[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1345979300' post='4973447']
I think it's pretty clear Samsung copied Apple.

I think $1b is a ridiculous sum.

And I think I'm still going to but the apple products I buy because I like them.

What do you mean by "copied"? Yes, I'm sure they looked at Apple products and said how can they improve - but the same is surely true of Apple. Yes, there are a few things in Samsung products that came first in Apple's. But the same is true of loads of features that are in Apple's phones, and were in earlier products.

But I don't see that any of the things here should be covered by patents, in my opinion. "Copying" is generally a good thing, and an essential part of technology and progress, due to the way that we advance by building on previous ideas. Jobs himself said good artists copy, great artists steal.
[/quote]

By "copied" I mean exactly that. I'm willing to be that at some point, someone in Samsung put a team together, showed them the iphone and said "make something like that". Of course they did. They would be idiots not to. When the iphone came out, there wasn't anything else like it on the market. Sure there were similar phones around, but the iphone was the first to put all the meaningful elements together.

Samsung were either lazy or stupid, or they were deliberately trying to create the impression that the Galaxy S was "an iphone", which is what non-technically savvy people call a smart phone. When my mom was upgraded to an S2, she told me she had an "iphone". When I told her it wasn't, she said "it's just a different kind of iphone". I've heard similar sentiments from plenty of people. Samsung were deliberately attempting not to differentiate their product from an iphone; hell, they couldn't even be bothered to come up with an original icon for the photos app. Don't tell me a flower is an obvious choice for photos icon. They were trying to create the perception in the publics mind that the Galaxy was "a different kind of iphone".

So yeah, I think they copied the iphone. That is simply my interpretation of the facts as I see them, and my gut instinct wrt how companies work.

But I also think there wasn't anything much wrong with that ("great artist steal" and so on). As I said, $1 billion is a ridiculous sum. Nor do I like the litigiousness of Apple. They should have just run a marketing campaign saying how they were flattered that the competition was inspired by them.

My final point was that ultimately, I really don't give a damn about this. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I've tried both an iPhone and various Galaxies, and I personally prefer the iPhone. If someone else likes something else, good for them. Maybe someday I'll find an android phone that I like better the iphone, maybe not. But I don't feel the need to defend Apple, or my decision to buy their products, or to engage in pointless phone-os-wars.

They were trying to create the perception in the publics mind that the Galaxy was "a different kind of iphone".

Of course, at the same time the phone as 'samsung' across the top if pretty unsubtle lettering so the arguement could be made that while they made a device which at the most basic level 'looks like' an iPhone between the differences in shape, the different button layous and indeed the silver Samsung placed firmly at the top of the phone when you look at it if the general public can't tell the difference then that isn't really their fault - it's not like Samsung are some small unknown company riding on Apple's coat tails either, they were already long established in other areas (including TVs which look like a bigger iPhone/iPad if you want to take the insane view that someone can patent a damned shape).

I don't even agree that because people call it 'an iphone' it proves anything; hoover is a brand name for a vacuum cleaner yet people refer to them as 'hoovers' all the time. Kleenx is a brand of tissues yet people use it in the general term. The fact that their product name is what defines the product is simply because it was the first one which was marketed successfully to people.

I disagree that the iPhone was as good as everyone thinks, it was missing many features found in phones at the time, however marketing hype made up for this; that is what Apple does - marketing to induce 'coolness' which people then want regardless of technical merit.

Now however they find themselves being pushed on various fronts by people who might well have initially taken the basic appearance but have since expanded the software beyond what Apple's can do and instead of making a 'Better' product (or a least a better marketed product) have decided to try to get products banned instead.

Oh well; lets now watch and see how Google vs Apple pans out... meanwhile the rest of us in the tech industry can spend our time wondering how we are meant to innovate anything if you can't build upon someone elses idea and come up with your own take on them...

Of course, at the same time the phone as 'samsung' across the top if pretty unsubtle lettering so the arguement could be made that while they made a device which at the most basic level 'looks like' an iPhone between the differences in shape, the different button layous and indeed the silver Samsung placed firmly at the top of the phone when you look at it if the general public can't tell the difference then that isn't really their fault - it's not like Samsung are some small unknown company riding on Apple's coat tails either, they were already long established in other areas (including TVs which look like a bigger iPhone/iPad if you want to take the insane view that someone can patent a damned shape).

I don't even agree that because people call it 'an iphone' it proves anything; hoover is a brand name for a vacuum cleaner yet people refer to them as 'hoovers' all the time. Kleenx is a brand of tissues yet people use it in the general term. The fact that their product name is what defines the product is simply because it was the first one which was marketed successfully to people.

Yes, the iphone definitely has a kleenex effect, and I think Samsung were looking to exploit this.

I disagree that the iPhone was as good as everyone thinks, it was missing many features found in phones at the time, however marketing hype made up for this; that is what Apple does - marketing to induce 'coolness' which people then want regardless of technical merit.

The relative merits of the iPhone are irrelevant. It brought together a few key things (mostly a combination of multi-touch, gestures and so on) that no-one else was doing at the time. The fact that it was missing something as simple and fundamental as copy-paste and still succeeded speaks volumes as to how much Apple read what the average consumer wanted, as opposed to enterprise, techies, etc.

Now however they find themselves being pushed on various fronts by people who might well have initially taken the basic appearance but have since expanded the software beyond what Apple's can do and instead of making a 'Better' product (or a least a better marketed product) have decided to try to get products banned instead.

Oh well; lets now watch and see how Google vs Apple pans out... meanwhile the rest of us in the tech industry can spend our time wondering how we are meant to innovate anything if you can't build upon someone elses idea and come up with your own take on them...

Yeah, I don't particularly like that either.

This is ridiculous...

and I think Samsung were looking to exploit this.

Indeed, but this is what any good company will do - they will take a competing product, improve it in areas they think they can, give it their own branding/feel and then sell it.

If Samsung had spat out their own 'iphone look-a-like' in 6 months, at a cheap price with a low quality to exploit things then I might have more sympathy for Apple but it was nearly 3 years between the iPhone being announced and the Galaxy S being announced during which time Apple had pushed out 3 more phones, each a minor incremental improvement over the next, and cemented its name in the minds of the user.

This, to my mind, is a company which has sat down and said 'what is our competitor doing right? what can we learn from them? and what do the end users want?' and then designed a product which, yes has some of the simular appearance of an iPhone but is, imo, also distinct from it. (And shaped like phones which already existed, TV, digital photo frames, various devices from sci-fi which someone had to design and so on.)

I'm glad that Apple weren't in the phone market back in the late 90s/early 2000s because if they had been they would have been sueing everyone left right and centre because they developed a device which happened to have a screen with a keypad under it because this is the same kind of insanity which is being allowed now.

The fact that it was missing something as simple and fundamental as copy-paste and still succeeded speaks volumes as to how much Apple read what the average consumer wanted, as opposed to enterprise, techies, etc.[/quote]

I think it speaks more of the power of marketing and the 'cool' factor already built up around Apple due to the iPod; people were calling the damned thing the 'jesus phone' for gods sake and yet it was fundimentally behind everyone else in terms of what it could do. I admit that at the time they put a good UX over what it could do but they released into market a device which was missing things such as 3G access; the fact it sold has nothing todo with how good it was but how good the marketing campaign was.

However now that everyone else has caught on and is exceeding them in these areas they are surviving by lock in, hype and the courts it would seem - innovation is apprently dying it would seem.

This is not to get at you btw, I just wanted to vent a little because the whole situation is insane; consumers will lose out and lawyers will get paid. Apple 'lovers' will defend Apple's position and would probably continue to do so if they won, their competition got banned, and their next iPhone cost twice the amount of the current one did (And the graphics card 'wars' of the early 2000s show that spiralling prices are the result of no competition); you can also flip that to the Android 'lovers' who want to see Apple die so that Android can rule them all.

In fact the most amusing thing about this whole situation is that MS, the tradional 'bad guy', might well end up being the best chance at shaking things up with WP8 if they can just get their marketing into shape to get people to buy the damned thing. Its the first mobile OS to try something 'new' in 5+ years (iOS and Android are, at their heart just a desktop on your phone with icons you click - we really haven't move on in this regard) and is a breath of fresh air in that regard.

Apple: Yeah you know, PowerPC is shit, we are now going Intel. There are some very cool Intel Macs, go buy them.
Me: What's the difference to a PC?
Apple: PC is shit, we are cool.

Indeed - the particularly funny thing is the way that Apple marketed Macs as "PCs" back in the PowerPC days (because they wanted to claim first 64-bit PC - apparently Macs are PCs, but all the earlier 64-bit personal computers weren't PCs...), but now it seems almost everyone has swallowed this recentism of Macs not being PCs, which is all part of Apple's marketing compaign since the switch to Intel, to retain some kind of distinction.

It's painful to hear the expression "Macs and PCs" - but then again, I now see "Ipods and mp3 players" and "Ipads and tablets"... still, I suppose we should be thankful the competition gets acknowledge at all. The other day I saw an advert saying "Works on computers, Ipads and mobile phones"...

By "copied" I mean exactly that. I'm willing to be that at some point, someone in Samsung put a team together, showed them the iphone and said "make something like that". Of course they did. They would be idiots not to. When the iphone came out, there wasn't anything else like it on the market. Sure there were similar phones around, but the iphone was the first to put all the meaningful elements together.

Not true, as phantom says. The Iphone lacked loads of features that are standard in phones today - hell, they were standard in even feature phones released as early as 2005, in some cases. I mean, the Iphone couldn't even run apps! All phones in 2007 lacked some features that others had. And one could make the "not anything else like it on the market" of most phones, which all had their differences. (Also see my comments below to your later comment about "key" features.)

Sure, no doubt that Samsung took a look at competing phones. But I bet Apple did the same - and as I said, this is what companies do all the time, including Apple. As they should do. It's how progress is made - look at what's out there, and make it cheaper/better/faster.

Samsung were either lazy or stupid, or they were deliberately trying to create the impression that the Galaxy S was "an iphone", which is what non-technically savvy people call a smart phone. When my mom was upgraded to an S2, she told me she had an "iphone".[/quote]I'm not sure how Samsung are to blame for people being stupid. That's the fault of the absurd disproportionate hype given by the media. The Galaxy S doesn't look like an Iphone to me, and I see no evidence of trademark infringement (which is all that it should be here - not patents). "Smart" phone is just a vague marketing term; by any technical definition, the first Iphone wasn't even a smart or feature phone, since it couldn't run apps.

Don't tell me a flower is an obvious choice for photos icon. They were trying to create the perception in the publics mind that the Galaxy was "a different kind of iphone".[/quote]They actually used that phrase?

[quote]But I also think there wasn't anything much wrong with that ("great artist steal" and so on).[/quote]Well in that case, we're in agreement. And I'm just pointing out that Apple have done the same too.

My final point was that ultimately, I really don't give a damn about this. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I've tried both an iPhone and various Galaxies, and I personally prefer the iPhone. If someone else likes something else, good for them. Maybe someday I'll find an android phone that I like better the iphone, maybe not. But I don't feel the need to defend Apple, or my decision to buy their products, or to engage in pointless phone-os-wars.[/quote]I prefer Symbian and Android. And before that, I was happily doing Internet, apps, video calling and copy/paste on my 2005 Motorola feature phone

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1346189726' post='4974242']
I disagree that the iPhone was as good as everyone thinks, it was missing many features found in phones at the time, however marketing hype made up for this; that is what Apple does - marketing to induce 'coolness' which people then want regardless of technical merit.

The relative merits of the iPhone are irrelevant. It brought together a few key things (mostly a combination of multi-touch, gestures and so on) that no-one else was doing at the time. The fact that it was missing something as simple and fundamental as copy-paste and still succeeded speaks volumes as to how much Apple read what the average consumer wanted, as opposed to enterprise, techies, etc.[/quote]Why are the things that the Iphone was first with "key things", but not the things that other phones of that time had? You're just cherry picking. I've used a non-multitouch touchscreen phone, as well as now a multitouch phone. The advantage of touchscreen is *much* bigger than the advantage of multitouch.

And surely your argument could be used for everyone else? The fact that other platforms of that time lacked something as apparently "key" as multitouch, yet still succeeded, speaks volumes as to how much they read what the average consumer wanted, etc...

Do you know that the other smartphones of the time sold *far* more than the Iphone platform, which has never been number one? The idea of smartphones being for geeks and techies until the Iphone came along is a myth - the mainstream consumer platform was Symbian until 2011, and then Android. Back in 2007-2008, Iphones weren't used by mainstream consumers, and were just as much an expensive phone for geeks, as with earlier smartphones years before. I mean, even Samsung's other smartphone platform that no one's ever heard of (Bada) is selling more than what Iphone managed in the early years, despite the latter getting vast amounts of media coverage, and Bada none.

Part of the reason for this myth may be because it was more like that in the US, where phones were rubbish, with BlackBerry mainly in business, but it certainly wasn't true worldwide. Plus, BlackBerry themselves became more popular with consumers in the late 2000s *and still outsold the Iphone platform* until recently.

And Android was being worked on since 2003, bought out by Google in 2005, and released in 2008 - which has since made a far bigger contribution to the popularity and mainstream usage of smartphones, both in the US and worldwide (both simply in terms of sales, and the fact you don't have to spend a vast amount of money on one). I believe the latest market share is now approaching 70%.

Sales figures at http://en.wikipedia....l_sales_figures

people were calling the damned thing the 'jesus phone' for gods sake and yet it was fundimentally behind everyone else in terms of what it could do.

I always thought that was people taking the mickey - that the users were fanatical about it like it was Jesus.

In fact the most amusing thing about this whole situation is that MS, the tradional 'bad guy', might well end up being the best chance at shaking things up with WP8 if they can just get their marketing into shape to get people to buy the damned thing. Its the first mobile OS to try something 'new' in 5+ years (iOS and Android are, at their heart just a desktop on your phone with icons you click - we really haven't move on in this regard) and is a breath of fresh air in that regard.[/quote]I agree, yes. My 2005 Motorola feature phone had a grid of colour icons that you clicked on. As did my 1985 Amiga...

Those stupid Samsung guys were probably trying to marketing: "Get 5 Apple alike for the prize of one Apple"

Those Apple patents are ridiculous. I agree to have Samsung change it, but any indemnification is inappropriate!-
Why, because Apple devices are less good than from most other manufacturers. For example my XPERIA X10 Mini pro
is lightyears ahead, smaller, lighter with more features and I've payed 70.-$ for it! I could have gotten 10 Xperia for the price of one Iphone.-

In case people have missed it, this article at Groklaw indicates the jury were confused, misled, or downright careless with regards to prior art in their verdict. Hopefully grounds for appeal!

jury were confused, misled, or downright careless

Is that not the base of every US court? Though admittedly John Grisham (Runaway Jury, anyone?) and the few prominent cases that aired on TV here (e.g. Simpson murder trial in the late 90s) are my first hand experience with US courts, I dare to say that there's a grain of truth in that. Or take the famous 12 Angry Men.

Uneducated (juridically uneducated) people, deliberately selected with a strong bias are presented selective evidence and given a big smoke and mirrors show. What's right and what's wrong depends on what they conclude, or how much they like the lawyers bowtie. If you go to court in Texas, you had better not be a foreigner, too. Or, heaven forbid, black.

So... what exactly do you expect to come out of this?