Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530251
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Common practice
by imhotepx on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Common practice"
imhotepx
Member since:
2012-08-08

Hi Thom,

I think you need to be more objective. Just because Apple did not manufacture all the bits does not mean they did not design or invent any of it.

To give you two examples, Fingerworks the company that Apple acquired in 2005 invented multi touch technology dating back to 1999, obviously later implemented in the iPhone and subsequently elsewhere.

Apple was a founding member of ARM which is now what everyone uses. Apple partnered with Acorn for that. In fact they used it in the Newton which I still have - neat device even today!

Even when you look back at the first Macintosh UI, there was a great deal of innovation there. Yes they saw the Xerox star in action, but what they built n the Lisa and Mac was a clean room implementation with many innovations, such as overlapping windows, drop down menus, windows that could have their content updated live. And you'll love this one, the drag and drop of moving and copying files was an Apple invention as well. Xerox did not have that. There are others but you get my point.

I use all types of gear, because I'm a tech geek, I have iphones ipads galaxies and google tablets, it's all good. But if I were in Apple's shoes, I sure as hell would be peeved when I see some of the copying Samsung specifically have done. I think it is pretty blatant, but that is my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You are actually saying exactly what I mean: that there is no vacuum in which Apple created the iPhone. That's the whole point. The technology world is like a language, where every individual speaker adds to the language, and over time, it evolves. We would think someone crazy if he were to patent words and grammar that make up the language and start suing people for constructing different sentences using these words and grammar. If he were allowed to do this, it would cause massive damage to a language and the arts.

Yet, that's exactly what Apple and Microsoft are doing, and we have people cheering them on for it. It boggles the mind.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Common practice
by imhotepx on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
imhotepx Member since:
2012-08-08

I see your point, but there needs to be a balance, and without some boundaries everyone would just copy the guy next door. I'm not an expert on patents or trade dress, but on the later I think Apple have some valid concerns. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. My gutt tells me Samsung will lose this round, at it will go to the next court. You'll be writing about this for another 3-4 years I think!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Common practice
by maccouch on Wed 8th Aug 2012 12:30 in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

thom, i think you are confusing and mixing up two different subjects. One is software patents, as the "slide to unlock" stuff, which is BS and completely ridiculous as to how was that patented to begin with.

The other, which is not so ridiculous is the "trademark dress" / "design patent" (not sure which is the difference between them, could some one explain that to me? ).

the trademark dress basically says that the "non-functional" stuff of an object as colours, shapes, general design can be protected from competitor that basically do and equivalent object with the exact (or close) combination of elements. As far as i understood this is what apple and samsung are mainly discussing in the corthouse.

In that area, the technological stuff or invented it first doesn't matter, what matter is the look and feel of the item and if the general look is so close to one another as to confuse the customer. It's not only the green dial button or the square with the round edges, it's the combination of all those and if the competitor couldn't have done differently.

In portuguese flea markets / gipsy fairs 10 years ago, you could just go there and get a really cheap set of jeans "Lewis 5001" or "Leeh something" which were practically identical to the expensive Levis and Lee jeans. this is what court process is all about and what many comenters are saying to you. it's not about the technological inventions/patents (i'm not sure if there is any software patent stuff there? ) but about the way some samsung devices were built to resemble really close apple's, although they could have done it in a million times different, as the other android devices have been done.

just a quick anecdote. the other day i entered a technological shop and took a glance at a samsung galaxy 10.1" (this here: http://www.businessdirect.bt.com/products/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-3... ) that was off. My first thought was: wow, this actually looks much more like an ipad than i thought, the black bezel, the metalic rounded rim sligthly higher than the glass. But then i picked it up. The metalic rim was actually grey colored plastic. And the back was white plastic. not whole but most of it. The grey plastic just bented to the back and suddenly it was painted white/different plastic piece.

Now can you honestly state that this wasn't made so that the front looked really like an ipad (when disconected)? they even put a plastic looking like metal the same exact way as apple does. but then on the back they just dis-harmoniously slapped together the white back. So which is it? is it black and metal or is is white? Either samsung has the worst designers in the whole world or this was slapped together to get the look of the ipad. And that, look and feel, are protected by trademark law. You may not agree with it but it works that way.

so, separate the software patents from the trademark design lawsuits. different stuff, different reasoning, different laws.

by the way, i took a brief glance of the first pages of the document you mentioned in the post, didn't saw anything incriminating there aparte from the slide mentioned in the article (126 - visual interaction) , but they state that the design must be differentiating enough so no harm there. everything else is mainly functional stuff as font size and placement of overlapping menus. they are functional items, so no trademark issue there. but IANAL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 13:04 in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

You are actually saying exactly what I mean: that there is no vacuum in which Apple created the iPhone. That's the whole point. The technology world is like a language, where every individual speaker adds to the language, and over time, it evolves. We would think someone crazy if he were to patent words and grammar that make up the language and start suing people for constructing different sentences using these words and grammar. If he were allowed to do this, it would cause massive damage to a language and the arts.

Yet, that's exactly what Apple and Microsoft are doing, and we have people cheering them on for it. It boggles the mind.



So you are saying people should not copyright works of literature because language already existed. You would then have no problem if another site just took content of OSNews verbatim and started cloning it, right? Since you didn't invent any of the tech used to run this site or the English language itself.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[7]: Common practice
by bassbeast on Fri 10th Aug 2012 20:41 in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

There is a GOOD reason why they call it "The Cult of mac" Thom and that is because many have bought the carefully crafted image hook, line and sinker, just as they believe the "Do No Evil" marketing BS Google spews.

Hell I'd say a lot of the hate companies like MSFT and Oracle get is their PR teams royally suck so they can't play the game as well as companies like Apple and Google. Look at the lines around the building when a new iShiny is released, you'd think it was tickets to a rock concert being sold, no different than the mobs that knock down doors trying to get the latest Air Jordans.

In the end all this "corporation yay!" reminds me of the old Mel Brooks 2000 year old man sketch "All go to hell except cave 76!" in that these corps build loyalty like ballclubs, so you end up with people cheering the most insane things. Just look how many defended Blizzard with the screwing they gave the public with Diablo 3 for instance, or how many leap to Google's defense when they do something nasty in their TOS.

In the end if one of these companies could boost profits by 15% by throwing you into a cage with an enraged horny silverback you'd be getting some gorilla loving before nightfall, the only question is how many other ways they'd find to monetize the encounter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Common practice
by zima on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Fingerworks the company that Apple acquired in 2005 invented multi touch technology dating back to 1999

No, they developed implementation of technologies dating back several decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History

Apple was a founding member of ARM which is now what everyone uses. Apple partnered with Acorn for that.

Again, you rewrite history. Apple was among the founders of ARM Ltd the company (not only with Acorn, also VLSI) - but ARM the architecture already existed for half a decade, developed only by ~Acorn. What the joint venture provided was capital and new market.

Even when you look back at the first Macintosh UI, there was a great deal of innovation there. Yes they saw the Xerox star in action, but what they built n the Lisa and Mac was a clean room implementation with many innovations

And you'll love this one: Xerox sued Apple in the 90s (at the time when Apple tried to argue that "look and feel" was copyrightable, in their lawsuit against Microsoft; BTW, Apple utterly lost back then, like they'll hopefully do now)

Reply Parent Score: 2