Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:38 UTC, submitted by tupp
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It might be a cliche, but sometimes, a picture says more than a thousand words. Over the years, I've often talked about how the technology world is iterative, about how products are virtually always built upon that which came before, about how almost always, multiple people independently arrive at the same products since they work within the same constraints of the current state of technology. This elementary aspect of the technology world, which some would rather forget, has been illustrated very, very well in one of Samsung's legal filings against Apple.
Order by: Score:
Sony eh. Very interesting read.
by tanishaj on Mon 30th Jul 2012 20:16 UTC
tanishaj
Member since:
2010-12-22

Of course many of the iPhone's great features would have been introduced without Apple. I did not realize how many of them had been though.

Kudos to Apple for putting them all in one product. As Jobs himself once bragged, great artists steal.

I would not have guessed it was Sony though that so heavily influenced the industrial design. I do not associate Sony electronics with a great sense of style. Perhaps that is unfair though.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You must be young. Sony was the king of elegant design in consumer electronics, before the rise of the ipod. Growing up, if you didn't have a Sony walkman/discman/minidisc, you were roundly mocked.

Sony always worked better from day one, looked better, and lasted longer than anything else.

I think they would be a much better consumer electronics company today, if they had not entered the record and movie business. That started their crippling of products to proprietary drm laden formats.

Reply Score: 27

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yeah, DRM kills the brain of those who promote it.

Reply Score: 4

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

You must be young. Sony was the king of elegant design in consumer electronics, before the rise of the ipod. Growing up, if you didn't have a Sony walkman/discman/minidisc, you were roundly mocked.

Sony always worked better from day one, looked better, and lasted longer than anything else.


DING DING DING DING! We have a winner.

I think they would be a much better consumer electronics company today, if they had not entered the record and movie business. That started their crippling of products to proprietary drm laden formats.


^^Bonus points^^

This hit the nail square on the head. Once Sony got into the content business their fate was sealed. The proprietary formats were relentless and now Sony and the RIAA are so joined at the hip that I no longer purchase or recommend their products to anyone.

Reply Score: 11

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I can see why a company like Sony would get into the content business.

It's an often repeated mantra. It isn't the internet providers or the owners of the glassfibre in the ground that get rich. It's the content creators. "infrastructure" isn't where the money is.

So Sony wanted to be in the content business, instead of only creating the "underlying infrastructure".

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As Jobs himself once bragged, great artists steal.


It seems what they really mean is "great artists, as long as the artist is Apple, steal. If not then they are thieving bastards who should be drawn and quartered."

Edited 2012-07-31 03:56 UTC

Reply Score: 12

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Steve Jobs wasn't the original author of the quote. I always found it ironic; that he took somebody else's quote to complain against plagiarism.

Edited 2012-07-31 23:32 UTC

Reply Score: 4

hjeff Member since:
2006-01-05

Fwiw, Jobs never claimed to have originated that quote. I believe he attributed it to Picaso.

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I did not say he claimed to have originated the quote. I found it ironic (or is it hypocritical) that Steve Jobs used somebody else's saying to complain about microsoft's supposed plagiarism and lack of originality. I, for one, found such lack of self awareness amusing, except for the part where people took him seriously...

Reply Score: 4

flying_saucers Member since:
2012-08-02

Lol, quoting somebody else and citing your source is the direct opposite of plagiarism, and of course it's in no way hypocritical.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sony eh. Very interesting read.
by pancete on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:55 UTC in reply to "Sony eh. Very interesting read."
pancete Member since:
2012-07-31

As I'm pretty fed up with the Jobsian religion and its tireless acolytes, I've just registered to vent my rage. I would like to make a few points (I thought they were platitudes, but it seems I was wrong):
1. Steve Jobs was not an artist of any kind; no Apple product is a work of art by any "artistic" standards (more of a sexual fetish or a religious totem).
2. "Good artists copy, great artists steal" is not an original quote by Jobs, but by Pablo Picasso; similarly T.S. Eliot had already remarked that "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" (perhaps Picasso stole the quote, by he was a great artist after all).
3. Apart from quotations, Jobs and Apple stole many of their "new" concepts and designs.
4. If you aren't a great artist -- not even a good artist or an immature one (see point 1) -- and you steal nevertheless (see points 2 & 3) then you are a thief. (Mind you, this does not mean that other companies are not thieves too.)

Reply Score: 6

vruz Member since:
2012-08-03

+1 on all counts.

additionally, in **1870** this little genius said:

"Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It holds tight an author’s phrase, uses his expressions, eliminates a false idea, and replaces it with just the right idea."

– Isidore Ducasse, Comte de Lautréamont, Poésies II

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sony eh. Very interesting read.
by MOS6510 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 11:46 UTC in reply to "Sony eh. Very interesting read."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Steve admired Sony and his turtle neck outfit has a direct link with Sony:

http://www.geekosystem.com/why-steve-jobs-wore-turtlenecks/

Reply Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I wouldn't wanna call Steve a hack, I guess the only thing he is good at is having taste/vision and saying: no

With vision I mean, like the people at Xerox didn't know what they really had when they let Apple see and use it.

That also is a talent, maybe his only talent.

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Steve had a couple of talents: vision, eye for details, taste, forcing/persuading people do to his bidding and indeed saying no. Interestingly the co-founder of the world's most successful tech company wasn't very technical.

Xerox didn't know what they had, Parc Xerox did. Some at Xerox Parc were happy that Apple wanted to do something with their technology, others weren't.

It's funny how these seemingly small lucky events. I'd really love to know what would have happened in an alternate universe.

What if Steve hadn't visited Parc Xerox or didn't return to save Apple?
What if IBM didn't bother with the PC or Microsoft didn't buy QDOS?
What if Commodore hadn't gone bust?
What is OS/2 did manage to succeed?
What if Microsoft gave up after Windows 1.0?
What is Google had stuck to search?
What if Apple didn't think a mobile phone would sell?
What if BSD didn't have legal problems and Linus never started Linux?

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What if Apple didn't think a mobile phone would sell?


They wanted to create devices, similair to that, since the time of the Newton.

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes and with hindsight the tech battle moved to mobile stuff, but mobile phones were and are a risky business to get in to. In 2007 Nokia and RIM were big players and a load of "others" were in the game too.

Most mobile phone makers aren't doing very well. Had the original iPhone been a bust, it's second generation may not have created enough buzz to make it sell like it did.

If Apple now wants to build television sets I suspect it will be even more difficult to do. Even though phones and televisions kind of share the same price segment people are less likely to replace a working television. I would only do that if it was something I couldn't resist, meaning it would have to be a television+++.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That is why everyone is surprised Apple want to make TVs, the current Apple TV device and devices like Nexus Q are much more likely to be sold. As they are an addon which makes it an easier sell.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The Nexus Q is very unlikely to be sold. ;-)
http://www.osnews.com/story/26234/Nexus_Q_delayed_pre-orders_will_s...

Apple is yet to announce their television. So far it's just a rumor, but it's one of the strongest yet.

My guess, if it comes, it will be US only at first. No doubt it will feature downloadable content and subscriptions. Apple needs to get all the big parties on their side in the US, see how it goes and then try to pull it off in more countries.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by zima
by zima on Mon 6th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sony eh. Very interesting read."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Steve had a couple of talents: vision, eye for details, taste

I'm not entirely convinced we can sincerely say that about somebody who insisted, for so long, on ejecting removable media by... moving them to the trash.

forcing/persuading people do to his bidding and indeed saying no

Hm, that didn't really work out with the last big example of "saying no" to apps on the iPhone. Or, harmful in different way - he strengthened in Apple a culture which will likely lead to a repeat of the history with PC, while he could make iOS "the PC".

Interestingly the co-founder of the world's most successful tech company wasn't very technical.

Though how much is it still a tech company?... (vs. media / physical chain / software distribution, design, marketing)

It's funny how these seemingly small lucky events. I'd really love to know what would have happened in an alternate universe.
[...]
What is OS/2 did manage to succeed?
What if Microsoft gave up after Windows 1.0?

Oh there is an easy answer to this one - the underlying goal of OS/2 was to return the control over PC market to IBM (and that's why it didn't succeed, other OEMs wouldn't play along / why they went the Windows way) - you just have to look at how IBM did things, with its more traditional markets, to know what it would be like.

PS. And BTW those ways, and the PC - pretty much the same thing you mentioned in http://www.osnews.com/thread?529156 applied to the PC ...so was it not a commercial computer?
(or to Nextcubes; hell, it largely applies to Macs machines, for most of the planet - they hardly "brought the GUI to the homes" ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?529153), only to some minuscule proportion of them; you should know, Amiga and all :p - and BTW, when Apple was suing MS for "ripping the GUI off" ...Xerox sued Apple on the same basis)

Edited 2012-08-07 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

franksands Member since:
2009-08-18

Great artists may steal, but cannot sue everybody later saying it was his idea, since he admittedly stole it in the first place.
How times have changed, huh?

Reply Score: 2

Daehanminguk!
by orfanum on Mon 30th Jul 2012 20:17 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I sincerely hope that Apple gets a legal pasting, i.e. is hoist by its own legalistic petard.

