreen itself, and never was. Also, cars can have hatchbacks, but they can still be very distinct. And they are. But as far as automobiles go, Ferrari has sued companies in the past that sell body kits that are designed to turn certain sports cars into faux Ferraris or cars that look very much like Ferraris even though the Ferrari logos or badges weren't used on these kits. It all depends on how far you go, and clearly Samsung went too far with their design copying. Samsung did it so blatantly and so explicitly, while documenting how they were doing it in their own internal documents that it was a foregone conclusion that they would have been found guilty. I just don't see that kind of blatant copying being done with "every maker of a current hatchback car". Not even close.

It would have been one thing is independent designers independently came to the same design elements organically, but the Samsung internal documents clearly show that this was definitely not the case. I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to blatantly rip off another company's design, don't document it so explicitly in your company documents showing your intent to rip off the designs in so much detail! LOL.

I don't think the people commenting here have even bothered to look at the evidence, the documents, and the extent to which Samsung willfully, intently, and clearly copied so many elements of Apple design. It wasn't merely a case of "Hey, we have a touchscreen too!" or "Hey, we have a hatchback too!"

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
jfelbab Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: Apples legal action was thrown out of court in the UK

57even wrote:

Laurentiu Todie wrote:

Apple traded shares for a Xerox license, hired some of PARC's scientists, promised to not compete with floor computer models and designed the GUI for personal computers.

Only after they tried to sue.

Ignorance is bliss.

Well you would know. I was there at the time.

Is it possible that your memory may be fading. I was in IT at a Fortune 50 company at the time and recall this timeline. I had a Star in my office for evaluation, BTW.

Here is the timeline as has been related several times in the media. This following extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_ (company)#Adoption_by_Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.

Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.

However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:

The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

jfelbab Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: just imagine

Looks and packaging is patented all the time. It's called Trade dress.

"Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.[1] Trade dress is a form of intellectual property."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

57even wrote:
Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

jfelbab wrote:

It you had actually researched what you posted you would find that most, if not all of the things you mentioned are in fact patented.

Rotary knob - http://www.patents.com/us-5513268.html
Pushbutton for car radio - http://patents.com/us-4020704.html
toggle switch - http://patents.com/us-7687730.html
Keyboards - http://patents.com/us-8125347.html (many listed)
Mouse - http://patents.com/us-8164568.html (many listed)
Steering Wheel - http://patents.com/us-8177019.html

As to smartphones in the pre-iPhone era, this is what they looked like:

Then along came the iPhone:

Revolutionary? If not, why does nearly every smartphone today try to look like the iPhone?

tko wrote:
Revolutionary?

Imagine someone had invented the volume control. No one else could use a rotary knob to adjust anything. The toggle switch, the push button switch.

How about push buttons for a radio? What about the computer keyboard? A mouse? The steering wheel in a car?

The point is, at one point in history these were considered just engineering as usual. Creating new and useful things.

Now inventing is a job for whichever company has the most money. The iPhone is cool. But in the world of inventions it's just a tiny blip. Style and interface. Like a B&O stereo versus a Sony. Pretty, but no different fundamentally from any other icon based interface.

I read the whole article you posted. Nothing interesting or new. Samsung liked the looked of the 3-D buttons. Apple has always made pretty products. But there was nothing patentable or revolutionary presented. Kind of like one car manufacturer copying the tail fins of another. Or making a light switch with rounded instead of sharp edges.

jfelbab wrote:

If you had spent millions on R&D to bring a revolutionary product to market, I suspect you wouldn't feel that this is just good business by the competition. If you review the court documents objectively, you would see that this was clearly improper action by Samsung. Just take a moment to acquaint your self with the evidence in this case.

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/?refcat=mobile

All that aside, the patent system is a mess. Yet it is what it is and laws are laws. We are a nation of laws and lawyers. Cheating and stealing is not a virtue that is highly regarded except in politics. LOL

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: just imagine

T3 wrote:

57even wrote:

Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

It's not about the touchscreen itself, and never was. Also, cars can have hatchbacks, but they can still be very distinct. And they are. But as far as automobiles go, Ferrari has sued companies in the past that sell body kits that are designed to turn certain sports cars into faux Ferraris or cars that look very much like Ferraris even though the Ferrari logos or badges weren't used on these kits.

