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.
Thread beginning with comment 529007
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by henderson101
by Soulbender on Tue 31st Jul 2012 10:25 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 Parent Score: 1

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 Parent Score: 3

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"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.
"

Really? Well, as Samsung just got slammed by the judge for releasing all of the above to the press - because they were deemed inadmissible in court, I really don't see how any of your ambulance chasing is particularly helpful.

Apple is the one claiming Samsung ripped off the *iPhone*.


Yep. They did. It's pretty clear they have far less evidence that is admissible in court to back up the opposite claim. Or are you calling the judge a liar?

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.


Cherry pick your standards. *clapping hands* so classy. Of course, the iPod classic didn't exist back then. And it doesn't have a similar form factor. And of course, the fact that Samsung have been documented in the press stating that they were enamoured with Apple's designs and were trying to emulate them, well that's just lies too, right?

"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.
"

There you go people. Nothing more to see here. Move along. Right/wrong, who gives a fcuk. So long as Thom gets to argue and feel superior. Seriously, grow up. This is still two companies trying to win a dick waving contest, plain and simple. Neither deserves to win. One is being a bully, one is being a clone. Neither deserve to benefit from any of this. But as a journalist, either grow some balls and be unbiased or get someone else to write stories you have an emotional attachment to.

Reply Parent Score: -1

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Truth hurts?

Reply Parent Score: 0

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 Parent Score: 1