Apple vs. Samsung Page 6

  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 25 Aug 2012 12:49:57 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    They're not essential to make a mobile device, sure. What is essential, if you're going to be competative, is having a UI design which is intuitive and functional.

    Apparently though having a cluster-fuck of different UI styles and inputs is somehow a good thing now.
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 12:52:00
    Doing a fantastic job of painting the picture of only Samsung and Apple existing in the mobile arena disused. How come other manufactures manage to either innovate or license?
  • disusedgenius 25 Aug 2012 12:59:16 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Samsung and Apple pretty much blow the others out of the water though, don't they? I'd say thats a pretty solid example of how important having a common and well built UI is.
  • Deleted user 25 August 2012 13:30:50
    Samsung.
  • Psychotext 25 Aug 2012 14:46:09 55,032 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    superdelphinus wrote:
    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
    Most of the things Apple won on here have prior art... that they were even able to patent them in the first place is ridiculous. The jury should be ashamed for ignoring that evidence.
  • sport 25 Aug 2012 14:50:09 12,808 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think Apple was formed purely for mowgli to get one up on us!
  • Khanivor 25 Aug 2012 15:06:12 41,261 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Imagine if the patent scene was the same for PCs a little over 30 years ago. Apple wouldn't even exist today.
  • SirScratchalot 25 Aug 2012 18:50:21 7,877 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Foreign company vs domestic company with a jury. Might trigger a lawmaking reaction.
  • Dirtbox 25 Aug 2012 20:21:12 79,191 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    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.
    Apple invented nothing. I hope you realise they just took a load of existing technology and patented superficial design aspects.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 20:21:49 25-08-2012

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • prawnking1980 25 Aug 2012 20:36:20 5,193 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    My gold plated butt-plug business is being sued by Apple.

    Apparently they have a patent for overpriced crap for arseholes.
  • Blaizefm 25 Aug 2012 22:25:50 232 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    cheeky_prawnking wrote:
    My gold plated butt-plug business is being sued by Apple.

    Apparently they have a patent for overpriced crap for arseholes.
    You sound so bitter. Did Apple sleep with your girlfriend?
  • Dirtbox 25 Aug 2012 22:27:30 79,191 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    No, that's called humour.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • crashVoodoo 25 Aug 2012 23:06:17 4,018 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    cheeky_prawnking wrote:
    My gold plated butt-plug business is being sued by Apple.

    Apparently they have a patent for overpriced crap for arseholes.
    genuine lol, well done

    a Nexus a day keeps the apple away

  • Mr-Brett 26 Aug 2012 12:30:22 12,894 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago

    Level 37 Social Justice Warrior

  • mcmonkeyplc 26 Aug 2012 12:44:37 39,567 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    From their own Messiah no less!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:52:30
    Dirtbox wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    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.
    Apple invented nothing. I hope you realise they just took a load of existing technology and patented superficial design aspects.
    Yeah? It is the design aspects they created and patented, which have been stolen. No one is saying otherwise.
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:04:04 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Just in case you haven't been following the argument: It's the design patents which people are saying shouldn't be possible in the first place.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:10:05
    I left the thread as it was clearly going no where. Why shouldn't they be patentable, when it is the design aspects that distinguish models?
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:17:36 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The design aspects (artwork, style etc) are already covered by copyright, like any other kind of art. Trying to take ownership of artistic/design principles and concepts is needlessly stifling and detrimental to design process in general.

    Trying to own concepts and ideas in general seems wrong to me as well - no issue with patenting implementation or anything like that.

    ...which leads us back into the circle we found ourselves in yesterday.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:19:56
    You aren't actually answering the question. Why shouldn't design aspects, such as bouncing back at the end of a menu be patentable?
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:21:24 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Trying to take ownership of artistic/design principles and concepts is needlessly stifling and detrimental to design process in general.
  • Psychotext 26 Aug 2012 13:22:00 55,032 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Why shouldn't they be patentable, when it is the design aspects that distinguish models?
    I'm guessing you've never seen TVs or monitors? At the end of the day, there's a limit to what you can realistically do with a rectangle of plastic. Making it so that pretty much only Apple can use a rectangle with rounded corners is a little ridiculous. This is why you've seen manufacturers adding all sorts of random "flair" to their rectangles (so as not to get sued).

    Though with that said, Samsung do tend to make some of the more unique looking TVs (stands at least), so who knows if they can come up with something clever in the phone market.

    Edited by Psychotext at 13:22:53 26-08-2012
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:36:13
    I'm talking about the software design aspects, bounce back being the standout example in the thread. Not the outer model (and there was a wee bit more to it than a 'rectangle of plastic'.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:38:45
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Trying to take ownership of artistic/design principles and concepts is needlessly stifling and detrimental to design process in general.
    How is it any different from other patents? It wouldn't be patented if it wasn't worth something to the owner so how does it differ.

    Edited by mowgli at 13:48:16 26-08-2012
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:47:00 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Post deleted
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:47:40 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    so how does it differ.
    Ideas and concepts are intangible. Implementation isn't.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:51:23
    disusedgenius wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    so how does it differ.
    Ideas and concepts are intangible. Implementation isn't.
    Yeah, selectively quoting me to fit around a completely irrelevant attempt at an answer doesn't help anyone.
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 13:54:21 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    How is it any different from other patents? It wouldn't be patented if it wasn't worth something to the owner so how does it differ.
    Ideas and concepts are intangible. Implementation isn't.
    Happy?
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 14:02:03
    No not really. Some explanation would be good. Because you appear to be trying to look like you are making a point without actually committing yourself to one.
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 14:06:23 5,614 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I have no idea what you want explaining at this point, to be honest. I don't see what you're not seeing.

    Edit: How about this - I don't consider UIX design to be an invention-style process - does that make it any clearer?

    Edited by disusedgenius at 14:10:07 26-08-2012
  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

Log in or register to reply