Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's Comparison of Galaxy S To iPhone
david.emery writes "In a document from the ongoing Samsung/Apple trial, provided in both English translation and Korean original, Samsung engineers provided a detailed comparison of user interface features in their phone against the iPhone. In almost all cases, the recommendation was to adopt the iPhone's approach. Among other observations, this shows how much work goes into defining the Apple iPhone user experience."
Ars has an article on the evidence offered by Apple so far.
The comparison of phones/tablets available prior to the iPhone/iPad and those that came out after both were unveiled show that Samsung is definitely in the wrong as far as design styles go.
Whether this should be something someone can patent is another argument that I'm not going to get into here.
It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!". Question is, were there PATENTS that covered this and that and was there a patent infringement in such cases? Moving a "Loading..." text from top right to middle of the screen doesn't, for example, look like "patent infringement", and if it IS a patent covering that, well then my personal opinion is that patents have really gone too far.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The issue comes up when Apple (or any other Microsoft) uses their monopoly in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting off the air supply to Netscape").
I don't think that will happen. There are plenty of implementations that apple doesn't think infringe. The phone market isn't like the PC market was at all. The numbers are open to interpretation, but apple isn't the number one phone manufacturer and the don't have number one market share. A monopoly isn't a hazard for apple
Watch those corners
Fair amount of it here
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-samsungs-step-by-step-guide-for-how-to-copy-an-iphone-2012-8?op=1
Watch those corners
Two problems with what you've said:
1) A monopoly on smartphones is not a monopoly at all, since dumbphones still account for the majority of the market. Companies have tried to sue Apple in the past for having a monopoly on the Mac market and using it to their advantage, but they've always been dismissed since Macs are merely a part of the larger PC market, and a rather small part at that.
2) Having a monopoly is not necessarily a problem. It's when a monopoly acts in an anti-competitive manner that there are problems.
I know it may be taboo to throw a competitor's device into the fray (and possibly opening up yourself to litigation from them), but seeing as how the LG Prada (LG KE850) had already won a design award months before the extremely similar looking iPhone had even been announced I would imagine that Samsung would jump at the opportunity to show prior art for some of Apple's "design patents" just to get them eliminated.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
The internal combustion engine is a perfect example. The internal combustion engine COULD NOT have been patented. The diesel engine was. One particular way of making an internal combustion engine. But with the patent for a diesel engine, a skilled craftsman had all he needed to make a fully functional diesel engine.
The reason there are so many different types of engine is that they were designed to avoid having to license a patent. This worked very well. It created innovation AND if you wanted to produce an existing engine in your own factory you just paid a relatively low fee.
But Apple wants to patent ideas. No a blue print but a concept. Not even the concept of an internal combustion engine but the concept of an engine. And the patents they submit provide nothing that a skilled craftsman can use to build a device. At most, they can give an engineer an problem to solve where the problem is "how do I actually build the product the patent theorizes".
That is not how patents are supposed to work. The idea for an engine is after all far older then actual engines but all the engineers who made engines would have to pay for the license to use the idea of some long dead guy if Apple had its way.
Go look through Apples patents, every single one of them. I bet less then a single percent contains the plans with which a skilled craftsman in the field can build a working product without having to design something himself.
Imagine if Apple was in medicine, they would patent a cure for cancer. The patent has nothing in it but "It would make us a lot of money if we could cure cancer, now someone else actually invent it and pay us".
Not how it is supposed to go. If you really did discover a cure for cancer, you deserve a patent and people would happily pay you for it. But NOT just for the idea that curing cancer would be nice.
Sadly the amoral Americans have decided the patent office needs to turn a profit and you don't turn a profit by turning customers away. So the patent office and grants every payment and the taxpayers pay for courtsystem to try to sort it all out.
Conclusion: Americans are a problem.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I read through it. There are some "let's copy the iPhone" things, but so much of it clearly shows that Samsung just didn't care about the software. Decisions that, even in a vacuum, make no sense. Here are some that I can remember:
There are quite a few places in the document that boil down to "The iPhone does this neat little visual trick, we need a neat little visual trick". There are a couple of places (I can't remember them off the top of my head) where it looks like they actually removed something useful to be more iPhone like. Without some of the slides, it would have read like a "what the hell were you thinking" memo.
It's going to be a tough thing for Samsung to argue against.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
If 30% for "hosting, distribution and all finances" is such a great deal, surely they would have nothing to fear by allowing competing services to perform these difficult and expensive tasks. I mean, very few companies on the planet have yet mastered the intricate technological challenges of inexpensively hosting downloads.
30% (plus $100/yr, don't forget) is an insane amount for the minuscule amount of "service" Apple provides.
It really is an absolute steal at 30%, given that the bulk of the software pricing on the app store and on the iTunes music and movie stores are low value amounts.
30% cut to handle payment services for your customers, including card processing and verification, refunds, fees to banks and credit card companies, gift cards, customer service, helpdesk etc? Yes please.
That alone is worth the 30% cut; the hosting and distribution is just a free bonus.
I assume that the 30% that Google charges on their store is also "insane"? Or is that perfectly fine because it's not Apple?
Oh, but you are not forced to sell exclusively though Google play.
It is exactly the same amount as Google charges for apps in the Play store.
Unlike iOS devices, Android devices have alternatives to the Play Store. Google charges 0% for applications distributed through "unknown sources" such as Amazon Appstore, SlideME, Soc.io, or the developer's own web site. The key difference is that the user doesn't need to exploit a security vulnerability in the operating system to install third-party app stores on Android devices.
Yes, Google has explicitly opened themselves up to competitive pressures by allowing externally sourced purchases & downloads. And they STILL charge 30%.
Amazon, too.
That means they either need to charge that just to break even or make a reasonable profit (and this is Amazon, Apple, and Google we're talking about - I think they probably have some pretty good tools for managing server farms), or they're confident nobody else is going to be able to do it significantly cheaper.
My money's on the second one - hosting a data center, providing good uptime, fast payment processing & downloads, worldwide distribution, and a storefront... that all gets expensive. They probably COULD do it a bit cheaper, but why lower your revenues when there's no competitive pressure to do so?
Not if you use their micropayments plan. Their fee is 5 cents + 5%, which works out to be 10 cents for a $0.99 app, way less than what Apple or Google charges.