I am tired of 'capitalists' who haven't got the backbone to live by the rules they apply to everyone else but themselves. From banks to oligopolies, 'capitalists' hide behind ever bloated, increasingly unaccountable states either arbitrarily to get them to socialise their liabilities or protect them via pettifogging legal systems, where justice is not so much blind as quadriplegic.

Where's the free market? Where is the freedom of choice that the consumer needs to possess in order to make markets free? Where is competing on merit for the common good? As G.K. Chesteron said, the problem isn't that there are too many capitalists but that there are too few: http://faithandheritage.com/2011/12/g-k-chesterton-on-economics/ (look beyond the religious stuff and ask yourself whether in the final analysis we need any state, communist or corporatist/capitalist).

I am ashamed to say I am posting this from an iPhone. Never again once this contract is over.

(Edited for typos)

Edited 2012-07-30 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE: Daehanminguk!
by jgagnon on Mon 30th Jul 2012 20:25 UTC in reply to "Daehanminguk!"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

I sincerely hope that Apple gets a legal pasting, i.e. is hoist by its own legalistic petard.


A legal wedgie?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Daehanminguk!
by orfanum on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Daehanminguk!"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Whatever it takes!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Daehanminguk!
by Tuishimi on Mon 30th Jul 2012 20:39 UTC in reply to "Daehanminguk!"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Solid post!

I would add, don't look beyond the religious stuff... Chesterton was pure genius, his protégé, CS Lewis wasn't bad either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Daehanminguk!
by orfanum on Mon 30th Jul 2012 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Daehanminguk!"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Thanks - that's kind of you to say. Yes, their ways of using paradox to unpick apparent logic or rather customary thinking, were often quite striking.

I sometimes go to church, sometimes don't, and this person has kind of said it better than I could do as to why that is:

http://hypocritereader.com/18/if-i-told-you-i-went-to-church

Cheers,

Orf

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Daehanminguk!
by tylerdurden on Wed 1st Aug 2012 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Daehanminguk!"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Meh, Chesterton's prose had lots of stylistic merits, it's intellectual content however was rather pedestrian. E.g. The piece by him that you linked earlier was a colossal "no true Scotsman" type of arguments, and those are just run of the mill fallacy...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Daehanminguk!
by orfanum on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Daehanminguk!"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

“There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people.”
― G.K. Chesterton

;)

Reply Score: 2

v Oops
by weskroesbergen on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:18 UTC
RE: Oops
by Priest on Wed 1st Aug 2012 06:35 UTC in reply to "Oops"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Samsung only has to prove their were designs like the iPhone on the market before the iPhone. Besides, the reason phones look the way they do is because it is an obvious implementation for touch screen technology.

Apple isn't making the claim they are the first to invent the idea of a touch screen.

If touch screen phones weren't a rectangle with a touch screen on one side then what else would they look like? Other electronics like monitors and digital photo frames already used that basic shape before phones did so Apple certainly didn't invent the rectangle with a screen on it.

Besides, Samsung had a photo frame in 2006 that had the same form factor as the iPad here: http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in-2006-2...

It predates the iPad by 4 years. If that isn't enough here is a prototype tablet from 1994 that looks like the iPad: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridde...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oops
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Oops"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Samsung only has to prove their were designs like the iPhone on the market before the iPhone.


Samsung: Apple Didn’t Invent the Rectangle

http://allthingsd.com/20120731/live-samsung-making-its-case-in-land...

Responding to charges that it copied the iPhone and iPad, Samsung lawyers on Tuesday told a federal jury that the design of the iPhone is less revolutionary than Apple would have them believe.

"There’s more to the story than what you just heard," Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven told the jury, beginning his opening statement. He showed other phones that predate the iPhone and have large rectangular screens taking up most of the area, most notably the LG Prada phone from 2006.

"Apple didn’t invent that," he said. "That was already out there."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada, is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

The iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oops
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Oops"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Samsung only has to prove their were designs like the iPhone on the market before the iPhone.


There are even Samsung internal designs for rectangular touchscreen phones that pre-date the iPhone, proving that the iPhone cosmetic design was not copied.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-s...

The judge apparently doesn't want people to know that Samsung had already internally designed a touchscreen phone which was a rectangle with no keyboard, very similar to the iPhone, before the iPhone came out.

Regardless of what the judge wants, people will know this anyway, it will be common knowledge. If the judge insists that this common knowledge is ignored by the jury, it merely makes the judge look totally biased, and it guarantees Samsung will be able to appeal if they need to.

Edited 2012-08-01 08:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oops
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oops"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

iPod.

One word, your answer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oops
by FunkyELF on Wed 1st Aug 2012 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Oops"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

If touch screen phones weren't a rectangle with a touch screen on one side then what else would they look like?



http://www.phonearena.com/news/Developer-launches-a-Kickstarter-pro...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oops
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oops"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, a circle or oval could be interesting...

Reply Score: 2

First touchscreen phone?
by Morgan on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:37 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I've brought this up before, but the first touchscreen cellphone (and arguably the first smartphone given its PDA functions) was the IBM Simon Personal Communicator in the early-mid 1990s. Even the Treo beat both Samsung and Apple by a few years, and for those who consider Symbian a smartphone OS, so did Nokia. Though, I don't recall seeing a touch version of a Symbian phone until around the time the iPhone was revealed.

Regardless, it's pretty clear from the evidence in the article that Apple should give up their holy war against Samsung.

Reply Score: 10

RE: First touchscreen phone?
by Gusar on Mon 30th Jul 2012 22:34 UTC in reply to "First touchscreen phone?"
Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

Though, I don't recall seeing a touch version of a Symbian phone until around the time the iPhone was revealed.

Nokia didn't have them, but Sony Ericsson did - P800, P900 and P910, touchscreen phones using Symbian UIQ. The first one was released in 2002. The interface was primarily for a stylus, not fingers, but still.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: First touchscreen phone?
by smashIt on Mon 30th Jul 2012 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: First touchscreen phone?"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

The interface was primarily for a stylus, not fingers, but still.


could be because symbian inherited the stylus from epoc ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: First touchscreen phone?
by _txf_ on Mon 30th Jul 2012 23:14 UTC in reply to "First touchscreen phone?"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Though, I don't recall seeing a touch version of a Symbian phone until around the time the iPhone was revealed.


what you don't recall is a Series60 touchscreen phone. There were however others like UIQ, Series80 (in the communicator phones) and Series 90 (in the Nokia 7710 and 7700, look them up on wikipedia)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: First touchscreen phone?
by Morgan on Mon 30th Jul 2012 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: First touchscreen phone?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're both right, I failed to take into consideration Nokia's non-S60 models, most likely due to the very limited presence Nokia has here in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. I do recall seeing a Nokia Communicator in some 2000-era spy film set in Europe, but I've never seen one in the flesh, so to speak.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: First touchscreen phone?
by anevilyak on Tue 31st Jul 2012 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First touchscreen phone?"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

I do recall seeing a Nokia Communicator in some 2000-era spy film set in Europe, but I've never seen one in the flesh, so to speak.


I believe you're referring to "The Saint". In any case, a friend of mine owned one around the same time frame, it was certainly quite nifty as far as mid-to-late 90s phones went.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: First touchscreen phone?
by Morgan on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: First touchscreen phone?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe you're referring to "The Saint".


That's the one! A halfway decent movie, though I've only seen it once that I can remember.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: First touchscreen phone?
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: First touchscreen phone?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12
RE[6]: First touchscreen phone?
by Morgan on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: First touchscreen phone?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You are so wrong for linking that! I just got off from a 12 hour shift and should be going to bed now; I have to be up in six hours for an appointment. I don't think I will be sleeping today after all...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: First touchscreen phone?
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: First touchscreen phone?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, you don't have to watch every movie/episode of course!

Here is the most important one (for you):

http://starringthecomputer.com/computer.php?c=71

Edited 2012-08-01 11:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: First touchscreen phone?
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: First touchscreen phone?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> I believe you're referring to "The Saint".

That's the one! A halfway decent movie, though I've only seen it once that I can remember.

Thing is... the Nokia Communicator in "The Saint" from 1997 certainly didn't use Symbian. ;) Not all did, early ones were on GEOS (and they actually had x86 CPUs)

PS. And Motorola had some touchscreen Symbian UIQ devices (Moto was actually involved in it), I imagine they were at least semi-available in the US, before iPhone.

Edited 2012-08-03 00:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: First touchscreen phone?
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 02:55 UTC in reply to "First touchscreen phone?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

for those who consider Symbian a smartphone OS

Why wouldn't it be considered as such? (especially if we're include Simon or Treo)

Anyway, there's perhaps one even earlier device that Samsung could point out - perhaps a bit on the large side of things, but still showing similar form-factor: GRiDPad, a tablet launched in 1989 http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/6565/GRidPad-1910/
And the best part: it was manufactured by... Samsung.

Reply Score: 2

Orfanum has it right
by obsidian on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:46 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

I hope that Apple's lawyers get their backsides kicked up one side of the courtroom and down the other.

I am sick and tired of Apple claiming to have "invented" everything, when darned near everything they claim to have invented actually existed beforehand. "Prior art", in other words.

