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 530446
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I'm angry
by ingraham on Thu 9th Aug 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm angry"
ingraham
Member since:
2006-05-20

Me: "...Apple iWheel..."

atsureki: "More breathless self-parody."

Not really. Any Apple event will be successful. The only time I can remember an audience booing is when Bill Gates appeared on the big screen looking just like the talking head in the Mac 1984 commercial. Even the Apple products that went nowhere were vigorously applauded. I certainly used hyperbole to exaggerate the point, but the point is valid. Jobs always had the advantage of preaching to the choir.

Apple did real, serious work figuring out how to make the interface not clumsy.


And kudos. Good job. I bought an iPod Touch when it came out and rather liked it.

And then Google and Samsung got out the tracing paper.


Uh, no. Did they realize they had fallen behind the competition? Yes. Did they copy (yes, I said COPY!) certain features, like capacitive screens? Yes. But you keep saying how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, yet somehow Samsung tweaking its parts means it's copying the whole.

My point had more to do with the fact that Apple brought a very specific design philosophy to the problem, which differs from precursors like your Tungsten. I think they're right -- a stylus is easy to lose and hard to use. But the fact that there are people who want one, whatever their reasons, is all the more reason why Samsung et al don't have to copy Apple. They could go do something original instead.


And did. As I said, the Note has a stylus. If Samsung is just copying Apple why did they do that? Why does it have such an enormous screen when Jobs & co. feel that out-sizing the hand is the wrong move? Why are they using OLED tech instead of "Retina" displays? Samsung's forest, as it were, has plenty of differences to the iPhone, even if some of the "trees" were inspired by Apple's work.

First is the reactionary contention that Apple is not innovative, to which I say look at the forest, not the trees. (The latter is invention, the former is innovation, around and around we go.)


Apple's done some nice things over the years. SCSI, FireWire, ADB, AppleTalk, HyperCard, the aforementioned Newton, etc. etc. I admit to some hyperbole on saying the iPhone had no innovation at all. What I find so frustrating is that Apple makes some MINOR innovations to put together all-around good product, then tells the world that they literally own everything related to it. I *WASN'T* using breathless self-parody when I used the line "We invented the rectangle!" Apple has pointedly said that they invented the rectangle and that anyone else using rectangles are copying them. The '381 over-scroll patent burns my blood; here is Apple claiming to have invented (invented, not innovated; they filed a patent) the concept, when there is prior art going back a decade. And they sue anyone else who tries it. And not it a "this is a good business move" way, but in a self-righteous, "how DARE THEY!" way. And before you accuse of more "breathless self-parody," no, that is actually MILD compared to what Jobs actually has said about it. Innovative? Sure. Anyone who copies any single portion is a thief? No.

The second is patent law, which is stricter and more nuanced than people here give it credit for. When Apple patents pinch-to-zoom and rubber banding, they patent it with a specific, original equation to make it work.


Not really. The '381 patent is infringed if you have a touch screen device, move the edge and a little farther and get a change in display state, and then when you let go it bounces back to the "actual" edge. The underlying algorithm is irrelevant.

The patent system works.


To an extent. There are plenty of examples where it's a disaster. The Lemelson patent comes to mind. The Modicon / Solaia 5,038,318 patent for a "Device for Communicating Real Time Data Between a Programmable Logic Controller and a Program Operating in a Central Controller" is another ridiculous example. The IDEA of patents is good. The fact that we patent crap that shouldn't be patent-able is a problem.

And back on Apple's self-aggrandizement, they are valuing their patents at $2 or $3 per unit and Samsung's at $0.0049. This is the kind of thing that leads me to make comments like, "What's next, the iWheel?"

Third is trademark/trade dress. This is sort of odd middle ground, and the whole point of the visual guide we're commenting on. You determine whether the forest was copied by counting up all the identical trees. It's a significant portion.


It's actually NOT what I'm commenting on. I'm commenting on the ego of Apple execs (and fanbois, though bear in mind I'm not necessarily casting you in with that lot.) They believe they invented every single tree in that forest, and if someone else copies any one tree they are clearly worthless individuals who have done nothing but stolen the hard labor of Apple's god-like geniuses. NO. The'381 patent should never have been issued. People doing bounce-back did NOT copy Apple. And yes, Apple's lawyers are specifically arguing this point. Not that having bounce-back contributes makes the whole more similar, but that having that one tree makes them intellectual property thieves.

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

I really have no idea what you mean. Gestures aren't discoverable. Relying on them is bad for that reason.


Uh, there is NO WAY to use an iPhone without gesturs. The VERY FIRST THING YOU DO is swipe across the screen. You swipe to scroll. You pinch to zoom. Pinch to zoom is a gesture. The concept of gestures is ancient, but somehow the "pinch to zoom" gesture gets a patent and Apple sues over it.

Apple creates a beautiful, simple device and fills it with new software to enable its functions. The look is trademarked, and some of the functionality is patented.


Fair enough, although much of the patented functionality is a joke, and never should have been issued.

Samsung comes along, sees that Apple has done something better, knows that all the tech it uses is publicly available, and figures it can just sit down and copy away.


I disagree that they simply copied. In some ways, the tech caught up, e.g. internal antennae and more powerful processors. And the side-by-side visual is what prompts my whole "no one else can use rectangles!" diatribe. It's a black rectangle. Of COURSE they look similar. That doesn't mean "copied" and it doesn't mean trademark infringement.

Including features is easy. Figuring out ways to make them work well together is hard.


I'm not sure that helps your argument. Apple is accusing Samsung of including features, e.g. the '381 patent. There are tons of other differences, and I'd pay good money to hear an Apple exec get up there and say that Samsung made their phones AS GOOD AS the iPhone, which would be more of copying the whole.

I do believe it's discouraging to would-be innovators if copycats get away with it


That's why I'm so angry at Apple. Why bother to try and do anything if Apple will take it, patent it, and then sue everyone else out of existence? Stole from Xerox, sued Lotus and Microsoft. Stole the "bounce back" idea from hundreds of people, sued Samsung. Wanted $1.00 per port to license Firewire, which was basically serial SCSI. They have used legal bullying tactics since day one claiming that they are the only ones who've ever done anything, regardless of the facts.

Reply Parent Score: 2