After Knocked-Down Damages Claim, Apple Again Seeks to Ban Some Samsung Phones

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Knocked-Down Damages Claim, Apple Again Seeks to Ban Some Samsung Phones

Posted by timothy on Sunday May 25, 2014 @02:25AM from the literally-anti-competitive-behavior dept.

Bloomberg reports that after Apple's patent victory in court last week over smart-phone rival Samsung, Apple is seeking a sales ban on several specific phones from Samsung; none of them are currently flagship devices. "The nine devices targeted by Cupertino, California-based Apple for a U.S. sales ban include the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S3 and Stratosphere." Getting the competition blocked from the marketplace over patent claims is something that Apple's tried before in connection with its beef with Samsung, and the company has had mixed results, depending on jurisdiction. Last week's decision in favor of Apple hints that the jury didn't think the company deserved the entire $2.2 billion it was seeking, awarding (a mere) $120 million, instead.

114 comments

Trolling Company Is Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ban the fruit company!
1. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by ganjadude · 2014-05-25 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  seriously, i mean you would think with how the apple culture is they would live and let be while continuing to look down upon those cretins who use android instead of the OBVIOUS superior ios. but nope, cant do that, have to try and get the courts to ban the competition
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:33 · Score: -1
  
  and troll responds in trollish fashion.
  Apple has NEVER had a superior product since the Apple II series computers. From the Macintosh forward, it's been nothing but polished SHIT.
  A company's product lines 100% based on stolen tech, that goes after the companies that invented the tech in the first place - would be better if a tactical nuke went off under every Apple facility and the company just disappeared overnight, then the tech vampirism would end.
3. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by ganjadude · 2014-05-25 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  WWOOOSSHHHH
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
4. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-25 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  seriously, i mean you would think with how the apple culture is they would live and let be while continuing to look down upon those cretins who use android instead of the OBVIOUS superior ios. but nope, cant do that, have to try and get the courts to ban the competition
  Hey, be glad they want to prevent you guys from buying copies of their designs - else somebody might think your phone is an overly expensive Apple product.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
5. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try to cover your trollishness - but it didn't work.
6. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by ganjadude · 2014-05-25 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  i know i shouldnt waste my time with a loser AC, but look at my history, im not an apple fan
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
7. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  else somebody might think your phone is an overly expensive Apple product.
  None of the products they want to ban look like anything Apple sells.
8. Re:Trolling Company Is Troll by rezme · 2014-05-26 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  We might be able to attribute this one to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... ...
I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:41 · Score: 0

A new phone sold their company sells really well. So well, that it pulls some of our projected market share. Now, should we initiate a lawsuit? Take the number of our phones that we expect to not be able to sell, A, multiply by the revenue from a single phone, B, subtract the cost of a lawsuit, C. A times B minus C equals X. If X is a negative number, we don't file suit.
1. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by pete6677 · 2014-05-25 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
  This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
2. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Chas · 2014-05-25 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
  This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
  You can be sure Samsung doesn't want to continue this farce.
  It's basically Apple. They're too caught up in their own bullshit to understand that, hey, they AREN'T the only game in town, and that they don't have a hard-lock monopoly on good ideas and engineering.
  Maybe some day, they'll pull their heads out of their asses. Until then, they'll continue burning money on these dumbshit lawsuits.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
3. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-25 06:19 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
  This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
  You can be sure Samsung doesn't want to continue this farce.
  You can tell by the fact that they stopped violating Apple's patents.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
4. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
  
  Because Apple are dickheads and their patents are as solid as soap bubbles, then there is no reason to make an agreement with them.
5. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This lawsuit makes no business sense whatsoever. Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement?
  Because Apple does not want to compete in an open market, they want to be the ONLY market. There is a reason they only have a 14% global market share vs Android (2013), their products are overpriced crap. You can get an iPhone 5S for $249.99 (AT&T) versus a Samsung Galaxy S5 for $199.99 (AT&T). But of course on the Galaxy S5 you'll have to put up with such things as a larger higher resolution screen, twice as many megapixels on your camera, twice as much internal memory, removable battery, removable MicroSD, and many many others. Apple is smart enough to know that they cannot compete on price and features, so they try to get the competition banned.
6. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  >This suit is making a bunch of lawyers very rich, which in this case I'm OK with. If the two companies don't come to their senses and settle, I will enjoy seeing them get milked by their lawyers.
  I have to ask - why do you despise the lawyers, who only act on behalf of the entities they represent? You make out like lawyers are the bloodsuckers, when in fact they are more like hired mercenaries. You want a lawsuit filed against Apple? You hire the lawyer who knows how to do it right. You want your car fixed? You hire a mechanic who knows how to do it right. Lawyers themselves don't have standing to do anything without a client, and despite what you think, they are bound by an ethics code that is fairly rigorous.
  The problem is not the lawyers - it is the laws, and the clients.
  Source: my uncle is a lawyer.
7. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  I have to ask - why do you despise the lawyers, who only act on behalf of the entities they represent?
  Have you seen where the money goes in a class action?
  
  You make out like lawyers are the bloodsuckers, when in fact they are more like hired mercenaries.
  No, they are not like "hired mercenaries", they are employees and are the ones consulted for advice on "should we sue?", "could we win", "how much money could we get". And of course they are going to say "yes you should sue" because even if they don't win they go through a lengthy appeals process and probably win at least one of those along the way, even if they lose they can claim a victory in things like reduced damages.
  
