Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Surprises In the Latest Apple V. Samsung Court Documents

Posted by samzenpus on from the have-a-read dept.

Nerdfest writes "The lawyers behind the upcoming Apple v. Samsung trial have been hard at work filing docket after docket as their court battle looms closer, and many of those dockets have just been released to the public. We're now seeing a lot of previously secret information about the early days of iPhone and iPad R&D, and what's happened behind closed doors at both Apple and Samsung. Surprises include the iPhone design being 'inspired' by Sony product ideas, and that Samsung was warned that it was copying Apple."

51 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. More interesting news in the trial... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft moves to seal their agreement with Samsung for Android licenses.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510

    It would be nice to get a close view of the MS-Samsung deal.... it would be even more interesting if it is found that Microsoft PAID money to Samsung rather than the other way round.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:More interesting news in the trial... by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought the patents in question had actually been exposed because of the mistakes Microsoft made during the B&N extortion (and were extremely weak, unlikely to survive any patent re-evaluation).

    2. Re:More interesting news in the trial... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      They might be part of the Android licensing deal where MS demanded royalties or licensing deals from the phone manufacturers. At the time most of them were dropping WinMo in favor of Android. My understanding was the deal was that they made WP7 phones and paid a fee for every Android phone or MS would go after them for patents. Motorola was the one that didn't agree and there is a MS-Motorola lawsuit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:More interesting news in the trial... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      I would think it to be pretty expected that Samsung is/was getting a discount on their WP phones by them paying for android licensing, though the moneyflow would probably still be from samsung to MS.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Surprises? by garcia · · Score: 2

    1. Most of what are shown here are not surprises, they are iterative design concepts.

    2. A kickstand is not a surprise; it seems logical.

    3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

    4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

    5. Another surprise is that this story continues to gain stories on Slashdot and other sites. It's a little overdone. Let us know when something of substance appears that is actually interesting.

    1. Re:Surprises? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

      Or that LG didn't with their Prada, which clearly pioneered the "iPhone type" smartphone, before Apple. But then Apple is one of the most litigation-happy tech companies.

    2. Re:Surprises? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

      They didn't see it. Apple *read* (in an interview) about a prototype Sony was working on and then did a mock-up based on the description. Sort of a "What would Sony do?" or "How would Sony do it?"

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Surprises? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

      The mock-ups were based on the design description from Sony, and are quite similar to the design patent awarded to Apple.

    4. Re:Surprises? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

      4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

      Maybe Sony didn't patent their design because they are adult enough to realize the veracity of claim number 3? Don't try to force through a patent when what you do is obvious and not novel...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Surprises? by tooyoung · · Score: 5, Informative

      4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

      Not really a surprise if you read the Samsung filing. Apple didn't copy a design that they saw from Sony. An interview with a Sony designer described a concept for a phone that fit in the hand, had rounded corners, and a lack of buttons on the front of the device. Based on this, an Apple designer created a concept design of what this Sony phone would look like. Just to be clear - the screenshots that people will be posting links to in comments during the coming months are screen shots created by Apple. These are not designs that Sony created, although many posters will have that misunderstanding.

      It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design.

    6. Re:Surprises? by punit_r · · Score: 5, Informative

      3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

      They didn't see it. Apple *read* (in an interview) about a prototype Sony was working on and then did a mock-up based on the description. Sort of a "What would Sony do?" or "How would Sony do it?"

      Cant find an accurate date on these SONY phones (range 2006 to 2010), but the iPhone 4 looks extremely close to these.
      http://www.cellphonebeat.com/sony-ericssons-cybershot-concept-phone.html
      http://moblog.net/view/273678/new-sony-ericsson-concept-phone
      And multiple phones in these pages (plus/minus a few pages)
      http://www.concept-phones.com/tag/sony-ericsson-concept-phone/page/6/

      It does not matter whether SONY actually released the particular product in the market or not. The bottom line is Apple's claim that they have come up with an "entirely original" idea that never existed before does not hold water. If anyone is going to design a new touch screen only phone / tablet, there is not much one can do. They cant Patent a rounded rectangle and assert it to prevent competition in the market and escape the microscopic examination of others.

