I’m guessing Apple is getting desperate, since its software patent lawsuits aren’t doing particularly well. Moving on from software and design patents, the company is now suing Samsung over… Patents for mobile phone and tablet cases (more at The Verge). I think Apple has more offensive lawsuits than products now, so technically, “patent maker” is more accurate than “gadget maker” or “device maker”. Fun times.
Thanks for this news Thom.
Apple filing all these trivial lawsuits against its competitors is a sad development. Ever since Apple has started suing people over trivial software-patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted We have started to convince our customers not to purchase Apple products. We are also now actively working to migrate our customers away from Apple products. We can no longer in good faith recommend products from a company that uses such egregious tactics to abuse the marketplace.
Of peace to all men, women, and sundry other creatures. Come on, kiss and make up now, or it’s the Ghost of Christmas Future for both of you.
As an aside (call it ‘Yuletide musings..’): I love being here on OSAlert but increasingly find that tech is part of the problem overall, not part of the solution, and not simply because of warring device makers and the whims of fanboys. I have fiddled with configuration files like the best (or, rather, worst) of them but now I feel that we are fiddling while Rome burns. The global economy is in deep wotsit, and literally millions are in tumult over just that issue (not to mention wars, famine, etc., etc., etc.).
We have hacker types talking up drones to spy on police and security forces as part of the fighting back, and I kind of get their point; however, the ultimate binary here for me is technology versus consciousness; many appear to believe we may hit a critical mass of interconnected machine intelligence and human comprehension, aka the Singularity (I am being simplistic, OK, bear with me) in the near future but for me, technology has created a crass, almost ‘asocial media’ ™, and we already have the mental tools to expand consciousness, have possessed them for thousands of years. They come free with birth for those lucky enough to be healthy.
Let’s leave behind the technology that apparently serves to “get things done”, and let’s embrace the human mind, its soul, its imagination, which serve to know both your own and other beings. Nothing that we ourselves shall devise will ever touch the human complex in terms of subtlety and complexity, and you are surrounded by millions of examples. Chuck the code and speak to your neighbour.
Peace to all at this time of year.
I am bowing out for a while.
I think you are on the wrong website. Here are some better places for you:
http://www.scientology.org/
http://mormon.org/
http://www.amish.net/
http://www.jaingyan.com/
The only thing that allowed the human race to survive in spite of having a horrifically weak body is tools forged from its intelligence, what you call technology. This is why it is the big deal.
Global crises everywhere, so what ? We can do nothing about them crazy traders, and they are much more the expression of a financial system gone horribly wrong than any consequence of technological evolution. Meanwhile, at my scale, I am happy to have fun creating stuff that make my life and that of others a little easier, and contrary to what you seem to think it doesn’t prevent me to have a social life.
Edited 2011-12-21 09:05 UTC
I suggest you watch a strongman competition, the Tour de France or the Hawaiian Triathlon before concluding that humans are horrifically weak.
Most modern humans are weak simply because we are don’t do anywhere near enough vigorous physical activity to develop a healthy physique (hunter-gathers average 3-4 hours a day “exercise”). Humans are not naturally weak and feeble.
A well trained human can easily outrun virtually any other animal (except wolves and wild dogs) over a long distance. The traditional Khoisan hunters of the Kalahari desert hunted game by chasing it on foot for up to 80km. The animals would collapse or even die from exhaustion during the pursuit.
The best ultra-endurance runners can over 200km in a 24 hour period (the record is 303km).
An elite sprinter can beat race horses over 30-40 metres from a standing start.
We have greater visual acuity and better colour perception than virtually all other mammals.
Humans are far better swimmers than any other land mammals.
Looks like they are going mad with greed. Way to go Apple. More people will hold you for a joke.
How can it be that people forgets there are two sides of the coin here?
Both samsung and Apple throws law suits against each others, so both are in the shit, not only apple.
I mean, if Samsung would not have anything to worry about, why throw other law suits back?
This reminds me of all other big companies fighting each others, it is no news now only because apple does it as well.
Nokia, apple, microsoft, novell, google, samsung, oracle and others are in the end the same shit, it^A's all about making money.
I think part of the point that in the past Apple always claimed to have the best tech, and even anti-Apple people like me have to admit that they had the most polished software. I hate how their software limits my choices but know that if I hand an Apple Tablet to my Mom that she would not mess it up the way she does her Win7 machine.
But now instead of winning market share with the best hardware, or best polished software, or the best marketing campaign — they use lawyers instead.
And once the lawyers get in they will suck up the money that would had gone into R&D to produce better products.
“Past” is a long stretch of time – I take it you forgot the dreadful OS7, 8, 9 days? (also two or three OSX releases; or iTunes, at least the Windows version, one that supposedly most of its users run) Apple had, for better part of a decade, products which were both substandard and more expensive …they deserved to fold during the 2nd half of the 90s; very few companies get such 2nd chances (come on, it was insane, people were getting OS8 to “help Apple” / the pirate groups were even leaving it alone http://www.forbes.com/1997/08/08/column.html )
BTW, curiously, I was never on an Apple presentation of FCP on which it wouldn’t crash at least once.
And yeah, “always claimed to have the best tech” …like with PowerPC “supercomputer on a chip” G4 and hand-picked edge case Photoshop benchmarks.
Outside of PR drama directed at the masses, the messiah didn’t quite claim the same thing…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&feature=player_detailpag…
Edited 2011-12-27 23:17 UTC
Quite simple. That would require people pull their heads out of the ground and admit that all the negative comments they’ve made about company X and be applied to the companies they seem to love so much too.
It amazes me why people choose to be so emotionally invested in what a company does. It reminds me of the nerds who piss themselves every time George Lucas does something to Star Wars. It doesn’t actually affect them but I guess their lives are such that they have nothing better to do than whine about something.
Call me when Samsung files an offensive software patent lawsuit.
That’s the difference. Apple’s main source of income is threatened, and instead of competing, they litigate using software patents. Samsung, HTC, and so on are *defending* themselves.
This isn’t rocket science.
Yes, self defense is different from aggression.
Are you under the impression that Samsung is a “model” company that operates only with the highest moral considerations? That’s laughable at the least if so.
Neither Apple’s income nor their success as a business is at risk. To suggest otherwise, you simply don’t understand how they are positioned in the market and the current state of their financial standing.
No, it isn’t. But apparently that isn’t stopping people from confusing themselves, posting misleading and/or uninformed content, and/or neglecting to do their homework before they come to silly conclusions.
Why would I be under that impression?
God it must suck to be an Apple fanboy these days.
Because you’re well known for polarising conflicts into black & white, good versus “evil”.
