| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| A visual guide to Apple's IP claims |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by henderson101 on 2012-08-07 12:24:38 |
| "Comparing Samsung's flagship products before and after release of the iPhone & iPad, and how Apple's intellectual property infringement claims hold up." A terrible visual guide that ignores not only Samsung's own pre-iPhone designs, but also - and worse yet - the thirty-odd years of mobile computing that preceded the iPhone. Typical of today's technology world: a complete and utter lack of historical sense. Worse yet are the claims about icons: only the phone icon is similar, but Apple did not invent the green phone icon. This is a remnant of virtually all earlier phones which use a green phone icon for initiate/answer call, and a red phone icon for terminate/reject call. Claiming this deserves IP protection is beyond ridiculous, and shows just how low Apple is willing to go. |
|
| RE[5]: adults ? |
| By henderson101 on 2012-08-08 12:27:17 |
|
The BBC used to bend over backwards to be completely unbiased. It's still in their charter. On the other hand, if you watch Sky News (or Fox News) then the BBC News, you can see precisely what good vs bad is. Hint: Bad != BBC |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Pre-designs? |
| By henderson101 on 2012-08-08 12:39:39 |
| Yes - she threw then out. It was widely publicised. She then also then tore a strip off of Samsung for making those details public to the press. These are both facts. Your point? If the evidence was so vital as they claim, why did they bring it up so late in the process? Desperation and playing dirty. Samsung are not the innocent party in this. Neither are. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[4]: Phone icon |
| By henderson101 on 2012-08-08 12:51:08 |
|
The reason one starts multiple threads on OS News is that: 1) a single thread with an unpopular view point (no matter how valid) will get voted down to oblivion, hiding that opinion. (Which is not a fair way of working when people down vote due to emotional reasons, as with stories like this.) 2) Everyone has a limit of around 2 down votes on any user before you are unable to further down vote other comments by that user. (this is a guess, but it seems to work that way for me.) So, your first couple of comments are cannon fodder. It's gaming the system, but it stops the usual suspects down voting the comments they dislike because they can't stand anyone not agreeing with their own opinion. In the end, more people see your comments and more people up vote them if they agree and then often go back to see what you actually said and make their own mind up. Example? At one point my two initial comments were at -2, but they've since been voted back up to -1 or 0. That was less likely to happen with no coverage. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Stop the judging, that's what courts are for. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-08 12:55:51 |
|
His OSNews profile says 1 Dec 1984, which would make him 27. Given his day of birth it's not likely he owned or even used an Amiga or any other computer for that matter during the 80s. Nor would it ever have been his primary computer after the 80s. He probably got in to computing around the introduction of Windows 95. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[7]: Terrible? |
| By henderson101 on 2012-08-08 12:56:08 |
|
> When I saw the N770 I waited until they combined it with a phone. But somehow Nokia kept being stupid. The N770 was nowhere near the iPhone. The N800 and N810 weren't either. I own an N810 and owned an N800 also. Maemo is as far removed from the iOS user experience as possible. The only commonality is that they are both ARM based. The N900 was a phone, but it was seriously iPhone-ified. The Maemo OS was dumbed down for touch between NITOS2007 and the N900's version. The NITOS2008 (Diablo) started the trend, though it was initially just them making all the icons giant and finger sized. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[8]: Terrible? |
| By Fergy on 2012-08-08 13:16:19 |
|
> The N770 was nowhere near the iPhone. The thing that makes a current phone better than my old nokia phones is a big touchscreen and a full featured webbrowser. I have never owned the N770 but it certainly sounded like what I wanted. But now that I think of it; what is it that made the iphone so special? I just explained what it was for me. But apparently it was different for other people. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: adults ? |
| By Soulbender on 2012-08-08 13:18:22 |
|
> The BBC used to bend over backwards to be completely unbiased. I think you misunderstood me. I don't think there's anything wrong with them being biased. In fact, good journalism is biased but at the same time balanced. > Bad != BBC Indeed. Also, Biased != Bad & Unbiased != Good. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[8]: adults ? |
| By Laurence on 2012-08-08 13:41:27 |
|
I'm glad you've now taken to time to explain your position a little more because you're coming across a lot better now than you were in your original 3 post rants. While I do agree with a lot of what Thom posts, you are right that, at times, his pieces sound incredibly one sided. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position though :) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: I actually like your bias |