I'm proud to say that I have never owned any Apple product and I never will, so Apple has never made a cent off me.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Orfanum has it right
by bobthedino on Tue 31st Jul 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "Orfanum has it right"
bobthedino Member since:
2012-07-31

But the problem is not Apple claiming it has "invented everything". The problem is Apple being granted the patents that it applies for. It would be irresponsible (from the point of view Apple's shareholders, for example) for any company not to apply for patents to protect things it believes it has invented. The problem is the patent system. Apple is not the only company that applies for and is granted patents, you know!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Orfanum has it right
by ichi on Tue 31st Jul 2012 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Orfanum has it right"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

It would be irresponsible (from the point of view Apple's shareholders, for example) for any company not to apply for patents to protect things it believes it has invented. The problem is the patent system.


I'd say believing you invented something you didn't could also be considered a problem, more so when your concept of "protecting things you believe you have invented" turns out to be attacking competitors and trying to get their products banned.

The patent system is obviosly flawed, but just because a system is flawed doesn't make it's abusers any less of scumbags.

Edited 2012-07-31 11:38 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Orfanum has it right
by bobthedino on Tue 31st Jul 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Orfanum has it right"
bobthedino Member since:
2012-07-31

Agreed, but can you name a company that isn't using patents in the same way as Apple? This year-old chart seems to suggest that they're all at it!

http://flowingdata.com/2011/08/22/mobile-patent-lawsuits-2/

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Orfanum has it right
by andydread on Tue 31st Jul 2012 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Orfanum has it right"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Agreed, but can you name a company that isn't using patents in the same way as Apple? This year-old chart seems to suggest that they're all at it!

http://flowingdata.com/2011/08/22/mobile-patent-lawsuits-2/


From the chart you posted I dont see Google suing anyone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Orfanum has it right
by Alfman on Tue 31st Jul 2012 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Orfanum has it right"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

andydread,

"From the chart you posted I dont see Google suing anyone."

Yep, it's humorous that the poster would say something that disagrees with the evidence he provided, but he probably meant to illustrate the chaos rather than make a literal statement.

Arguably google entered the game so late that it lacks the portfolio needed to mount a successful attack, but I won't read into it that way - they appear to genuinely believe that it is wrong to use patents offensively.


A piece of information that is missing on the chart is timeframe, and whether lawsuits were filed in response to an attack from the other party. That might show a much better view of who the aggressors and defenders are. We already know where apple lies, but some of the other companies I'm not so sure.

Edited 2012-07-31 16:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Orfanum has it right
by tomcat on Wed 1st Aug 2012 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Orfanum has it right"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

andydread,

"From the chart you posted I dont see Google suing anyone."

Yep, it's humorous that the poster would say something that disagrees with the evidence he provided, but he probably meant to illustrate the chaos rather than make a literal statement.

Arguably google entered the game so late that it lacks the portfolio needed to mount a successful attack, but I won't read into it that way - they appear to genuinely believe that it is wrong to use patents offensively.


Um, dude, Google doesn't have the patent portfolio necessary to mount an attack on any of these companies, barring its Motorola acquisition of FRAND patents. They are now suing Microsoft via proxy Motorola over a ridiculous demand of 100x licensing of H.264 patents.

Edited 2012-08-01 02:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Orfanum has it right
by Alfman on Wed 1st Aug 2012 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Orfanum has it right"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tomcat,

"Um, dude, Google doesn't have the patent portfolio necessary to mount an attack on any of these companies"

Point me to where that contradicts anything I said.

Google's Motorola acquisition *could* help it mount offensive patent lawsuits, but I don't believe that is their intent. Either way, we'll have to watch their intentions pan out over time.

While you are here, maybe you could clear up a few questions: when did the lawsuit between ms and motorola begin and how does that relate to when google was able to effectively take over the company? Was it a countersuit? This helps to answer whether google had a causal involvement.

Edited 2012-08-01 04:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Orfanum has it right
by bobthedino on Tue 31st Jul 2012 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Orfanum has it right"
bobthedino Member since:
2012-07-31

Although Google effectively now owns Motorola, and it was Motorola's patents that were part of the motivation for Google's purchase: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/07/24/google-says-patents-tech-wer...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Orfanum has it right
by jigzat on Tue 31st Jul 2012 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Orfanum has it right"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

that is because Google doesn't make money directly from their IP they are an advertising company so they most be everyone's best friend.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Orfanum has it right
by ichi on Tue 31st Jul 2012 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Orfanum has it right"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Agreed, but can you name a company that isn't using patents in the same way as Apple? This year-old chart seems to suggest that they're all at it!

http://flowingdata.com/2011/08/22/mobile-patent-lawsuits-2/


Google only just started counter-suing through Motorola and only to try to force those attacking Android to enter a cross-license agreement, which short of a patent reform seems to be the only way to stop the madness.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Orfanum has it right
by riha on Tue 31st Jul 2012 22:44 UTC in reply to "Orfanum has it right"
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

Both apple and samsung should get a kick in their butt because both of them are playing the "sue eachother" game.

And i cannot believe that people have the time to write and comment on there apple vs samsung all the time, it feels like this is most of the stuff posted on osnews nowadays.

Give it a rest and report on more fun and interesting stuff.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Orfanum has it right
by Sabon on Tue 31st Jul 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Orfanum has it right"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Give it a rest and report on more fun and interesting stuff.


I'm not blaming Thom for doing this at all. Things like this get people posting and creating new page views which brings in more money. Again, I don't blame Thom at all for this.

The best thing to do is just pass by posts like this if you don't like them. It's like a TV. You have the remote. You can change the channel any time you want.

But I do wish there was more fun stuff too. But fun stuff takes time to research and it isn't like Thom has a lot of free time to do this. You could always send Thom a million dollars and then he would probably have plenty of time to research and post more fun articles. ;)

PS: Unfortunately there really isn't too much interesting stuff going on with Amiga or Haiku (BeOS opensource clone), etc. Thom is doing the best he can but people have to do interesting fun stuff for him to have something to post.

Edited 2012-07-31 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Orfanum has it right
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 31st Jul 2012 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Orfanum has it right"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

OSNews is not a moneymaker. This is a labour of love. Whether we have x hits or x+1, it makes no difference. We get about enough to keep hosting up.

We're not John Gruber who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars per year with his site. Would be awesome though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Orfanum has it right
by Sabon on Wed 1st Aug 2012 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Orfanum has it right"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

OSNews is not a moneymaker. This is a labour of love. Whether we have x hits or x+1, it makes no difference. We get about enough to keep hosting up.

We're not John Gruber who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars per year with his site. Would be awesome though.


I realize that. I'm just saying that it takes time to create this website and to find things and then to comment on them. If someone wants something significantly better, that would require more time. Are you saying you wouldn't accept a million dollars if someone offered it to you? lol

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Orfanum has it right
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Orfanum has it right"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

We get about enough to keep hosting up.

Isn't that after subtracting Aston Martins, though?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Orfanum has it right
by Lennie on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:11 UTC in reply to "Orfanum has it right"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I only owned one Apple product and it broke within a year.

Probably never gonna buy from Apple ever again, because of their business practises

Edited 2012-08-01 09:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Orfanum has it right
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Orfanum has it right"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Lucky you, it was still under warranty.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Orfanum has it right
by Lennie on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Orfanum has it right"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Long story short: it wasn't in my case.

Reply Score: 2

TRS
by fretinator on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:47 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm still wondering why they keep showing silhouettes of my Tandy Model 100.

Reply Score: 4

I remember this:
by brostenen on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:53 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

I remember this phone: http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=362&c=dopod_818_htc_magician

I wanted it bad, yet roumors were flying of an phone from apple.... Guess what? dopod had rounded corners too...

Wanted this from 2002 too:
http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p800-326.php

Edited 2012-07-30 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: I remember this:
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 30th Jul 2012 23:13 UTC in reply to "I remember this:"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I wanted a similar HTC phone, but I was waiting for wifi, which never came.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I remember this:
by wifi on Tue 31st Jul 2012 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE: I remember this:"
wifi Member since:
2012-07-31

I came.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I remember this:
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 31st Jul 2012 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I remember this:"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Where were you in 2002 when I really needed you? Ten years later, I can't go anywhere without running into you.

But it never made any sense to me to have a smart phone without you. GRPS internet access was worse than dial up most of the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I remember this:
by stabbyjones on Tue 31st Jul 2012 06:37 UTC in reply to "I remember this:"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

I would have killed for the p900 back in the day, I just couldn't afford it.

Reply Score: 2

i think it is a good thing for the case...
by FadeFx on Mon 30th Jul 2012 23:34 UTC
FadeFx
Member since:
2011-08-01

That apple choose Samsung to be the main opponent in their war against android, i could imagine a smaller company like HTC or LG probably could not stand this treatment for such a long time, having their products banned from major markets. I think those company's would have been forced to ground long time ago. Samsung never felt forced to change their design just because a computer manufacturer had the idea to build mobile phones all off a sudden.

Reply Score: 6

Wow. Just amazing
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 04:03 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

So basically, Apple is a scummy corporation and all companies share ideas from each other, including Apple. Pretty obvious so far.

But in this case, Apple is claiming that they did it first, when in reality Samsung actually has a full year on Apple, and they've even gone so far as to sue Samsung over it. My mind is about to explode at the arrogance, selfishness, and downright assholishness Apple is displaying with this move. Apple is a downright corrupt corporation. The fact that they got so big is disappointing--now they're just bullying everyone else with cheap tactics.