Anyone that questions your histrionics is an Apple fanboy.
You seem to attach yourself emotionally to certain companies, and put them on a pedestal as if they’re to be the object of worship.
It would guess the exact opposite. Apple as a company is in fantastic shape — much better than most of the competitors. Therefore, any “Apple fanboy” should be quite pleased with Apple’s current standing and position.
You reiterate in a later post that this isn’t rocket science and you feel like you’re teaching kindergarten. I agree that it isn’t rocket science, but you certainly aren’t teaching anyone anything here. It’s blatantly obvious that you have a lot to learn about business and these types of subjects. Hopefully when/if you come back to reality, you’ll do some actual homework instead of keeping on with the on-the-fly nonsense.
One last thing.. Constantly pointing your finger and crying “patent troll” doesn’t help you in any way. Unless of course you goal is to look foolish.
Samsung has filed a number of offensive patents suits against Apple.
(Look up the last big debate we had about this where you started the article saying that Samsung was ‘going on the offensive’ against Apple.)
Generally I think Apple’s suits are both lame and unnecessary. The iPad design suits are especially lame because, really, the physical design of the iPad is hardly so unique as to be patentable.
These suits on the cases have much more merit. If you look at the cases their basically a blatant ripoff. No rational person can argue that.
Like which?
Apple started this lowlife software patent war. Samsung, HTC, etc. are defending themselves. You know this, yet as the Apple fanboy that you are, your brain simply can’t process that your favourite pet company is engaging in patent troll behaviour. As such, your brain is in a state of cognitive dissonance. What you are doing now, with trying laughably to make a villain out of a company trying to defend itself, is your brain trying to cope with integrating the new information (Apple is a patent troll) into your existing beliefs (Apple is all that is good in the world).
This is all so incredibly entertaining.
Thom, ‘Samsung is going on the offensive’ are YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM months ago.
Your now arguing that what you meant by that was that they were going on an offensive defensive.
I know your not a journalist but surely even you must see how Orwellian that sounds.
First, trying to insult people while making your point is not persuasive, it just makes you sound like a dick.
Second, it’s the fiduciary duty of a company to make money for it’s shareholders. The law facilitates the use of patents in this way. I think it’s fine for either Apple or Samsung to use patents to make money. I don’t hold that against any company.
I do think in many cases the patents are lame and laws need to be changed to correct them but I don’t hold companies responsible for exploiting those laws (especially since I hold stock in many of these companies). On that vein I think Apple’s design patent on the iPad is totally lame but they got the patent, courts have supported the patent (or not, depending on the court) and so it goes.
Oy vey.
Are you really going to make me spell it out? Really? *sigh*.
Derpistan invades Herpland > Derpistan is the aggressor, Herpland the victim.
Herpland goes on the offensive, and strikes back at Derpistan > In this war, Derpistan is still the aggressor, and Herpland is still the victim.
Like I said, this isn’t rocket science. This is so basic I feel like I’m teaching kindergarten.
We need an equivalent of Godwin’s Law for George Orwell. Please use this adjective/adverb in the way it was meant to.
Edited 2011-12-20 23:34 UTC
If Derpese is the prevalent language in Derpistan, what is prevalent in Herpland?
All that presupposes that Samsung didn’t explicitly and deliberately copy Apple’s products and that that copying is not considered an offensive action.
If I grab hold of a burglar in my house in the middle of the night am I the aggressor? After all the burglar didn’t grab hold of me first, all he did was break into my house and try to steal my stuff, I was the first one to make physical contact
Companies copy all the time. Apple is just as “guilty” of that as any other.
Apple has not invented anything in its entire existence. Everything they do comes from others. Not a single original technology or idea originated within Cupertino’s walls.
There goes your entire credibility out the window. You spend all day raving about apple fanboys, and then show you can’t even hold a logical thought in your head about the company.
Yeah sure Thom, Apple has never invented anything.
I challenge you to prove me wrong. Name something Apple invented. A few comments up I asked three new features the iPhone introduced, but it’s silence there, so I’m making it easier for you: name one thing Apple has invented. Just one.
A Successful tablet?
A Successful genre defining MP3 player?
A Successful MP3 shop?
None of those is an answer to my question.
I disagree, nobody else had come up with any of them before Apple, despite years and sometimes decades of trying. Apple were clearly doing something different enough to make the difference and therefore that should be patentable and they should have some protection.
Wow. The power of the RDF is amazing, and it certainly is entertaining how the fanboys can continually add on dubious and subjective conditions in an attempt to make correct a previous, broader assertion.
Here’s how it works in the real world:
1. Whether or not an item is “successful” has nothing to do with whether or not that item is inventive/innovative. Objectively, business success is just sales/profit figures (which, additionally, is a matter of degree). Sprint is a very successful mobile phone carrier, but Sprint did not invent the cell phone, nor any aspect of a cell phone.
2. Likewise, whether or not an item is “genre defining” (whatever that means) is subjective and has nothing to do with whether or not that item is inventive/innovative.
3. In the real world, an invention occurs the first time an idea is tangibly recorded or made — that act is what constitutes an original invention. The GUI trash can is an invention that came from Apple, because Apple was the first to document and make that idea. However, Apple was not the first to record or make the finger-touch tablet computer with rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel. Thus, Apple did not invent such a tablet/design.
So, sales figures, profit and “popularization” have nothing to do with an item’s inventiveness/innovation. Fanboys, please try to remember this fundamental, real-world concept when composing future posts.
No claim the JooJoo was the first succesful tablet computer? :-p
No claim that Apple invented the touch-tablet with rounded corners and a shiny, black flush bezel? ;->
Touch~A(c)!
Simple really, most normal people refer to MP3 players as iPods when speaking generally, and an RSS feed of sound recordings as a pod-cast. The BBC even tried to rename its podcasts as “free downloads” yet their DJs still say podcasts by accident more often than not, and their fans still believe they are downloading a podcast.
This is in a similar way to the Walkman in the 1980s – portable cassette players are still referred to as walkmans to this day.
Really? You seriously believe your own idiocy here?
<Every single apple product here>
There, every single apple product has some unique feature that was not there before because no one else put everything together in quite the same way. Unless you’re talking about a 1:1 clone, every new product is an invention to some degree. I would say that given Apple’s success and how much they do, let’s say “inspire” other companies to make similar products, they are fairly innovative.
Guess what, what has Microsoft invented? What about Google? By your criteria: Nothing.
Everything they did was already done, they just improved it or made small innovations along the way. That is being innovative.
You are seriously lost in the forest if you can claim with a straight face that the iPhone was not a major innovation. Of course every single hardware component was probably used in some previous product, but the critical part is how it all comes together.