  Lawyers themselves don't have standing to do anything without a client
  And they can make a pretty good case to their employer that they need to keep them employed by recommending that they file lawsuits.
8. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah and in the meantime people all over the world can't get the Samsung product they really want.
  Trust me Apple, they aren't changing their mind and grabbing an iPad instead.
  In fact, if they're like me they've banned your products from their household, PERMANENTLY.
9. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  I have to ask - why do you despise the lawyers, who only act on behalf of the entities they represent?
  Because they have a vested interest in this sort of thing and clearly they do act in their own interest.
  Trial lawyers are heavy donors to Democratic politicians, including Reid. A Washington Post article on Reid's fundraising during his 2010 campaign noted big-money fundraisers taking place at a Florida trial lawyer's home, as well as one held in California by the top securities class-action law firm, now named Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd.
10. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  "They're too caught up in their own bullshit to understand that, hey, they AREN'T the only game in town, "
  No no no.
  Apple is caught up in not having steve jobs around to take the company to the next step.
  They scurry in search of the next big thing (beatz headphones? come ON!) and are in serious need for some diversion.
  The court cases against samsung give then the much needed time to properly organise the occult ritual to activate zombi jobs and hear him out on the future of tech.
11. Re:I am Steve's complete lack of surprise by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-27 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell don't Apple and Samsung settle with a cross-licensing agreement? Because Apple are dickheads and their patents are as solid as soap bubbles, then there is no reason to make an agreement with them.
  So Apple doesn't want to cross-license, because their patents are worthless while Samsung's are gold - yeah, that makes sense.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:43 · Score: -1

Be honest, if Apple were the one who had stolen physical designs and software innovations from Android, you nerds would ask nothing less than nuking Apple from orbit.
1. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  I see no problem in nuking Apple from orbit. They are nothing but a negative force in the freedom dimension.
2. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:57 · Score: -1
  
  I suppose you are either a Microsoft shill or a smelly OSS troll.
3. Re:Turn the tables around by ganjadude · 2014-05-25 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  be honest, samsung *didnt* do that to apple though. swipe to unlock? my HP pocketPC did that in 2003 and no one with and sense of feel or sight would mistake a GS for an iphone.
  
  I dont like the idea of nuking apple if for the only reason being competition. I believe android would become stagnant if they dont have any competition
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
4. Re:Turn the tables around by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-05-25 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Be honest, if Apple were the one who had stolen physical designs and software innovations from Android, you nerds would ask nothing less than nuking Apple from orbit.
  Eh. Their new ring-HQ-thing would make an attractive target from high altitude I suppose; but I don't think I'd be as worked up as you give me credit for:
  
  As with so many things patent-and-tech-related, whatever ends up being the killer app always looks simultaneously brilliantly innovative and obvious in hindsight; but attempts to actually put your finger on precisely what is patentably special about it frequently run into trouble on some mixture of university research projects that just got shelved after somebody finished his PhD, stuff IBM did in 1980 but charged approximately a zillion dollars a month to lease and hid behind an interface designed to sell you consulting services through sheer pain, or assorted bits and pieces identifiably but unhelpfully introduced in prior products that were dragged down by mediocrity in other areas.
  
  That's what I find most unsympathetic about Apple's protracted litigation on what are basically broad look-and-feel grounds. Were they the first ones to use a capacitive touchscreen to make a smartphone that doesn't suck? Sure, no problem. And look at the giant pile of first mover advantage and cash that they got for it. Does this entitle them to a monopoly on rectangular touch sensitive objects for two decades? Less impressive case to be made. And, much to their chagrin, less impressive legal payout. As much as Apple might prefer otherwise, nailing the execution is not a patentable achievement, and a great many elegant executions break down into a lot of substantially nonpatentable, or already commonplace, bits and pieces put together correctly.
5. Re: Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure the new tables don't have round corners
6. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, he's a Tech-Vampire hunter, trying to rid the world of economic drains on society as a whole. Apple's whole business model is based on sucking the lifesblood from other businesses while stealing other company's tech and claiming it as their own. If Moses were alive today, he'd probably have smited Jobs for trying to steal his clay tablet / stylus as his own "invention". Apple hasn't had an original idea since the days of Woz. It's all been theft after theft after theft.
7. Re: Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure the new tables don't have round corners
  No worries there, still making them using old-style CREATE TABLE that has none of this fancy new CSS stuff like round corners.
8. Re:Turn the tables around by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-05-25 03:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I definitely don't like the idea of nuking Apple. Let the market do that for us. But Apple needs to stop using our tax dollars to defeat their competitors outside the market. They've done so since way back in the Apple II days.
  We wouldn't be stuck using Windows, either, if Apple hadn't killed the competetive GUI market on the PC. They drove the GEM Desktop and GeoWorks out of competition, and set a tone where no third parties could produce windowing environments. It's Apple's fault for clearing the market entirely which made way a deep pocket competitor like Microsoft the ultimate winner.
9. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-25 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  How about if nobody has stolen anything?
  I don't think anyone objects to Apple also using the obvious designs, they just object to them claiming an exclusive right to the obvious.
10. Re:Turn the tables around by dc29A · 2014-05-25 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  If? You mean notification center? Quick settings?
11. Re:Turn the tables around by gl4ss · 2014-05-25 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  both were "stealing" them. neither had new concepts.
  (what was new was that the chip fabs for cheap capacitive touch screens were coming online.. and no those chips don't have an apple or samsung logos on them.. which sucks a bit because the current resistive tech can be really, really good)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
12. Re:Turn the tables around by worf_mo · 2014-05-25 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  As much as Apple might prefer otherwise, nailing the execution is not a patentable achievement, [...] (emphasis mine)
  Also, Pontius Pilatus might claim prior art...
13. Re:Turn the tables around by Theaetetus · 2014-05-25 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Were they the first ones to use a capacitive touchscreen to make a smartphone that doesn't suck? Sure, no problem. And look at the giant pile of first mover advantage and cash that they got for it. Does this entitle them to a monopoly on rectangular touch sensitive objects for two decades? ... As much as Apple might prefer otherwise, nailing the execution is not a patentable achievement, and a great many elegant executions break down into a lot of substantially nonpatentable, or already commonplace, bits and pieces put together correctly.
  You're wrong, there - nailing the execution of something frequently requires additional invention. It's not just putting together bits and pieces that already exist, but adding on an intuitive user interface or other feature that makes them easy to use. But, any patent only covers that new invention - the bits and pieces that already exist are, by definition, in the prior art, and making them wouldn't be infringement. However, making that intuitive user interface or other feature would be. The monopoly wouldn't be on any rectangular touch sensitive object, but on the specific features that weren't in the prior art.
14. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking of tax dollars Apple pays 1.9%
15. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-25 09:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Things only ever seem obvious AFTER someone else has done them.
  Before iPhone, Android looked like Blackberry. There was nothing obvious about Apple's design features to them then. They were too busy copying Blackberry's "obvious" design.
16. Re:Turn the tables around by guevera · 2014-05-25 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, but is "intuitive user interface for capacitive touchscreen device" actually patentable? If it is, then Apple's got a case and the patent system is even worse than I thought. If it's not, then Apple's just scum trying to manipulate the legal system to win what they can't win in the market.
  As for nuking Apple from orbit? I'd happily do it even if there was no such thing as iOS, Android or even cell phones. I'd nuke them even if I had to give the launch order over a landline with a rotary phone.
17. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-25 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  There was also the issue of capacitive touchscreens getting to a reasonable price point. The less obvious aspect would be the public liking the fondleslab style, but fashion isn't subject to patent or copyright. The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
  For that matter, consider the Palm Pilot. It used a stylus (commonly) due to the inferior touch screens available at that time, but I did see people occasionally use their fingers.
18. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-25 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
  That's becoming a bit of a meme. 2001 had a flat video screen on a table, about the same dimensions as an iPad. No indication of it being any kind of computing device though. Indeed it was a basic plot point that the computing was done by centralised mainframe like computers like HAL. HAL was the vision of computing in 2001, not tablets, let alone smartphones,
  Likewise Space 1999 did all their computing on wall panels or desk bound keyboards.
  Star Trek TOS had some electronic clipboard devices, About 2 inches thick with coloured lamps on top. But the phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue. There was also tricorders and some sort of memory stick. Their model of computing was again a central mainframe with voice access from anywhere, and some fixed viewscreens. Again, nothing like iPhones.
  Star Trek Next Gen had the PADD, but it consisted of a screen covering about half of the device, with the controls below the screen. Again, nothing like an iPad or iPhone.
  Yes it was possible to use a fingernail to operate the Palm Pilot. But most of the controls were too small to make even that accurate enough, let alone a finger. Remember? Small menus, small scrollbar. Part of Apple's innovation was making a UI that was still useful when poked with sausage fingers rather than the accuracy of a stylus.
  Now all of these things also predated Android. And yet I repeat, they chose to copy Blackberry's design until the iPhone came out at which point they changed to copying the iPhone. So even if those things you mentioned were pre-cursors, the Android team either didn't recognise them, or didn't want them.
19. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Be honest, if Apple were the one who had stolen physical designs and software innovations from Android, you nerds would ask nothing less than nuking Apple from orbit.
  Oh, you mean like all the stuff Apple blatantly stole from Xerox Parc in the 80's? Corporations routinely steal from each other.
20. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-25 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  In Space 1999, future Earth (when they passed by it) had devices looking a lot more like fondle slabs. All of Apple's patents are based on look and feel, so the 2001 device applies just fine. The Palm pilot had the form, but not the function due to the technology available at that time. Had capacitive touch in appropriate resolutions been available, the resemblance would have been striking. The design was obvious then, but the tech wasn't there yet.
  It's funny how minor differences are enough for you to excuse Apple of copying, but not enough to excuse Samsung.
21. Re:Turn the tables around by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-25 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  We wouldn't be stuck using Windows, either, if Apple hadn't killed the competetive GUI market on the PC. They drove the GEM Desktop and GeoWorks out of competition, and set a tone where no third parties could produce windowing environments.
  
  Now that was a good one. Apple killed the Windows competitors.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
22. Re:Turn the tables around by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-25 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  There was also the issue of capacitive touchscreens getting to a reasonable price point.
  And that's why the second one was available, Apple had a system ready to announce. While Android had to wait another 9 months to hobble together a demo that didn't even use the touchscreen for much.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
23. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-25 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of that was a matter of the threshold of pain. Apple was more willing to go with an expensive phone.
24. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you mean like all the stuff Apple blatantly stole from Xerox Parc in the 80's? Corporations routinely steal from each other.
  Argh! There is no "stealing" of things like that, for fuck sake it's "stealing" when it suits the anti-Apple crowd but oh when it is software and content piracy that isn't "stealing" and you will get a torrent of response for suggesting it.
25. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  devices looking a lot more like fondle slabs.
  Why the fuck are you so obsessed with "fondling"? It's a touchscreen for god sake, do you call your keyboard a "fondleboard"? Or your non-touchscreen phone a "pocket fondlebox"?
  When you're using your computer I suppose you just sit there staring at the screen while rubbing your mouse and fondling your keyboard all day right? And you must love fondling the trackpoint on the thinkpad laptops!
26. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-25 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's a funny name for them and seems more in line with many of the users actual purpose in owning one.
  I didn't coin the term BTW.
27. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  so much different from the way you are with your keyboard and mouse i suppose.
28. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-26 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  Apple "stealing".. Check it out for yourself...
  http://visual.ly/braun-or-apple
29. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-26 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Minor differences? You haven't presented a single computer in the same form factor, let alone a smartphone. That's before we even start looking at the UI.
  You're clutching at straws.
30. Re:Turn the tables around by sjames · 2014-05-26 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I have presented examples going back to the '60s.
31. Re:Turn the tables around by Hognoxious · 2014-05-26 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  2001 had a flat video screen on a table, about the same dimensions as an iPad. No indication of it being any kind of computing device though.
  
  What was it, then? I didn't see anyone with a mahl stick and beret, so it wasn't an easel. Perhaps it was for frying bacon on...
  
  But the phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue.
  
  It was only pretend, so I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about how it worked.
  
  There was also tricorders
  I like how you tried to move on from that. Not fast enough, I'm afraid.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
32. Re:Turn the tables around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-26 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Argh! There is no "stealing" of things like that, for fuck sake it's "stealing" when it suits the anti-Apple crowd ...
  So is it stealing when Steve Jobs readily admits that Apple steals all the ideas they can. [[http://www.geek.com/apple/steve-jobs-admits-to-shameless-idea-stealingin-1996-1363073/]]
33. Re:Turn the tables around by exomondo · 2014-05-26 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Now all of these things also predated Android. And yet I repeat, they chose to copy Blackberry's design until the iPhone came out at which point they changed to copying the iPhone. So even if those things you mentioned were pre-cursors, the Android team either didn't recognise them, or didn't want them.
  Does that matter? At the time the popular smartphone approach was what RIM was doing with the Blackberry so that's the way Android went, to try and get into that market. Apple changed the game by taking pre-existing ideas, concepts and demos and built their product around those, it was successful, they profited massively from it and owned the market for quite some time. So what's the problem?
34. Re:Turn the tables around by i.kazmi · 2014-05-26 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  LG Prada
  The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada, is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen when LG started selling it in May 2007 (iPhone first gen was released at the end of June 2007).
  
  Samsung SGH F700
  The SGH-F700 was a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung. Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started in November 2007.
  The phone had a 3.2" color display and incorporated a touch screen/touch pad interaction system and a slide-out QWERTY key pad. The phone contained a 3 megapixel camera. Furthermore, the handset is HSDPA and Bluetooth 2.0 compatible and possessed mini-USB and microSD memory slots. A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone but after the release of the HTC TyTn which it resembled with its rectangular design and slide out keyboard.
  I actually had this phone (got it in Dec. 2007) and while it had a resistive touchscreen instead of a capacitive one, it did not have any tiny icons.
  
  Also of note here should be HTC Tytn which HTC released in June 2006. Looking at this phone, I think HTC T-Mobile G1 (which I purchased and had to unlock to use on the network I was on at the time) is a pretty linear progression of this design.
  
  It is pretty obvious that touchscreens were the way the industry was moving in. Apple had nothing to do with the development of the underlying technology which made the shift to capacitive touchscreens possible and they weren't even the first company to release a phone with a capacitive touchscreen.
  
  Oh and before you throw around what Android looked like in 2005, have a look at this collaboration between Motorola and Apple from 2005, the Motorola Rokr, a phone with a candybar form factor with physical keys on the front (where the physical keys are the num-pad) and here, you have Steve Jobs unveiling the phone.
35. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-26 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Seems your memory isn't too good.
  
  What was it, then? I didn't see anyone with a mahl stick and beret, so it wasn't an easel. Perhaps it was for frying bacon on...
  It was at the breakfast table. A device they were staring at whilst eating. No interaction. I already said what it was presented as: a video screen. And it's context was a newspaper replacement.
  
  "But the [Star Trek TOS] phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue."
  It was only pretend, so I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about how it worked.
  All Sci-Fi is only pretend. It doesn't mean they aren't presenting certain technologies by what they do with them. With the ST communicator, when atmospheric conditions were bad, James Kirk would turn a little dial on the communicator and all he'd get is static. Which is a presentation of what happens with analogue radio, not digital.
36. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-26 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  The ROKR was very much a Motorola phone, that had licensed the ability to play DRMed tunes from the iTunes store. It's physical form and UI had nothing to do with Apple.
  I'm well aware what direction the market was moving in. I'm in Europe and I already had a touchscreen phone in 2002. The Sony Ericsson P800. But since that's not the specifics of the Patent dispute it's not relevant.
37. Re:Turn the tables around by i.kazmi · 2014-05-27 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  The ROKR was very much a Motorola phone, that had licensed the ability to play DRMed tunes from the iTunes store. It's physical form and UI had nothing to do with Apple.
  Wrong, the ROKR was a collaboration between Motorola and Apple. If not, explain why Steve Jobs was unveiling the phone?
  
  I'm well aware what direction the market was moving in. I'm in Europe and I already had a touchscreen phone in 2002. The Sony Ericsson P800. But since that's not the specifics of the Patent dispute it's not relevant.
  Neonode N1M
  Did you mean the patent with prior art in an actual product? Here's someone sliding to unlock their N1M. Please note that this phone was launched in Q1 2005, well before the iPhone 1st Gen. Neonode N1m ran a custom GUI (called Neno) on top of WinCE 5.
  
  Also, please note that the iPhone 1st Gen wasn't that much of a smartphone, my Nokia 6600 from 2003, running Symbian, could multitask while the iPhone 1st Gen could not. Also, the Samsung F700 had 3G while iPhone 1st Gen did not.
  
  Maybe iPhones should be banned from the market because Apple infringed patents that put the phone in the iPhone, just sayin...
38. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-27 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong, the ROKR was a collaboration between Motorola and Apple. If not, explain why Steve Jobs was unveiling the phone?
  I didn't say it wasn't a collaboration. The collaboration was the licensing and commercial secrets required to implement it. But if you think that Apple designed the hardware or the UI of it, you're smoking crack.
  Why did Jobs unveil it? Because both companies saw that as advantageous for whatever reasons. (Motorola because having Jobs launch it would make big news, as it did. Jobs maybe wanted more licensees, or had something to prove to record companies)
  
  Did you mean the patent with prior art in an actual product?
  I mean the patents that they won with in a court of law. Leaving your opinion worthless.
  
  Also, please note that the iPhone 1st Gen wasn't that much of a smartphone, my Nokia 6600 from 2003, running Symbian, could multitask while the iPhone 1st Gen could not.
  
  The G1 iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. As it didn't have third party apps, there was no such thing as a bar on multitasking. iOS certainly was a multitasking OS even back then, and the in-built apps certainly multitasked.
  I'm very well aware of what the Symbian phones could do as I was a Software Engineer for Symbian. I didn't have any connection with that particular phone as I'd left by then, but I know the software that went in it. All Symbian phones were outclassed by iPhone from the iPhone 3G. Which is why neither Symbian nor Nokia exist anymore in any real sense. Symbian (as EPOC32) was designed for low spec devices of the mid 1990s with little power or memory, and took very much an embedded approach. By a decade later, mobile computing was powerful enough that they could run a mainstream OS instead. And the outcome was would take maybe 10 times as long to crate an app on Symbian as iOS. And it still wouldn't be nearly as good.
  Symbian had some great ideas in it. But it's time was over by the mid noughties.
39. Re:Turn the tables around by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-27 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  2001 had a flat video screen on a table, about the same dimensions as an iPad. No indication of it being any kind of computing device though.
  What was it, then? I didn't see anyone with a mahl stick and beret, so it wasn't an easel. Perhaps it was for frying bacon on...
  In the movie it's used to display the same video on both devices at the same time. A video that starts with a BBC logo. It has a row of buttons at the bottom. It's a TV.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
40. Re:Turn the tables around by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-27 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also, please note that the iPhone 1st Gen wasn't that much of a smartphone, my Nokia 6600 from 2003, running Symbian, could multitask while the iPhone 1st Gen could not. Also, the Samsung F700 had 3G while iPhone 1st Gen did not.
  
  And the Nokia 6600 didn't have 3G, and the F700 couldn't multitask.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
41. Re:Turn the tables around by i.kazmi · 2014-05-28 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola because having Jobs launch it would make big news, as it did. Jobs maybe wanted more licensees, or had something to prove to record companies
  Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Apple claim that they had already started working on iphone concepts in 2005? If so, what were they doing looking for licensees? Also, what did Jobs have to prove to the record companies? By this point in time the ipod was almost synonymous with music players.
  
  I mean the patents that they won with in a court of law. Leaving your opinion worthless.
  Oh you mean like in Netherlands where the Dutch Supreme Court limited the applicability of that design patent, claiming prior art? Or maybe you meant UK where as a result of a High Court ruling Apple had to run ads saying Samsung had not infringed its rights? Apple's claims were also denied in several other courts across the globe but I'm not feeling like looking up all the references for you. The only courts which have ruled in favor of Apple are German and American (tbh that particular fiasco should have been classified as a mistrial what with the jury foreman's vested interest and the jurors getting manipulated). So which court of law were you talking about? I think I'll go with the British court, if that's alright with you.
  
  The G1 iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. As it didn't have third party apps, there was no such thing as a bar on multitasking. iOS certainly was a multitasking OS even back then, and the in-built apps certainly multitasked.
  If the iphone 1st gen wasn't a smartphone, how did it set the bar for smartphones like so many Apple fans continuously claim?
  There definitely was a bar on multitasking for 3rd party apps and the only apps exempt from this bar were the pre-installed apps. While the OS itself supported multitasking just fine and jailbreaking an iphone gave it the ability to multitask, officially the bar on multitasking was lifted with the release of iOS 4.0 and iPhone 1st gen and iPhone 3G never had multitasking for 3rd party apps.
  
  As for all Symbian phones, you yourself claim that Symbian was almost an embedded system with huge constraints wrt power and memory, with powerful hardware getting cheap enough and becoming a viable alternative as it did, the direction the industry headed in was inevitable. Apple releasing the iPhone was irrelevant since Apple wasn't the only one learning from the mistakes and missteps of every phone manufacturer on the planet, most phone manufacturers were learning and their designs were evolving in pretty much the same direction or did Apple design the iPhone in a vacuum with Jobs pulling a 'let there be light'?
  
  Symbian definitely had some great ideas, every phone manufacturer (including Apple) learned a great deal from the experiments in UI design that went into making smartphones in the late 90s to the mid-2000s, Symbian, WinCE (with all its custom OEM skins) and Blackberry were all pioneers. Learning from others while you sit on the sidelines and then trying to push everyone off the playing field through legal shenanigans when they were the ones who did all the pioneering work is downright skulduggery but since it's Apple doing it and apparently Jobs' reality distortion field is still alive and kicking even after Jobs kicked the bucket so lets cheer the douchebags on!
42. Re:Turn the tables around by i.kazmi · 2014-05-28 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  So the Nokia 6600 should have implemented a technology that had not been developed yet? If it was implementing technology that hadn't been developed, I would have much rather Nokia had pulled all the stops and just added a teleporter to the 6600 instead, that would have been far more useful. But let's be realistic, shall we?
  
  I never thought of the Samsung F700 as a smartphone, it was a glorified feature phone with a pretty nice interface and the convenience of a slideout qwerty keypad. It was a decent enough phone. For the record, it did pretty much everything the iphone 1st gen did (somethings better, somethings worse) but unlike partisan ifans, I am not claiming that the F700 set the direction the smartphones went in so I fail to see your point.
43. Re:Turn the tables around by BasilBrush · 2014-05-28 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Oh you mean like in Netherlands... Or maybe you meant UK...
  You're confusing cases for the design patent, with a case about the patents for elements of the UI.
  
  the direction the industry headed in was inevitable.
  There was nothing inevitable about the iPhone UI. Android changed from looking like a Blackberry to looking like an iPhone because of a change in the source of their design plagiarism, not inevitability due to increased hardware power. If Windows Phone had been the big success at the time, Android would be a copy of that instead.
44. Re:Turn the tables around by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-28 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, you said what a real smartphone should have.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
45. Re:Turn the tables around by i.kazmi · 2014-05-28 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  What was not inevitable about the iOS UI? Once the shift from a stylus-centric user interface to a finger-centric interface started with the reduction in the cost of capacitive touchscreens, icon-based interfaces were bound to replace the menu based interfaces found in WinCE and Symbian touchscreen devices. The LG Prada had an icon based interface and the icons were arranged in a grid (how was that particular patent granted? Even Windows 95 had icons arranged in a grid, was it just because the patent had 'on a phone'?) This patent seems to have been invalidated in Europe.
  
  The unlock gesture patented by Apple clearly had prior art (on a phone, no less) and Dutch and German courts agreed with Samsung and invalidated that particular patent.
  
  The only patent that was accepted and for which a couple of Samsung devices were banned was the bounce-back effect in the gallery app, I don't know why this patent claim was upheld but the bounce-back effect on overscrolling has been around for a while in terms of UI design (maybe it had something to do with 'on a phone'.). The rubber banding patent itself was apparently partially invalidated by the USPTO based on similarities to another patent filed by Apple itself and an even earlier patent filed by AOL.
  
  So again, which court of law were you talking about?
  
  Why claim that Android changed from looking like a Blackberry to looking like an iPhone when the LG Prada predates the iphone and had a similar interface? Plus there were substantial differences between the iOS UI and the Android UI.
  1. Where upon unlocking the device in iOS you end up in the app screen, on Android you have multiple homescreens with app shortcuts and widgets and to get to the app drawer, you have to click an on screen icon (Huawei is the only Android OEM with a UI lacking a homescreen that I am aware of).
  2. iOS lacked a notification drawer until recently while on Android, the notification drawer was always a central UI element.
  3. iOS also seemed to try bundling 3rd party apps' settings in the settings app whereas on Android, you'd access app settings by pressing the menu button (initially a physical button replaced by a capacitive button in later incarnations) while inside that particular app (I found the iOS way confusing tbh when I got to play with a mate's iPhone 4 back when it was released, things might have changed in more recent versions of iOS).
Slashfuck by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 02:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Security certificate expired for the one https login. Yay. Way to go Slashdot! That's just like your editorial competency. Oh and this discussion is STUCK on fucking BETA. Will not come up otherwise. Who the fuck runs this site and why haven't they been fired?
1. Re:Slashfuck by ArcadeMan · 2014-05-25 02:58 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  We apologise for the fault in the website. Those responsible have been sacked
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
2. Re: Slashfuck by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:19 · Score: -1
  
  Yeah I was surprised to get an expired certificate warning from Slashdot. I had to make sure I hasn't accidentally navigated to CNN or similarly dodgy site
3. Re:Slashfuck by ArcadeMan · 2014-05-25 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  I guess today is expired certificate day.
  Way to go, Apple. /sigh
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
iLawyer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:12 · Score: 1

Apple should open its own law school. They gotta be running out of lawyers by now.
1. Re:iLawyer by Hognoxious · 2014-05-26 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Apple opening a law school, how silly.
  They'll just lobby to get a new kind of H1 visa. Much cheaper!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Latest Phones by Ksevio · 2014-05-25 03:23 · Score: 2

What ever will Samsung do if they aren't allowed to sell their Galaxy S2 anymore? Their customers will have no choice but to get the latest model.
1. Re:Latest Phones by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  What ever will Samsung do if they aren't allowed to sell their Galaxy S2 anymore? Their customers will have no choice but to get the latest model.
  Exactly what I was wondering... most of that list is S2 models, with one S3.... and they're selling S5's, so Apple is trying to ban them from selling several year old models?
  Maybe Samsung could file to stop the sale of iPhone3's in response? :-P
2. Re:Latest Phones by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-27 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  So why does Samsung still sell them?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by sribe · 2014-05-25 03:28 · Score: 0, Troll

Last week's decision in favor of Apple hints that the jury didn't think the company deserved the entire $2.2 billion it was seeking, awarding (a mere) $120 million, instead.
The jury decision does not "hint" any such thing. It states as a finding of fact in a court of law. Dipshit.
1. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know what is worse dipshits or pedants.
2. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by TechyImmigrant · 2014-05-25 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  dipshits
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, since the jury awarded $120 million instead of the $2.2 billion, it says there was a reason the jury didn't think it was necessary to award the entire amount. "Deserve" is speculative. Nothing "dipshit" about guessing without polling the jury's motive. Comments like this (and most articles these days) are why I left Slashdot. I come back from time to time to see if Slashdot returned to "News for Nerds"... but it hasn't.
4. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by pete6677 · 2014-05-25 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Pedants are far more annoying. At least dipshits are fun to make fun of.
5. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Who took the jam out of your doughnut?
6. Re:if you're illiterate, don't try to be clever by Hognoxious · 2014-05-26 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on your definition of "pedant".
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Apple is no longer competitive... by fufufang · 2014-05-25 05:22 · Score: 2

If Apple is indeed competitive, because it has more lawyers than engineers.
1. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by fufufang · 2014-05-25 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to say that these days Apple probably has more lawyers than engineers... I can't delete/edit my comment...
2. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by gnupun · 2014-05-25 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, if the iPhone/iPod touch had not been invented, would any of the Samsung touchscreen smartphones exist in the market today? Please answer honestly.
3. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by fufufang · 2014-05-25 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  From Wikipedia:
  "The IBM Simon Personal Communicator, ca. 1993, the first touchscreen phone."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
  Touchscreen phone running Windows Mobile was quite common in Asian market before iPhone. It is true that they weren't as polished.
4. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-25 09:28 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  It is true that they weren't as polished.
  And that's the point isn't it? Prior to Apple releasing the iPhone, Android resembled the Blackberry. iPhone caused them to change who they were copying. There never was anything original about it. Without others to copy, it's spec team wouldn't have known what to do.
5. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by gnupun · 2014-05-25 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Simon looks like a prototype... no consumer would touch that thing. The reality is Apple designed the iPhone, without which the smartphone market would not exist today. Apple is pissed at Samsung for copying its phone to the tiniest details and stealing its profits. Unfortunately, the iPhone has many design innovations but not many (strong) patentable innovations which means it's easy prey to companies in the mobile phone field that can clone a phone's design.
  I think the tech field needs a combination design patent which is a hybrid of design and utility patents and consists of combining existing technologies in an interesting and unique manner. For example, a smartphone combination patent would claim: touchscreen only UI + rectangular case + fast CPU + lots of RAM + phone functionality. The period of protection would only be 5 to 7 years since it's not as innovative as a utility patent.
6. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by Rich0 · 2014-05-25 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  For example, a smartphone combination patent would claim: touchscreen only UI + rectangular case + fast CPU + lots of RAM + phone functionality. The period of protection would only be 5 to 7 years since it's not as innovative as a utility patent.
  The iPhone was hardly the first phone that had this combination of features.
  Also, the iPhone was leading in market share for quite a while after Android came along, and is still the most profitable phone on the US market, despite the fact that Apple's patents have basically done little to deter others from developing features.
  A 7 year patent would mean that we'd be seeing our first android phones in a month. Apple sells something like 30-40M phones per quarter, making quite a bit of profit on each.
  Also, competition from Android also has forced Apple to try to innovate. Can you imagine what the carrier deals would be like if they were the only smartphone in town? How about the terms for app publishers - Apple already controls the market with an iron hand on their platform, so you can imagine what it would be like if there were no competition.
  I think patents only make sense in cases where there wouldn't be adequate advancement without them. Consumer gadgets seem to be a world where they aren't necessary. Even in realms where they're probably necessary like pharmaceuticals they could stand quite a bit of reform (switch to more of a bounty system, or allow them only until $n in profits are accrued, etc).
7. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by thegarbz · 2014-05-25 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Congrats you just described my Motorola world traveller. Oh wait did you think apple invented touch screens, or smart phones, or internet capable devices without keyboards? I had the phone you described before color screens were introduced. Guess your patent is invalid on prior art then. Better stick to the usual stupidly finely worded and questionable patents like round corners or slide to unlock instead.
8. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  And how exactly did Apple come up with the highly innovative "Notification Center"? or the "Control Center"? They copied Android, if Apple came up with those they would have tried to patent them! When will you fanboys (of both sides) finally admit that all the companies copy eachother's ideas and there is no monopoly on ideas.
  While you can patent an implementation of an idea but Apple most certainly won't disclose its implementation, which is the whole point of the patent system.
9. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by timeOday · 2014-05-25 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  I see remarkable continuity from the current crop of iPhone clones back to the Sony Clie TH55 I had 10 years ago.
  I'm something of a Rip Van Winkle when it comes to smartphones because I had several Palm Pilots and PocketPCs, but I don't like how cell service is sold here in the US and I am normally near a phone at work anyways. So my wife and I just had blackberry clones until I recently got her a standard-issue Android. To me, it feels immediately very familiar to the Palm Pilot, especially that Sony which was the last one I had. (I even used an onscreen keyboard at the time, rather than Grafitti). This contrasts with my first use of the Palm, which was very different to earlier devices I had such as the Psion 3a.
10. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by dj_nme · 2014-05-25 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, you are wrong. They all copied the form-factor of the LG Prada, just like Apple did.
11. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by drolli · 2014-05-25 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  Android development started a long time before the iphone was released. Taken into account the first target market for any mobile company back in that day (Japan), it seems indeed likely that there were *many* other devices which influenced the design of samsungs mobile phones. (Most notably the huge amount of PIM devices in japan like the Sony Clie Series).
  What indeed was manifested by the Iphone is that even mobile phones should not be designed as PIM devices but as media players (thus the loss of buttons makes sense).
12. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by gnupun · 2014-05-25 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  Link, please. I wasn't able find anything any motorola touchscreen released prior to 2007 (iphone release year).
13. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-26 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that meme is that in the Apple vs Samsung case, designs for the iPhone were presented in evidence dating back to August 2005. More than a year before LG announced the LG Prada.
14. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-26 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that meme is that in the Apple vs Samsung case, designs for the iPhone were presented in evidence dating back to August 2005. More than a year before LG announced the LG Prada.
  Which shows that nobody had to copy anybody to come up with a form factor like that, it was obvious as is proven by the fact that Apple and LG both ended up developing the same form factor device in parallel without influence from eachother.
15. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by thegarbz · 2014-05-26 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apologies. Ericson world traveler. Can't find exact reference to it but it was similar to the R380. When flipped closed it looks like a phone with buttons but the buttons flip aside to reveal a large touchscreen to use as a PDA. Best of all if you're ballsey enough or clumsy as in my case you can snap of the buttons completely and use it just as a touchscreen device. I had one in 2001. Fondly remember that phone. It was way ahead of its time.
16. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-26 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Which would be significant if it was simply the form factor that Apple sued for. Apple was successful, so you're arguing against what already proved.
17. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-27 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that meme is that in the Apple vs Samsung case, designs for the iPhone were presented in evidence dating back to August 2005. More than a year before LG announced the LG Prada.
  Which shows that nobody had to copy anybody to come up with a form factor like that, it was obvious as is proven by the fact that Apple and LG both ended up developing the same form factor device in parallel without influence from eachother.
  Similar is not the same. Form factor is not design. A copy is a copy.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
18. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-28 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Which would be significant if it was simply the form factor that Apple sued for.
  Why? All you said was that designs for the iPhone existed before the LG device was announced and since the LG device was announced before the iPhone it shows that the current form factor for smartphones was not some innovative thing Apple invented but was obvious. I don't know what else you're arguing but I'm only talking about the form factor, just like the original post you replied to.
19. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-28 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Similar is not the same.
  Obviously, and Android is similar to iOS, but not the same. The Galaxy S2 was similar to the iPhone when viewed from the front, but not the same (and not even really similar from any other angle).
20. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-28 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what else you're arguing but I'm only talking about the form factor, just like the original post you replied to.
  I don't believe the post I replied to was talking about the form factor only.
21. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-05-28 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Only similar enough to violate the design patent. And don't pretend Samsung doesn't have thousands of them.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
22. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-28 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe the post I replied to was talking about the form factor only.
  No, you are wrong. They all copied the form-factor of the LG Prada, just like Apple did.
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5199901&cid=47090883
  I'm not quite sure why you want to read things that aren't there to argue against a point nobody was making. In any case I was talking about the form factor and it has been proven that the form factor was obvious.
23. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-28 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  That was not "the original post [I] replied to". It was a response to my reply. The "original post [I] replied to" was earlier in the thread.
24. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-28 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah and it specifically called out form factor and nothing else. Why are you trying to make up stuff that isn't there?
25. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-28 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Only similar enough to violate the design patent.
  Apparently so (well the court case is ongoing) but why are you talking about design patents? What's that got to do with the fact that the form factor was obvious? I specifically said form factor, as did the GP to the post. Not design, not design patents but form factor. Is that unclear to you?
  
  And don't pretend Samsung doesn't have thousands of them.
  Why would I pretend that?
26. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by BasilBrush · 2014-05-28 19:00 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you imagine that one particular person, answering my message somehow defined the parameters of the thread. Was it a sock puppet of yours or something? At no stage was this thread limited to form factor. Now stop being a twat.
27. Re:Apple is no longer competitive... by exomondo · 2014-05-29 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why did you bother to respond to my post when I clearly wasn't talking about anything other than form factor then? Are you trying to rebut my point or discuss something else?
Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 07:28 · Score: 1

Apple is patent trolling so that they don't have to make better products
Apple is to phones as Microsoft was to PCs by mrflash818 · 2014-05-25 07:49 · Score: 1

It seems Apple is trying to be to phones, what Microsoft was to PCs, right before the DOJ went after Microsoft for antitrust *irritated sigh*

--
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
1. Re:Apple is to phones as Microsoft was to PCs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-25 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  Only in Microsoft's case, it had a much, much larger percentage of the desktop market compared to Apple's share of the smartphone market. Samsung is the top dog among smartphones, ATM.