Jump to content
N-Europe

Apple vs Samsung Trial


Cube

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You mean because they make great products that people like they have to be knocked down a peg or two? Or is it because they sued a company who copied their products to make a profit?

 

I'm genuinely interested to know why you want Apple to be less popular, I'm not just being a knob.

 

Sorry for the epically long images, but it just goes to show...

 

EDIT: Decided to spoiler them so people don't have to scroll too far :)

 

samsung_vs_apple.jpg

376167502.jpg

 

 

 

To be fair, on the Voice Recorder app the Record and List buttons are on the opposite sides to those on iPhone.

Edited by Nintendohnut
Automerged Doublepost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture is not from a Samsung store, it's from an Italian electronics store which just happened to have a Samsung display inside.

 

With regards to the tablet picture:

800px-JooJoo_01.jpg

 

JooJoo tablet. First shown off 2008. Released March 2010.

 

xlarge_5504c5c9477c33ddbe126f5cfa61c0bb.jpg

 

Touch Book, released 2009.

 

Not a tablet, but showing the design

 

samsungpictureframe.jpg

 

Photo viewer, internet photo viewer, music player and video player. 2005.

 

Which is probably why the Galaxy Tab was one of the few products in the trial that did not infringe any patents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean because they make great products that people like they have to be knocked down a peg or two? Or is it because they sued a company who copied their products to make a profit?

 

I'm genuinely interested to know why you want Apple to be less popular, I'm not just being a knob.

 

Sorry for the epically long images, but it just goes to show...

 

EDIT: Decided to spoiler them so people don't have to scroll too far :)

 

samsung_vs_apple.jpg

376167502.jpg

 

 

 

To be fair, on the Voice Recorder app the Record and List buttons are on the opposite sides to those on iPhone.

 

The store, usb and box are all silly. The box being any bigger is just a waste, and the cover is different anyway. All of the phones I have gotten for years have had the phone on top. In the voice recorder app the ONLY similarity is the big microphone. I'd probably give the power connector, but there is no evidence Apple came first. Bet Sony had it like that or something. Apple were originally modelled after Sony.

 

 

 

Samsung sent Apple their $1billion in trucks of 5cent coins http://en.paperblog.com/samsung-pays-apple-1-billion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cents-coins-294795/

 

Edit: Fake :( Knew it was too funny to be true/probably Apple don't have to accept such a thing.

Edited by heroicjanitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture is not from a Samsung store, it's from an Italian electronics store which just happened to have a Samsung display inside.

 

With regards to the tablet picture:

800px-JooJoo_01.jpg

 

JooJoo tablet. First shown off 2008. Released March 2010.

 

Hmm...except THIS was the design shown off in 2008. The design you've shown is the final 2010 design.

 

techcrunch-crunchpad.jpg

 

xlarge_5504c5c9477c33ddbe126f5cfa61c0bb.jpg

 

Touch Book, released 2009.

 

This design is completely different - not a single piece of glass (in fact it's a plastic frontage with a plastic screen) and the front is indented several times. It certainly doesn't match the patent Apple held, and it also really doesn't look like an iPad. Certainly not as much as...

 

Not a tablet, but showing the design

 

samsungpictureframe.jpg

 

Photo viewer, internet photo viewer, music player and video player. 2005.

 

This is the only device that actually looks like an iPad, and I've seen it elsewhere before. What you've basically described, however, is a digital photo frame. Yes, you have made is sound more like a multi-media tablet device, but it is basically a digital photo frame, and lots of digital photo frame have looked like that, for a long time. The reason it doesn't stand as a patent is because it's a totally different kind of device, and Samsung certainly didn't invent the design.

 

The store, usb and box are all silly. The box being any bigger is just a waste, and the cover is different anyway. All of the phones I have gotten for years have had the phone on top. In the voice recorder app the ONLY similarity is the big microphone. I'd probably give the power connector, but there is no evidence Apple came first. Bet Sony had it like that or something. Apple were originally modelled after Sony.

