Poll: Who?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31

  2. #32
    alphab0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    206
    Reputation
    68
    Thanks
    11
    The new iPhone looks like the new Samsung

  3. #33
    Hyperion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    8,287
    Reputation
    76
    Thanks
    1,245
    My Mood
    Lurking
    Quote Originally Posted by 1h1a1i View Post

    end of story
    I retract my previous post. After digging into this story a bit longer, I came across this pic:



    Samsung didn't copy the iphone's design. They came up with the candybar model before the iphone came out.
    Last edited by Hyperion; 08-07-2012 at 05:57 PM.

  4. #34
    1h1a1i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    1,252
    Reputation
    7
    Thanks
    21
    My Mood
    Doh
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperion View Post


    I retract my previous post. After digging into this story a bit longer, I came across this pic:



    Samsung didn't copy the iphone's design. They came up with the candybar model before the iphone came out.
    An internal Samsung email was admitted into evidence do you know what was said on said email


    "...I hear things like this: Let's make something like the iPhone...."

    "..When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That's how things are already...."

    "...Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it's a difference between Heaven and Earth.....:

    "....Influential figures outside the company come across the iPhone, and they point out that "Samsung is dozing off."...."

    "....It's a crisis of design.
    The world is changing, and the flow of change isn't something that you can have come back again by going
    against the flow....."

    heres the full memo give it a read---
    Samsung Exposes Its Blatant iPhone Jealousy
    Last edited by 1h1a1i; 08-07-2012 at 07:14 PM.
    Super Happy Fun Time

    "...Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. "
    - Albert Einstein

  5. #35
    Hyperion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    8,287
    Reputation
    76
    Thanks
    1,245
    My Mood
    Lurking
    Quote Originally Posted by 1h1a1i View Post
    An internal Samsung email was admitted into evidence do you know what was said on said email


    "...I hear things like this: Let's make something like the iPhone...."

    "..When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That's how things are already...."

    "...Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it's a difference between Heaven and Earth.....:

    "....Influential figures outside the company come across the iPhone, and they point out that "Samsung is dozing off."...."

    "....It's a crisis of design.
    The world is changing, and the flow of change isn't something that you can have come back again by going
    against the flow....."

    heres the full memo give it a read---
    Samsung Exposes Its Blatant iPhone Jealousy
    Okay, iSheep. I'm trying to understand what you're arguing for.
    I understand that before and right after the iphone was released, no other smartphones had a UI quite like the iphone. That's okay. I'll give you that. However, android is so different from the iOS that you can't seriously think android is a rip-off of iOS. Customization is the key difference and makes the android's UI look far better than the iphone's.

    But all that is irrelevant. What Apple is arguing about is NOT the UI or the software, but the formfactor of the device. My point (And Samsung's) is that Apple did not fucking invent the current smartphone formfactor. It was just an evolutionary step in the phone models that would have happened regardless if Apple entered the smartphone market or not.
    The fact that Samsung had models that had the iphone shape before the iphone was released is proof. The LG Prada is another smartphone that had the iphone-like shape that was revealed before the iphone.

    Take a look at this pic:



    The phone in the middle was released around the same time the iphone was announced, meaning their formfactors were decided far before the iphone was announced publicly. The phone on the right was released later and is more similar to the shape of the iphone than the middle phone. However, if you think that smartphones can possess a drastically different design, given our human physiology, then you are delusional.
    There is simply no way else to build a smartphone and now there's proof that Apple was not the first to think of the shape and size of the phone.
    Last edited by Hyperion; 08-07-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #36
    ☬Ξη†τσρîζ Ζσ♍βîε δτσηε☬
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Lehsyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,900
    Reputation
    1281
    Thanks
    3,072
    Quote Originally Posted by 1h1a1i View Post
    An internal Samsung email was admitted into evidence do you know what was said on said email


    "...I hear things like this: Let's make something like the iPhone...."

    "..When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That's how things are already...."

    "...Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it's a difference between Heaven and Earth.....:

    "....Influential figures outside the company come across the iPhone, and they point out that "Samsung is dozing off."...."

    "....It's a crisis of design.
    The world is changing, and the flow of change isn't something that you can have come back again by going
    against the flow....."

    heres the full memo give it a read---
    Samsung Exposes Its Blatant iPhone Jealousy

    You sir, are FUCKING RETARDED. Oh my god, seriously did you not fucking read the entire letter?

    There is a saying that “Judges speak through their judgments.” Have you heard that? (Nobody answers…) You
    haven’t heard that? Engineers don’t need to say, “I implemented this however which way” and don’t need to talk
    about this problem or that. They show, with the very product they have developed.
    The same goes for designers. Whatever else can be said about design language, there is no need for explanations.
    Does not President Choi demand to see the mockup first, before he listens to any explanations?
    Designers, for your part, do not speak; show your properly executed design
    The most important aspect of a design is its level of perfection. I hope that you do your best to increase the level of
    perfection until you have achieved higher quality.
    - A company goes out of business because of its own success factors. Samsung’s success factors are diligence,
    sincerity, and acting in an exemplary manner. The kind that says yes to whatever a carrier wants…
    That’s a shortcut to going out of business. All the carriers tell me, Hey JK! Your phones have great technological
    prowess and everything’s great. But it’s hard to sell them as high-end phones.
    That’s because we spent all of our subsidy funds on the iPhone and can’t give a penny in subsidy to your phones, so
    of course your phones will be expensive and then it follows that they won’t sell.

    I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone.
    The section I set in bold is a QUOTATION of what subsidy carriers spend their funds on. He is telling Eun that the standard reasoning for their phones upgrades are in competition to that of the iPhone, that the iPhone ALREADY IS DOMINATING THE MARKET, and that they are CONSISTENTLY pressed by outside sources to COMPARE THEIR PHONES TO THE iPHONE FOR REFERENCE.

    If you can not pull that out of the message, ESPECIALLY it being a translation, you have NO right even THINKING of posting on here. The ENTIRE letter is saying that their phones are COMPARED to iPhones and need to STEP UP THE DESIGNS as pertaining to that of the iPhone to BEAT their market.

    Also, that email is dated AFTER Samsungs first generation of candy-bar design phones, so your argument is still INVALID.

  7. #37
    1h1a1i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    1,252
    Reputation
    7
    Thanks
    21
    My Mood
    Doh
    Apple does not need to prove that consumers are fooled into believing that the Samsung products are Apple products, but their case is bolstered by the fact that some consumers were thus fooled.

    Apple's assertion in this lawsuit is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of background, and that requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents.

    Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' clam that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

    Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.

    Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

    But how does this relate to design patent law?

    The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

    This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers protection of a new and novel design for a period of 14 years, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.

    Because this is not a trademark case, Apple does not need to prove that Samsung is trying to confuse the customer into believing that there are no significant differences between the products. Apple needs to prove only that Samsung infringed upon specific patented aspects of the iPhone and iPad designs. It's likely Samsung did this less to confuse customers and more to simply create a competitive product. Samsung's motivation is actually immaterial; only whether it actually created products that infringe Apple's design patents is what's in question. The fact that Apple has brought up the notion of trade dress and that some consumers were confused and believed they had purchased an Apple iPad when they actually purchased a Galaxy Tab is only to illustrate how similar the designs are, which bolsters its contention that infringement occurred.
    Last edited by 1h1a1i; 08-07-2012 at 08:32 PM.
    Super Happy Fun Time

    "...Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. "
    - Albert Einstein

  8. #38
    Hyperion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    8,287
    Reputation
    76
    Thanks
    1,245
    My Mood
    Lurking
    Quote Originally Posted by 1h1a1i View Post
    Apple does not need to prove that consumers are fooled into believing that the Samsung products are Apple products, but their case is bolstered by the fact that some consumers were thus fooled.

    Apple's assertion in this lawsuit is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of background, and that requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents.

    Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' clam that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

    Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.

    Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

    But how does this relate to design patent law?

    The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

    This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers protection of a new and novel design for a period of 14 years, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.

    Because this is not a trademark case, Apple does not need to prove that Samsung is trying to confuse the customer into believing that there are no significant differences between the products. Apple needs to prove only that Samsung infringed upon specific patented aspects of the iPhone and iPad designs. It's likely Samsung did this less to confuse customers and more to simply create a competitive product. Samsung's motivation is actually immaterial; only whether it actually created products that infringe Apple's design patents is what's in question. The fact that Apple has brought up the notion of trade dress and that some consumers were confused and believed they had purchased an Apple iPad when they actually purchased a Galaxy Tab is only to illustrate how similar the designs are, which bolsters its contention that infringement occurred.
    OH... So now you're changing your tune from, "SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE" to "Samsung infringed on Apple's patent on the rectangle. So even if Apple was never the first to come up with the idea of the candy bar model, they should still be able to keep their patent and have a monopoly on the smart phone market because no one else was smart enough to patent the rectangle," is that right?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Apples Are the New Trend!
    By Faux in forum Showroom
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 07:35 PM
  2. Apple or Microsoft?
    By A⁴ in forum General
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 03:46 PM
  3. FUCK APPLE!
    By brucevduyn in forum Flaming & Rage
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 04:23 PM
  4. windows xp to apple mac
    By josser in forum General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 06:16 PM
  5. Apple - A new kind of crash.
    By Dave84311 in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-26-2006, 09:58 PM