Thats a COPYRIGHT infringement not a PATENT infringement. Please understand the difference. There are many detail differences between Iphones as S2s, including the buttons. They are no more alike than two laptops.

It all depends on how far you go, and clearly Samsung went too far with their design copying.

Only the in the US with a US jury against a Korean company. Pretty much a foregone conslusion. In the UK using "similar" styling is at the most a copyright issue but has little intellectual significance and is not patentable, any more than a logo. The UK is impartial.

Samsung did it so blatantly and so explicitly, while documenting how they were doing it in their own internal documents that it was a foregone conclusion that they would have been found guilty. I just don't see that kind of blatant copying being done with "every maker of a current hatchback car". Not even close.

Every hatchback, every laptop, every SLR, every jet airliner. What shape you would EXPECT a touch screen phone to be? You can't patent a rectangle.

It would have been one thing is independent designers independently came to the same design elements organically, but the Samsung internal documents clearly show that this was definitely not the case. I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to blatantly rip off another company's design, don't document it so explicitly in your company documents showing your intent to rip off the designs in so much detail! LOL.

Design = COPYRIGHT, for heavens sake. A patent is an engineering technique not a styling job.

I don't think the people commenting here have even bothered to look at the evidence, the documents, and the extent to which Samsung willfully, intently, and clearly copied so many elements of Apple design. It wasn't merely a case of "Hey, we have a touchscreen too!" or "Hey, we have a hatchback too!"

See above. Only in the US.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: just imagine

jfelbab wrote:

Looks and packaging is patented all the time. It's called Trade dress.

It is NOT a patent its a trade mark and it has to be used intentionally to confuse.

"Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.[1] Trade dress is a form of intellectual property."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

57even wrote:
Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

jfelbab wrote:

It you had actually researched what you posted you would find that most, if not all of the things you mentioned are in fact patented.

Rotary knob - http://www.patents.com/us-5513268.html
Pushbutton for car radio - http://patents.com/us-4020704.html
toggle switch - http://patents.com/us-7687730.html
Keyboards - http://patents.com/us-8125347.html (many listed)
Mouse - http://patents.com/us-8164568.html (many listed)
Steering Wheel - http://patents.com/us-8177019.html

As to smartphones in the pre-iPhone era, this is what they looked like:

Then along came the iPhone:

Revolutionary? If not, why does nearly every smartphone today try to look like the iPhone?

tko wrote:
Revolutionary?

Imagine someone had invented the volume control. No one else could use a rotary knob to adjust anything. The toggle switch, the push button switch.

How about push buttons for a radio? What about the computer keyboard? A mouse? The steering wheel in a car?

The point is, at one point in history these were considered just engineering as usual. Creating new and useful things.

Now inventing is a job for whichever company has the most money. The iPhone is cool. But in the world of inventions it's just a tiny blip. Style and interface. Like a B&O stereo versus a Sony. Pretty, but no different fundamentally from any other icon based interface.

I read the whole article you posted. Nothing interesting or new. Samsung liked the looked of the 3-D buttons. Apple has always made pretty products. But there was nothing patentable or revolutionary presented. Kind of like one car manufacturer copying the tail fins of another. Or making a light switch with rounded instead of sharp edges.

jfelbab wrote:

If you had spent millions on R&D to bring a revolutionary product to market, I suspect you wouldn't feel that this is just good business by the competition. If you review the court documents objectively, you would see that this was clearly improper action by Samsung. Just take a moment to acquaint your self with the evidence in this case.

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/?refcat=mobile

All that aside, the patent system is a mess. Yet it is what it is and laws are laws. We are a nation of laws and lawyers. Cheating and stealing is not a virtue that is highly regarded except in politics. LOL

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
jfelbab Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: just imagine

Trademarks and Trade dress are not
the same thing at least in the US.

