|
2012-08-26
, 05:37
|
Posts: 322 |
Thanked: 218 times |
Joined on Feb 2012
|
#12
|
|
2012-08-26
, 06:28
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#13
|
|
2012-08-26
, 07:22
|
|
Posts: 7,075 |
Thanked: 9,073 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#14
|
|
2012-08-26
, 15:59
|
Posts: 207 |
Thanked: 552 times |
Joined on Jul 2011
|
#15
|
|
2012-08-26
, 17:05
|
Posts: 322 |
Thanked: 218 times |
Joined on Feb 2012
|
#16
|
A UK court recently ruled Apple must take out advertisements stating Samsung did NOT copy their products. I guess that's the difference between home territory and neutral ground.
To me the iPhone just looks like the LG Prada which won a design and innovation award in 2006.
What's the betting the next iPhone will have a bigger screen with a smaller surround thus making it look more like a Galaxy?
The iPhone is a nice feature phone and Apple have made a lot of money from it. I'm sure when they announce their next iteration (i.e. a new number and some other tiny modification) their devotees will queue up all night in order to pay EUR 600 for it and I don't doubt they'll hail it as the most 'innovative' device in the entire history of the cosmos but I'd wager my used tissue collection it wont contain anything new or interesting to a real smartphone enthusiast.
|
2012-08-26
, 18:24
|
Posts: 1,341 |
Thanked: 708 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#17
|
Samsung has been found guilt of violating the '301 ("bounce patent"; all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 ("pinch to zoom"; almost all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (all devices), and '163 ("double tap to zoom"; some devices, but not others) technology patents for most of its smartphone and tablet devices.
|
2012-08-26
, 20:32
|
Posts: 207 |
Thanked: 552 times |
Joined on Jul 2011
|
#18
|
Is there any multitouch device which would not have pinch to zoom now?
http://www.dailytech.com/Jury+Finds+...icle25515c.htm
|
2012-08-26
, 20:46
|
Posts: 1,341 |
Thanked: 708 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#19
|
'After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.'
|
2012-08-26
, 22:27
|
Posts: 457 |
Thanked: 600 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#20
|
Tags |
big brother, desperate fud, protectionism, samsung |
|
You know what I meant, on the ropes in the courtroom, and Yes, they were knocked out. With regards to the big picture, yes, financially is not much to them. But why do you want to buy copycats?