[deep_bang]

Originally Posted by Newpunter

I think the problem is with the patent system that grants patents with vague wordings that can have a very wide interpretation. For example, Apple sued HTC for the gesture used to unlock the phone. Apple have registered a lot of these vague patents ( rectangular phone with a single button at the bottom, finger gestures to lock and unlock a phone, I think they have even patented the pinch to zoom gesture ).
I remember Apple suing Microsoft when Windows was newly launched, claiming they invented the GUI and that Microsoft was infringing on their patents. Funnily, Xerox sued Apple for the GUI and Apple had to pay compensation to Xerox.

The pinch to zoom feature was a top class feature that was one of the biggest pluses for iPhone. This is very much a patentable invention. The ability to multitouch is really something new in the industry. Even now, Samsung has not got it as good as Iphone.

Anyway, my point is that, the Patent system is a very important part of the whole ecosystem, and obviously, while i am against patenting something like a rectangular box with a button at the center, i am sure the US patent office is far more judicious in granting patents. If, Apple did get a patent for a box of a particular dimensions, with a certain particular curves at a certain point, and a few buttons at a certain strategic point (perhaps their research shows it to be the most convinient point to do certain things), why should Samsung copy it if they did not have the intention to really ride on Apple's success ?

My point is, dont be so critical of Apple. Apple is indeed an iconic brand. One would not want imitations of poorer quality (No offence to Samsung owners - I do like Samsung, but iPhone does seem to be better that Samsung Galaxy) to tarnish the image of the iPhone.

[Disclaimer: I have an iPhone. I also like Android].

[Newpunter]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

The pinch to zoom feature was a top class feature that was one of the biggest pluses for iPhone. This is very much a patentable invention. The ability to multitouch is really something new in the industry. Even now, Samsung has not got it as good as Iphone.

Sorry, but Apple did not invent multi touch. It was present long before the Iphone. And Apple did not make the first capacitive touch screen phones either.

I have read the details of this case and it seems like Apple has filed around 15 infringements by Samsung. Some of them relate to the shape of the phone ( the rectangle with a button at the bottom). I think this is just stupid since phones had the same shape much before Apple launched their phone. I mean which other shapes do we see on a phone? I saw O2 phones back in 2005 which had the same shape.

Another complaint from Apple involves the icons used by Samsung. I think they have a case here since a lot of the icons in Samsung Touchwiz do resemble the iOS icons. But some of the icons like the Call button, IM icon, settings icon, were in vogue much before Apple made them cool. For example, my phone 2006 had the same gears icon for 'settings'.

Apple has also claimed that the packaging for the Nexus S is very similar to the Iphone packaging. Again, phones have been packaged similarly for ages now.

By the way, Apple's previous case against Nokia and HTC are not running very well so far, since the ITC staff have recommended siding with HTC and Nokia in the case.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...tent-case.html

[akhilesh]

Originally Posted by Newpunter

Sorry, but Apple did not invent multi touch. It was present long before the Iphone. And Apple did not make the first capacitive touch screen phones either.

Just curious which was the first capacitive multi touch phone and that too long before the iPhone?

The point is when we talk about iPhone, we talk of phones before the iPhone and phones after the iPhone. I can't think of a mobile which had such a polished touch OS right from the outset. Don't forget the web browser which was unseen for a handheld device, the highest resolution high quality touch screen and the cover flow for the iPod app. Pinch to zoom support for pics and web browser was just a genius master stroke.
There is a reason why iPhone still remains popular with geeks and average users both and it can't just be marketing as everyone who wants to put down Apple claims.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by akhilesh

Just curious which was the first capacitive multi touch phone and that too long before the iPhone?

The point is when we talk about iPhone, we talk of phones before the iPhone and phones after the iPhone. I can't think of a mobile which had such a polished touch OS right from the outset. Don't forget the web browser which was unseen for a handheld device, the highest resolution high quality touch screen and the cover flow for the iPod app. Pinch to zoom support for pics and web browser was just a genius master stroke.
There is a reason why iPhone still remains popular with geeks and average users both and it can't just be marketing as everyone who wants to put down Apple claims.

The question is not what apple did. The question is what apple can prevent others from doing. Rounded corners, buttons at bottom, really? designs patents are tricky. and I think apple is becoming greedy with it's designs. When cars changed from having big round bumpers and wheel wells to aerodynamic shapes, it was an industry wide change. else one maker would be making it like the modern cars and everybody else would still be making old beetle shaped cars.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by akhilesh

Just curious which was the first capacitive multi touch phone and that too long before the iPhone?

There are 2 things - capacitive touch screen & putting that screen on cell phone. You will get patent for inventing touch screen but not for putting on cell phone (because using on cell phone is intuitive & obvious).

Apple neither invented the capacitive touch screen (which was invented before Apple existed, ie patent granted in 1974) nor they were the first to put in on cell phone. But right now, they have the best user experience than any other touch screen phone in the market.

[Technocrat]

Btw the Vibrant version of Galaxy S in US is the one which looks closest to the iPhone 3G(S) even without a button.
Take a loot at this pic that I got from internet

[vina]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

The question is not what apple did. The question is what apple can prevent others from doing. Rounded corners, buttons at bottom, really? designs patents are tricky. and I think apple is becoming greedy with it's designs. When cars changed from having big round bumpers and wheel wells to aerodynamic shapes, it was an industry wide change. else one maker would be making it like the modern cars and everybody else would still be making old beetle shaped cars.

I come from the semiconductor industry and have had a long association with mobile phone industry in particular

the genesis of problem lies in the fact that the patent system as applied to these industries is so broken, it is beyond broken and in absolutely crazy category. I know of issued patents that in team-bhp world would amount to invention of "better sticking fender with addition of two extra nuts to the bolts and rivets holding the fender"

I'm not kidding - think about "rounded corners on rectangular phone". This is absolute bullshit, no rectangle in the world (mobile or otherwise) has perfectly sharp corners, no industrial design has these either and very few phones (or any other plastic items) do - reason - sharp corners are fragile and break easily. While there may be other reasons to have rounded corners, that doesn't matter. Once something exists it can't be invented again (even if you think of hundred additional benefits).

The state is so bad I have seen patents on circuits that actually degrade the performance.

years ago I was a researcher in Cambridge and went to a training seminar on patents. the companies lawyers were very clear - they wanted us to file patents even when we were not fully convinced of the utility of such patents so that in the event somebody (read Apple) sued us, our lawyers could counter sue.

that is what you see on the chart sgiitk sir sent earlier

[amitk26]

Steve Jobs has gone berserk at his fag end , Apple even claims that word "app" is their copyright.

Apple has done some good core technical things which are now industry standard like webkit which is used in lots of browsers including Google Chrome and also LLVM complier infrastructure but both of these were made open source and ironically they are suing others for trivialities.

I think this attempt is more from marketing guys of Apple to project an image to US customer that they are premier innovators and how others steal from them, I see quashing of claims as logical consequence but feel Samsung will go for an early out of court settlement rather then long and dirty fight.

Erricson , Nokia and Qualcomm are 3 companies which hold maximum patents in mobile telephony and just think what would have happened of apple if they would have behaved in similar fashion.

Disclaimer : I am Samsung employee so my view may be based.

[vina]

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" touch screen - there is hardly anything revolutionary there. Other companies put it in their phones and removed them due to lack of demand later.

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" multi-touch interface (the design concepts, not the hardware) there is nothing revolutionary there either - they copied it, if from nowhere else, from the movie "Minority Report" (just recall how Tom Cruise would zoom different displays in the air)

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" OS - well what is revolutionary about it in this day and age if it can't even multitask?

I can go on and on, however in a nutshell the only think revolutionary about Apple's products is the hoopla they create that causes the peer pressure that then generates sales. Jewellery to Indian women, Apple to global men (and women).

[theslayer]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

(3) is why <random individual/corporate> cannot make a car which looks like a <random super car model>.

I cannot??? Even if it is for personal use and I do not benefit commercially from such a project?

Btw. I had a long hard look at the phone on my table. It is made by ITI Ltd., a public sector undertaking. It is rectangular, and has rounded corners. Will Apple sue ITI?

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by amitk26

I think this attempt is more from marketing guys of Apple to project an image to US customer that they are premier innovators and how others steal from them, I see quashing of claims as logical consequence but feel Samsung will go for an early out of court settlement rather then long and dirty fight.

My thought is this patent suit gives Apple bargaining power to,
1) Cancel other suits against Apple (I drop 2 suits against you, so you drop 2 against me)
2) Get better technology (I will drop this suit, so you give your 'x' patent)

[maddy42]

Well company A suing company B in the technology industry is common place so dont cry hoarse about Apple. I am no fan boy but i believe what is going on in the industry is the general way business is done.

Few things a suit does and few things which are done while filing suits:

1) File the suit as far as the location of your opponent in a small court

2) Get everything involved and in ridiculous details (round corners comes in here)

3) Try to make the opponent go through a lot of paper work and research before he comes to the desk.


What this promotes is usually samsung and apple would settle out of court, involving a couple of million bucks or even positively both the companies can utilize the others patents in their application or products.

So what is happening in companies are you patent your product initially and then try patent everything around your product. Even minute details are patented.

For eg the feel of a phone or color can be patented if the company has invented it can be proven. Hell even basmati has been patented and today i read india is picturising 200 shapes in yoga so that no one patents the same.

Crazy world made crazier by corporations and Lawyers.

[akhilesh]

Originally Posted by vina

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" touch screen - there is hardly anything revolutionary there. Other companies put it in their phones and removed them due to lack of demand later.

But Apple with the iPhone did not have to do that, ie to pull out because of lack of demand so they must be doing something right.... right?

Originally Posted by vina

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" multi-touch interface (the design concepts, not the hardware) there is nothing revolutionary there either - they copied it, if from nowhere else, from the movie "Minority Report" (just recall how Tom Cruise would zoom different displays in the air)

I am extremely surprised that you say that. Having something in a Hollywood movie is entirely different to having the same technology on a mass marketed mobile phone device, dont you think.

Originally Posted by vina

Regarding Apple's "revolutionary" OS - well what is revolutionary about it in this day and age if it can't even multitask?

Well it can and does multitask and does it pretty well Read no effect on performance or battery life. I dont really care if the developer coding the application has to slightly extra work to take advantage of the multitasking support and fast app switching.

Originally Posted by vina

I can go on and on, however in a nutshell the only think revolutionary about Apple's products is the hoopla they create that causes the peer pressure that then generates sales. Jewellery to Indian women, Apple to global men (and women).

Its easy to deride Apple but I can see your prejudice so won't comment any further. Apple is a technology company and if the product isnt as good as advertised no matter how good the marketing is, it WONT survive no matter what you do. On second thoughts, don't you think all the hype and hoopla surrounding Apple's products is a negative because to justify all that, the product has to be really really good?

Is it only a co-incidence that after iPhone suddenly every mobile phone company in the world wanted a touch OS and a full touch phone? Give credit where it is due.

[msdivy]

Apple quarterly results are out - revenue for iPhone is over $12 billion, thats 50% of Apple revenue. So in a year, iPhone sales are around $50 billion. Its not surprising that Apple is concerned with anything minutely which bothers iPhone. Amount they spend on this activity is peanuts compared to the revenue.

[anoopash]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

Btw the Vibrant version of Galaxy S in US is the one which looks closest to the iPhone 3G(S) even without a button.
Take a loot at this pic that I got from internet

Attachment 533638

The Galaxy ACE S5830 , Thе phone design iPhone іѕ basically a mixture οf galaxy, Samsung аnԁ Apple’s fourth S. Thіѕ smartphone mіɡht bе ѕаіԁ tο bе thе twin οf thе iPhone.

Check out the pics, they have the same dimension screen and almost the same functionality for the hard keys