Good read. I will never buy an Apple product. Never did, and never will. Apple just keeps giving me reasons not to. I think they might have struck a new low now.

"Apple wants to rewrite history. As a geek, I find that incredibly offensive."

To be honest, I find Apple as a company to be incredibly offensive. Period.

[Former user UZ64 here--I will be using this username from now on.]

Edited 2012-07-31 04:11 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Wow. Just amazing
by Lennie on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:22 UTC in reply to "Wow. Just amazing"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Things usually start going bad when a company becomes publicly traded. After that they need to show profits every quarter.

Reply Score: 3

Apple is rewriting a distorted history
by mantrik00 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 08:10 UTC
mantrik00
Member since:
2011-07-06

The problem is that Apple and its irrational fans (including those in the media) have been distorting history by attributing disproportionate credit to Apple and maligning competitors as copycats. The sheer scale at which this distortion campaign is projected over the web is mind boggling. Today, Apple is more a myth manufacturer than a real manufacturer, far from what a real manufacturer like Samsung is. Apple is the best perception manager, even though it may be at the cost of distorting computing history.

Reply Score: 8

Comment by henderson101
by henderson101 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:34 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

It's interesting to watch this unfold. On the one hand, you have people who support Apple, you have places like the Verge digging up Apple designs that pre-date these Samsung ones - that didn't get reported here. You then get these, which definitely seems to support Samsung getting reported here.

It's very easy to point a finger and shout "Thom is biased", and he is. In his mind Apple lost/will lose/should lose. Samsung is right. Me, it's not that simple. You have two companies desperately trying to prove they have bigger dicks. Whatever. I don't care.

I've had some serious time on a Samsung phone now. My Daughter now owns a Galaxy Y. It's a nice phone. Touch wiz is a bit iOS without being insanely iOS. The apps seem okay. It has a memory card slot, which is pretty cool. But, it didnt blow me away. Neither does iOS anymore. She paid £65 for the phone, though it is "pay as you go" it came from Carphonewarehouse and is "sim unlocked" which is pretty rad. Would I buy the Galaxy Ace 2? Yeah probably, £150 unlocked on PAYG. To own it outright. Shame it doesn't have a micro sim slot though.

Edited 2012-07-31 09:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by henderson101
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by henderson101"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

On the one hand, you have people who support Apple, you have places like the Verge digging up Apple designs that pre-date these Samsung ones - that didn't get reported here.


Those are irrelevant since they don't prove anything. Apple is the one claiming Samsung ripped off the *iPhone*. So, secret Apple designs from *before* the iPhone have no bearing on supporting that accusation, because being secret and all, Samsung could not have copied them.

They're definitely interesting from a historical viewpoint, but they do not support Apple's accusations in any way.

It's very easy to point a finger and shout "Thom is biased", and he is. In his mind Apple lost/will lose/should lose.


I'm indeed biased. I'm biased against patent trolls, and software and design patents because they are the biggest threat to this industry - even more so when it's incumbents like Apple and Microsoft.

Edited 2012-07-31 09:51 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by henderson101
by Soulbender on Tue 31st Jul 2012 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by henderson101"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So, secret Apple designs from *before* the iPhone have no bearing on supporting that accusation, because being secret and all, Samsung could not have copied them.


Two words: industrial espionage.
I mean, come on, isn't it obvious?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by henderson101
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 31st Jul 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by henderson101"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Two words: industrial espionage.
I mean, come on, isn't it obvious?


Yeah, you're right. How could I have been so dense. Koreans wearing all-black sneaking into Cupertino HQ.

Sounds like a bad movie.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by henderson101
by Janvl on Tue 31st Jul 2012 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by henderson101"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

It is a bad movie . . . . . ;-))

featuring the corrupted sherrif Epplby!

Edited 2012-07-31 10:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Comment by henderson101
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by henderson101"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Truth hurts?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by henderson101
by BushLin on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by henderson101"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

The evidence was deemed inadmissible because it was submitted late, not because it wasn't valid.
I'm guessing that you knew this already but it didn't fit in with your argument.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:34 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

This is what Samsung was considering putting to market in the summer of 2006, six months before the unveiling of the iPhone.

Currently, I am working on Flying Sources (just for records)! ;)

Xerox didn't realise they were sitting on a revolution, so other companies swooped in and created the 4th generation of GUIs;

yes, they did: Xerox did search for computer company that could bring their technology to mass market. They choose Apple. In return Xerox got opportunity to invest in pre-IPO start-up Apple (Xerox bought 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share).

I am bored debunking this myth (Apple steal from Xerox) all over again but it is nice to see that others also find out the truth, now it is even on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Xerox_PARC_and_t... ;)

anyway, did you know that IBM did consider buying Xerox back then in 70s.... ;)

However, these days, many people just give all the credit to Apple and be done with it.

winners write history, right?

essentially, Apple was one that gave Microsoft chance to succeed with Windows: Apple bring DRi's GEM to court and effectively cripple it! (DRi need to remove windows resizing and overlapping options, to limit GEM on only two window...) which gave Microsoft chance to succeed with Windows.

Atari GEM was not crippled and there was many beautiful applications for Atari GEM that latter was ported to Microsoft Windows 95.

and yes, Apple got much more credits today than they deserve ;) (btw 1984. Mac was pure technical shit compering it to ST alone; not to mention Amiga ;) )

Apple acts as if the iPhone was developed in a vacuum, and wants the world to believe that it, and only it, invented the concept of a touchscreen phone. With that nonsensical idea, the company not only ignores the long history of mobile computing (specifically PalmOS which is iOS' and Android's common ancestor), but also the fact that other companies were working on touchscreen phones at the same time (LG Prada, these Samsung images).

keyword is: MULTITOUCH.

so all yours complain are irrelevant (no one had multitouch interface on phone before iPhone).

apple bought FingerWorks on time since they know that they want MULTITOUCH! (others switch to multitouch after iPhone)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

keyword is: MULTITOUCH.


...which has been in development for 30-40 years. Apple did not invent it, nor was it the only one who saw the potential.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kovacm
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kovacm"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Not invent, implement. No one else implemented it in any practical way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Not invent, implement. No one else implemented it in any practical way.


Which is irrelevant to this case. My 1200 EUR Sony Bravia is, by every possible standard, a better implementation of the TV than the first television sets. However, this doesn't mean Sony gets to claim it invented the TV.

Invention is all that matters - all that should matter. There is not a single invention in the iPhone. It's all existing work. They did it well - but that still doesn't mean Apple invented it.

I find it fascinating how people have such a hard time understanding what "inventing" means.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I find it fascinating how people have such a hard time understanding what "inventing" means.


Implement. Did I mention "invent"? The problem is, implementation *should* be key in all hardware patents.

If Apple created a phone form factor with a multitouch screen, then with in the next 2 years 50+ phones appeared with that style of interface - what conclusion should we draw?

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
RE[5]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The strange thing is I'm very much in to Apple stuff, like Apple related news sites, but nobody ever claims Apple "invented" the iPhone or any of its features. It's the Apple haters/Google lovers that for some reason say that Apple and its loyal band of supporters claim that Apple does this.

You're projecting all kinds of wrongness on Apple and then attack them on those points or use them to ridicule Apple.


Then you clearly haven't been reading Apple's legal briefs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by kovacm
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kovacm"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You're doing this for the last few years now, I doubt that you read Apple's legal brief from this case years before it started.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by kovacm
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kovacm"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Legal briefs are designed to stand up in court. Lawyers spend their lives picking holes in other peoples lives/interests. That has little to do with the reality outside of the courtroom. And Samsung's lawyers will be doing their best to do the same. Once you enter a Court of law, gloves come off and reality ceases for both parties - seriously. It's all about painting the most believable picture, otherwise injustices would never happen. Reality outside of litigation, on the other hand, there's a different outlook. You seem to miss that entirely. You also seem only to be able to see black and white in any argument. There's no black and white in this, nor any other court battle. Human's are fallible, weak and have extremely selective memory (and this is even in built as many studies have shown.) We remember what we want to, not what necessarily actually happened. End of story.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 31st Jul 2012 09:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I am bored debunking this myth (Apple steal from Xerox) all over again


Uh... Where did I make this claim in the article? As usual, you're reading things you want to read, instead of reading what's actually there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kovacm
by Calipso on Tue 31st Jul 2012 13:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

I personally still don't really see the need for multitouch. Doesn't really provide anything special. Pinch to zoom is annoying and other than that, don't really use multitouch for anything. I'm sure there are applications out there that depend on it but I haven't come across any that I need yet.

Reply Score: 2

Oh come on Thom, give Apple some credit
by puenktchen on Tue 31st Jul 2012 11:52 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

Apple, Amiga, and Digital Research (GEM) all developed a fourth generation GUI simultaneously in pretty much the same timespan. However, these days, many people just give all the credit to Apple and be done with it.

They give credit where it is due and you don't, you rewrite history. Lisa OS was presented to the public in January 1983, Mac OS in January 1984. A first prototype of GEM was presented at the Comdex in November 1984 and it only shipped in February 1985. The Development of the Amiga was mostly about its hardware until 1984, the Lorraine prototype still used BASiC as OS iirc. RC Mical only started in 1984 to write the Amiga GUI library Intuition. The Amiga 100 shipped in July 1985 (I got mine in 1986). So Apple was selling a working product before DR & AMIGA/Commodore had anything to show. I wouldn't call that simultaneously development. Visi On was developed at the same time as Apples two GUIs and it was quite different.

Reply Score: 1

darkcoder Member since:
2006-07-14

The Amiga 100 shipped in July 1985 (I got mine in 1986). So Apple was selling a working product before DR & AMIGA/Commodore had anything to show. I wouldn't call that simultaneously development. Visi On was developed at the same time as Apples two GUIs and it was quite different.

Yes but unlike the monochrome, mono sounding Macs and their single tasking and non responsive Mac OS, the Amiga provide near photo quality color, stereo sound, real multitasking, and the closest to an Unix system a mortal user can get.

Reply Score: 5

puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

Yes but unlike the monochrome, mono sounding Macs and their single tasking and non responsive Mac OS, the Amiga provide near photo quality color, stereo sound, real multitasking, and the closest to an Unix system a mortal user can get.


Yes, the hardware and the operating system where far better, but Thom was speaking about the GUI and the GUI was definitely inspired by the Mac Finder and not as refined. I switched from Amiga to Mac in 92 and I missed the smooth multitasking and the direct access to the system, but certainly not the GUI.

Reply Score: 1

Crucifixion
by jigzat on Tue 31st Jul 2012 16:23 UTC
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

I know I am going to get crucified for this but I don't think Apple is fighting touchscreen phones but more it's business model of course there is prior art in all this but how far in the past can we go? I mean Apple had the MessagePad A.K.A Newton long before, even Start Trek had the idea of touch devices. But if you look at the first Samsung's they copycat even the charging cable. Maybe they felt that they had the right to do so because they had been working with touchscreen phones.

Some people say that without Apple someone had come with the same idea and maybe they are right but the same idea does't mean is the same product and the same timeline and the same success.

Most companies like to milk up technology until is drained so I'm sure that without Apple we would have had the same technology. I think we would still be using the same kind of phones we had before 2006. Apple did open up the market and push the technology.

The only reason these companies were able to get their products out is because of Android and the fact that is virtually cost-free. It took almost 10 years for Apple an OS experienced company to mature an OS and come up with an great operating system ready touch-based mobile phones. Look how much has cost to Microsoft do the same thing with Windows Phone and we are talking about the cash cow Microsoft. And the most ironic thing is that the copycat master manage to come up with something truly unique.

Edited 2012-07-31 16:26 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Crucifixion
by TechGeek on Tue 31st Jul 2012 17:51 UTC in reply to "Crucifixion"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

The power cable that Samsung "copied" happens to be a standard non proprietary plug. Its meant to be copied. As for design, its very simple. Phones led to the design of a touch screen front on a device. Lots of examples of this. The iPad is just a giant iphone. If Samsung was truly copying Apple, Samsung devices wouldn't lack the polish in certain places. Because its not so much the quality of the software (granted bad code leads to bugs) but the design which shows off the polish of the OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Crucifixion
by jigzat on Tue 31st Jul 2012 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Crucifixion"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Sources please. No seriously, just wan't to read that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Crucifixion
by Sabon on Tue 31st Jul 2012 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Crucifixion"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

The iPad is just a giant iphone.


That's got to be one of the most clueless comments I've ever seen.

An iPhone or iPod Touch is like looking through a key hole in a door. An iPad is like opening up the door and walking inside. VERY different. The bigger screens gives the app maker room to do things in very different ways which makes it a very different experience.

Which my iPhone I pretty much only consume information.
With my iPad I create things every day. I'm able to do about 90% of what I used to do on a laptop. I definitely wouldn't be able to say that about my iPhone.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Priest on Wed 1st Aug 2012 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

he said:

>The iPad is just a giant iphone.

You said:

>"That's got to be one of the most clueless comments I've ever seen.....VERY different. The bigger screens gives the app maker room to do things in very different ways"

Since we are talking about hardware I think "giant iPhone" and "bigger screen" aren't terribly far apart. Besides, here is a tablet concept from 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

The idea goes back to the 60's.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by wowzer on Wed 1st Aug 2012 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
wowzer Member since:
2012-08-01


Which my iPhone I pretty much only consume information.
With my iPad I create things every day. I'm able to do about 90% of what I used to do on a laptop. I definitely wouldn't be able to say that about my iPhone.


HAHAHA, please, elaborate on this. First, where do you get this 90% figure? And then what kinds of things do you "create" on an iPad/tablet? As a tablet owner, I can say my tablet experience is that of consumption, exactly the way my smartphone is, save for making phone calls. A tablet (iPad in your case being the Apple fanboy you seem to be based on this thread) is a form factor pretty much catered towards consumption. So, I am, and I'm sure others are too, curious as to what you do differently with this kind of device.

I agree with the original post you quoted, the iPad is really just a big iPhone, but with slightly less functionality since it doesn't natively make phone calls.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: what I create on my iPad.
by Sabon on Wed 1st Aug 2012 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I've got a 1st and 3rd gen Apple iPad with an Apple bluetooth keyboard.
What do/can I create on them?

Spreadsheets. No I don't create thousands of lines in spreadsheets. I used to but I don't work in a financial company anymore. Numbers is more than capable for this. And I can send my spreadsheets to people with Excel.
Note that people that makes big money don't need big spreadsheets. Only the little worker bees do. No, I'm not rich or poor. I'm in between.

Pages. This is a place where I create large documents of over 200 pages. 200 pages is large for me and not a limitation of my iPad.

Websites. It is very easy to remote into a server and edit HTML and XML using an iPad.

Music with garage band. The limitations are my talent and not the program. Nine Inch Nails often use Garage Band on iPads to sketch out songs and even released an album with music only created and edited with Garage Band. Are they big enough to count?

Do you know that there are been quite a few magazine covers with artwork by renowned artists created on iPhones and iPads? No. Look up the New Yorker for one. I believe there is at least one Time magazine cover.

You can use the iPad and bluetooth keyboard to remote into a remote computer at home or at work and write and compile programs? I won't put words in your mouth that this doesn't count. Tell that to the programmers I know that do this and love the fact that the iPad and bluetooth keyboard weighs less than the Windows laptops they use to use.

People use iPads to write their blogs. Keeps in mind that some of these people make a LOT of money. Not because of what they write it on but because of the content. Oh, the stuff people say can't be created on an iPad? Yes, content. Ok, maybe I did put works in your mouth that time.

Just because you can't create things on an iPad doesn't mean VERY successful people can't because they can and DO.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I've got a 1st and 3rd gen Apple iPad with an Apple bluetooth keyboard.


So you have a laptop ;) .

Reply Score: 4

Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

"I've got a 1st and 3rd gen Apple iPad with an Apple bluetooth keyboard.


So you have a laptop ;) .
"

A crippled one at that!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: what I create on my iPad.
by Sabon on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: what I create on my iPad."
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

It's only crippled if you can't figure out how to use them. It's not the device. It's the user.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: what I create on my iPad.
by Alfman on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: what I create on my iPad."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

"So you have a laptop ;) ."

+1 if I could. It's funny that people buy tablets, and then add on laptopesque accessories. Though I can't say I blame them, having played with my wife's tablet with and without a keyboard, there's no doubt that the keyboard is the uncontested winner for text entry. Maybe the pendulum of time will swing back again and give us tablets with swivel keyboards which give the best of both words, just like we used to have. Only this time they'll be lighter and much more affordable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by OMRebel on Wed 1st Aug 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

"The iPad is just a giant iphone.


That's got to be one of the most clueless comments I've ever seen.

An iPhone or iPod Touch is like looking through a key hole in a door. An iPad is like opening up the door and walking inside. VERY different. The bigger screens gives the app maker room to do things in very different ways which makes it a very different experience.

Which my iPhone I pretty much only consume information.
With my iPad I create things every day. I'm able to do about 90% of what I used to do on a laptop. I definitely wouldn't be able to say that about my iPhone.
"

You must do very, very little with computers if you can do 90% of the work you do using a tablet. Seriously - I would refrain from making comments like that if you want people to take you seriously.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Crucifixion
by smashIt on Tue 31st Jul 2012 20:38 UTC in reply to "Crucifixion"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

I mean Apple had the MessagePad A.K.A Newton long before, even Start Trek had the idea of touch devices


and palm had it's first pda (the zoomer) on the streets one year prior to the newton

and those palm-bastards iirc came from grid, a company you definitely should take a closer look at ;)

Apple an OS experienced company


you are kidding, aren't you?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Crucifixion
by jigzat on Wed 1st Aug 2012 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Crucifixion"
RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Yehppael on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

What about the linux kernel? Android with a some specific changes uses it, and it's 21 years old.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying nobody had a graphical operating system for 20 years after the release of the first Mac? What does this even mean?

and if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


They have loads. Every one of their feature phones runs on an operating system, and, of course, they have Bada.

In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS, and then failed utterly and completely at keeping it up to date. All their other projects in this space failed miserably - so they had to buy their way out.

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in Apple forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?
"

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales? As I remember it was a flop. May be "first commercially successful" would be accurate? And this isn't the Mac, this is the Lisa.

"In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS,
"

Wrong. Or is the Mac OS X on my Mac Mini Scotch Mist? The Openstep on my old grey box bears almost no resemblance to Mac OS X 10.0, let alone 10.7. There are a few similarities, but then there are as many to Classic MacOS also. So, you are now belittling the 10+ years Apple worked on OS X?

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in [....] forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.


Yep, indeed Thom.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales?


That's not relevant to if it was first or not. Lisa was also a commercial failure for Apple, btw.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Did Xerox actually have many commercial sales? As I remember it was a flop. May be "first commercially successful" would be accurate?


Shifting the goalpasts. Apple fans' favourite pasttime. Oh, so Apple didn't invent it? So what, they were the first to be commercially successful with it! Oh, they weren't the first to be commercially successful? Well, they were the first to do it right!

So predictable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As far as I remember, the macintosh 128k was a success (or at least not a failure) and released in 1984. So you could say Apple had the first commercially successful GUI OS, just not with the Lisa.

Edited 2012-08-01 09:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

As far as I remember, the macintosh 128k was a success (or at least not a failure) and released in 1984. So you could say Apple had the first commercially successful GUI OS, just not with the Lisa.


First Consumer GUI = LisaOS
First commercially successful GUI = MacOS

Yeah, I though on it a little and became dubious about the Lisa being all that successful.

But quantitatively, "commercial successful" is so subjective. If there was nothing competing, it had nothing to really compare it to.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[6]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
RE[7]: Crucifixion
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crucifixion"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

IIRC the Alto was never sold to the public, only to labs and universities. And not in great numbers.

Wether Thom likes it or not Apple brought the GUI to the homes and they didn't rip Xerox off.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by BushLin on Wed 1st Aug 2012 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

"When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS, "

"Wrong. Or is the Mac OS X on my Mac Mini Scotch Mist?"

I have no doubt that Apple would have preferred to use the Linux kernel for OS X but took FreeBSD as their liberal licence allowed Apple to take all their hard work and give nothing back. They made a pretty interface with many fans but can't take credit for the underlying OS.

Oh yeah, as Thom says, you are guilty of trying to move the goalposts on the original argument on the first GUI... at least try to be objective.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Crucifixion
by Sabon on Wed 1st Aug 2012 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

... OS X but took FreeBSD as their liberal licence allowed Apple to take all their hard work and give nothing back. They made a pretty interface with many fans but can't take credit for the underlying OS.


You need to do some fact checking. Darwin for instance.

PS: If you don't know how to use it, it doesn't mean a lot of other people can't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Crucifixion
by BushLin on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crucifixion"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

So you have some fanboys voting for your ignorance, bully for you.
Apple take the BSD kernel, make minor contributions to make their stuff work and everything useful is closed source. You can't run OS X apps on Darwin, no-one uses it and in fact OpenDarwin closed years ago; citing that it "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects,"

I'm guilty of hyperbole but their contribution to the hand that feeds them is microscopic, you're acting like a shill.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by jigzat on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

they had the first comercial graphic OS


They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying nobody had a graphical operating system for 20 years after the release of the first Mac? What does this even mean? [/q]

You misinterpreted everything, Mac OS X was the first successful graphical OS plus I was pointing out they have been in the business for quite some time

"and if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


They have loads. Every one of their feature phones runs on an operating system, and, of course, they have Bada.
"

Interesting about BADA yet they released it 2 years ago and they are pretty much not using it. And using someone else maintained OS is not the same as developing.

"In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's.


When you really break it down, Apple only developed the original Mac OS, and then failed utterly and completely at keeping it up to date. All their other projects in this space failed miserably - so they had to buy their way out.
"

As I pointed out we all know that Apple bought NeXT and so their experience, plus it doesn't matter how bad pre-mac-os-x was you don't make a mainstream OS without gaining experience. For instance Windows , before Windows 7 it was pretty much dated from the technological point of view yet the Microsoft Engineers are so good that they manage to keep a really crapy OS usable.

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I meant in the article: people have no clue about history, and just parrot whatever they read in Apple forums without actually bothering to look up the facts.
[/q]

Dude this is just a shallow discussion we are not looking world peace, take it easy.

Edited 2012-08-02 17:41 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by tupp on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

they had the first comercial graphic OS
They did not. That honour belongs to the Xerox Star, launched in 1981. See what I mean with people not having a clue about history and just assuming Apple did everything?

Well, if we are going to ignore:
- the Alto's GUI;
- the GUIs of about a zillion ATM machines in the 1970s;
- the GUIs of 1970s home video games;
then the Three Rivers;Perq/Accent GUI is certainly the strongest contender for the first "commercial" GUI: http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html

The "GUI Timeline" shows that the Perq was released in 1980 (prior to the Xerox Star and anything Apple), but it was definitely shown around in 1979 and there were Perq brochures circulating in 1979.

A lot of Perqs were sold, but I fail to see the significance of their "commercialization" -- the Alto had a GUI six years earlier.

Furthermore, I am fairly sure that there were several additional non-Apple/non-Xerox GUI players showing product around 1981-1982.

At any rate, this GUI first (and all of the other innumerable non-Apple firsts) has nothing to do with the quite obvious fact that Samsung didn't copy the Iphone design and that the Iphone was not the first "fully" touch-screen smart-phone in its genre/"form factor."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

they had the first comercial graphic OS


No, as Thom said that was the Xerox Star.

and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


Uh, no. Seriously, wtf? Digital's GEM came out in 1985, and so did Windows 1.0. Amiga and Atari ST in 1987. X Windows came out in 1984.

if you compare it with Samsung I haven't heard they have an in house OS


Bada. Not that it matters if they have decades of experience or not. It's the end product that counts.

plus Mac OS X was a really advanced OS back then


Yeah, it was SOOO advanced. Windows had nothing on it...
"Advanced" is more than a fancy GUI.

that is a really subjective issue


Ah, just like how you claim OSX was "really advanced".

In any case Apple has been developing OS from more than 20 years I think I think they might have a little experience developing OS's


Sure, too bad they rested on their laurels for some 20 years and almost went under. I guess bad experience is also experience.

If they don't bring any more advancements is because money wise reasons


Ah, so they will stop innovating again and let the competition kill them? Because that's money wise.

Edited 2012-08-01 09:29 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Uh, no. Seriously, wtf? Digital's GEM came out in 1985, and so did Windows 1.0. Amiga and Atari ST in 1987. X Windows came out in 1984


And the Lisa was released in January 1983, and it had a wholly graphical OS. Your point is therefore moot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

My comment was about the 20 years which seemed to imply that there was no other commercially successful GUI in 20 years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

...they had the first comercial(ly successful) graphic OS and they had it for many many years (what like 20)


I've added in the aspects I believe validate the statement**, but even if you ignore them, in no way does that say "the only Graphical os for 20 years" or "only successful graphical os". What it says is two statements joined with "and". If you delete the and and replace it with a period, the meaning doesn't change, but then maybe you might re-read it and realise your error.

Let me help you:

1) They had the first commercial graphical OS (LisaOS)
2) They had (Mac OS) for many many years

They did have the first commercial OS presented to consumers (LisaOS) and first widely commercially successful Graphical OS (Classic MacOS) and they did continue to produce MacOS right on into the 2000's from January 1984.

** change "commercially successful" for "commercial consumer" if you want to, still true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, I was pretty sure it didn't really mean "no other GUI for 20 years" since that's an absurd statement but the sentence was so badly phrased and ambiguous that I just had to pick on it.
If you want you can also read it as they kept using Lisa for 20 years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Crucifixion
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crucifixion"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Both the Amiga 1000 and the Atari ST were on the shelves in 1985, not 1987. The Amiga 500 was released in 1987.

And it's X Window System, not X Windows.

Edited 2012-08-01 10:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Both the Amiga 1000 and the Atari ST were on the shelves in 1985


Ooops, remembered that wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Crucifixion
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

One must never forget the Amiga! Never mind the ST though.

Reply Score: 2

v Move along....
by madgabz on Tue 31st Jul 2012 18:09 UTC
Too much bias against Apple
by syngularyx on Tue 31st Jul 2012 20:44 UTC
syngularyx
Member since:
2012-02-01

Are you not exaggerating with Apple?
Even Google warned Samsung about the design of its early android phones!

Reply Score: 0

Xerox PARC got 16million from Apple stock
by Sabon on Tue 31st Jul 2012 22:11 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

You DO know that Apple negotiated with Xerox PARC stock and Xerox negotiated Apple stock with Xerox later cashed in for $16 million dollars. That was back in the early '80s when $16 million was a lot more than it is now. So it isn't like Apple ripped off Xerox like Microsoft and other companies did.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So it isn't like Apple ripped off Xerox


I claimed as such?

Huh. I think you might want to read that again.

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say that you said that. But others inferred that Apple ripped off Xerox so I wanted to correct that.

Reply Score: 2

To posters in general
by Sabon on Tue 31st Jul 2012 22:55 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

The main issue is that Samsung created their products so that people will see them and think they are an Apple device. Even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart.

It's not just the hardware. It's the visuals on the devices themselves. They purposely tried to make their devices look as much as possible like the iPhone/Touch/iPad.

We know what to look for, if someone where to cover up the hardware part, to tell if it is an Apple device or something else. A lot of people can't tell though.