Derp, look two posts up.
Exactly! See, we’re actually in full agreement!
That’s the whole point I, and so many without a special affinity for any one company, are trying to make. Apple, Google, Microsoft – they’re all standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before them. Especially the software world is a world of organic, almost evolutionary progress. Everybody builds upon everybody’s work, and this is precisely the reason why software patents are universally despised by programmers.
Apple is very good at taking existing ideas and making them better – however, they have never invented anything. That’s a very important distinction in this case, because only inventions ought to be patentable.
I know it’s tough to accept, but everything the iPhone did could already be done with most smartphones that came before it – heck, older smartphones could even do more. However, the iPhone did it better – but that doesn’t mean Apple invented it.
This is a reality check. Especially now with Jobs’ death, the guy is being deified to an almost hurl-inducing degree, even though he himself can only ever hope to stand in the shadow of the truly great visionaries of computing, the people that actually invented entirely new things decades before they were even remotely feasible – Alan Kay, Douglas Engelbart, Ian Sutherland, and so on.
The Google guys, Jobs, Gates – they’re ordinary salesmen compared to those guys.
Absolute nonsense. If you were right, we’d see all sorts of innovation in the open source world but we don’t. All open source gets you is a copy of some better software written by a proper company, or a cheaper option to integrate into something without licensing restrictions. You cannot argue that whatever it is that Apple does is not worthy of protection since they are clearly doing things that nobody else is capable of doing first due to lack of imagination or resource.
Microsoft too may be “standing on the shoulders of giants” but they have introduced an enormous amount of value and are now one of those giants who need protection. The difference is that Microsoft were willing to pay the licence fees of those they took from, and so were Apple.
Not in the least. All those big companies are constantly inventing things. They are standing on the shoulder of giants, yes, but they are giants.
It doesn’t make any sense to give the credit for the iPhone to a collection of companies that invented the component parts. Just like it doesn’t make any sense to give the credit for Google the search engine to whoever came up with the idea of searching the web.
Your beef is with the patent system, and yet you rail on the companies using it.
Actually I already pointed out that it is you who doesn’t understand the definition of invention. Invention has a broad definition, and Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any company is continually inventing things.
Whether or not these minor inventions should be patentable is a totally different issue, and I agree they shouldn’t, but that is a fault of the patent system.
Actually it does.
I see, so your crusade is a reaction to the masses liking Steve Jobs. That’s… not exactly logical. So why not write some articles about those early visionaries, since I’m sure many readers wouldn’t know much about them.
I think you are missing the point. Taking ideas from other people, from what comes before, reshaping them, connecting them to other ideas and building something new with them is the very stuff of creativity, it’s what artists do all the time. What artists don’t do is copy other people’s paintings brush stroke by brush stroke. Artist are inspired by other people’s art, but they don’t copy.
If Samsung had said – ‘wow that iPad thing is really interesting, let’s mess around with some ideas of our own and come up with something new, something that builds on the iPad but which is new’ that would be great. What they actually did was say ‘wow that iPad thing is selling like hotcakes let’s make something that looks as much like an iPad as is possible – oh yeah and let’s not add anything remotely new of our own’.
Being inspired by what has come before is great. Copying people’s products is not great. It’s shabby.
Here we disagree. I haven’t used a Tab so I’ll refrain from commenting on that, but my Galaxy SII bears zero resemblance to an iPhone other than it’s got a large touch screen – not something the iPhone was first with.
I wonder who started putting an S at the end of a product name.
Thom,
Unfortunately I think you’re failing to grasp one key concept, which is the source of your misunderstanding: rules don’t apply to apple like they do to other companies because apple is special. Apple is synonymous with originality; they’re inseparable concepts. Once you accept this, it’s a logical impossibility for apple to have copied from anyone else, why don’t you get that?
[/wince]
I challenge you to prove me wrong. Name something Apple invented. A few comments up I asked three new features the iPhone introduced, but it’s silence there, so I’m making it easier for you: name one thing Apple has invented. Just one. [/q]
Depends what you mean. If you mean the silly ‘angels on a pinhead’ type argument about inventing some fundamentally a new technology then I have no idea and it’s not relevant to issue being discussed. I don’t think that is what the argument is about. It’s a bit like dismissing some musical band as not being inventive because they never developed a new style of painting.
Apple make products and devices. The issue should be are Apple’s products – taken as whole and not broken into meaningless sub-components – new and innovative and are those products – taken as a whole and not broken into meaningless sub-components – being copied.
My answer to both questions would yes.
Thom really we know you don’t like Apple much but what Samsung has been doing has no moral worth and is good for no one except their shareholders. It is beneath you to try to defend such shady and sharp business practices.
If that the case then Apple are the aggressors for copying Motorola, Samsung and a multitude of others who existed in the mobile arena long before Apple desired to enter and use mobile patents without royalties.
I do love how some people have this belief that Apple are the inventors of all technology so firmly engraved into their psyche that they can completely ignore the countless examples of prior art and bought out technology that preceded the latest iFad.
Philosophical break : discuss the affirmation “This is what’s wrong with current capitalism.”
Edited 2011-12-21 09:03 UTC
I guess that means offensive as in counter-offensive.
Yep, by that standard Russians were the aggressors in WW2, because they were “going on the offensive” for the whole second part of WW2.
Bad analogy in that Russia invaded Poland at the start of WWII
Off topic – But technically Poland was no longer a country(as in, already occupied by Germany) when Russia invaded. Not defending that decision, obviously.
Not quite, on 17th September the largest battle of the campaign was still ongoing. Also, Warsaw wasn’t captured (likewise large cities on the east) & it held out under attack for over a week longer.
Armed forces were still coherent and fighting, one of the largest battles of the campaign was initiated on the day of Soviet invasion. The administration on areas which the Soviet Union would invade was functioning (heck, it largely sorta continued to do so while under occupation, a bit unlike few other countries); also transport, industry …switched towards war effort, as far as it could be done on such rather short notice.
Come on, the joint German-Russian invasion was pre-arranged in Ribbentrop-Molotov pact! The Soviets were just delaying their invasion, the Germans urging them to act according to agreement.
Sure there was some chaos always inherent in war, but also a strategic retreat – and it was quite feasible that the ‘bastion’ in SE region would hold long enough for resupplies and reinforcements, in a strategically advantageous (opposite German forces) position (vs. what the Polish forces had to deal with earlier, essentially an encirclement of the whole western part of the country by the Third Reich); that was the plan. Soviet army attacking the region “in the back” was what shattered this possibility …so, in light of that, the Polish government ordered an evacuation of the remaining forces, the orders were largely executed – how a non-existing administration could do that?
