[Pri2]

I admire Samsung as a electronics company more than any other company because they sell quality products for a very reasonable price unlike some Japanese and American companies.

Regarding patents, I am totally surprised how Apple gets awarded patents for such vague ideas like the appearance of the phone, method to unlock the phone etc. Patents should be awarded to something very specific.

Having said that, I totally disapprove the fact that Samsung steals / gets heavily inspired by designs of other companies. They have always copied hardware designs and OS UI appearance from other manufacturers. I am not supporting Apple here, but only pointing out that most of their cellphones are copies of other phones. Why cant they come up with something original? Here are some examples :

Inspired from the Blackberry they launched this phone. They couldn't even come up with a original name and named it the Blackjack.

BlackBerry versus BlackJack: RIM sues Samsung for trademark infringement -- Engadget


If you look at the iPhone and the Galaxy, both look almost identical.


Now look at the icons (specifically notice the music icon which looks exactly like the iTunes logo):


Here is a complete lawsuit analysis by Nilay Patel.
Source : Thisismynext

Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis | This is my next...

I see almost everyone on Team BHP frowning on companies that steal car designs and agree that they need to be sued. But it is really surprising to see people support Samsung doing the same thing !

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Pri2

I see almost everyone on Team BHP frowning on companies that steal car designs and agree that they need to be sued. But it is really surprising to see people support Samsung doing the same thing !

Probably Nilay PAtel should do a similar analysis on Samsung patent claim against Apple or Nokia Claim against Apple ( Apple acknowledged Nokia claim but cribbing over fair royalty amount).

Nilay Patel wrote just what Apple said in it's complaint but the bigger point is if the grid layout design or any of those icons had any originality in it ?

I remember seeing same logos on 2006 Cingular A707 which had first VSH feature which apple launched later as face time of-course there is no claim on it becuase it was part of IMS which GSMA standardized.

A grid layout design with nearly the same natural icons for call , music , storage etc is feature of the phones I am seeing since first 3G phones appeared around 2002. Because apple packeged it better and they had a cult following they were able to do an iPhone in 2006 which no one could do earlier.

About BB design Nokia had E series phones prior to Blackberry with similar design and qwerty keypad.

Here is F700 ( 206-2007) vs iPhone

[Pri2]

I guess we have already discussed about the above image. Here are the facts:
The Samsung F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January 2007 at MacWorld !!

Do you seriously believe that the Nokia e-series phones came before the Blackberries with the same design?

BlackBerry 6230: Announced in 2003
Nokia E series: Announced on October 12, 2005

Again i am not supporting Backberry or Apple and their stupid patents, It is about originality. Cant samsung come up with some original ideas for phone hardware and UI designs ? Why do they have to resort to copying? It is such a big corporation and earns so much in profit every year. Why not invest some money in innovating on phone designs ?

[vina]

Originally Posted by Pri2

I guess we have already discussed about the above image. Here are the facts:
The Samsung F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January 2007 at MacWorld !!

Do you seriously believe that the Nokia e-series phones came before the Blackberries with the same design?

BlackBerry 6230: Announced in 2003
Nokia E series: Announced on October 12, 2005

Again i am not supporting Backberry or Apple and their stupid patents, It is about originality. Cant samsung come up with some original ideas for phone hardware and UI designs ? Why do they have to resort to copying? It is such a big corporation and earns so much in profit every year. Why not invest some money in innovating on phone designs ?

I don't know about why Samsung can't come up with new ideas or even about the meaning of ideas in your question.

What I do know is that as a consumer I love it when companies infringe upon each other's patents - that only means lesser prices for me.

The reasons patents even exist is to give the innovator some incentive to innovate - for the kind of patents that are in question, legal position notwithstanding, there is hardly any innovation that needs to be protected.

Also the true innovator (some lowly designer sitting in some corner of Apple or Samsung or whatever) hardly ever benefits from any patents - in case of Apple for example Steve Jobs is reputed to be the innovative guy (and I wonder how many patents he has to his name) - clearly the "incentive to innovate" argument hardly applies.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Pri2

The Samsung F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January 2007 at MacWorld !!

Actually it was CEBIT 2006 where it was first previewed.
This patent war is bordering on stupidity.
Phones have been rectangular since cell phones got invented.
Their shape and form factor has nothing to do with design, its more to do with functionality.

For example, monitors which coders use are square, home entertainment systems have 16:9 widescreen monitors to play HD video.

Phones usually have a 16:10 or 3:2 aspect ratio to fit to a standard resolution size as most softwares support set resolutions like 16:9, 16:10, 3:2 and 4:3

Make a circular phone and many software will break.

Patents were in place to award innovation, but lately, they have been used to harass. Here Samsung is a very big company, so there is going to be a big fight, but many companies, called "Patent trolls" often file a case in a small texas district court against a small guy.

This is called testing waters. If the small guy cannot afford big lawyers, they win the case, and then go after big guys. Its a well researched racket, but inspite of this, the USPTO has not put a process in place to reject obvious patents. With a team of good patent lawyers you can patent everything.

So what do you patent? Well if you invent something. For example Graphene. Andre Geim got nobel prize for it.
But he did not patent it.
Why?

Because as an intelligent individual he knew patents are for people with big gun lawyers, not for innovaters.
Here is his interview in nature magazine
Andre Geim: in praise of graphene : Nature News

Read his answer from the above article

We considered patenting; we prepared a patent and it was nearly filed. Then I had an interaction with a big, multinational electronics company. I approached a guy at a conference and said, "We've got this patent coming up, would you be interested in sponsoring it over the years?" It's quite expensive to keep a patent alive for 20 years. The guy told me, "We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us." That's a direct quote.

So a real innovator has no hope in hell.
This is what the patent system has become. A haven for patent trolls out for harassment.
Patents, esp software patents, are used as a "deterrent".
Its like I can file suit on you for 100 patents, and you can file suit on me on 100 patents, lets call it a draw. Kind of like USSR and USA in cold war times.

So its not about innovation anymore, its all about lawyer muscle flexing.
In the end its always a settlement.

Unfortunately, the general public, even those in IT industry do not have the sense to see the patent system for what it is, and as for the general press, the less said about their science reporting the better.

I suggest people can start reading some "real science" journals than the rags to get themselves educated.

[Saanil]

I think the legal framework regarding patents is weak. As far as I remember Apple were the first ones to produce new generation smartphones -The 2G Iphone. Now if they were to file a patent that nobody can manufacture phones like them - the shape, size, sensitivity of touchscreen etc, what the other phone companies are supposed to do? Patents have to be damn specific and cannot be generic in nature. All I am saying is wait for the judgement. Samsung is still not declared guilty of copyright infringement.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Pri2

I guess we have already discussed about the above image. Here are the facts:
The Samsung F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January 2007 at MacWorld !!

Usually when a phone arrives at MWC it is fully ready for demo so it has to be 6 months to 1 year before and as TSK1979 told it was first previewed in Feb 2006 . Quite a lot of work for F700 happned here in India I am sure there are lot of people on this forum who might be knowing it first hand anyway that is not the point.
Grid layout is there in UMC PC for ages check this ultra mobile PC as it was called back then , There were many like these but they were not very sucessful in US and Europe.

Samsung Q1 ultramobile PC Review - Tablets - CNET Reviews

Originally Posted by Pri2

BlackBerry 6230: Announced in 2003
Nokia E series: Announced on October 12, 2005

Ag Cant samsung come up with some original ideas for phone hardware and UI designs ? Why do they have to resort to copying?

OK there may be some mixup in dates actually it was Nokia 9000 communicator in 1996 which was first and it was discontinued with E series.
Nokia 9000 Communicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but how about Handspring Trio 180 which became palm later and was first qwerty phone , Did Blackberry copy it from Palm and Nokia ?

How about this Samsung SPH i300 which was using Palm OS in 2001 , Looks iPhonish except the internal antenna which Nokia pioneered much later.

Samsung SPH-i300 Specs | Technical Specifications | PDAdb.net - Comprehensive Database of Smartphone, PDA, PDA Phone, PNA, netbook & Mobile Device Specifications

I would say iPhone was standing on shoulders of Palm , Motorola,Nokia ,Microsoft and many others , many of the business model like downloadable apps were pioneered by NTT DoCoMo in Japan

The point is there are some N number of doable ways to achieve something in look and feel department and things evolve naturally like all cars of 70s had certain look and cars of 2000 look somewhat different.

The real innovation actually happens in case of processors , base-band technologies , antenna technologies etc and not in UI look and feel.

Yes apple has the credit of making the trends mass market and also doing it best but definitely not doing it first.

Last but not the least contrary to popular belief iPhone was not first smartphone either.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Last but not the least contrary to popular belief iPhone was not first smartphone either.

Thanks for providing an excuse to share this!!!
Source : http://www.istartedsomething.com/wp-...02/phonead.jpg

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Thanks for providing an excuse to share this!!!
Source : http://www.istartedsomething.com/wp-...02/phonead.jpg

Hi, I am iphone 4, Now I can multitask

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

Hi, I am iphone 4, Now I can multitask

yeah, yeah, i know.....:(

its a nice touch though.
i just hope apple doesnt check to find even that is patentable,unpatented, and patent it!!

PS: not an apple basher.i DO enjoy the games on iphone better, for sure.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

Hi, I am iphone 4, Now I can multitask

You can but in a limited fashion it is not true multitasking for all apps.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by amitk26

You can but in a limited fashion it is not true multitasking for all apps.

relax amit, I(phone) am still learning

[Bluengel180]

It is always fun and exciting to learn about a new piece of technology being released for public consumption, and Apple never fails to impress.

“We appreciate everyone who has waited patiently while we’ve worked to get every detail right,” Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a news release today. (Mercury News)


Bravo, Apple! You have done it once again. Turning a phone that normally comes in a black casing into something that is completely different, one with a white casing. Other companies keep trying to copy Apple’s success with mobile devices by adding features and functionality, but what they fail to realize is that most people are not impressed by how fast the phone’s processor is, or how sophisticated the operating system; however, they can’t contain themselves when a new casing color is introduced to the market. The genius of Apple is figuring out that the majority of people are excited by trinkets and not technology.

[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Last but not the least contrary to popular belief iPhone was not first smartphone either.

Good that you pointed it out, here are the 2 other myths that I have heard from some people(they actually believed this) -

- iPhone is the first touch phone
- iPhone is the first phone with concept of OS & apps

[deep_bang]

guys,
Can any one dispute that iPhone did give the best experience when it was launched? Forget about the technical details like grid layout and all .. just look at it as a layman.

And Apple chose to patent this experience. Seems fair to me. Saying that they changed from a normal black phone to a white phone is simplifying things too much.

BUT I do agree that most people - in fact 90% i would say, do not use most features of any phone. What Apple did was to integrate these technologies into a wonderful package. Now, is that not innovation?

By the way, if you look at the patent laws, patents can be granted even for improvisations. So, if you can prove that what you did on top of existing technology is an improvisation, that also can be patented, provided it is substantially more that what it was, and the older patent is either owned by the same company, or it has expired.

So, technically, if the grid layout has been around for ages, and if someone has patented it 10 yrs ago or more, then those patents would have expired - free for anyone to use. Then, one can do something on top of the older patents to be granted new patents.