I've more than a couple of people tell me they had an Samsung iPad. That is their words. They were things they couldn't figure out and showed it to me. They weren't happy with the device and were complaining about it. They were shocked when I told them it wasn't an iPad.

Note: The people bought them at Best Buy. They had gone in and said they wanted an iPad. The person acted like it was an iPad when they bought it. They took them back and got their money back then went to an Apple store and bought iPads. They are happier now.

Reply Score: 0

RE: To posters in general
by Splinter on Wed 1st Aug 2012 03:36 UTC in reply to "To posters in general"
Splinter Member since:
2005-07-13

The main issue is that Samsung created their products so that people will see them and think they are an Apple device. Even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart.

It's not just the hardware. It's the visuals on the devices themselves. They purposely tried to make their devices look as much as possible like the iPhone/Touch/iPad.

We know what to look for, if someone where to cover up the hardware part, to tell if it is an Apple device or something else. A lot of people can't tell though.

I've more than a couple of people tell me they had an Samsung iPad. That is their words. They were things they couldn't figure out and showed it to me. They weren't happy with the device and were complaining about it. They were shocked when I told them it wasn't an iPad.

Note: The people bought them at Best Buy. They had gone in and said they wanted an iPad. The person acted like it was an iPad when they bought it. They took them back and got their money back then went to an Apple store and bought iPads. They are happier now.


The problem I have with this argument is that Samsung tablets have Samsung written on the front! Where does Apple have it's name or logo? On the back! I would argue it is Apple that deliberately designed a device that was ambiguous. As for the people calling tablets in general iPad's that is common in our world. Many cassette players were called "Walkman's", many MP3 players were called "iPods" and many vacuum cleaners are called "Hovers" by consumers. However that is a consumer terminology issue not proof of copying.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: To posters in general
by Sabon on Wed 1st Aug 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE: To posters in general"
RE[3]: To posters in general
by Calipso on Wed 1st Aug 2012 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To posters in general"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Don't all tv's look essentially the same? Wouldn't the salesperson be to blame for selling a Samsung TV to someone that wanted a Sony TV rather than blaming Samsung for making their TV's look like black rectangles?

Reply Score: 5

RE: To posters in general
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "To posters in general"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The main issue is that Samsung created their products so that people will see them and think they are an Apple device. Even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart.

It's not just the hardware. It's the visuals on the devices themselves. They purposely tried to make their devices look as much as possible like the iPhone/Touch/iPad.

We know what to look for, if someone where to cover up the hardware part, to tell if it is an Apple device or something else. A lot of people can't tell though.

I've more than a couple of people tell me they had an Samsung iPad. That is their words. They were things they couldn't figure out and showed it to me. They weren't happy with the device and were complaining about it. They were shocked when I told them it wasn't an iPad.

Note: The people bought them at Best Buy. They had gone in and said they wanted an iPad. The person acted like it was an iPad when they bought it. They took them back and got their money back then went to an Apple store and bought iPads. They are happier now.


This is a trademark issue, or trade dress issue. It has nothing to do with patents.

If this anecdote is true, then Apple may have a case against the store and the salesman who was trying to pass off a Samsung tablet as an iPad. Samsung themselves do not try to pretend their tablets are iPads. There is no case against Samsung. The Samsung tablets bear none of Apple's trade dress. Insofar as Samsung tablets do seem similar to iPads, this is due only to the fact that Samsung are making a competing tablet device, and it has to look like that.

Just as GM cars look superficially like Ford cars, because they are both cars, this does NOT mean that Ford gets to sue GM. Competition is an essential feature of a capitalist economy, the economy wouldn't function well at all if no competing products were allowed.

Apple simply doesn't win this case by throwing a hissy fit and saying "Samsung gear looks a bit like our gear". Not going to happen. Is that clear?

Edited 2012-08-01 03:52 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: To posters in general
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 05:42 UTC in reply to "To posters in general"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The main issue is that Samsung created their products so that people will see them and think they are an Apple device.


I don't think most people are too stupid to notice the Samsung logo.

I've more than a couple of people tell me they had an Samsung iPad


That happens sometimes, just like people used to call their Walkman a Walkman even if it wasn't a Sony. There's plenty of examples of this in history.

They were shocked when I told them it wasn't an iPad.
Note: The people bought them at Best Buy.


So it's a Best Buy problem, not a Samsung problem.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: To posters in general
by Sabon on Wed 1st Aug 2012 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE: To posters in general"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I think you would be more surprised than me. I'm been supporting computers since 1979. I've been amazed at how many people mistake something for something else even though it is obvious to us.

And that last part is important. We know what to look for. A lot of people don't and expect to have a certain experience with the product and get a "bait and switch" where sales people (and the company) are paid extra to push device X (such as Samsung) and pretend they are selling the person what they asked for.

Note that this happens a LOT with car dealers. They don't switch brands but they purposely try to sell you a car with less than what you asked for at the higher price because the lower priced car hasn't been selling so the boss tells them to "do whatever you can without lower the price much".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: To posters in general
by MOS6510 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To posters in general"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Just ask someone what version of Windows they are using and you'll meet people that don't know, despite having a Windows XP splash screen while booting for years.

And some answer Microsoft, Windows 97, Office or even stranger things.

Some people buy an Android tablet thinking they now have an iPad. Not sure changing the shape or color would/could prevent that though.

These people are out there and have a vote in the next election.

Reply Score: 4

RE: To posters in general
by wowzer on Wed 1st Aug 2012 16:41 UTC in reply to "To posters in general"
wowzer Member since:
2012-08-01

They are happier now.


They must enjoy paying the Apple tax and getting ass raped.

Reply Score: 1

v It just came to my mind
by jigzat on Wed 1st Aug 2012 02:40 UTC
RE: It just came to my mind
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 03:31 UTC in reply to "It just came to my mind"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No, I don't remember that but that's because it didn't happen.
DARPA is not a founder of Google.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It just came to my mind
by jigzat on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE: It just came to my mind"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

I remember clearly, some years ago I read the news. Not the same news but is an article about it.


http://bit.ly/NKxwGV

Edited 2012-08-02 04:03 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: It just came to my mind
by Nth_Man on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It just came to my mind"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Anyway, any American company has to do what their government says, otherwise people who does not obey... will go to jail.

The same can be said about communications companies and, of course, any government and its companies.

So your data should be where you trust it.

Reply Score: 2

Motorola
by Lorin on Wed 1st Aug 2012 03:11 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

The lawyers for Motorola/Google need to look back at the MDT products, some of which had touch screens. These were mobile data products and can still be found in police cars.

If everyone else digs through their design history files which all ISO compliant companies will have, Apple will be left without any patents.

Reply Score: 2

I hope it will better than iPhone
by mediatimeshare on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 03:41 UTC
mediatimeshare
Member since:
2012-08-02

Hoping this cellphone be better than iPhone, so both can get better and also why not??? wait a drop in the prices

Reply Score: 1

gotta Love Apple
by Lorin on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 06:01 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Who else would think it ethical to get the court to block key evidence that proves you are wrong and then calls Samsung unethical for making sure the public is aware of the facts?

Apple of course.

Reply Score: 1

Just another thing it CAN do.
by Sabon on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 15:30 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

About being an artist and using an iPad. Here is another thing that makes an iPad flexible. Note that styluses are wrong for most things. Drawing is a different type of user. Here we go for those that can't understand what can be done with an iPad. This from http://www.tuaw.com/2012/08/01/adonit-jot-touch-pressure-sensitive-...

Note: I have NO connection to www.tuaw.com nor the company that makes the follow product.

Adonit Jot Touch pressure-sensitive Bluetooth stylus for iPad
by Steven Sande Aug 1st 2012 at 6:00PM

Although there are many electrostatic styluses for the iPad for those who wish to use them, the seemingly unattainable goal of creating a pressure-sensitive stylus eluded peripheral manufacturers until now. Adonit's Jot Touch (US$99.99) became available to the public earlier this week, becoming the first pressure-sensitive stylus for the iPad.

See the link for the whole article. It's a very good website for things Apple. Don't read it if you want to stay in the dark under your bed about what iPads and other Apple devices can create and do.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Just another thing it CAN do.
by Alfman on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 17:22 UTC in reply to "Just another thing it CAN do."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Sabon,

"Don't read it if you want to stay in the dark under your bed about what iPads and other Apple devices can create and do."

I think you are being overly defensive about legitimate criticism of your favoured tablet platform.

Just because one CAN do something doesn't make it a good tool for the job. Obviously you *can* use your tablet to do things it's not particularly good at, but that's shifting to a "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy - instead of using a tablet for what it's good at, you try to use it everywhere.

Sometimes a tablet w/stylus may be an excellent artistic tool. On the other hand, many touch interface devices have regressed from the usability of physical counterparts and are far less efficient to use. Just because they can emulate physical devices doesn't make them as good. A typing keyboard is an obvious example. I've seen ads feature a tablet piano and guitar, which a professional would only consider using as gimmicks, which is clearly what they were even in the ads. They certainly don't replace the real deal for professionals.

We weigh the pros and cons between a number of competing factors: cost/portability/power/screens/data entry/interaction efficiency/etc. If the tablet adds up, then great! If not, then maybe you should admit that using a tablet can sometimes be like fitting a round peg into a square hole (so to speak). Just because it's possible to jerry-rig it with accessories doesn't mean it's a good idea...pros and cons.


