Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Sep 2011 21:43 UTC
Legal So, after a bunch of attacks from Apple, Samsung seems to have gone on the offensive against the gadget maker from Cupertino - and big time, too. In three countries, France, Australia, and South Korea, Samsung has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Apple - with the South Korea suit being the weird one. Unlike Apple's software patents and napkin scribbles community designs, Samsung is using actual hardware patents.
Thread beginning with comment 490164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!
by tupp on Wed 21st Sep 2011 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung strikes back!"
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

After looking at this comparison between the Samsung tablet and and the Ipad, I have to conclude that you are correct in saying that Samsung copied Apple: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21773_Samsung_Picture_Frame_v_iP...

Oh... wait that is photo of the Ipad next to the Samsung digital image display, which was released four years before the Ipad was first announced.

Well, of course that Samsung design doesn't count, because, although the Ipad looks just like it on the front, the Samsung is just a digital picture display. If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say that Apple copied the external look of Samsung device... er... uh ...never mind.

Even the Crunchpad prototype and final design shamelessly copied the Ipad: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

Oh, wait... this article is dated a full six months prior to the first announcement of the Ipad.

What I really hate is when non-electronics companies try to steal a concept for a design and claim it as their own. Here is such an example, the Knight-Ridder tablet concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

Such a blatant ripoff of the Ipad design should not go unpunished, and Apple should... um... Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced.

Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!
by mrstep on Wed 21st Sep 2011 03:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

" If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say "

We could then safely say that it would have had a bunch of buttons and lights on the frame prior to Apple designing tablets without them. The design rights Apple has aren't for a picture frame, it's for a tablet.

"Even the Crunchpad prototype"

Even mockups of what the unnamed-at-the-time rumored Apple tablet might look like looked like that. Which was an extension of the iPod touch / iPhone design. Remember the 'it looks like a bit iPod touch' comments? Do you remember the ones where people said 'it looks like a big Samsung media player'? Yeah, me neither.

"Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced."

Wow, and if Samsung made a tablet that looked like that one, there wouldn't be a problem. That one has a lumpy bit that sticks out on the backside near the top center and has a 'chin' - the thicker frame on the bottom edge. That wouldn't actually count as looking the same in terms of people confusing it with an existing product.

"Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?"

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg

Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Samsung strikes back!
by tupp on Wed 21st Sep 2011 08:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say

We could then safely say that it would have had a bunch of buttons and lights on the frame prior to Apple designing tablets without them.

That's an interesting conclusion in light of the fact that a lot of the prior non-Apple art has rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, with no buttons/lights on the bezel. Even if one merely looks at the previously posted links of the Knight-Ridder tablet or the Samsung digital image display -- no buttons nor lights show on the bezel. Not that there is an advantage (or disadvantage) to the lack of lights/buttons on a bezel.

However, you seem imply that buttons on the bezel are a disadvantage. If so, the Ipad is an inferior design to the Knight-Ridder tablet and to the Samsung photo display, because the Ipad has one of those horrible buttons on the bezel!

The Crunchpad shown in the article seems to have a few small lights on its bezel and the later Ipad doesn't. Not sure how that would make the Ipad "a whole new tablet pardigm." At any rate, the final version of the Crunchpad (which was released before the Ipad) didn't seem to have those lights on the bezel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg


The design rights Apple has aren't for a picture frame, it's for a tablet.

So, it's okay that Apple took the Samsung picture frame design and merely stuffed-in different electronics, and then got "community design" protection on the copied Samsung enclosure. I see.


Even the Crunchpad prototype

Even mockups of what the unnamed-at-the-time rumored Apple tablet might look like looked like that.

Wait a second, isn't it the Apple fanboys who are constantly suggesting that what is more important than innovation is who was first to market -- not who was first to show a concept.

Even so, I don't see any links to Ipad mock-ups showing dates.

Furthermore, if Ipad mockups appeared when the final Crunchpad prototype was demoed, then, obviously Crunchpad mockups preceded those of the Ipad. Sorry, but the Crunchpad beat the Ipad to the punch.


... Which was an extension of the iPod touch / iPhone design. Remember the 'it looks like a bit iPod touch' comments?

I don't remember those comments.

Nevertheless, the Knight-Ridder tablet and the Samsung digital picture display both preceded the Ipod Touch, and they both had rounded corners and shiny, black, flush bezels.

In addition, the LG Prada had rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, and that phone was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first announced. So, the Prada (with its rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel) prececed the Ipod Touch by a full year!: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol...


Wow, and if Samsung made a tablet that looked like that one [the Knight Ridder tablet], there wouldn't be a problem. That one has a lumpy bit that sticks out on the backside near the top center and has a 'chin' - the thicker frame on the bottom edge. That wouldn't actually count as looking the same in terms of people confusing it with an existing product.

I am not sure to what is being referred as the "lumpy bit."

However, I gather that the second assertion is that a vertically non-symetrical bezel makes the Knight-Ridder tablet completely different from the Ipad, which has a symetrical bezel.

Yes. The Ipad's symetrical bezel is a brilliant, revolutionanry advancement in tablet technology. That's the kind of innovation that makes Apple so great! It's the sort of detail that makes the "Apple difference!"

Unfortunately, the Samsung digital photo display and the final released version of the Crunchpad (and about a zillion previous tablets) featured symetrical bezels.

Sorry -- Apple didn't invent symetrical bezels.


http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg
Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

Ah, yes. Another revolutionary Apple invention -- white boxes! Samsung is shamlessly copying Apple by using a white box!

Not sure what is meant by the mention of the 30-pin connector.

Reply Parent Score: 4

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.


Remember the days when computer technology was based on open standards and interoperability was still important? But now, including a compatible connector is "copying" (though I'm honestly surprised you had the restraint to not write "stealing" instead).

And this is the "future of computing" that iFanboys are endlessly bleating about? Funny, it sounds more like the ancient history of computing. Apple's approach with the iProducts is nothing more than an early 80s-style closed, single vendor computer system - combined with an AOL-style walled-garden for software and content delivery, thoroughly sanitized and dumbed-down to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Samsung strikes back!
by robojerk on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 05:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

"Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?"

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg

Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

The image you linked proves the absurdity of Apple's case. It's a screen. that's it!
Is this copying Apple?
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/etch-a-sketch-121.jpg?w...
The argument of community design is retarded.

Reply Parent Score: 2