"In the U.S., like trademarks, a product’s trade dress is legally protected by the Lanham Act, the federal statute which regulates trademarks and trade dress.[2] Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying one product under the belief that it is another.[3] For example, the shape, color, and arrangement of the materials of a children's line of clothing can be protectable trade dress (though, the design of the garments themselves is not protected),[4] as can the design of a magazine cover,[5] the appearance and décor of a chain of Mexican-style restaurants,[6] and a method of displaying wine bottles in a wine shop.[7]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
--
Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: Apples legal action was thrown out of court in the UK

jfelbab wrote:

57even wrote:

Laurentiu Todie wrote:

Apple traded shares for a Xerox license, hired some of PARC's scientists, promised to not compete with floor computer models and designed the GUI for personal computers.

Only after they tried to sue.

Ignorance is bliss.

Well you would know. I was there at the time.

Is it possible that your memory may be fading. I was in IT at a Fortune 50 company at the time and recall this timeline. I had a Star in my office for evaluation, BTW.

Here is the timeline as has been related several times in the media. This following extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_ (company)#Adoption_by_Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.

Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.

Without addressing the patent infringement of the GUI.

However Apples case against MS was subsequently dismissed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:

The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.

But it was still a "mouse". The MS version was different again. No infringement was upheld.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.

Only the trash was deemed an infringment.

Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.

Which still didn't count against MS who also had overlapping windows.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 13,178
Re: just imagine

But it is NOT A PATENT!

jfelbab wrote:

Trademarks and Trade dress are not
the same thing at least in the US.

"In the U.S., like trademarks, a product’s trade dress is legally protected by the Lanham Act, the federal statute which regulates trademarks and trade dress.[2] Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying one product under the belief that it is another.[3] For example, the shape, color, and arrangement of the materials of a children's line of clothing can be protectable trade dress (though, the design of the garments themselves is not protected),[4] as can the design of a magazine cover,[5] the appearance and décor of a chain of Mexican-style restaurants,[6] and a method of displaying wine bottles in a wine shop.[7]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
--
Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,166
trade dress

I think you need to understand the ins and outs of trade dress. Trade dress lawsuits happen all the time. And as far as things like "every hatchback, every laptop, every SLR, every jet airliner", if there is a sufficient case, than those parties can sue one another as well. But the reality is that there really isn't a trade dress issue with "every hatchback, every laptop, every SLR, every jet airliner" because they just don't stand up to scrutiny. However, the Samsung issue was pretty clear, and well documented.

Anways, like I said, trade dress lawsuits happen all the time. The Apple vs Samsung one was just a big one that got a lot of attention. Most other trade dress lawsuits fly under the radar.

As you can clearly see from this photo below, Samsung consciously and deliberately changed their existing designs to copy Apple's trade dress. They could have continued using their original icons. and there was no reason for the change other than to deliberately copy Apple's trade dress. But this is just one example in a mountain of examples that just made it very clear what Samsung's intent was: to copy Apple's trade dress. This isn't a case of "well, all jet liners have to look similar because of aerodynamics!" LOL.

57even wrote:

T3 wrote:

57even wrote:

Not the first touch screen phone

http://www.mobilegazette.com/o2-xda-guide-08x12x17.htm

If you want to patent looks and packaging, then every maker of a current hatchback car would sue each other.

It's not about the touchscreen itself, and never was. Also, cars can have hatchbacks, but they can still be very distinct. And they are. But as far as automobiles go, Ferrari has sued companies in the past that sell body kits that are designed to turn certain sports cars into faux Ferraris or cars that look very much like Ferraris even though the Ferrari logos or badges weren't used on these kits.

Thats a COPYRIGHT infringement not a PATENT infringement. Please understand the difference. There are many detail differences between Iphones as S2s, including the buttons. They are no more alike than two laptops.

It all depends on how far you go, and clearly Samsung went too far with their design copying.

Only the in the US with a US jury against a Korean company. Pretty much a foregone conslusion. In the UK using "similar" styling is at the most a copyright issue but has little intellectual significance and is not patentable, any more than a logo. The UK is impartial.