Edit: one example of a good tablet application is GPS. Our tablet makes an excellent GPS device. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend they're suitable for professional office work unless there are no other computers around.

Edited 2012-08-02 17:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because one CAN do something doesn't make it a good tool for the job. Obviously you *can* use your tablet to do things it's not particularly good at, but that's shifting to a "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy - instead of using a tablet for what it's good at, you try to use it everywhere.


Just because it is not particularly good for you doesn't mean it isn't great, for the things I stated, for other people.

Take the typewriter for instance. A LOT of great movies and books were created on a typewriter. I'm guessing you would not think it would be a good device for creating these.

The same with a pen. You may think a pen isn't of much use in society now. But remember that a pen is mightier than a sword. It's the _person_ wielding the tool.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Sabon,

"Just because it is not particularly good for you doesn't mean it isn't great, for the things I stated, for other people."

Again, we all know that you CAN do alot on these tablets, but the question is whether it enhances productivity/creativity or imposes a burden.

You brought up the spreadsheet example. Do you think a tablet spreadsheet app is as great as a desktop spreadsheet for entering data, copying data from other sources, and manipulating formulas? Of course not, textual data entry is a sore point for touch interfaces. You can mitigate some of the limitations with laptop accessories, but that's an implicit acknowledgement that a laptop design is better for some tasks.


You also brought up web development...Absolutely unthinkable without a laptopesque keyboard. The inability to view multiple windows for control panels and user pages and code simultaneously is a sure set back. Looking up information/emails and copying code/HTML is awkward on a tablet. Viewing pages in various resolutions is difficult without windows. Selecting/transferring files is faster on a desktop. Running background tasks/monitoring logs while simultaneously hitting a page is impossible with a single window tablet UI. I don't even know if the tablet can run network traces without cheating and opening a session to a "real computer" to do the work. Sure it's *possible* to webdev from a tablet, it's just not ideal. If you do it, don't be surprised when your efficiency goes into the toilet.

"Take the typewriter for instance. A LOT of great movies and books were created on a typewriter. I'm guessing you would not think it would be a good device for creating these."

What's that got to do with anything? Unless they were a raving Underwood fanboy or lacked electricity, said person wouldn't use a one over a computer today.


A tablet is great at some things, not great at others. It's a simple plain truth.

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

You brought up the spreadsheet example. Do you think a tablet spreadsheet app is as great as a desktop spreadsheet for entering data, copying data from other sources, and manipulating formulas? Of course not, textual data entry is a sore point for touch interfaces. You can mitigate some of the limitations with laptop accessories, but that's an implicit acknowledgement that a laptop design is better for some tasks.


First of all, have you read __anything__, actually read anything I've typed so far? If yes, you will see that I say that I have an iPad and a bluetooth keyboard.

HP now has a touch desktop computer where you can work on your desktop computer with a mouse and keyboard but just using your fingers on the screen. Even with the larger screen you need a keyboard and mouse on a computer. With an iPad, working with spreadsheets, you only need to add a keyboard.

I will ONLY admit that laptops can be better for some things if you admit that iPads can be better at creating things than a laptop. I said createing things, not consuming things.

I will admit that working in spreadsheets of any size entering numbers or letters requires not only a keyboard but a keyboard with a number pad (note that I have one of these that is also bluetooth and looks like Apple made it but it was made by a third party company and works very well with my iPad.).

Sometimes a laptop would work better. MORE often, most often, for ME, having a laptop would be a waist as it is heavier and cumbersome and feels like using a typewriter now after using my iPad with Apple bluetooth keyboard and 3rd party bluetooth number pad.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Sabon,

"First of all, have you read __anything__, actually read anything I've typed so far? If yes, you will see that I say that I have an iPad and a bluetooth keyboard."

Yes, actually, it's what I meant by "that's an implicit acknowledgement that a laptop design is better for some tasks."


"I will ONLY admit that laptops can be better for some things if you admit that iPads can be better at creating things than a laptop. I said createing things, not consuming things."

Um...ok, although I never said otherwise. I just think your examples of web development and spreadsheets are terrible illustrations of a tablet's superior creative potential.


"Sometimes a laptop would work better. MORE often, most often, for ME, having a laptop would be a waist as it is heavier and cumbersome and feels like using a typewriter now after using my iPad with Apple bluetooth keyboard and 3rd party bluetooth number pad."


Alfman: "...We weigh the pros and cons between a number of competing factors: cost/portability/power/screens/data entry/interaction efficiency/etc. If the tablet adds up, then great!"

I'm going to assume that we are in agreement then.


I think we might both benefit from a light tablet/laptop combo, since for both of us - touch screens are not enough.

Reply Score: 2

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, actually, it's what I meant by "that's an implicit acknowledgement that a laptop design is better for some tasks."


So we agree that iPads (and other tablets to a lesser degree) can be great tools for creating lots of different things including spreadsheets with say a couple thousand lines (and maybe more) and large documents and taking and editing video without another device and so on.

And that laptops can't do some things that iPads, etc., can do, since they aren't as portable and might not have as high a quality of video/still picture cameras built into them or would be combersome to use. But at the same time if you have using very big spreadsheets then for now (iPads are only a little more than two years old) it is easier to build big spreadsheets with laptops and desktop computers.

Then yes, I agree with you.

"I will ONLY admit that laptops can be better for some things if you admit that iPads can be better at creating things than a laptop. I said createing things, not consuming things."

Um...ok, although I never said otherwise. I just think your examples of web development and spreadsheets are terrible illustrations of a tablet's superior creative potential.


No they aren't. My friends do this a LOT and are VERY happy with the way the iPad works as a device to remote into their home computers instead of lugging around their much, much heavier laptops. Yes they bring their bluetooth keyboards with them. But they are still happier than with laptops.

Your mileage will vary.

If you put on different filters on your telescope (visible light, infrared light, radio telescopes) you can see different things. If you are only willing to look at visible light, there are lot of things you will never be able to see in the universe. (That's not a quote but my own words. I'm sure someone else said it a lot better.)

Edited 2012-08-02 23:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Sabon,
"So we agree that iPads (and other tablets to a lesser degree) can be great tools for creating lots of different things including spreadsheets with say a couple thousand lines (and maybe more) and large documents and taking and editing video without another device and so on."

In principal sure, but frankly you've chosen poor examples. If you want to highlight where the tablet truly shines, you really need to pick examples that benefit from touch interfacing, video editing might be one, CAD might be another, taking handwritten notes and annotations is another, etc.


"No they aren't. My friends do this a LOT and are VERY happy with the way the iPad works as a device to remote into their home computers instead of lugging around their much, much heavier laptops."

The need to remote into a desktop "a LOT" in the first place is a reminder of how the desktop is more useful than the tablet for those tasks, otherwise those tasks would be done on the tablet itself and no desktop would even be necessary.


"Yes they bring their bluetooth keyboards with them. But they are still happier than with laptops."

I suspect many of them would be very tempted by a lightweight ARM touchscreen swivel laptop. It'd be better than toting around a separate keyboard all the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Samsung F700 the court isn't allowing...
by Sabon on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 15:37 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

"...About the Samsung F700 ★
Speaking of The Verge, last year Nilay Patel had a good piece on the Samsung F700 — the phone that Samsung wants to present as trial evidence of prior art that they were designing iPhone-style devices before the iPhone was announced..."

"Unfortunately, however, it’s also factually inaccurate: the F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld, and it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS — what you’re seeing above is the function menu. (Remember, it was a dumbphone: no apps!) But that’s been hashed out all over the place. I want to point out something else. Let’s look at the F700 in a different context. Instead of looking at the similarities, let’s try to highlight the differences."

All comments were from that website and not mine.

Reply Score: 3

Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

The Sony device Samsung claims inspired Apple's iPhone

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/01/the-sony-device-samsung-clai...

"...Philip Elmer-DeWitt:

It was not a phone at all, but a Walkman — the NW-A1200 — that according to Businessweek represented for Sony a new, cleaner, less cluttered design aesthetic. And what inspired that new aesthetic? Of all things, according to the Sony designers, an Apple iPod.

Apple wasn’t copying Sony, dear bloggers. Sony was copying Apple."

All comments above were from the website and not mine.

Reply Score: 2

Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

What Fraser Speirs uses on his iPad to be productive

http://speirs.org/blog/2012/8/2/thoughts-on-the-google-nexus-7.html

You have to scroll down a ways but here it is here. Some of which he likes, if it has it, on the Google Nexus 7.

Flipboard (the real tablet version), Pocket, iBooks and Kindle
iTunes U and Piazza
Keynote, Pages and Numbers
OmniPlan, OmniGraffle, OmniGraphSketcher and OmniOutliner.
Penultimate, Book Creator, Diet Coda, iTeleport, Bento, PCalc
iThoughtsHD, Explain Everything, PDF Expert
iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, Photos and Camera

Reply Score: 2

Comment by zima
by zima on Mon 6th Aug 2012 23:56 UTC in reply to "What Fraser Speirs uses on his iPad to be productive"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Please, spam the comments even more...
(also, while you're at it, could you be any more snide than in some of your comments above?)

Reply Score: 2