Most important are the designer’s statements regarding the handset’s design inspiration, which she claims came from a bowl of water and not from any Apple patents.
I would have guessed a bucket of shit, but okay.
Samsung says F700 design ideas came from a bowl of water
Wait a second, they were trying to say that Apple can’t patent a “rectangle” but now their saying they tried it 1st, which is it?
Samsung isn’t claiming they patented it … it’s just proof that the phone design is not ‘stolen’ from Apple and the basic phone design existed within Samsung before the iPhone came out.
Enjoy your ignorance while you can, as even if Apple fools the jury, the case will go to the Patent Appeal courts, where Apple will not be able to baffle those unfamiliar with patent law and the requirements of such with Apple BS.
More than 60% of patents taken to through the courts are either invalidated or severely limited, which doesn’t bod well for Apple in the long run .. and even if Apple’s claims were upheld at that level the patents and trademarks are easy to work around without affecting the UX or functionality of Samsung’s current line up of products, so Samsung will continue to ‘eat Apple’s lunch’ no matter what the outcome of the trial.
It only gets worst for Apple from here on out unless they stop living off their past innovations and start learning to innovate again.
It would be better for everyone if Apple were to become innovative again, but if not, then their litigation strategy will only take them so far, and that ‘so far’ is quickly running out.
Are you high?
Ah yes, I can visualize it now! A bowl of water filler with little calculators and Scrabble tiles that became the number pad and slide out keyboard…
That wasn’t so hard to do to imagine, was it?
“Samsung will continue to eat their lunch”
When have they even started?
Tablets sold in the U.S. last quarter
Apple 5.7 million
Samsung 37 thousand
ZOMG! And I thought Mitt Romney’s Veep Pick was the funniest thing I’d read tonight. Mr. Landry, you took it to the next level.
I want some of whatever medication you’re stealing from your parents.
Obviously, Mr. Dalrymple’s Heineken-addled readers can’t recognize sarcasm when it hits them in the face.
What?
It’s not an attempt at sarcasm? BWAAAAA!
lol. They kind of had that coming. 🙂
Designers get inspiration from any and everywhere though but a bowl of water is a new one to me. 🙂
Nailed!
Stop whining!
“It would be better for everyone if Apple were to become innovative again”?!Seriously? Oh I forgot, because it’s Samscum that’s so innovative with its whole line of (smart)phones that where copied by Apple’s first product “The Original iPhone”! That was a game changer, since then every other smartphone is a copy, and I am not talking just about hardware I am talking about software also, the app store etc.
Wow, dude. You are out to lunch. Did you read Samsung’s 132 page internal document that details how they plan to copy the iPhone? Very damning. I can only imagine what the evidence was that Samsung destroyed. I just hope the jury is competent.
I used to have a pretty neutral view of Samsung but after this trial they just appear to be a bunch of snakes.
it’s just proof that the phone design is not ‘stolen’
Enough with the delusions regarding the f700. A POS feature phone with a 256 k colour resistive screen and a slide out keyboard is about as much a precursor to Samsung’s iPhone knockoffs as the 88 Festiva is a precursor to the 2005 Ford Mustang.
The only thing the f700 and the Samsung iPhone clones have in common is that they have radios. Claims that the f700 is any kind of smoking gun are based on the straw man that Apple’s patent claims are about rectangular screens.
With the release of the “Benchmarking” document, the last crutch has been kicked out from under the intellectual cripples still trying to defend Samsung’s plagiarism. It’s over. Samsung copied Apple. Move on.
even if Apple fools the jury
“Heads I win, tails you lose.” I see you’ve already prepared yourself for Samsung’s loss by inventing a fantasy where the crushing weight of evidence that proves Apple’s case is really smoke and mirrors and deception. Except for the sobering fact that Samsung itself is responsible for the evidence proving Apple’s case.
baffle those unfamiliar with patent law
What you know aout patent law and the process thereof fits neatly into your single comment.
It’s not much.
even if Apple’s claims were upheld at that level the patents and trademarks are easy to work around without affecting the UX or functionality of Samsung’s current line up
That’s the point, isn’t it dim bulb? Apple wants Samsung to make original products with original designs and original UI elements. Samsung took the easy route and copied Apple wholesale. This is why Samsung is in court.
living off their past innovations
The idea that Apple can be working on their next product line up and even be preparing entirely new products while defending their intellectual property against rip off artists like Samsung is really hard for you to grasp, isn’t it? Are you asking us to believe that Apple’s internal processes have come to a complete halt because of a few court cases?
Maybe you have problems remembering to breath and typing comments at the same time, but Apple doesn’t have a problem building the future while protecting it’s past.
‘so far’ is quickly running out.
Poor Apple. Condemned to make the lion’s share of profit in mobile by making products people want. Funny that Apple would find Samsung’s tactics of copying their hard work offensive, isn’t it? Really hard to get your head around the idea that Apple would want to protect it’s designs?
Listen up: it’s not 1995. The modern Apple will not stand by while the rest of the industry copies Apple’s intellectual property wholesale, using said IP to peddle third rate copies of Apple products. You see, Apple has already been through that wringer once, where it’s market advantage was pissed away thru bad licensing deals, flagrant trade dress and IP theft, and lack of corporate action.
Samsung is the most egregious offender,and hopefully they will pay for their blatant theft of Apple’s IP. And Samsung has politely provided the very ammunition that may be used in it’s execution.
The f700 issue is not about feature phone vs smart phone, it is about showing where the f700 design came from and in doing so whether Samsung’s design comes from natural evolution from that design or from Apple’s patented design. No one is claiming it is ‘new’, or comparable to the iPhone interface .. if that’s the argument that you thik is being made, then you are totally missing the point.
As for fooling the jury, being fanbois I guess I can forgive you all for not knowing that both Samsung and Apple can appeal the case if they don’t like the decision, and in patent cases this appeals court goes to a special court where there are judges that are well versed in IP law .. and as I stated, over 60% of patents are invalidated or limited (ie: they lose their case) in these courts … this is because of the limitations the original patent examiners are under when evaluating patents for ‘obviousness’ and ‘prior art’ (ie: they can only evaluate them on existing patents, so when someone is bold enough to patent something obvious, such as a recent patent where a kid was awarded a patent for ‘swinging sideways on a swing’, since they can’t find an existing patent on ‘swinging’, they can’t reject that patent for being obvious … where if the kid ever tried to enforce his patent, once in the courts it would be quickly invalidated.)
And whether or not Apple wins this case (I doubt they will, although it may be that the jury of non technical, patent illiterate, regular people may decide for Apple, the patent appeal courts will have the final say,) the patents involved are minor, easily overcome obstacles … Samsung, Asus, et all using Android will continue to eat into the mobile device market share .. now you may have a point that it would have been easier to just work around them in the first place, but in case you haven’t notices there are differences between the two designs, and patents are about precise descriptions, where minor differences, even in one patent limitation (‘limitation” equates to ‘feature’ for the most part) can be the difference between patent infringement or not — matter of fact, check any of Apple’s patents, they are by law required to list all the existing patents and prior art that might conflict with their own patent application so the examiner can make a decision on the validity of the application … all these listed patents are examples of where similar things have been patented previously, but where Apple has made the necessary minor tweaks in order to get around the existing similar patents … what may seem like a minor irrelevant difference between the Apple’s home screen and Samsung’s App Drawer, may be a perfectly acceptable variation on the Apple patent limitations … just as some differences that are as equally minor and irrelevant (to you) variation in the Apple design allowed it to get around previous existing patents.
Fanbois are free to call names, or snide comments, but as far as facts go I see no one has bothered to present anything that refutes any thing I posted.
Apple fans would be better served to push Apple to spend more effort innovating rather than litigating, as now that there is a real mobile market (which to give Apple credit, they are largely responsible for creating) litigation is a losing strategy for holding market share … but if instead you would rather spend your effort making childish rebuttals against reality while pretending that putting a new processor on a 2007 desing and adding a flakey voice response system that tells fart jokes, is innovation, then by all means, do continue.
You mean their competitive analysis document? Sure, all companies have documents like this on their competition .. if they don’t they aren’t showing due diligence.
Where in the document do you see where they made the comparison, found their device to be wanting, recommended exactly copying te Apple design, and then implemented that design into their own devices?
It is perfectly legal to look at how someone is doing something right and use that knowledge to improve your own design, as long as the way you do it doesn’t infringe on legitimate IP.
I’m sure Apple has a document comparing ASUS tab features to its own pointing out where ASUS has some good design ideas …. when Apple comes out with a tablet that comes in near the 7″ size, will Asus be able to demand Apple analysis documents and claim patent infringement because it saw ASUS’s 7″ format was a good idea that Apple should consider emulating in some format? Probably not a patent infringement, but certainly will be Apple ‘copying’ from someone else … will Apple fanbois criticise Apple this fall for stealing from ASUS?
Try researching how patents are awarded and how the courts decide patent cases …. works better than both drugs and the cool-aid you folks seem to be adicted to.
That’s tablets … look into the smart phone market. Samsung has over taken Apple both in the USA and the world markets … the tablets will come, Android just hasn’t been in the market competing with tablets as long as with smart phones.
Personally I would rather Apple competed rather than litigated, as although I would likely never find a need for Apple products, their being a healthy competitor would be good for me as a consumer.
I would also like a whole lot of patent reform, because it is Apple or Samsung that ultimately wins this case in the end, the reality is that patents are now the realm of large corporations only. Any small companies or individuals that have good ideas are no longer able to compete given that companies like Apple and Samsung can simply take you to the courts and basically steal your patents using the power of litigation and barrels full of money.
No, that’s not what they are saying.
I think it’s safe to say nobody here likes how the patent system currently works. And no corporation of Apple’s (or Google’s) size is free of the dirty practice of using a lot of foolishly-granted patents to fight each other with.
How about we talk about software and hardware design? Let’s talk about a decade of original work that folks like you now believe somehow magically appeared in the sky over Mountain View and Seoul, a gift to knockoff artists everywhere?
Or we could all just continue laughing at your assertion that Apple no longer competes or innovates. Perhaps you also feel that the majority of consumers who buy iOS devices are somehow being deceived as to their value?
Asus. Sure, there’s an industry leader. If you want to manufacture commodity goods.
Can you explain what you mean when you refer to “natural evolution” in the context of smartphone design?
Are these devices somehow interbreeding out in the wild and creating new species that are caught and domesticated by OEMs?
Hmmm. Let’s see. Samsung don’t release actual figures, only revenue. And Samsung sell a lot of phones. Quite a few of them, but not all, smartphones.
Here’s the thing. If Samsung are doing so well “selling” smartphones, where are the figures? Why did Samsung stop reporting them?
“Personally I would rather Apple competed rather than litigated”
Personally I wish the Samsung fans would actually bother to look into what Apple are actually claiming.
“their being a healthy competitor would be good for me as a consumer.”
TRANSLATION: We wanna let any company come steal their IP.
Not everyone reports numbers. Amazon is the first that cones to mind. Announcing numbers does not equal doing great and the opposite applies as well.
IT means , and let’s take the f700 for example, that arranging icons in a grid was not stolen from Apple, and that as screen and touch screen technology advanced, it is not unexpected that the concept of using the same ‘grid of icons’ concept would have been moved from the F700 to the newer models of phones.
If anyone actually bothered to have a look at the specific Apple design patent in question they might be surprised at how generic and broad it really is basically one small paragraph and 2 pictures of teir homes screen ( one B&W, and one colour.)
Patents are generally meant to be pretty specific so that anyone can recreate the patent …. the Apple patent is so vague that you could build almost anything with icons in a grid and you would not know if you had infringed or not … not a very useful patent when it comes to using it as a guide for whether you infringed or not. On the other hand, if you use the description and figures as exact guides, then Samsung did not infringe as there are very many differences between what Apple has claimed and what Samsung created.
“…screen and touch screen technology advanced…”
Yes, it did. Somehow these things improved in the consumer smartphone space, as new devices magically appeared possessing those improvements.
Sadly, nobody’s really sure how, because it happened in the passive voice.
Which, again, was a great day for commodity knockoff manufacturers who suddenly realized they were competing and innovating in the wrong way.
A great day.
Apple fans would be better served to push Apple to spend more effort innovating rather than litigating
Again, is it your claim that apple is incapable of continuing to work on future products while protecting existing products? That’s your stunted imagination at work.
I see no one has bothered to present anything that refutes any thing I posted.
I can see that you are blind.
putting a new processor on a 2007 desing and adding a flakey voice response system that tells fart jokes
And if this is all you see coming out of Apple, you simply are not paying attention. And if you belittle Apple’s progress to that extent, what does that say about Samsung’s efforts, which are merely Apple clones?