      Apple keeps parading the image of before / after iPhone cellphones, where it claims that all cellphones before iPhone were flip / qwerty and candybar and touchscreens did not exist at all (which is a lie). There were many PDA phones before the first ever iPhone in 2007. Even without the iPhone touchscreen phones would have come in the market.
      http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p910-846.php (one cant argue that size of this phone would have never shrunk with time and with advances in technology)

    7. Re:Surprises? by Deorus · · Score: 2

      The Prada came out only 4 months before the iPhone, furthermore that tells you nothing about previous research or patent applications. If Apple had iPad prototypes as early as 2004, imagine when they started to think about and patent iPhone designs, especially considering that the first iPhone concept is from 1983 (totally different from what it is now, but serves to show just how long Apple has been thinking about the iPhone)...

    8. Re:Surprises? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's right. As it seems,Apple did this: They copied Sony's idea based on their description of a product, not any real product, then patented the design as if they had invented it themselves as something genuinely new, and then sued Samsung for damages, claiming that it took them millions of dollars of R&D costs to come up with the design and the product specifications in the first place.

    9. Re:Surprises? by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing 100% original in this universe. Actually there is nothing 10% original to tell the truth.

    10. Re:Surprises? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe Sony didn't patent their design because they are adult enough

      Uh no, because we're talking about Sony here. Remember Betamax? Memory stick? Minidisc? Rootkits?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Surprises? by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

      no, what's a surprise is that apple received a patent their design.

    12. Re:Surprises? by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And THAT is the first, biggest problem with "IP".

    13. Re:Surprises? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design

      Very much this. This one paragraph distills the annoyance I have with a number of vocal Slashdotters who have tried to oversimplify their hate of Apple into a meme of rounded rectangular corners. Come on folks, even the most VBasic-crippled, 10E6 numbered poster can figure out the logical constructs of an AND statement....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Surprises? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      3. The fact that the iPhone design was lifted from another product design seen by Apple's team isn't a surprise, it's how all companies work.

      To state the obvious: but only Apple is hypocritical enough to sue over it, especially having done so itself.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Surprises? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2
      Touch screen rectangle without a keyboard? There were plenty "smartphones" like that before the iPhone even if we exclude PDAs:

      Heck I had a Sony K750 phone (with a camera flash) and it is also a black square rectangle candy bar with a color LCD screen with a chrome bezel around the phone. It did not have a large touchscreen because those were too expensive at the time. The fact is cellphones were converging towards that form factor regardless if Apple made the iPhone or not. Samsung is having problems trying to make their cellphones as different as possible from the iPhone because it is pretty hard to come with a different shape which makes sense from a usability perspective. Once you have the large touchscreen you cannot change the shape too much otherwise it won't fit a pocket anymore. Which is also why you hardly saw non-rectangular calculators either. As one guy from HP once said the constraint was that it had to fit into a shirt pocket.

      If you compare it with other designs which also used large LCD screens like PDAs you can easily see that such designs keep popping up. The Handspring Visor is one example but there are others.

    16. Re:Surprises? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Prada came out only 4 months before the iPhone

      Meaning that we must conclude either that the iPhone is a copy of the Prada OR we must conceed tha tsimiolar goals and same technology lead to naturally similar designs.

      Either way, Apple is left with no justification of their lawsuits or theie yelling "Mine Mine Mine!" Daffy Duck like.

    17. Re:Surprises? by Deorus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Meaning that we must conclude either that the iPhone is a copy of the Prada OR we must conceed tha tsimiolar goals and same technology lead to naturally similar designs.

      I don't see how the former could be feasible considering the timeframe. Regarding the latter, don't blame the players, blame the game.

      Either way, Apple is left with no justification of their lawsuits or theie yelling "Mine Mine Mine!" Daffy Duck like.

      They aren't suing LG as far as I know, so I don't see the relation, and there's strong evidence pointing to Samsung having actually and knowingly copied Apple's designs. Plus as I mention what matters are the dates in which patents are filed, not the time products come out. Once you file an application for a patent you can pretty much assume that it's public knowledge.

    18. Re:Surprises? by deathguppie · · Score: 2

      Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design.

      Do you have any link to documents that back that up?
      here (pdf) is the actual Apple filing. Reading it tells us that, although Apple is attempting to imply what you are saying, the actual court case comes down to their design patents. i.e. "rectangle with rounded corners" not the combination of behavioural elements from the iPhone/iPad as you are claiming.

      As people have noted here many times, there are plenty of smart phones created before the advent of the iPhone with many of the same elements that the iPhone later came out with. Everyone was talking about what direction the smart phone would go, and it seemed obvious to most even at that time, that the full screen phone was what was going to happen. LG Prada

      What really seems unfair about this to me is that where Samsung spent years and billions of dollars in R&D to help develop cell phone standards like 3g, Apple has not added anything to the development of cell phone standards and even refuses to negotiate with Samsung for any sort of payment for those patents. Meanwhile Apple wants Samsung to pay literally all of their profits to Apple for "allegedly" using their design patent (rounded corners).

      --
      once more into the breach
    19. Re:Surprises? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see no relation whatsoever to Apple's product bearing a remarkable (and I'm sure Apple will claim, harmless) resemblance to an earlier LG product and Samsung's product bearing a resemblance to Apples (Which Samsung claims is harmless)?

      You can see no reason at all that might weaken Apples claims in the slightest?

      And, I will note that a game only exists if there are players. If I hate the game, I fully reserve the right to hate the player for keeping it alive.

      As for timing, a patent claim is invalidated by prior art. It does matter if a design existed elsewhere before the patent was filed.

      The sdesigns we are seeing ALL reflect images of future technology dating back to the 1960s. None of them have the right to lay claim on the design as far as I can see. The only reason we didn't see these designs in products in the '60s is that we had to wait for the general state of technology to catch up with the vision.

    20. Re:Surprises? by Deorus · · Score: 2

      You see no relation whatsoever to Apple's product bearing a remarkable (and I'm sure Apple will claim, harmless) resemblance to an earlier LG product and Samsung's product bearing a resemblance to Apples (Which Samsung claims is harmless)?

      No, because it would be unfeasible for Apple to copy LG in such a short amount of time, not to mention that the Prada never received a lot of attention thus making it even less reasonable for Apple to copy it specifically. Samsung, in the other hand, changed the design of their phones radically after the iPhone (which received a lot of attention) came out, and now there's even evidence that they were warned about the similarities and continued not to care, so they were aware and we are in the presence of bad faith.

      You can see no reason at all that might weaken Apples claims in the slightest?

      The iPhone was patented before it was launched. Unless you can demonstrate that LG patented that design first, then no, I do not see how that would be of relevance.

      And, I will note that a game only exists if there are players. If I hate the game, I fully reserve the right to hate the player for keeping it alive.

      The players can't survive unless they play the game, so hating them doesn't make that much sense. Everybody in this industry patents stuff and makes legal threats in hopes to extort smaller players through settlements, so in my opinion I think it's pretty good to actually see a company that came from the brink of bankruptcy be so open about their business practices and actually engage into patent wars against the once threatening big players that it now dwarves. You are not hating Apple because of how they do business, you are hating Apple because unlike others they are open about it, you are hating Apple because they're honest.

      The sdesigns we are seeing ALL reflect images of future technology dating back to the 1960s. None of them have the right to lay claim on the design as far as I can see. The only reason we didn't see these designs in products in the '60s is that we had to wait for the general state of technology to catch up with the vision.

      You can't claim the existence of prior art without an actual implementation, nor can you patent something that is currently not feasible to implement.

    21. Re:Surprises? by Eyeball97 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that link totally helps here.

      For a start, it shows how Samsung's design radically changed from F700 to Galaxy S (I mean, check it, icons are now in color AND there's color silver appearing on the border now). Also, their marking is incosistent, half of things they crossed out on F700 seems like were crossed just because nobody would bother to check what's written there (really, "The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device." doesn't apply to F700?)

      Now there's how specific are tablet related claims:

      One question. Why did Apple themselves REMOVE the F700 from their filings?

      Here's why:

      Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to draw your attention to the F700 which is clearly a copy of the iPhone
      Apple lawyer #2: Errr... A moment your honour... [nudges lawyer 1] "(actually the F700 was before the iPhone 1)"
      Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to have the F700 excluded from these proceedings as it is not relevant

    22. Re:Surprises? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh no, because we're talking about Sony here. Remember Betamax? Memory stick? Minidisc? Rootkits?

      Actually, I thought we were talking about Sony Ericsson, not Sony.

      Sony does own Sony Ericsson right now, but that wasn't the case at the time.

    23. Re:Surprises? by Smauler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are not hating Apple because of how they do business, you are hating Apple because unlike others they are open about it, you are hating Apple because they're honest.

      This is either a fanboy or a shill comment. If you seriously believe it's neither, you're the former.

      Seriously, Apple have been abusing patent law for their gain for a while now. You can claim patent law is broken (which it is), and you can claim that their patents are legally valid (which at least some of them are, others are questionable), and you can claim all their competitors are doing the same (which they are, some less aggressively though). However, claiming Apple are being honest and not engaging in anti-competitive patent hoarding and suing is flat out false. Yes, lots of other companies do the same, some are worse, some are better.

    24. Re:Surprises? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      not to mention that the Prada never received a lot of attention thus making it even less reasonable for Apple to copy it specifically

      LG won design awards for the Prada in 2006. The iPhone came out in 2007.

      Unless you can demonstrate that LG patented that design first, then no, I do not see how that would be of relevance.

      You don't need a prior patent to invalidate another patent, you only need prior art. It only needs to be demonstrated that LG designed their phone first, not patented the design.

    25. Re:Surprises? by Deorus · · Score: 2

      LG won design awards for the Prada in 2006. The iPhone came out in 2007.

      Source?

      You don't need a prior patent to invalidate another patent, you only need prior art. It only needs to be demonstrated that LG designed their phone first, not patented the design.

      Then LG would have to come out and make that prior art claim, which strangely enough they haven't, at least not legally...

    26. Re:Surprises? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The point is that Apple ripped off the flat front AND the lack of buttons AND the big touchscreen AND the grid of icons AND slide to unlock AND rounded corners AND the rest of it from other people too. The iPhone looks very much like the LG Prada, and the iPad looks very much like a number of tablet-like photo frames that Samsung made. Many of Apple's designs looks very much like Braun designs from the 70s and 80s.

      There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning round and saying that Samsung are not allowed to do it, and then releasing highly misleading images to try and prove their point.

      Apple should compete by making a better product, not through ridiculous litigation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Dockets vs. Briefs by SniperJoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate to be pedantic, but you don't file a docket. The docket is the schedule / container for legal filings. Rather, I believe the proper term would be brief in this case. You can also file other things such as suits, claims and motions.

  4. Re:Apple Copies by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Have you actually used/seen a Xerox system. I bet you hadn't as Xerox had great ideas however they still had a long way to go. What Apple paid for and got was use of the ideas. For example one Apple engineer struggled with overlapping windows and couldn't figure out how Xerox did it. Finally he implemented on how own. A year later, he was able to ask a Xerox engineer how they did it. It turns out that they didn't for the version they saw. They had ideas but Xerox didn't get it to work right and so pulled it from the version.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Biased Wired.com article by punit_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Wired.com article is totally biased towards Apple.

    An example is the SONY concept phone released in 2006.
    http://www.cellphonebeat.com/sony-ericssons-cybershot-concept-phone.html

    Going by Apple's logic, their version of "inspiration" is removing the slider from the SONY concept phone and making the front all touch (removing the silver buttons). With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010. I fail to see why does Apple have double standards when treating with the issue when Samsung / Motorola and HTC are concerned. (rather all popular Android manufacturers)

    The industry was already gravitating towards touch screen phones in 2007. The technology was not ready earlier in terms of CPU power, price/performance ratio and OS maturity for touch only phones to be popular mainstream phones. Apple was the first to released a polished product, granted. But, Apple is behaving as if it owns all rights to a touch screen phone / tablet, which I find ridiculous.

    1. Re:Biased Wired.com article by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      The article does contain this:

      “In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived

    2. Re:Biased Wired.com article by punit_r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010

      This is what I claim. I never claimed that the first iPhone of 2007 was a copy of the SONY concept phone.

      I am not even sure that the SONY concept phone is actually dated 2006. But, that is not the point. The basic point is the industry was anyways gravitating towards touch enabled phones. There had been many PDA phones (with no keyboard) before the first ever iPhone. So, at best Apple can only claim to have accelerated the era or touchscreen phones.

      No company ever claimed sole ownership to qwerty / flip / candybar / slider phones by blocking products of competitors in the market. There could have been reasonable royalty arrangements where the customer choice was not limited. Apple's stance is that a rounded rectangular object with a glass top is owned by them. That is the difference.

    3. Re:Biased Wired.com article by punit_r · · Score: 2

      macs4all:
      Do you REALLY think that Apple designed and built the iPhone in ONE YEAR?!?

      Well, I guess we can tell who's never worked on a REAL product design...

      And if you had bothered to read TFA

      In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, a Sony designer discussed Sony designs for portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other excessive ornamentation, and fit in the hand .......

      According to Nishibori's testimony, his design changed the course of the iPhone project, and pointed it toward the iPhone of today.

      So, guess what, it was really ONE YEAR, based on a testimony of Apple's own designers. I believe there is no doubt that the Apple designer Nishibori has worked on a REAL product design.

  6. Re:Apple Copies by Spliffster · · Score: 2

    Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much slower hardware. Big differences.

    Cheers,
    -S

  7. The other thing by kilodelta · · Score: 2

    I have a Samsung SCH-R910 - in fact it does more than the iPhone believe it or not, straight out of the box. But the UI - it looks like the IOS. I find it interesting that they seem to be protesting that it physically looks like the Galaxy Tabs look like the iPad, but the UI is nearly identical on Android based platforms.

  8. Re:Apple Copies by macs4all · · Score: 2

    Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much slower hardware. Big differences.

    Cheers, -S

    Um, the CPU in the 128k Mac and the Lisa was the same 8 MHz MC68000. And the Lisa and Mac were both "programmed" in a combination of Smalltalk, Pascal, and 68k Assembler.

  9. Apple is the white looter by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple is "inspired" by other designs, while Samsung "copies". Gotta love that fanboy doublespeak.

  10. Re:Apple Copies by moniker127 · · Score: 2

    I didn't say they stole anything. How exactly is "riffing on" different from COPYING? I don't speak hippie.

  11. Re:No no no by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Funny

    But Xerox was a xeroxing company. They made products for copying.

  12. Re:Apple Copies by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My point is you can't tell the difference between concept (which was never released) and an actual working product. Computing history is filled with lots of vaporware and concepts that never made it. It takes a great deal of work to get something to work. But you don't want to give Apple any credit for implementing actual working systems. You would rather lump everything into "shiny" category than admit that Apple does engineering to get their products to market.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. Re:Star Trek: TNG is prior art by punit_r · · Score: 2

    Design patent just covers drawings and nothing else. I dont know if it is essential to have a working prototype in order to patent a design (although I think it is not required).

    Example: The design patent for the iPad
    http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889

    The only text in the entire design patent is this:

    "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

    Effectively, this is exactly what the Star Trek TNG tablet was. An electronic device no different from the class of devices that iPad is a part of.

    I am not sure if a digital photo frame can fit into the same class of devices because the patent just claims an electronic device. Technically a digital photo frame is also an electronic device.

  14. Re:Apple Copies by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is how Apple fanboys describe things. If Apple has it and someone else doesn't, it is the key defining feature that makes it the greatest "innovation" ever, and completely original. If someone else has it and Apple doesn't, it is a minor, inconsequential part that could hardly be called a feature. In this thread, it is suggested that Samsung copied Apple, even though iPhone doesn't do widgets. Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

  15. Re:Apple Copies by moniker127 · · Score: 2

    I'm not speaking ill of apple, I'm just calling it what it is. Apple doesn't come up with new concepts, it just improves upon existing ones. The problem with that is that innovation stagnates, and you're left with a 10-20 year period in which there is nothing but incremental upgrade because no one has any new ideas.

  16. Re:Apple Copies by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

    I never called it the greatest innovation ever. I merely said Apple used ideas from Xerox; however, the Xerox concept was not complete. It was a prototype. Apple actually implemented a working product.

    Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

    And you missed the entire point. If you a using a GUI instead of a command line, things like overlapping windows and drag and drop are essential. Apple implemented these things in a shipping product. Xerox as a concept did not.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  17. Re:Apple Copies by moniker127 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm an engineer myself. I'm not going to make light of the process of making an idea function. But the simple truth is- Xerox DID make it work. The palo alto research center had an entire network of what were essentially modern computers in 1979. They created the GUI, ethernet, network printers, object oriented programming, bitmaps, and many other important advances. Have whatever opinion you want, but we're arguing over historical fact here.

  18. Re:Apple Copies by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    Apple implemented these things in a shipping product. Xerox as a concept did not.

    Wrong. The Xerox Star was introduced to the market in 1981 years before Apple ever sold a computer with a WIMP GUI.

  19. Re:Oops by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    No Apple is suing for two reasons: They believe that Samsung deliberately copied their design patents down to the packaging design. And they also believe others infringed (HTC, Motorola) on their functional patents. People can disagree whether these things are true but most here reduce both sets of claims down to single points.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.