In part it was a propaganda / excuse the Soviets used to justify the invasion, to “protect” the population of ‘failed’ state.
IIRC you are from the general area, one of the Baltic states, which experienced the “care” of the Soviets… also annexed by the Soviet Union within a year, also on the basis of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Was it because it “was no longer a country”?
Edited 2011-12-28 00:01 UTC
Hm, it might be not such a bad one precisely because of this… Samsung is not exactly an angel overall, after all.
The Soviet Union wouldn’t be so quick to do that without the initiative from Nazi Germany …and, in the end, proved that – while by no means angels themselves – they were still “better” (the simplest proof: East German people exist (and AFAIK there was never any talk of anything else, also while Western Allies seriously contemplated Morgenthau Plan for a few years) – that’s something which would be granted only in a quite limited way to Slavic nations by Nazi Germany – and actually, DDR was one of more decent places in the Soviet Block, eventually it was very much seen as “the west” also figuratively, even in a place just a short hop across the Oder)
It must be ‘rocket science’ to you, because I think you have this arse backwards. Apple competes and continues to win millions of customers through near-flawless marketing execution, unrivaled customer satisfaction with their products and arguably the best integrated ecosystem available to the masses. They litigate when Samsung and their ilk attempt to ride Apple’s successful coattails with apparent knockoffs that don’t pass the giggle test.
…and yet, Apple is bleeding market share, with Android continuing to grow. If Apple’s products really are as good as you say, yet people choose similarly priced Android devices en masse, doesn’t that mean Android really isn’t as bad as you make it out to be (or, more accurately, iOS simply isn’t as good as you make it out to be)?
But hey, don’t let the facts stand in your way of your fanboyism.
I wouldn’t call it en masse, look at the sales figures and the iPad is still doing considerably better than all of the others and market share has only fallen slightly – it had to since they started with 100% market share.
Foolish comment of the year awarded to you. Tablets existed before Apple, and will exist after Apple.
The tablets you’re thinking of sold in the hundreds or maybe thousands, the iPad has sold in the tens of millions – they had 100% market share because the ones you’re thinking of were so insignificant they don’t even count towards the stats. It was the same with the iPod before, a bunch of geeks did buy MP3 players (me included) but then apple launched the iPod and expanded the market to the point that previous sales were insignificant. This is similar to the way that nobody talks about Desktop Linux market share, there just isn’t a large enough number to bother representing it overall.
I even doubt those pre-iPad tablets were even sold to consumers.
Did you ever met anyone with such a tablet? I only saw one once. They had it at a company I worked one day a week. They called it the presentation laptop as it was used to connect the beamer to, except they never actually did and it was just sitting there on a shelve.
Despite my geeky nature I never bothered to turn it on or even pick it up. It did look fat ‘n’ heavy.
But my guess is they were only sold to companies for specific purposes.
And yet, I’m correct ..plus Apple makes most of the profit in the mobile space because their millions of customers, most of whom are not Mac users, are willing to pay those prices…..nothing to do with your fanboy mantra, which is a weak response on its face.
If MS Apple and Oracle wouldn’t abuse software patents I would bet there wouldn’t be any lawsuits. Samsung HTC and Google don’t care for software patents but they aren’t going to sit still for Apple with a baseball bat.
Fergy,
“If MS Apple and Oracle wouldn’t abuse software patents I would bet there wouldn’t be any lawsuits.”
I highly doubt it. The patent system encourages the patent troll business model by rewarding them. If it wasn’t these guys, it’d just be someone else.
Those who have the power to rewrite patent law, are those who created the mess in the first place. They have no incentive to change status quo, no matter how broken it may be for software developers.
Rewarding troll/unethical behavior doesn’t mean Samsung is going to engage in it. It was Samsung discussed above, not random “someone else”.
shmerl,
I really didn’t mean to suggest that samsung would be the aggressor, only that there would still be one. Not all companies find the patent troll business model appealing, though it can be hard to predict through the smoke and mirrors.
Ideally patent trolling wouldn’t be viable, and money would be diverted back from all the wasteful lawsuits into productive R&D jobs and higher quality products.
I agree, that the flawed legal system leaves more space for trolls. That can be expected. But using patents for defense (even active defense, like filing law suits back) is totally justifiable.
Does any here remember the pre iPad tablets?
Typically a Windows interface, stylus needed, large tablet with handles, grips, controls, buttons all over them. Basically a stylus controlled version of (typically) Windows. My Doctors office has used them for years.
In comes the iPad. A new icon based tablet interface, touch screen, a single button at one end of the device, etc. Now they all look like that – or VERY VERY similar. Units that are either 4×3 or 16×9 screen ratios are setup the same way.
Samsung, in this case, copied the iPad design, USB cables, boxes, etc., look like Apples. I am sure we’ve all seen the Samsung store photo with Apple App Store and Safari icons in it.
Should these patents have been issued, no.
Did Samsung and others violate some patents, yes.
Has Apple violated some patents, yes.
It is a big mess. Reform the patent system! Please!
Yep.
Here’s just one of several: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
You were saying?…
those devices were designed for content-creation, not consumption
actually they all look like crunch-pads
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
and the crunchpad wasn’t even the first device with this design
Edited 2011-12-20 23:51 UTC
Does anybody here actually think Samsung did not copy Apple?
I know lots of people thinks it’s OK to copy Apple, that Apple wasn’t being original, that copying and imitation are what makes the tech world progress, etc,etc. That’s does answer the question I posed.
The question I am interested is if anyone really thinks Samsung did not copy Apple?
What do these look like, exactly like?
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/samsung-smart-c…
They look like InCase’s cover Apple ripped off.
Apparently the way Apple shapes its products, designs its icons & GUI, puts in boxes, advertises them and makes accessories for them has become the only logical, practical and even only way to do it. Therefor nobody did copy Apple, but it’s the only possible way to do it.
Besides tablet computers colored black and shaped rectangular have been around for a very long time as people have come up with examples like a children’s slate, an embedded monitor in a table in 2001 A Space Odyssey and a piece of wood in Star Trek.
…and you’re conveniently forgetting the Knight Ridder and CrunchPad.
But hey, the CrunchPad didn’t sell very well, so it doesn’t count. Only ideas stolen from products successful products count, right?
So you deny Samsung copied Apple and don’t even blink?
I deny that Samsung/HTC/etc. copied Apple in the way that people like you make it out to be. I also deny that copying is somehow bad – this entire goddamn industry is built on stealing, copying, and thieving. I deny this idea that Apple is somehow the inventor of everything and all, even though Apple has not invented any new idea or technology in its entire existence.
In other words, I despise the hypocrisy where Samsung copies = bad, and Apple copies = okay.
It’s a shame Steve’s no longer with us, you two could do a great RDF battle on stage.
So I interpret what you are saying is:
a) Samsung did not copy Apple
b) Copying is OK
c) Apple never made anything original so copying them is OK
Leaving aside the ethics of copying patented or copyrighted features what Apple does not do and which the likes of Samsung do do is copy entire products. All Apple’s products are distinctly Apple’s, as a company they take great care to make their products look and function in as original and distinctive Apple way as possible. Samsung do not. They try to make their products look as much like Apple’s as is possible.
It may be successfully argued that what Samsung does, copying entire products right down to the packaging and accessories, is legal but do you think that that is OK and somehow laudable? That doing such a thing has merit?
This is the important line. If they never made anything original, how is it copying from them?
Well, I’ll make it more easy for you (my interpretation):
a) everybody copying each other. Not just Samsung that copying Apple. Apple too have been copying from somebody else.
b) Can be bad, can be good. depend on the case. On this case, you can’t say its bad.
c) Apple made something original, yes. But they too, copying something original from someone else, no? Doesn’t that count?
Read carefully, everyone..
The only person spouting that hypocrisy (in reverse) is you. How many articles have you posted about mobile technologies lately? All of them contain some sort of jab at Apple, whether the story is about them or not.
It’s funny, you’re part of the anti-fanboys. Hate without logic, because you’re too cool to like something that the masses like. Thom likes things that came before the cool popular thing or are less popular now.
So I infer that you are saying yes you think Samsung copied Apple – correct?
In my mind there is no doubt they copied Apple.
It’s not just one thing, or two, it’s well, almost everything.
People cite prior art, but this involves things that have been around for years and years, yet Samsung came with their stuff after the iPad turned out to be a success. So there is no doubt who they got their inspiration from and it wasn’t Star Trek or the JooJoo (RIP).
So it beats me why people here ignore reality and claim Samsung didn’t copy Apple or even call copying progress, even though Samsung isn’t progressing anything.
It’s because of Apple phobia plain and simple. Serious and intelligent people will put forward the ‘angels on a pinhead’ type arguments about this or that obscure product or drawing or whatever that means that Apple didn’t invent the iPad and then try to argue that somehow Samsung didn’t copy the iPad. That’s the sort of intellectual collapse that a phobia can precipitate. It is painfully obvious to more objective observers that:
a) Apple try to make their products have original and distinctive designs and functionality
and that
b) Samsung try to copy Apple’s entire product designs
Yes, Apple haters tend to be very flexible and agile when twisting reality and facts to prove their case. It seems they have copied Steve’s RDF, although less convincing.
BTW an interesting piece about Steve aired on BBC recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1CU3-Ms5Q
So, what is new/original about, say, the iPhone? I dare you to name 3 concrete features, ideas, or technologies about the iPhone that were new. Just three.
Usable (i.e. pleasant to use) mobile browser? Opera didn’t even compare.
The whole touch interface? Yes there were touchscreens, but they simply were not up to the iPhone standard in usability.
capacitive touch screen? OK I’m not certain but I don’t remember other touchscreens using this before iPhone.
App store? you have to admit, they got this right!
iPod functionality in a phone? I have a Samsung D900 and trust me, Samsung were FAR behind on this front.
You just proved my point. None of these were new. None of these were invented by Apple (some were even bought, like multitouch). App Store? Nothing new, something like that already existed for mobile Java applications or the Sidekick. Apple didn’t invent the capacitive touch screen. It was created in the academic world, built by LG. In fact, LG was the first to ship a phone with a capacitive touch screen (the Prada, I have one).
See my point? Apple doesn’t invent. Apple takes other people’s ideas, and makes them better. That’s a great skill, and they’re definitely market leader there in mobile. However, that’s not inventing.
Edited 2011-12-21 16:09 UTC
Oh come on Thom, Apple don’t need to invent every component – they invented the usage and implementation. You are proving my point nicely – nobody else had effectively used ANY of these inventions until Apple came along despite their obvious availability. Apple then licenced or bought the technology, implemented a device, PATENTED their ideas to protect their investment, then made those devices some of the most successful the world has seen. Ford didn’t invent the wheel but they still made quite a lot of money from motorcars which used it to good effect.
The problem is, Samsung copied the idea, the implementation and even the design (tell me you didn’t double take the first time you saw the Samsung phone). This is where patents come in, to force a court to decide if Samsung came up with those things or just blatantly ripped them off.
“An invention is a novel composition, device, or process. An invention may be derived from a pre-existing model or idea, or it could be independently conceived.”
You don’t even know what invention means. Invention is not just a piece of hardware.
By the way, you think LG invented the capacitative touch screen? Don’t be daft. Just because they slapped it onto a phone doesn’t mean they invented it. However, they did invent that particular phone.
Look, let me give you a few examples.
Who invented the telephone? Alexander Graham Bell (let’s just leave the disputed history of the telehpone for what it is), or the guy who came up with the buttoned telephone?
Who invented the web browser, Tim-Berners Lee, or the guys behind Netscape?
Applying this to the current situation:
Who invented the smartphone, IBM, or Apple?
Who invented the graphical user interface, Xerox, or Apple?
Who invented the mouse, Douglas Engelbart, or Apple?
Who invented the tablet, GRiD, or Apple?
See what I mean?
Who invented the USABLE CONSUMER tablet?
That’s not an invention. And the critical difference is in whether it’s patentable or not. That’s why only unique and non trivial things should be patentable, otherwise you’ll have to pay for any kind of incremental improvement in technology.
So you’re saying it’s fine to copy as long as you don’t change too much?
That depends. For example in software I consider copying ideas totally acceptable and beneficial for everyone. In hardware – not so, because machinery has a more focused and narrow scope. Don’t forget the intent of the patents in the first place – to promote innovation. These patent cases have nothing to do with defending innovation, they are all about power struggle, gaining control over the market and so on. In reality they are giving totally the opposite result – they stifle innovation.
Edited 2011-12-21 19:05 UTC
So the only invention is that of the broad category? Of course not. Who invented the telephone? Alexander Graham Bell. Who invented the buttoned telephone? Mr Buttonous Maximus. Who invented the cordless phone? Mr Dontliketo Triponcables.
Understand? All of those things are inventions. If you stick to really broad categories, you miss 99% of inventions. Who invented the automobile? Most people would say Karl Benz. That was certainly significant, but even he was building on the designs of others. And would it be fair to give him the credit for the automobile and every other development since then is just simple improvement?
