Apple vs. Samsung • Page 5
-
Dirtbox 90,200 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years ago -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agomowgli wrote:
Sure they did, the Samsung stuff doesn't feel the same as the Apple stuff. It's the same ballpark, obviously, but it's not like it's a dodgy Chinese direct copy.
I never said otherwise, no one is, the point of the case was that Samsung never took that second step. -
With the Galaxy S1 they did copy it too closely, I think it's arguable that it was that first step and the S2 was second. It doesn't mean that patenting bounce backs and rounded corners isn't ludicrous though. -
Mr-Brett wrote:
Now you are just being a prick. Please stop being a prick. I also have an Android phone, a Samsung Note in fact, great potential in here to have an interesting discussion about an interesting topic. But you seem determined to act like a petulant little shit with stuff like 'religion'.
mowgli wrote:
Give what a rest? This is probably the first time I've mentioned your religion all year. I'm sorry if my snarky comment suggested you hadn't been following this case for a while, I'm sure you've been following it closely. No I'm not impartial, nobody is completely impartial and yes I have an Android phone and I don't much like using iTunes so I must be a raving fanboy.
Mr-Brett wrote:
Give it a rest, I've been following the case for a while. You are hardly mr impartial yourself.
Thank god mowgli is here to provide impartial analysis of a story involving Apple.
Nothing is going to change for a while yet. This will be appealed and fight will continue on in many other courts. Meanwhile we'll all foot the bill, yay! -
Syrette 49,793 posts
Seen 20 minutes ago
Registered 15 years agoI love it when mowgli gets angry. -
disusedgenius wrote:
But you don't patent the feel of something. You patent individual parts, and when you have someone copy them identically, with zero change or modification, you have a problem.
mowgli wrote:
Sure they did, the Samsung stuff doesn't feel the same as the Apple stuff. It's the same ballpark, obviously, but it's not like it's a dodgy Chinese direct copy.
I never said otherwise, no one is, the point of the case was that Samsung never took that second step. -
AaronTurner 9,766 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoPretty harsh but to be honest it seems Samsung were woefully disorganised considering the importance of this case. They couldn't even submit their evidence be aide of missed deadlines. -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agomowgli wrote:
Yeah, you parent every little part, so if someone wants to reach a general level with their platform so they can then build on it they can't.
But you don't patent the feel of something. You patent individual parts, and when you have someone copy them identically, with zero change or modification, you have a problem. -
@mowgli Ah the old 'I own both so therefore I can't be fanboy' argument, classic. Anyway I wasn't trying to make a case for your allegiance, that's never been in question, I was really just making a stupid joke which you suggested was part of some sustained assault. There was a reason for that comment. Anyway you seem to be taking this all very seriously so I'll just throw in a few smilies to calm it down a bit:
.gif)
-
disusedgenius wrote:
No, they just build something different, and licence what is locked down with a patent. Plenty of other companies have been doing it for years and managed just fine so the argument that this stops anyone building anything is nonsense. Samsung just took it too far.
mowgli wrote:
Yeah, you parent every little part, so if someone wants to reach a general level with their platform so they can then build on it they can't.
But you don't patent the feel of something. You patent individual parts, and when you have someone copy them identically, with zero change or modification, you have a problem.
Edited by mowgli at 10:56:23 25-08-2012 -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agomowgli wrote:
Nah, Apple are the ones who took this too far - patents for core tech and whatnot, all good. This shitty design/UIX-style patents like bounce back, zooming etc are what's obnoxious here. I'd put them into the '/picard' category along with the aforementioned loading-screen games, d-pads and whatnot.
Samsung just took it to far. -
Dirtbox wrote:
?
If it were anyone but apple, it would have been ignored. -
Dirtbox wrote:
I think you may be a bit confused here db.
That's why a majority of companies choose to use FRAND licensing. Apple does not. -
IMO 6,617 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoI'm just pissed off because Samsung deceived me into buying 400 quids worth of smartphone by thinking it was made by Apple. -
disusedgenius wrote:
How though? These specific patents aren't essential to a phone and offer Samsung plenty of scope to do something original. The essential patents (3g etc.) are covered under FRAND while peculiar patents, such as pinch to zoom, are non essential design leaning patents. They are not essential to a phone on the market and so blatantly stealing them with zero innovation or change deserves a butt fucking.
mowgli wrote:
Nah, Apple are the ones who took this too far - patents for core tech and whatnot, all good. This shitty design/UIX-style patents like bounce back, zooming etc are what's obnoxious here.
Samsung just took it to far. -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agomowgli wrote:
Yes they are, they're interaction standards now which people expect from their devices. Forcing other companies to gimp their UIs with stuff which is different for the sake of being different is pretty much the same as competition killing - you're crippling them before they've even got to market.
They are not essential to a phone on the market. -
No they aren't, you yourself have been laughing off how insignificant they are! You can't turn round and say they are essential to a phone and phones are crippled without them. Bouncing back animation when you get to the end of a page is not essential to phones, at all. Interaction standards due to the success of the iphone doesn't equate to standard essential patents.
All of this is moot anyway when you consider Samsung refused to license fairly.
Edited by mowgli at 11:21:57 25-08-2012 -
Flightrisker 18,139 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 13 years agoCan someone sum up in 3 sentences what's going on here? -
Dirtbox 90,200 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years ago -
Samsung and Apple make phones and tablets, they both like to borrow, Samsung a bit more than Apple.
Apple successfully sue Samsung for £1billion for stealing and not licensing patents.
Internet explodes with angry 14 year old Apple haters turn patent experts. -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agomowgli wrote:
Que?
No they aren't, you yourself have been laughing off how insignificant they are!
All of this is moot anyway when you consider Samsung refused to license fairly.
No it isn't, it just means we'll have to do a search/replace of 'Apple' for 'Samsung' when that goes to court. -
AaronTurner 9,766 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoThe problem with stuff like pinch to zoom is that it's pretty much essential for touchscreen devices. It's like patenting an on screen mouse pointer. I do think this has gone way too far. -
disusedgenius 9,071 posts
Seen 48 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoWhat this all boils down to is that Apple don't want what happened to them in the Desktop field way back when to happen to them in the mobile/tablet field. Apparently the way to do this is through the courts rather than through their products. -
captainrentboy 1,682 posts
Seen 4 weeks ago
Registered 13 years agoApple were once mighty innovators of mobile tech, their designs and UI were absolute cutting edge. (So cutting edge infact, that 5 yrs down the line all of their stuff still looks identical)
Other mobile companies, including Samsung, stole some of their innovative ideas without permission, this was to make their boxey boring mobile phones look less shite.
Many years later, after building up mega evidence of all this patent theft, Apple took Samsung to court and won over one billion dollars in damages.
That's it. -
Mekanik 4,674 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 13 years agoSo how long before you cant by apples and oranges then? You know it`ll happen.
And for what its worth, not a good win for the consumer. Stifle innovation you say?
What now for google? -
Can anyone say appeal? It sounds a lot like apple. -
Razz 63,428 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoLet's remember that this is Apple Vs Samsung and not the Apple Vs Google. Whilst this result certainly isn't beneficial for Google, it is not a ruling that says Google copied iOS -
Sid-Nice 15,848 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 15 years agoApple spend $12 billion on Samsung components. -
It's amazing that some people are saying some of the design features that apple introduced and routinely patented are now essential for these sort of devices so the patents shouldn't be valid. Actually crazy
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
