Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#111

Post by staunch »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #86
staunch wrote: post #8

Steve Jobs' friend Bill Gates cloned the Macintosh with Windows and his other friend Eric Schmidt cloned the iPhone with Android. I'm sure that felt bad but his primary feeling should have been pity. He created a company so much better than his competitors that their biggest successes are poor clones of his next-generation products. He showed Gates the future of PCs and he showed Schmidt the future of smartphones. Bu…

I thought Jobs borrowed the GUI from Xerox.

I think it's more accurate to say the Mac was inspired by Xerox PARC's work and Windows was an attempt at cloning the Mac.

There's a significant difference between creating a next-generation version of something and attempting to blindly clone someone else's work.

The iPhone was inspired by work that Palm did but it wasn't an attempt at cloning it. Zune was an attempt at cloning the iPod. Google+ was an attempt at cloning Facebook. Facebook was inspired by Friendster/MySpace, but not a clone.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#112

Post by bitmapbrother »

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.

>The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.

The LG Prada was shown off before the introduction of the iPhone. To imply that the iPhone was polarizing/radical and that the LG Prada was not is ridiculous IMO.

https://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada...

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#113

Post by nicky0 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #53
mortehu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S: https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en

Both, to me, appear to be an evolution of this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&ua...

You are deluded.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#114

Post by nicky0 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #102
krustyburger wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. And I’m not at all convinced that it was such an obvious idea given the development of multitouch. I think it only seems obvious after the fact.

Sorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears. Or do people think Apple invented that, too? And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no hardware keyboard? It was widely predicted to be a failure.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#115

Post by CamperBob2 »

nicky0 wrote: post #114
CamperBob2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears. Or do people think Apple invented that, too? And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no hardware keyboard? It was widely predicted to be a failure.

It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense.

It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew.

To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#116

Post by mcny »

scarface74 wrote: post #84
kumarm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who developed for Mobile Phones pre iPhone era, I can say they are people who never worked on software for Mobile before iPhone :). There were number of Phone that existed with several of those styles. How many people know Verizon Had a decent app store (Apps developed with Brew) in US before iPhone? This included similar testing that you see for AppStore TODAY.

I developed for Windows Mobile before and slightly after the iPhone. Windows Mobile was slightly ahead of the iPhone as an app platform until around 2009.

Can you please elaborate on what made windows mobile better for apps? Why did Microsoft not want to continue this? I think windows mobile was a complete scratch and rewrite?

My understanding for why Google wanted Android and open handset alliance is the fragmentation of mobile at that time: it took too much effort to get Google maps on all these different J2ME (I think I got the name right) devices.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#117

Post by WalterBright »

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.

Check out the Minisec from 1976:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1267

"Because of the finite size of clumsy human fingers, it had no more controls than that of its ancestor of three hundred years earlier. There were fifty neat little studs; each, however, had an unlimited number of functions, according to the mode of operation - for the character visible on each stud changed according to the mode."

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#119

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

Covzire wrote: post #97
tptacek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. To fit the standard at issue here, that happened every time somebody bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing. Most people who buy phones are not as engaged with the market as HN commenters are. The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device th…

So why don't we see this kind of behavior in the Automotive industry?

We do, sometimes. I remember a Peugeot-Citroen designer in the 90s complaining that he couldn’t tell the latest Rover apart from the Citroen he’d designed a year before.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#120

Post by berti »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #112
mi100hael wrote: post #3

To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.

>The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple. The LG Prada was shown off before the introduction of the iPhone. To imply that the iPhone was polarizing/radical and that the LG Prada was not is ridiculous IMO. https://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada...

Until you look at the home screen.. and the hardware buttons... Samsung's problem is that they cloned the iPhone look and feel (aka design).
Post reply on HN