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 530295
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I'm angry
by ingraham on Wed 8th Aug 2012 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm angry"
Member since:

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 self-selected audience at a Apple product unveiling would audibly gasp in astonishment if Jobs had unveiled the new Apple iWheel. Of course, it would only work on Apple iRoads.

As for "visibly changing everything after it," this is only partially true. Yes, it meant that we all now have capactive touch screens. But no, it really didn't change anything fundamental. Again, there is no task the iPhone does that my Tungsten E couldn't do 5 years earlier. The interface was clumsier, but the CONCEPTS were identical: tap on an icon to launch an app; play games; listen to music; watch videos; have a to do list and contacts and calendar.

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

So the point is that technology evolved in 5 years? Go figure. And as much as Jobs was a design genius he isn't necessarily right on this. Numerous people I know (including my father) have complained about the lack of stylus. Samsung included one with the Galaxy Note. Generally, people have preferred a finger-only solution, but there are plenty of use cases for the stylus.

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.

Why is that what we're talking about? To the best of my knowledge, the trial is about specific patents, e.g. the '318 "overscroll" or "rubber band" patent. That patent was filed years after I played Bejeweled (on my Tungsten E again!). When you try to swap two jewels illegaly, they "rubber band" back in to place! Somehow, our patent system is so broken it thinks that this concept is somehow different when scrolling to the end of page, and different again if it's touch screen instead of a mouse, and different again if it's on a projector instead of an LCD screen, etc., etc., etc. Apple does not have a patent for the forest, only the trees.

Apple decided that (using handwriting recognition and stylus) was a bad usability direction, and then by stunning coincidence, so did everyone else.

My Tungsten already had a pop-up keyboard if I wanted it, and it used gestures, for example to copy and paste. (Oh wait, the iPhone didn't have copy and paste in 2007, did it?) But I do give Apple credit for paving the way in the marketplace. Yes, Apple convinced CONSUMERS that finger instead of stylus was good, so other companies could follow. Yes, I said follow.

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.

Again, they don't have a patent on the forest. The iPhone (and other iOS devices) are very nice, and quite pretty. That doesn't mean that anyone who does something nice and pretty is copying them.

And the Newton predates Jot.

If you want to argue that the Newton was innovative I'm all for it. It was vastly more innovative than the iPhone. Kudos to Apple for trying to make it work, and it's a shame that technology wasn't ready for it yet. Great idea, and it paved the way for others. But Apple isn't suing because Samsung copied the Newton.

But gestures are generally bad usability...

Wait, what? I thought the gestures on the iPhone were a spectacular example of Apple's innovative genius? Now they're not?

1. Samsung's TouchWiz looks more like iOS than vanilla Android does.

Okay. Which patents are we talking about?

2. Samsung is actually selling a product, while Google is just dumping code.

All right, but that's still Google doing the copying, not Samsung.

3. That product, taken as a whole, looks and works an awful lot like an iPhone.

Again, "taken as a whole" isn't a patent that Apple can sue for.

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

Hm. I'm not sure I see "systemic and intentional copying" as the same as "counterfeiting." They don't put an Apple logo on the device, or try to pass it off as an iPhone. When the first car company added a radio, did anyone else adding a radio constitute "counterfeiting?" Keeping up with the competition is allowed. What is so maddening to me is that Apple does this EXACT same thing and doesn't see it. I've given numerous examples of things Apple copied, and you say "it's the totality of the thing, not the components." Then Samsung copies Apple and you say "burn them at the stake!"

Reply Parent Score: 2