 

Did you look that up, or are you just assuming? Also, claiming they're just 'silly' when some of them are exactly the same is a bit...I don't know...easy? The USB especially is almost identical!

 

I am genuinely intrigued why you want Apple to lose popularity, by the way. Is there a particular reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're arrogant cocks for one thing. It's that "want to see you taken down a peg" feeling.

 

Yes, they make (what some will see as) great products that do well (with certain audiences) but they act as if they parted the red sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever you get pictures like the Samsung copying apple, if you search for long enough you can always finds faults or other prior artwork. I thought of the photoframe too but the fact that I would have to spend time looking for these things means I just assume, every time I see a this person copied this person picture, that it's not the whole picture.

 

And when comparing the jojo tablet to the iPad and then touting the very small visual differences is really weird, since when comparing the galaxy 1 with the iPhone, you would see such small differences as being minuscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this relevant here?

 

good-guy-motorola-invents-flip-phone-doesnt-sue-everyone-for-copying-c2c1d618-sz500x381-animate.jpg

 

Probably not.

 

I think that maybe Apple do have a point in some respects. The problem is that many hardware and software companies will have seen similar copying over the last 30 years and just let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you've spent plenty of time trying to claim that Apple did.

 

No I haven't. Stop judging me, dude! You've already called my professionalism into question :wink:

 

Apple won in this case based on patents. They designed something, they patented the design, and the result is that they own the patent to the design. So they can sue. Had Samsung patented the design for that photo frame it would've been a different story. But they didn't!

 

Also, the small differences are vital. As I've already said, the patent Apple holds is for a phone frontage with a non-touch-sensitive bezel and a silver edging. Lots of the phones in the trial didn't have that, so they weren't included in the result. The ones that did (like the original Galaxy S) DO have that, so they won that part of the case.

 

The iPad design might look similar-ish to that plastic tablet, but the patent Apple holds is for a single piece of glass with equal non-touch bezel and a silver edge. Does that describe the tablet Cube showed (the one that docked?)? No!

 

And Cube - are you seriously suggesting that a tablet that was debuted ONE MONTH before the iPad is what the iPad is based on? Are you saying Apple saw that design and went 'shit, we need to completely redesign our tablet in a month!' They would never have time to do that.

 

Samsung had plenty of time though. The phones involved in the case all came out many months after the iPhone.

 

Of course, if your argument is 'Apple didn't invent the design' then no, perhaps they didn't. But did they patent it? Oh boy, did they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Cube - are you seriously suggesting that a tablet that was debuted ONE MONTH before the iPad is what the iPad is based on?

 

No, I'm not. I'm just showing that many of these designs were developed by different people, at roughly the same time, completely independently. Which should be enough to void the patents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you've spent plenty of time trying to claim that Apple did.

 

I just looked through the entire thread. Nowhere have I claimed Apple invented any designs.

 

What I have claimed is that they patented the designs, and that Samsung then copied them when they saw they were successful.

 

Still, I don't think there's much point me staying in this thread. Everyone here is convinced Apple is in the wrong, and that's fine. I'm really just playing devil's advocate, and I have admitted that some things about the whole thing aren't right, but it's going in circles now.

 

What I think we can all agree on is that the patent system is basically stupid. How anyone can patent some of the things that have been patented is ridiculous.

 

No, I'm not. I'm just showing that many of these designs were developed by different people, at roughly the same time, completely independently. Which should be enough to void the patents.

 

I don't really know enough about patents to say, tbh. If that's how it works I'm sure Samsung raised it... although that could be why the iPad patents didn't result in a win for Apple. I guess it was all brought up if it was relevant - same must be the case for the iPhone, which means there isn't any relevant evidence I guess. But, again, I don't know enough about patents to say either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked through the entire thread. Nowhere have I claimed Apple invented any designs.

 

What I have claimed is that they patented the designs, and that Samsung then copied them when they saw they were successful.

 

Still, I don't think there's much point me staying in this thread. Everyone here is convinced Apple is in the wrong, and that's fine. I'm really just playing devil's advocate, and I have admitted that some things about the whole thing aren't right, but it's going in circles now.

 

What I think we can all agree on is that the patent system is basically stupid. How anyone can patent some of the things that have been patented is ridiculous.

 

I think people thought you were saying the patents were fine and Apple should sue. But also as to your question earlier about why I want Apple to burn, they just seem too big for a company that is so greedy. They are like a big machine that gobbles up all competition by any means necessary, and I think their good reputation is undeserved. I look more on the tech side of products than the user interface, which is what I think people like about Apple, so their products haven't endeared me enough to look past their evilness :p Such a large profit margin is sickening to me when I can't see the worth.

 

http://www.seattlerex.com/seattle-rex-vs-apple-the-verdict-is-in/

 

That case is what represents Apple in my mind. Just too ready to be evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the US has a trial, and Apple wins it, and the judge tells Samsung to pay Apple $1 billion. Then Japan has a trial and Samsung wins, and Apple are ordered to pay Samsungs legal fees.

 

But what's to stop this happening in every single country? And what if loads of juries in those countries all say Apple wins, and they all come up with a ridiculous amount for Samsung to pay Apple. Couldn't apple sue samsung in loads of countries and they all order $1 billion payments and.......i've confused myself.

 

I don't understand how the specific countries laws work, and who choses where to sue who.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$1 billion isn't that much for a company like Samsung.

 

Also, the amount will be related to sales, so in many countries it wouldn't be anywhere near as high as America. Samsung is also big in the UK, but here Apple were told to apologise to Samsung because the patents were stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urgh, I really want to leave this thread alone but people keep posting inaccurate or misleading information!

 

The UK ruling was on whether the Galaxy Tab broke patents on the iPad. Both the UK and the US courts ruled that Samsung hadn't broken the patents. In both countries the overall decision was the same (that Samsung didn't breach the patents) but the 'punishment' (don't know the actual word) was different.

 

However, in the UK court, none of the smartphone patents were raised, the only ones were about the tablets. Apple won in the US based on the smartphone patents. We don't know what the UK court would rule on the smartphone patents, because they weren't raised in the UK court. Both courts ruled the same way on the tablet patents, but the smartphone patents were only raised in the US.

 

Also they didn't say the patents were stupid - in fact the judge ruled that they were noticable different because, and I quote, the Galaxy Tab "isn't as cool" as the iPad(!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean because they make great products that people like they have to be knocked down a peg or two? Or is it because they sued a company who copied their products to make a profit?

 

I'm genuinely at a loss here.

 

You imply here that people copying them should expect lawyers at their door as if it's not a douchey solution, but later on:

 

 

Nowhere have I claimed Apple invented any designs.

 

What I have claimed is that they patented the designs, and that Samsung then copied them when they saw they were successful.

 

So, when Apple copies them, it's fine because they patent them? Ask any normal person and you'll probably find that a significant percent of people would probably find that is actually worse. Copying idea's, patenting then acting like it was like your idea all along is a completely lecherous act. It's a fucking cheap way of making a buck or two and what does it net the true inventors? Nothing.

 

And this is why Apple look like complete cunts.

 

Every one is eventually going to copy something, because that's how we work. It should only become a problem if two products in the same category look completely indistinguishable from each other despite being from two unrelated companies, for the good of the consumer so they know exactly what they're getting. Software is a completely different ball game, but we're not really seeing any infringements here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in the UK court, none of the smartphone patents were raised, the only ones were about the tablets. Apple won in the US based on the smartphone patents. We don't know what the UK court would rule on the smartphone patents, because they weren't raised in the UK court. Both courts ruled the same way on the tablet patents, but the smartphone patents were only raised in the US.

 

I'd imagine there is a reason Apple didn't bring it to the UK courts, namely because they wouldn't have a case and it would be a waste of their time to do so.

 

Maybe we don't patent shapes in the UK :heh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...