| By Bennie on 2012-08-08 14:47:34 |
|
Sorry but i think you used the wrong word when saying: Thom lacks integrity from wikipedia: Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. What i did read from Thom is actually the opposite of "lack of integrity". He is totally honest about his bias. He is consistent in his hating software patents. And saying you agree with leonalpha's observation that Thom lacks integrity is strange: Because he not even said that. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: I'm angry |
| By ingraham on 2012-08-08 14:48:20 |
|
> Drawing audible gasps from the audience it was first revealed to and visibly changing the direction of everything announced after it just doesn't count for much these days, apparently. The self-selected audience at a Apple product unveiling would audibly gasp in astonishment if Jobs had unveiled the new Apple iWheel. Of course, it would only work on Apple iRoads. As for "visibly changing everything after it," this is only partially true. Yes, it meant that we all now have capactive touch screens. But no, it really didn't change anything fundamental. Again, there is no task the iPhone does that my Tungsten E couldn't do 5 years earlier. The interface was clumsier, but the CONCEPTS were identical: tap on an icon to launch an app; play games; listen to music; watch videos; have a to do list and contacts and calendar. > "If you see a stylus, they screwed up." -SJ So the point is that technology evolved in 5 years? Go figure. And as much as Jobs was a design genius he isn't necessarily right on this. Numerous people I know (including my father) have complained about the lack of stylus. Samsung included one with the Galaxy Note. Generally, people have preferred a finger-only solution, but there are plenty of use cases for the stylus. > We're talking about designs. The whole product. Look, feel, usability, and, yes, raw, checklist-y features, but all of those things together. Forests, not trees. Why is that what we're talking about? To the best of my knowledge, the trial is about specific patents, e.g. the '318 "overscroll" or "rubber band" patent. That patent was filed years after I played Bejeweled (on my Tungsten E again!). When you try to swap two jewels illegaly, they "rubber band" back in to place! Somehow, our patent system is so broken it thinks that this concept is somehow different when scrolling to the end of page, and different again if it's touch screen instead of a mouse, and different again if it's on a projector instead of an LCD screen, etc., etc., etc. Apple does not have a patent for the forest, only the trees. > Apple decided that (using handwriting recognition and stylus) was a bad usability direction, and then by stunning coincidence, so did everyone else. My Tungsten already had a pop-up keyboard if I wanted it, and it used gestures, for example to copy and paste. (Oh wait, the iPhone didn't have copy and paste in 2007, did it?) But I do give Apple credit for paving the way in the marketplace. Yes, Apple convinced CONSUMERS that finger instead of stylus was good, so other companies could follow. Yes, I said follow. > The most common tactic when trying to tear down Apple: make a strawman by conflating innovation with invention. Innovation is a forest; invention is the trees. Apple, as a general rule, makes forests, not trees. Again, they don't have a patent on the forest. The iPhone (and other iOS devices) are very nice, and quite pretty. That doesn't mean that anyone who does something nice and pretty is copying them. > And the Newton predates Jot. If you want to argue that the Newton was innovative I'm all for it. It was vastly more innovative than the iPhone. Kudos to Apple for trying to make it work, and it's a shame that technology wasn't ready for it yet. Great idea, and it paved the way for others. But Apple isn't suing because Samsung copied the Newton. > But gestures are generally bad usability... Wait, what? I thought the gestures on the iPhone were a spectacular example of Apple's innovative genius? Now they're not? > 1. Samsung's TouchWiz looks more like iOS than vanilla Android does. Okay. Which patents are we talking about? > 2. Samsung is actually selling a product, while Google is just dumping code. All right, but that's still Google doing the copying, not Samsung. > 3. That product, taken as a whole, looks and works an awful lot like an iPhone. Again, "taken as a whole" isn't a patent that Apple can sue for. > Apple argues this is systemic and intentional (i.e. counterfeiting). Their argument has some very significant evidence behind it. Hm. I'm not sure I see "systemic and intentional copying" as the same as "counterfeiting." They don't put an Apple logo on the device, or try to pass it off as an iPhone. When the first car company added a radio, did anyone else adding a radio constitute "counterfeiting?" Keeping up with the competition is allowed. What is so maddening to me is that Apple does this EXACT same thing and doesn't see it. I've given numerous examples of things Apple copied, and you say "it's the totality of the thing, not the components." Then Samsung copies Apple and you say "burn them at the stake!" |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |