If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Apple: We lost billions in profits due to Samsung patent infringement. Judge: OK, well then you are ordered to disclose details of sales, earnings, and profit margins on iPhones so we can just verify that assertion. Apple: oops   (news.cnet.com) divider line 224
    More: Amusing, Samsung, Judge Koh, iPhones, patent infringements, profit margins, u.s. patent, account of profits  
•       •       •

22875 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-18 08:35:08 PM

C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
 
>

It had free plugins that did everything any smart phone does, including WiFi

the only thing an IPad has that this doesn't is Cellular connectivity as the miniaturization of cellular modems hadn't advanced far enough.

The IPad not only copies about 50 devices predicted by multiple movies and TV Shows, it also was the expected direction of hand held computers since the late 90s.


You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?

Samsung vs. Apple icons:

static6.businessinsider.com
 
2012-10-18 08:50:19 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

Billions!
 
2012-10-18 09:07:54 PM

ScottRiqui: C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
 
>

It had free plugins that did everything any smart phone does, including WiFi

the only thing an IPad has that this doesn't is Cellular connectivity as the miniaturization of cellular modems hadn't advanced far enough.

The IPad not only copies about 50 devices predicted by multiple movies and TV Shows, it also was the expected direction of hand held computers since the late 90s.

You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?

Samsung vs. Apple icons:

[static6.businessinsider.com image 223x644]


icons

in order of the picture

#1 is the common colour and icon since dial pad, apple didn't make that, they copied it
#2 is the chat icon that is used as far back as icq
#3 is apple ripping of windows XP for crap sakes
#4 cogs have been the settings icon for decades almost as long as the long defunct diskette has been the save button
#5 the note icon is a ripof from LOTUS NOTES
#6 Contacts icon has been around for over a decade,
#7 I've seen music players with that icon in WIN 3.1

This is why people think apple fan boys are retarded. Those are all standard commonly used icon formats that have been around a very long time and are used to denote obvious common functions that are required for any device with computing functions. Then you double down on the derp by implying that apple was the first to come up with these industry standards.
 
2012-10-18 09:23:03 PM

C_Canuk: This is why people think apple fan boys are retarded. Those are all standard commonly used icon formats that have been around a very long time and are used to denote obvious common functions that are required for any device with computing functions. Then you double down on the derp by implying that apple was the first to come up with these industry standards.


I've used most of the programs you mentioned, and don't remember the icons being as close to the Apple ones as the Samsung ones are. A quick GIS didn't pull up any obvious candidates, either. And for all the Apple hate in the world, you'd think that someone would have come up with a graphic similar to the one I posted, except showing the Apple icons next to the ones they supposedly ripped off.
 
2012-10-18 09:24:30 PM
And did you have anything to say about the rest of my post?

"You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?"
 
2012-10-18 09:31:01 PM

ScottRiqui: darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:

[cdn.osxdaily.com image 580x812]


www.freeimagehosting.net 

Shmuck
 
2012-10-18 09:34:12 PM

change1211: ScottRiqui: darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:

[cdn.osxdaily.com image 580x812]

[www.freeimagehosting.net image 768x1500] 

Shmuck


Jebus. That image failed.

s9.postimage.org
 
2012-10-18 09:34:58 PM

change1211: ScottRiqui: darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes. Considering a lot of these phones play video and the current trend is for widescreen tvs. So you need to make a rectangular screen. Now I suppose you could do some sort of trapezoid screen but that would just be weird. As far as the corners, since these are devices that are intended to be put into a pocket, and be held in hands, you have to dull the corners, thus rounded corners.

Even fixing those (and other) design elements in place (thin rectangular display, rounded corners, flat back), there's still a LOT of leeway to create a tablet that doesn't resemble the iPad nearly as strongly as Samsung's and other's post-iPad tablets do:

[cdn.osxdaily.com image 580x812]

[www.freeimagehosting.net image 768x1500] 

Shmuck


I don't care about this argument one way or another, but is that really the best image you could find?
 
2012-10-18 09:40:51 PM

StoPPeRmobile: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x260] 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.


China Factory Outlet?
 
2012-10-18 09:41:46 PM

ScottRiqui: steamingpile: People keep using that pic but its bullshiat, all those devices are made for heavy duty applications which is the reason for their size and grips. The screens are fragile and they need to protect them along with the HDs, what got them smaller are tiny HDs and gorilla glass being used in this application. But for apple people its just a cheap knock off, along with more features, faster, open OS, better screens, smoother interfaces........

Yeah, I posted that pic half tongue-in-cheek, but you can't deny that the visual/stylistic differences between pre-iPad tablets and the iPad are a LOT greater than the differences between the original iPad and the tablets that have been released since.

I'm just bringing up the possibility that many of the visual & design elements in the iPad were only "intuitively obvious" AFTER the iPad was released, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.


Different is not the point what is the point is how technology allowed it to progress, just because apple was first to market using inflated priced tech doesn't mean others won't follow once tech prices drop.

Otherwise philco could sue every company who made a square TV after they first introduced it.
 
2012-10-18 10:10:47 PM

Kit Fister: AlgertMan: fark Apple.

Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, som ...


Summary for TLDR: I paid way too much for exactly the same features. Weep for me
 
2012-10-19 12:36:17 AM

Kit Fister: Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.


I call shenanigans! Apple does it because they want to control the process end to end to reap all the profit. It is the old Henry Ford model.

//I don't buy Apple. The products are overpriced and overhyped crap.
 
2012-10-19 12:42:18 AM
Hate to admit but I don't own a cell phone and have never missed it.

Only maids and butlers are always reachable.
 
2012-10-19 12:44:57 AM

C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
pdadb.net

It had free plugins that did everything any smart phone does, including WiFi

the only thing an IPad has that this doesn't is Cellular connectivity as the miniaturization of cellular modems hadn't advanced far enough.

The IPad not only copies about 50 devices predicted by multiple movies and TV Shows, it also was the expected direction of hand held computers since the late 90s.


Please, had one of these in 2001.

upload.wikimedia.org

It was basically the size of a Palm Pilot glued to a cell phone but it still rocked (though I carried my iPaq around for a while too)! After this I bought damn near every Palm phone until the Samsung Galaxy S2 came out not I am hooked on Android.
 
2012-10-19 04:23:05 AM
At what point does a company reach the size and power where it is now entitled to profit? No business is entitled to profits. You can speculate and project all you want, but some analyst's report detailing what profits should end up being is not a legally binding contract with the rest of the world.
 
kab
2012-10-19 08:59:28 AM
Not making money that you possibly maybe might have made doesn't mean that you actually "lost" anything.

"If only I had gotten that second job. I've lost thousands this year"

See how dumb that sounds? Stop it.
 
2012-10-19 11:01:07 AM

ScottRiqui: steamingpile: People keep using that pic but its bullshiat, all those devices are made for heavy duty applications which is the reason for their size and grips. The screens are fragile and they need to protect them along with the HDs, what got them smaller are tiny HDs and gorilla glass being used in this application. But for apple people its just a cheap knock off, along with more features, faster, open OS, better screens, smoother interfaces........

Yeah, I posted that pic half tongue-in-cheek, but you can't deny that the visual/stylistic differences between pre-iPad tablets and the iPad are a LOT greater than the differences between the original iPad and the tablets that have been released since.

I'm just bringing up the possibility that many of the visual & design elements in the iPad were only "intuitively obvious" AFTER the iPad was released, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.


So what do you think of the picture Change1211 posted? The fact that you cherrypicked your devices to make your point then when you are showed there were devices already made that looked just like the tablets of today you run away because you have nothing to say since you are wrong.
 
2012-10-19 11:14:02 AM
I have an iPhone, I like it, but seriously fark apple.
 
2012-10-19 11:25:00 AM
Is it too late in the thread to mention that Thomas Edison (and his companies) were avid patent-writers, and were also avid patent-violation-suers of those who infringed?

Does that fact make his light bulb, record player, or motion picture innovations (to name a few), and less valuable?

/the answer is "no."
 
2012-10-19 11:26:53 AM
Regarding the icons, I'm pretty sure they aren't just limited to Samsung, as my hacked Nook running CM9 uses several of them. Many of them aren't really all that similar unless you're tripping balls and looking at them through coke-bottle glasses.

Btw, am I going to hell because I love the new child slave labour made iPod Nano that everyone seems to hate because it's an ugly rip-off of the Nokia Lumina, is too big to wear as a watch, and doesn't have enough on it to be called a mini iPod Touch, and actually has the audacity to be pretty much music only? Because I really love it, and Nanos are the only things I'll buy from Apple from now on. I had the 2008 model, second last with the Clickwheel, and the battery is starting to tweak out. The new Nano's got a touch screen, but it also has physical controls! The button on the side does volume, play/pause, forward/backwards, and it will tell me song/artist if I don't recognise it, all without turning on the screen. I don't see why it's getting so much hate.


/Can't wait to ditch my 4 for a less restricted phone.
//Would have loved for Bluetooth to be data synch in addition to audio playback
///Not impressed about Apple charging 35 bucks for an adaptor, and then waiting on shipping said adaptor out a week after the iPod was shipped. It should have been included for free, but we all know Apple are greedy bastards.
 
2012-10-19 12:46:08 PM

bacongood: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.

You are really confident for a guy who clearly has no idea what he is talking about...

Check the MPEPE, 2100 in general, 2121 and 2121.04/2125 in specific.

Pictures can be prior art but all prior art needs to be enabling. A non-functional prop from 1968 is in no way enabling.


Yes and no... Non-enabling prior art is still relevant for the limited bits it teaches. For example, Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon would anticipate a patent application claiming "A method of flying to the moon, comprising: firing a projectile from a big ass cannon." You'd have to go at least slightly farther than that in order to get around that art.

Similarly, the 2001 tablet would be prior art for a claim of "A portable viewer comprising a flat screen and a row of buttons labeled with numbers," but as soon as you get into processors, network connectivity, etc., the Kubrick reference wouldn't teach those. You can't claim inherency either with non-enabling art.
In this case, it's a fine reference against the design patent, but frankly, it's quite different visually. The aspect ratio is narrower, it doesn't have the same bezel, and there's a row of channel buttons at the bottom, offset at an angle.
 
2012-10-19 12:46:45 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


The patent isn't as vague as you think?
 
2012-10-19 12:49:14 PM

darian1919: Furthermore, there is more than prior art to look at, like obviousness. Is the form factor, a rectangle with rounded edges, obvious to someone skilled in the art. I'd argue yes.


Prior art is the evidence you use to prove obviousness. What you said is equivalent to "furthermore, there is more than evidence to look at, like guilt. Is the defendant, accused of murder, guilty looking? I'd argue yes." It's a conclusion, not an argument, and must be supported by evidence.
 
2012-10-20 03:39:08 PM
"we like touching our phones together. so we can "exchange" playlists. see u at the "studio" later

studio meaning studio apartment of course. before the inevitable buttsex
 
Displayed 24 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report