Apple vs. Samsung Page 5

  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

  • Dirtbox 25 Aug 2012 10:36:50 77,708 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    If it were anyone but apple, it would have been ignored.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • disusedgenius 25 Aug 2012 10:38:45 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I never said otherwise, no one is, the point of the case was that Samsung never took that second step.
    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.
  • Mr-Brett 25 Aug 2012 10:38:49 12,772 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    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.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 10:40:21
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    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!
    Give it a rest, I've been following the case for a while. You are hardly mr impartial yourself.
    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.
    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'.
  • Syrette 25 Aug 2012 10:42:36 43,301 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I love it when mowgli gets angry.

  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 10:42:42
    disusedgenius wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    I never said otherwise, no one is, the point of the case was that Samsung never took that second step.
    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.
    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.
  • AaronTurner 25 Aug 2012 10:44:32 7,683 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Pretty 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 25 Aug 2012 10:47:19 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli 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.
    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.
  • Mr-Brett 25 Aug 2012 10:50:43 12,772 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @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:
    :) ;) :p :D

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 10:50:51
    disusedgenius wrote:
    mowgli 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.
    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.
    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.

    Edited by mowgli at 10:56:23 25-08-2012
  • disusedgenius 25 Aug 2012 10:55:17 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Samsung just took it to far.
    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.
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 10:57:38
    Dirtbox wrote:
    If it were anyone but apple, it would have been ignored.
    ?
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 10:59:36
    Dirtbox wrote:
    That's why a majority of companies choose to use FRAND licensing. Apple does not.
    I think you may be a bit confused here db.
  • IMO 25 Aug 2012 11:03:10 5,634 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm just pissed off because Samsung deceived me into buying 400 quids worth of smartphone by thinking it was made by Apple.
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 11:09:15
    disusedgenius wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    Samsung just took it to far.
    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.
    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.
  • disusedgenius 25 Aug 2012 11:14:52 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    They are not essential to a phone on the market.
    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.
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 11:21:34
    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 25 Aug 2012 11:22:36 18,138 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Can someone sum up in 3 sentences what's going on here?
  • Dirtbox 25 Aug 2012 11:30:34 77,708 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Apple won.

    Samsung pays them 1bn.

    mowgli lol.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 11:31:20
    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 25 Aug 2012 11:31:24 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    No they aren't, you yourself have been laughing off how insignificant they are!
    Que?

    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 25 Aug 2012 11:32:30 7,683 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The 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 25 Aug 2012 11:34:01 5,284 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    What 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 25 Aug 2012 11:39:28 977 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Apple 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 25 Aug 2012 12:00:11 3,469 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So 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?
  • mcmonkeyplc 25 Aug 2012 12:08:21 39,440 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Can anyone say appeal? It sounds a lot like apple.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Razz 25 Aug 2012 12:19:25 61,070 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Let'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

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Sid-Nice 25 Aug 2012 12:27:24 15,852 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Apple spend $12 billion on Samsung components.

    NNID Sid-Nice

  • superdelphinus 25 Aug 2012 12:37:24 8,049 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    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
  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

Log in or register to reply