Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2012 12:24 UTC, submitted by henderson101
Legal "Comparing Samsung's flagship products before and after release of the iPhone & iPad, and how Apple's intellectual property infringement claims hold up." A terrible visual guide that ignores not only Samsung's own pre-iPhone designs, but also - and worse yet - the thirty-odd years of mobile computing that preceded the iPhone. Typical of today's technology world: a complete and utter lack of historical sense. Worse yet are the claims about icons: only the phone icon is similar, but Apple did not invent the green phone icon. This is a remnant of virtually all earlier phones which use a green phone icon for initiate/answer call, and a red phone icon for terminate/reject call. Claiming this deserves IP protection is beyond ridiculous, and shows just how low Apple is willing to go.
Permalink for comment 530196
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I'm angry
by atsureki on Wed 8th Aug 2012 04:33 UTC in reply to "I'm angry"
Member since:

No, what's offensive is Apple claiming ANY INNOVATION AT ALL in the iPhone.

Drawing audible gasps from the audience it was first revealed to and visibly changing the direction of everything announced after it just doesn't count for much these days, apparently.

The iPod Touch and (aside from the phone portion) the iPhone did not do ONE THING that my Palm Tungsten E couldn't do in 2002.

"If you see a stylus, they screwed up." -SJ

We're talking about designs. The whole product. Look, feel, usability, and, yes, raw, checklist-y features, but all of those things together. Forests, not trees.

I suppose people will start yelling about capacitive multi-touch screens and gestures.

No need to yell, but yes, let's talk about those. Your Tungsten didn't have any part of that. It had handwriting recognition and a stylus. Apple decided that was a bad usability direction, and then by stunning coincidence, so did everyone else.

This is also a good point on which to disqualify everyone's favorite red herring, the F700, as being in any way relevant to the iPhone:

There it is, in all its laughable shortage of glory. It's fun to look at one picture and let our imaginations run wild, but here on Earth, it was just a fat little pill of a slide-out feature phone with a resistive touchscreen at 240x440 glued to the front.

Apple didn't invent those.

The most common tactic when trying to tear down Apple: make a strawman by conflating innovation with invention. Innovation is a forest; invention is the trees. Apple, as a general rule, makes forests, not trees.

Arguably, the Jot handwriting recognition was a type of gestures. Mouse gestures long predate the iPhone.

And the Newton predates Jot. But gestures are generally bad usability because, unless they're implemented as a natural bridge between convention and technology (i.e. handwriting recognition), they're not discoverable. Even then, they often prove to be an inefficient crutch, as HR did when compared to virtual touch keyboards.

Don't-call-it-Metro has a lot more edge-swiping in its UI than Apple cares to include, just as they steered away from Android's context-insensitive hardware buttons. What was your point again? That things exist which don't come from Apple? Oh, do go on.

"Pinch to zoom" is cool and all, but it's not some brilliant idea Apple came up with out of the blue.

True, it was demonstrated well before the iPhone, and as I understand it, it had nothing to do with the company Apple bought out to get their multitouch portfolio off the ground. In the case of pinch-to-zoom, Apple has a patent on a specific algorithm for enabling it. Others are welcome to mimic the surface functionality, provided they can prove to a court that they came up with a different way to do it.

And why are we talking about the software, anyway? Samsung used Android, which isn't even theirs! How can they possibly be accused of copying Apple with software they didn't write?

1. Samsung's TouchWiz looks more like iOS than vanilla Android does.
2. Samsung is actually selling a product, while Google is just dumping code.
3. That product, taken as a whole, looks and works an awful lot like an iPhone.

Apple argues this is systemic and intentional (i.e. counterfeiting). Their argument has some very significant evidence behind it.

I'll let your last line stand on its own as breathless self-parody.

Apple in this case isn't just a patent troll. They are delusional. No one else can make a rectangle! We invented that!

Reply Parent Score: 1