Very well said. The difference is that mr Benz made a quite different machine than the previous car. If BMW released a car identical to a Mercedes apart from the wing mirrors and steering wheel then they would be accused of copying just as Samsung have been with their device where they made an iPhone with a square button!
Unfortunately you make a really good point, but you obviously don’t see it. Tim-Berners Lee might have “invented” the world wide web, but Netscape made it what it is today. Xerox might have made a GUI based computer, but Apple took that and introduced overlapping windows, menus, etc. and made it into what people now associate with a computer. Engelbart might have invented the mouse, but to get from there to the ball mouse that eventually shipped with the Mac was a massive change. “Inventions” that are little more than tech demos are largely useless. And to take away the massive investment that companies like Netscape and Apple made to take what was, for all intents and purposes, a good idea and turn that into a desirable product, well, you can go back to Lee’s internet, pre-iPad tablets and pre Mac GUIs and let us know how much you enjoy it.
rhavyn,
“And to take away the massive investment that companies like Netscape and Apple made to take what was, for all intents and purposes, a good idea and turn that into a desirable product, well, you can go back to Lee’s internet, pre-iPad tablets and pre Mac GUIs and let us know how much you enjoy it.”
I wonder if there’s an objective way to make determinations about how other timelines would evolve if variables were tweaked here and there. Often times people claim that things would be worse if X hadn’t happened. All can say for sure is that things would be different, but for all we know other time lines may actually be better than ours.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to make a claim that someone else couldn’t have done what, in this discussion, Netscape and Apple did. What I am saying is worshipping the inventor and minimizing the ones who see the promise in the invention and then make it into something useful is incredibly shortsighted. Seeing promise in a technology and making it useful and usable in everyday life is at least as important as the original invention.
rhavyn,
I don’t disagree with that. It often takes a lot more than a good idea to be a big hit. I just wish more companies would acknowledge that ideas aren’t formed in a vacuum. It’s rather annoying when the market winners take all the credit for themselves. Although I suppose it’s inevitable that history is written by the victors, so to speak.
No quotation marks needed — Tim-Berners Lee invented the World Wide Web, period.
No. The web would have been what it is today, regardless of which browser was popular at which time. There were other graphical browsers when Mosaic was catching on.
No.
Prior to Apple’s Lisa and Mac, the GUI was already very close to what people now associate with a computer.
Apple didn’t invent overlapping windows nor menus — those features were already included in the Xerox Alto years before Apple existed, and overlapping windows and menus were also already featured in the GUIs from other companies, long before Apple demonstrated them.
Here are overlapping windows on the Alto: http://toastytech.com/guis/altost1.jpg
Here are floating menus on the Alto: http://toastytech.com/guis/altorainbow.jpg
Don’t add the qualified claim that Apple invented “drop-down” menus, because drop-down menus are merely floating menus stuck to the bar at the top of the window. Furthermore, the Three Rivers Perq had “drop-down” menus on the side of some of its third-party GUI apps, before the Lisa and the Mac.
No.
The “ball mouse” was invented in 1968, at least eight years before Apple Computer existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_(computing)#Variants
Note in the page linked above that, Bill English (the guy who built Englebart’s first mouse) created a ball mouse at Xerox Parc, later in 1972, and ball mice were manufactured for Xerox, starting in 1975 (one year before Apple existed) by The Mouse House.
At any rate, there was no particular advantage to the ball mouse. So, even if Apple had invented it or “popularized” it, it really was inconsequential.
If it weren’t for the tech demos what would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have had to copy?
No. Tech demos are notorious for having far-reaching consequences in the computer world.
Everything that Apple and Netscape did was being developed before, during and after Apple’s and Netscape’s work. All of that was already happening elsewhere while Apple and Netscape were doing their thing.
“Info.cern.ch was the address of the world’s first-ever web site and web server, running on a NeXT computer at CERN.”
Hurray!
Bryan Singer’s lawyers for you on line 1. Sorry, but after the X-Men films, he patented the concept of painfully-obviously comparisons to homophobia.
Edited 2011-12-24 02:16 UTC
Everyone has a right to their opinion.
Such vagueness does not convince.
Actually, Samsung was selling its digital picture frame several years before the Ipad “turned out to be a success.” So, Samsung was “coming with their stuff” years before the Ipad.
Furthermore, Samsung cited a lot of prior art in its defense against Apple’s litigation, so there is no reason to believe that Samsung did not get inspiration from the prior art that it cited.
Additionally, it’s further damning to the pro-Apple arguments that a fanboy would admit that prior art to the Ipad has “been around for years and years.” Such an admission means that a tablet with rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel was invented outside of Apple much earlier than most fanboys would care to contemplate.
Finally, we must also consider the obviousness factor of such a simple tablet design. The design was so obvious that a newspaper publisher made a mock-up with a demo video 16 years before the Ipad was introduced!
Samsung cited solid prior art to the Ipad in their defense against Apple’s litigation. One of the prior art items is Samsung’s own digital picture frame, which the Ipad design resembles almost exactly. So, Samsung probably got their inspiration from those decidedly non-Apple sources.
Who is saying that Samsung is “progressing” anything technologically? It may or may not be, but that is not the point. A product can be obvious, and, thus, it is not “progressing” technology, while it is also not “copying” — such is the case with the Ipad.
Edited 2011-12-21 19:32 UTC
A picture frame is not a tablet computer, nor were props used in classic movies/series, mock-ups or children’s slates and even the JooJoo is doubtful as it could only do one thing.
Apple was the first to build a working compelling succesful tablet computer. The way Samsung copied it is not vague at all, it is so pretty obvious that only Google fanboys would deny this.
Nobody is suggesting that a picture frame is a tablet computer.
The point in contention in this thread is tablet enclosure design. The Ipad enclosure is almost an exact copy of the Samsung digital picture frame, which was selling several years prior to the Ipad’s introduction. Furthermore, there are several examples of earlier prior art.
So, Apple cannot claim that it originated the Ipad enclosure design. Due to earlier prior art, likewise, Samsung cannot claim that it invented its picture frame design.
However, herein lies one of the big differences between Apple and Samsung — Samsung is not deluded enough to claim that it originated the design — it acknowledges other prior art going back decades.
No.
A prop, mock-up or an under-powered production model of touch tablets are certainly the invention of the touch tablet, if such an item is the first to be documented or made.
A conceptual movie prop is a valid invention — although it might be obvious and the underlying technology might not be ready, it is, nontheless, a documented concept.
A video mock-up is most defintely a valid demonstration of an invention/design — its sole purpose is to demostrate an invention.