Samsung did it so blatantly and so explicitly, while documenting how they were doing it in their own internal documents that it was a foregone conclusion that they would have been found guilty. I just don't see that kind of blatant copying being done with "every maker of a current hatchback car". Not even close.

Every hatchback, every laptop, every SLR, every jet airliner. What shape you would EXPECT a touch screen phone to be? You can't patent a rectangle.

It would have been one thing is independent designers independently came to the same design elements organically, but the Samsung internal documents clearly show that this was definitely not the case. I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to blatantly rip off another company's design, don't document it so explicitly in your company documents showing your intent to rip off the designs in so much detail! LOL.

Design = COPYRIGHT, for heavens sake. A patent is an engineering technique not a styling job.

I don't think the people commenting here have even bothered to look at the evidence, the documents, and the extent to which Samsung willfully, intently, and clearly copied so many elements of Apple design. It wasn't merely a case of "Hey, we have a touchscreen too!" or "Hey, we have a hatchback too!"

See above. Only in the US.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
jfelbab Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: just imagine

Yes, it is, in fact, a patent. The patent is covered by intellectual property law. Really, if you want to understand this you should do some research. Google it.

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

ck3
ck3 Senior Member • Posts: 2,925
Re: just imagine

jfelbab wrote:

Yes, it is, in fact, a patent. The patent is covered by intellectual property law. Really, if you want to understand this you should do some research. Google it.

From your wikipedia link:

"This statute allows the owner of a particular trade dress ("container for goods") to sue an infringer (a person or entity who illegally copies that trade dress) for violating section 43(a) without registering that trade dress with any formal agency or system (unlike the registration and application requirements for enforcing other forms of intellectual property, such as patents )."

CFynn Veteran Member • Posts: 5,224
Re: Apples legal action

T3 wrote:

Really? Apparently, you aren't too familiar with what smart phones and tablets were like before the iPhone and iPad! LOL!!!!

Rounded corners were "invented" when soap bars stopped having square corners. Hardly original, yet Apple managed to patent it.

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +15 more
CFynn Veteran Member • Posts: 5,224
Re: Apple: Shameless about stealing!!!

57even wrote:

In the US the verdict was decided by a jury - consisting entirely of Americans.

Yeah - not only Americans but Californians where Apple is based (although, for (avoiding) tax purposes, I think they may be registered in Utah).

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +15 more
CFynn Veteran Member • Posts: 5,224
Re: just imagine

jfelbab wrote:

Revolutionary? If not, why does nearly every smartphone today try to look like the iPhone?

The big difference is the touch screen. Did Apple invent that?

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +15 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,166
Re: Apples legal action

CFynn wrote:

T3 wrote:

Really? Apparently, you aren't too familiar with what smart phones and tablets were like before the iPhone and iPad! LOL!!!!

Rounded corners were "invented" when soap bars stopped having square corners. Hardly original, yet Apple managed to patent it.

Apparently, simple-minded people can only focus onto small elements of the case. The case was far larger than a case of "rounded corners". LOLOL.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
CFynn Veteran Member • Posts: 5,224
Re: Apple: Shameless about stealing!!!

jfelbab wrote:

In the Apple vs. Samsung case, Samsung simply copied and didn't create. See the difference?

Yeah - Samsung designers surrounded themselves with Apple devices and came up with something clearly inspired by them, but maybe slightly better. No one is arguing that Samsung wasn't "inspired" by Apple - but then Apple had been similarly inspired by several other devices. Were the iPhone and iPad original "creations" - or just an inspired assemblage of of good ideas from other devices?

This is all sort of like Nikon was inspired by Canon:

Now, based on Apple vs Samsung, should Canon sue Nikon?

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +15 more
jfelbab Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: just imagine

Your comments border on nonsensical. Either you have never used an iPhone or you are just trolling.

Did you even take time to read any of the links surrounding the issues of this case? If you had, you would not have made that comment. Come back after you have done some homework.

-- hide signature --

Jim
'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'
-- Ansel Adams

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads