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.
Thread beginning with comment 530143
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Terrible?
by phoudoin on Tue 7th Aug 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Terrible?"
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

More importantly - why should Apple get special treatment on OSNews?


Because Apple is not a company but a church?
;-)

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[5]: Terrible?
by Tony Swash on Tue 7th Aug 2012 17:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Terrible?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The sad thing I see is that people who seem to genuinely care about technology, about innovation and about ethics in business are seduced by a company as shitty as Samsung. It simply isn't true that your enemy's enemy is your friend.

Samsung has a history of copying other companies products.

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-copies-2012-1?op=1

The hyper vocal critics of Apple deep inability to see what shifty and sleazy company they are keeping is connected to a deeper and more pernicious ideology which is the constant attempts to deny that Apple is innovative, and is in fact one of the most innovative tech companies around and as a result has a lot more IP which is relevant and cutting edge at stake than many other companies.

A good example of this is the utter refusal to accept the blindingly obvious which is that the iPhone was an inflection product that changed the smart phone industry and the market completely, and which all other smart makers struggled to deal with. Instead we get tedious and facile and seemingly endless dredging up of this photo, this product, this bit of history just prove that the iPhone was not an inflection point an game changer. Its intellectually vacuous.

Almost all existing handset makers have failed to respond to the iPhone successfully and have as a result suffered intense commercial maginilsation but Samsung, building on it's ruthless commitment to copy successful products, did the only thing open to them: they copied Apple wholesale, the look, the design, the packaging.

Of course if one picks apart the minutiae of that copying it can be made to sound absurd, a shape here, a colour here, a look there. But that's just the result of forensic pedantry. Just take one step back and it is utterly obvious, Samsung responded to the threat and the disruption of the iPhone (and subsequently the iPad) by copying it. It was a tactic they had used before but this time someone has stood up to them, And anybody concerned with technology, ethics and the future of innovation should Applaud Apple for doing that.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[6]: Terrible?
by l3v1 on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Terrible?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

The sad thing I see is that people who seem to genuinely care about technology, about innovation and about ethics in business are seduced by a company as shitty as Samsung.


That sad thing you see is not entirely true, but of course not entirely untrue either. I'm fairly certain there are a lot of people - here and elsewhere - who are not Samsung fanboys, but in this case, would not take Apple's side (I wouldn't). I wouldn't say they are seduced by Samsung, but they are not seduced by Apple either. I wouldn't say Apple is totally wrong in the subjects of this trial, but I absolutely don't like many aspects of what they are seemingly trying to do and where they're headed with this. Samsung is also not one of my favourite companies (to be honest, I don't really care for them, never did), and it certainly might turn out they "borrowed" design elements from iPhones, but that doesn't give green light (oh, sorry, maybe "green light" is also an Apple patent) to go so over-the-board with their demands (regarding damages and banning) and their talks about we-have-invented-every-design-element-on-this-planet, curved, green, clock face, grids, sliding, touching and yes, breathing might be there somewhere too. And, also an important issue, Samsung not being an American company is absolutely not an important factor affecting people's judgements outside of the U.S.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Terrible?
by Fergy on Wed 8th Aug 2012 08:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Terrible?"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Samsung has a history of copying other companies products.

Are you trying to say Apple hasn't?
Apple is innovative, and is in fact one of the most innovative tech companies around and as a result has a lot more IP which is relevant and cutting edge at stake than many other companies.

Can you name some of that IP? I hope you will keep idea patents out of their IP collection.
the iPhone was an inflection product that changed the smart phone industry and the market completely

The iPhone was a Nokia N770 with a phone and fluent interface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet
When I saw the N770 I waited until they combined it with a phone. But somehow Nokia kept being stupid.

Edited 2012-08-08 08:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Terrible?
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Aug 2012 09:06 in reply to "RE[5]: Terrible?"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Samsung has a history of copying other companies products.


Humankind History has a history of copying other humans.
Copying, mimicking, behave as much as possible as something or someone else *is* everywhere, since first day, since first baby day. Every Societies, communities, nations were, are and will be built on the similarities, the common ground, the shared concept. Wars were, are and will be done for the same exact concept.

It's *only* because today profit can be made by legally forbid others to copy, mimic, behave like others that it cast bad lights.

Sharing is the new enemy of profit, and the biggest threat to capitalism (besides its usual structural flaws). It's written on the walls.

The concept that you could publish an idea and still forbid others to share it is at core of the current patent battle. You don't have to care about technology or innovation (since when a green phone icon, rounded corners, black framing screen is an innovating technology!? Seriously!? Please, people, check definition of innovation...) to take side in this battle, even if the two companies on the ground are not all bad or all good.

The battle is not about the companies, but ideologies behind it.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Terrible?
by JAlexoid on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Terrible?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The hyper vocal supporters of Apple deep inability to see what shifty and sleazy company they are keeping is connected to a deeper and more pernicious ideology which is the constant attempts to deny that Samsung is innovative, and is in fact one of the most innovative tech companies around and as a result has a lot more IP which is relevant and cutting edge at stake than many other companies.

I can do that too, you know. Some Apple fanatics tend to forget what Samsung is and what Apple isn't always.(Looking at you Tony)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Terrible?
by MysterMask on Wed 8th Aug 2012 03:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Terrible?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Because Apple is not a company but a church?
;-)


The fervour of some OS News folk (yes, I mean you, Thom) to put every Apple story into a holy war (the good agains the bad) looks way more religious to me.

Reply Parent Score: 0