Without question, an under-powered production version of a product is a valid, solid, working invention.
Of course, the enclosure design of an invention is valid as prior art, even if the function of the prior art is not the same as the subsequent art.
Nope. Sorry. There were a lot of “compelling” tablet computers in widespread use, long before the Ipad.
Of course, “compelling” is a highly subjective trait, and it’s one of those vague “add-on” conditions that fanboys use to support a feeble assertion.
First of all, there were (and are) about a zillion field based tablets in use in many industries. In such conditions and circumstances, an Ipad is probably not very “compelling” by most standards: the Ipad is not rugged enough; it does not offer enough needed features; and a company cannot easily use its own field software on an Ipad.
Secondly, after years and years, I still see people posting glowing comments about their hybrid tablet/laptops. It sounds a lot more “compelling” and useful to me to have a built-in, hideaway hardware keyboard, than to have to rely on a slower on-screen keyboard. I’d much rather have one of those.
Thirdly, as the moderator of this site has recently reminded us (and as I and others on this forum have maintaned for years), the touch PDAs of the late 1990s were merely tablets in a smaller format. They had icon arrays, various applications and some even had rounded corners. You could even use your fingers. And they were “compelling” enough to sell millions of units.
We could certainly include the Apple Newton and its many predecessors in this argument, but, again, the Newton was defintely not the first of its kind, and we have to “draw the line” somewhere.
LOL! Google fanboys!
It seems that Google fanboys can only be seen by those within the RDF, because, out here, nobody has ever detected a single Google fanboy.
However, those of us on the outside are painfully aware of one group of fanboys. This group of corporate followers constantly get in our faces about how “compelling” their company is… continually declaring how “genre-defining” their corporation’s products are. Such are the members of the Apple monoculture… those self-deluded victims of Apple’s “tyranny of taste.”
Of course. Tons of people have an irrational hatred of all things Apple and think Android is the be all end-all of operating systems.
You think there are no Android/Google fanboys? Just look at some comments here or Android news sites. Just a couple articles ago I said something about how the unique strengths of Android appeal to some people, and the unique strengths of iOS appeal to others. Some guy said that doesn’t make sense, because iOS has no unique strengths.
That’s the kind of irrational argument you get from fanboys. Not an objective assessment of facts, but simplistic black and white reasoning. Just like Thom and his “Apple has never invented anything” blather.
There certainly people who hate Apple, but, mostly, people just hate the clueless Apple fanboys.
However, I must strongly disagree with the last part of your statement — just because people hate the Apple fanboys, that doesn’t make the haters Android fanboys.
One does not have to worship any technology to have an aversion to Apple — people universally hate naive, smirking Apple fanboys.
Furthermore, I have never noticed any strong fan of Google, Android, Microsoft, etc., on this forum.
Please link one.
Did it ever occur to you that the truth might be that IOS actually lacks any unique strengths?
Also, try turning things around — by your logic, your automatic, blanket assumption that IOS has unique strengths reveals fanboyism.
Perhaps it would have been best just to list IOS’s unique strengths. In fact, why don’t you list them right now, for review, so we can assess just how many unique strengths IOS has.
Furthermore, even if your opponent’s statement is false, that statement doesn’t make your opponent a fanboy. It might make him anti-Apple, but it certainly doesn’t sound like he has any allegiance to any single company or technology. If was a fanboy, he would repeatedly claim that one company or technology is superior, without giving any specific, valid supporting arguments.
Uhm… Apple hasn’t invented anything, except the GUI trash can.
Perhaps you would care to list Apple’s inventions here, right now. However, I must warn you that we have been through such listing exercises on this forum, and it inevitably boils down Apple just inventing the GUI trash can and the fanboys saying, “well, Apple hasn’t invented much, but they have popularized a lot of things..” (as if that were some sort of accomplishment).
that was just a copy of the real thing
and let’s not forget that restoring files from the trash was only introduced a year ago in osx
OK, in use IOS appears to be finished and organised whereas Android feels like a work in progress and rather disorganised. Settings are stored in a single place rather than multiple settings apps. This is all based on my HTC Android phone so maybe it’s HTC that has made it seem that way – but there is the other unique strength of IOS, there is NO fragmentation. When you buy IOS you buy IOS and it will look and feel like IOS. We’ve all (geeks especially) moaned about the crapware added to Windows by OEMs over the years and yet for some reason Google have allowed it on their phone OS.
IOS appears appears to be finished?…
Android feels disorganized?…
Please let me know when a fanboy can commit to a solid and specific assertion.
Merely storing settings in a single place is considered unique? Wow.
Okay. That’s funny.
Looking for a list of unique strengths of IOS…
The question posed was “Does anybody here think Samsung did not copy Apple?”.
This has nothing to do with prior art. And I don’t consider non-tablets, mock-ups and props as prior art, because that would mean warp speed starships wouldn’t be innovations/inventions. I don’t see the makers of Back to the Future sue the first person to market a time traveling car.
Like I stated many times it’s not just one thing Samsung copied, it’s multiple things. I have seen cheap Android tablets that also took a large dose of iPad inspiration, but their creators don’t seem to get sued.
It doesn’t matter is stuff has been done before or is obvious (with hindsight), it’s Samsung making a product after the iPad that took a lot of hints from it.
If Samsung made a black rectangular shaped bezel bearing tablet I don’t think Apple would have sued them. But they added an iOS clone as its operating system, made adjustments to make it look even more like iOS and put it in a box that looks like an iPad box. At tech fairs they even used the Apple app store logo (amongst others) and now a (family) related company even made covers that look like Apple’s iPad 2 ones.
So it beats me why some people deny Samsung copying Apple. It’s an obvious way to lift on Apple’s marketing and success, like a lot of companies do in either small ways or slightly bigger ones.
Not that it matters, the iPad still vastly outsells the Samsung clone despite all of that
Whether or not someone copied someone else has everything to do with prior art. Such a concept is fundamental in the world of innovation.
One can consider anything the way one wants to consider it, but one’s considerations don’t change fact.
Any drawing, film, verbal description demo, etc. can constitute an invention if it is original and novel.
Warp speed starships are not an innovation — speed is not an invention, speed is a matter of degree. Now, the process and componenents that it takes to travel faster than light speed — those would be innovations.
Bad example. Who would actually want to make a time traveling car.
We’ve certainly heard that vague statement many times. Still waiting for more specifics and a list of the “multiple things” for review.
Of course, it matters if stuff has been done before or if an idea is obvious. If an idea has been done before or if the idea is obvious, no one can claim the idea (except for the originator).
Perhaps it doesn’t work that way in the RDF, but that is the way it works in the real world.
Samsung also made the product after the JooJoo, the Knight-Ridder tablet, the Samsung Digital picture frame, and a couple of other pre-Ipad items. One can claim that Samsung took hints from Apple, but, in light of such prior art, such a claim is not fact.
Wait. Are these points the “multiple things?” If so, more specifics are needed.
What exaclty is cloned from IOS.
What adjustments exactly where made to Samsung’s OS to make it look like IOS.
What exactly is it about Samsung’s box that looks like an Ipad box.
Furthermore, even if Samsung did what you claim, what exactly is original to Apple regarding such traits?
If Samsung violated a trademark, that is definitely wrong. Please show links/evidence.
Huh? What exactly are we talking about?
Perhaps some of us rely on fact, instead of vague notions.
Bloody hell tupp, don’t you read the news? Don’t you even read this site?
Here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_features…
http://9to5mac.com/2011/07/18/family-ties-earn-this-smart-cover-kno…
Of course, it’s not good for Samsung to be including icons that don’t apply to their system, but, obviously, this is a mistake made by a graphics person who didn’t know any better, or who was in a hurry and accidentally included those icons in with the ones to be made for the display.
If Samsung was actually trying to fool people into thinking that their tablet was an Ipad, they could have done something a lot more clever than that, or they would have just used the Apple logo outright.
I doubt that anyone thought that they were looking at an Ipad because of those icons.
Funny I was actually wondering if you read the news…:
http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/did-apple-just-borrow-the-smart-c…
and I was just also wondering if you even read this site: http://www.osnews.com/comments/24964
How can Apple icon’s, even in a hurry, end up on a Samsung icon wall? Like Samsung our company supplies logo’s to a marketing firm, the make a few suggestions, we pick one and request adjustments if needed. Did Samsung’s marketing partner download these icons from Google images and without any review build that stand?
Apple may have copied a case, but in this case (no pun intented) that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that a Samsung related (again no pun intended) company sells a case that looks like an Apple case (and it got pulled once the world found out).
It’s just another example in a whole string where it seems Samsung looked at Apple for inspiration.
The shape and color of the tablet, the GUI (Touchwiz to make Android look even more like iOS), icons, packaging, advertising.
And while you defend Samsung they don’t even care about consumers:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/23/samsungs_touchwiz_pre…
Okay, I have read the article carefully, and if you also do so, you will realize how moronic and desperate the fanboys are for actually thinking that the icons shown in the photo are an attempt by Samsung to copy Apple or to trick unsuspecting customers into thinking that the Galaxy tablet is an Ipad.
The icons in question are on the walls of an Euronics electronics store in Italy. The Samsung display sits within the Euronics store. Euronics happens to sell a bunch of electronics and computer equipment, including Apple products. Here is a page from the Italian section of the Euronics site: http://www.euronics.it/acquistaonline/mondo-apple/c0000MondoApple-p…
Note that Euronics sells the Ipad, the Iphone, Ipods, and various other Crapple items.
The Samsung display is merely one section of a larger store that also sells Apple items, thus, there are Apple-specific icons on the walls throughout the store, included with all of the other icons and logos related to products that Euronics sells.
Obviously, Samsung had no involvement in decorating the walls of the Euronics store.
LOL!!!
Wait… so a fanboy thinks that Apple actually might have copied their Ipad cover design from earlier prior art? That’s a huge admission! Now we are getting somewhere.
Samsung already stated that they had nothing to do with that folding case design. Samsung cannot control the actions of third-party vendors any more than they can control the decoration of the store interiors in which their products are sold.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter, because, as you admit, the tablet cover was already invented before Apple copied it, so Apple does not own the design.
We have already discussed the prior art and obviousness of the Ipad enclosure design, so that point does not wash.
In regards to the GUI elements, packaging and advertising, please link specific examples for comparison and review. However, I think that we both know that once such specifics are provided, all will see how feeble are the pro-Apple arguments.
Grasping for straws, are we? This point has nothing to do with the fact that the Ipad design is obvious and has tons of prior art.
I would like to point out that the almost all of the sites that you link are decidedly biased in favor of Apple.
Regardless, I am not going to argue who has better customer service between Apple and Samsung, but I am sure that even if there is an inkling of truth to the linked Apple insider page, I am sure that we could find just as many Apple customer service horror stories.
Edited 2011-12-24 17:55 UTC
The icon wall is in a concession store, a store within a store. Thus a Samsung store within another store, hence all the Samsung stuff in front of this wall.
Keep googling and you’ll find more examples of Samsung copying Apple products and accesories, also on non-Apple sites. I’m sure you’ll have a great time finding excuses to explain all of them.
Merry Christmas!
That is not a Samsung store. Samsung is not selling retail within the location of one of their third-party retailers! Do you see a cash register anywhere in the display?
It is merely a Samsung display that sits within the walls of the Euronics store.
Here is a direct quote from the Apple Insider page that you linked:
“Update: SetteB.IT reports (via Google Translate) that the app wall is part of the Euronics store’s design and not commissioned by Samsung.”
Notice Apple Insider’s phrase, “… not commissioned by Samsung?
Whether or not Samsung had anything to do with the Samsung display shown in the picture, Samsung obviously has no say in how one of it’s re-sellers decorates the walls of its own establishment.
It is likely the Euronics store also has a separate area for Apple that probably has non-Apple icons on the surrounding walls. And, of course, that Apple area is not an “Apple Store.”
Fanboys can really be moronic sometimes.
Good Lord, no! And no front door! And no people! So it isn’t a store at all!
I just want to clarify a few points — please let me know if I understand correctly:
1. Apple fanboys really believe that the Samsung display within the Euronics store is a separate retail outlet that is operated by Samsung.
2. Apple fanboys really believe that Samsung had an influence in putting the Apple-specific icons on the wall behind the Samsung display, in an attempt to copy Apple and/or to fool customers into thinking that a Samsung tablet is an Ipad.
Are those statements correct?
We don’t form one giant organism, so I can only speak for myself.
I don’t think those icons were part of a plot to mislead customers in to thinking Samsung products are the same as Apple ones. What I do think is that the people responsible for this little blooper themselves have trouble seeing the difference between Apple and Samsung stuff.
Does Apple have any substantial evidence that something non trivial and unique was copied? No. The vast majority of these cases are about trivial, obvious and natural things in design, or altogether software patents, which aren’t working as intended at all as known. When Apple does produce a reasonable hardware patent infringement case – that’s a different story.
If you are unaware – just repeat a few times – this kind of patents litigation is protection racket game, unless some company doesn’t want to play by “rules” of indecent crooks.
“CrunchPad”