dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1398
share rss forum feed


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Who copied who?

Before the iPhone, every phone looked different. I owned a few pre iPhone smartphones.

After the iPhone, every phone looked like the iPhone.

Who copied who?



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

quote:
every phone looked like the iPhone.
really? the iPhone is pretty distinctive and I've only seen similarities with it on knockoff Chinese backalley brands. Samsung's devices always look significantly different IMO. I can always tell the difference.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2

4 recommendations

Who's device looked like who's?



jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

Before the iPhone, every phone looked different. I owned a few pre iPhone smartphones.

After the iPhone, every phone looked like the iPhone.

Who copied who?

That's like saying that everybody who came out with an e-reader copied the Kindle. It's a silly assertion. There are only so many ways to design a device that is supposed to function as a phone and a data device, purely using soft keys. So, what features of the iPhone would not make sense for somebody else to incorporate? Making the device as trim as possible? Rounded corners? Some method to lock the screen so stuff wouldn't accidentally be butt-activated? Icons arranged in a grid-like pattern on the screen? Colourful icons? The list is endless.

Unless you, and Apple, are going to insist that competing manufacturers deliberately design unfriendly, hard-to-use products, merely to satisfy Steve Jobs' whackiness, I don't see how one could possibly avoid some degree of similarity. It's like saying "because so-and-so was the first company to come out with a round above-ground pool, nobody else can build round, above-ground pools," when round is the ideal shape, structurally, for a free-standing, above-ground pool.

Jim
Expand your moderator at work


Razzy1

@rr.com
reply to fifty nine

Re: Who copied who?

Uh not every phones look like an iphones...

Please stop saying that.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to Harddrive

ha good point



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to ArrayList

said by ArrayList:

quote:
every phone looked like the iPhone.
really? the iPhone is pretty distinctive and I've only seen similarities with it on knockoff Chinese backalley brands. Samsung's devices always look significantly different IMO. I can always tell the difference.

I was referring to the fact that everyone criticized Apple for not having a keyboard, now the iPhone like design with a virtual keyboard instead of a physical one is "obvious."


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

Before the iPhone, every phone looked different. I owned a few pre iPhone smartphones.

After the iPhone, every phone looked like the iPhone.

Who copied who?

Yep looks EXACTLY like an Iphone.




fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Harddrive

Yeah, that evidence was rejected by the court, and then Samsung went crying to the media:

»venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/samsu···signs003


The slides Samsung released to the press include mock-ups by Apple designer Shin Nishobori, images that we first saw last week in publicly available court documents. But as noted Apple fanboy John Gruber points out, Samsung’s argument is a bit bogus since the design Nishobori created wasn’t an actual Sony phone — instead it was how Apple envisioned a potential Sony phone.

The slides also show a Samsung “IReen” design that was created before the iPhone was released. Samsung would likely be better off trying to prove that it’s been developing an iPhone-like smartphone for some time, rather than trying to prove Apple’s Sony inspiration.


Except that they probably weren't, especially given how the iPhone caused a "design crisis" at Samsung when it was released. Sheer act of desperation on the part of Samsung.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to jseymour

said by jseymour:

That's like saying that everybody who came out with an e-reader copied the Kindle. It's a silly assertion. There are only so many ways to design a device that is supposed to function as a phone and a data device, purely using soft keys. So, what features of the iPhone would not make sense for somebody else to incorporate? Making the device as trim as possible? Rounded corners? Some method to lock the screen so stuff wouldn't accidentally be butt-activated? Icons arranged in a grid-like pattern on the screen? Colourful icons? The list is endless.

Unless you, and Apple, are going to insist that competing manufacturers deliberately design unfriendly, hard-to-use products, merely to satisfy Steve Jobs' whackiness, I don't see how one could possibly avoid some degree of similarity. It's like saying "because so-and-so was the first company to come out with a round above-ground pool, nobody else can build round, above-ground pools," when round is the ideal shape, structurally, for a free-standing, above-ground pool.

Jim

Well, everything becomes "obvious" when someone invents it.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

said by fifty nine:

Before the iPhone, every phone looked different. I owned a few pre iPhone smartphones.

After the iPhone, every phone looked like the iPhone.

Who copied who?

Yep looks EXACTLY like an Iphone.

[att=1]

Pretty much. The patents involved weren't for the looks of the hardware though, it was about UI elements. Where is the real keyboard?


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

said by fifty nine:

Well, everything becomes "obvious" when someone invents it.

Show me the "invention." Innovation? Okay: I'll grant that. But "innovation" doesn't necessarily equate to "invention." To qualify for patent protection, a thing must be unique and non-obvious. I'll even grant you "unique." But non-obvious? Hardly. It was an obvious evolutionary step. It's just that Apple took it first.

said by fifty nine:

Pretty much. The patents involved weren't for the looks of the hardware though, it was about UI elements. Where is the real keyboard?

So Apple took the touch-screen tablet idea (had been around for quite some time), shrank it down to phone size, and made it work. Now nobody else is allowed to make a touch-screen-only phone? Seriously? That's your argument? Do you see anybody else getting a lock on using touch-screen-only controls on their products?

Jim

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

I was referring to the fact that everyone criticized Apple for not having a keyboard, now the iPhone like design with a virtual keyboard instead of a physical one is "obvious."

There have been 'virtual' keyboards on touchscreen devices of all shapes and sizes for at least 20 years. Just because Apple put one on a smaller form factor device does not make it unique and worthy of protection by the courts or a clearly delusional jury.


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine

Except, Apple doesn't invent things...



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to fifty nine

When it goes to the Appeals Court in Wash, DC a lot of Apple's win will be washed out as being the result of a home court jury exceeding instructions.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


en103

join:2011-05-02
reply to MaynardKrebs

Right - HTC had WinMo devices with virtual keyboards (with stylus)



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by fifty nine:

I was referring to the fact that everyone criticized Apple for not having a keyboard, now the iPhone like design with a virtual keyboard instead of a physical one is "obvious."

There have been 'virtual' keyboards on touchscreen devices of all shapes and sizes for at least 20 years. Just because Apple put one on a smaller form factor device does not make it unique and worthy of protection by the courts or a clearly delusional jury.

But Apple made one that was a smash hit, then everyone ran to copy it.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Cheese

said by Cheese:

Except, Apple doesn't invent things...

Apple invented and enabled the invention of a lot of things. They also develop ideas that others have invented.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Razzy1

said by Razzy1 :

Uh not every phones look like an iphones...

Please stop saying that.

I'll keep saying it because it's the truth.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to jseymour

Everything is obvious when someone invents it.

I'm sure the automobile and penicillin was obvious too.


Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL
reply to fifty nine

The evidence was excluded for procedural reasons. Do you know what that means?



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

said by Cheese:

Except, Apple doesn't invent things...

Apple invented and enabled the invention of a lot of things. They also develop ideas that others have invented.

No, they really didn't...

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to fifty nine

just because it was the popular one doesn't mean you made it first.



jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by fifty nine:

I was referring to the fact that everyone criticized Apple for not having a keyboard, now the iPhone like design with a virtual keyboard instead of a physical one is "obvious."

There have been 'virtual' keyboards on touchscreen devices of all shapes and sizes for at least 20 years. Just because Apple put one on a smaller form factor device does not make it unique and worthy of protection by the courts or a clearly delusional jury.

But Apple made one that was a smash hit, then everyone ran to copy it.

That still doesn't make it worthy of patent protection. Again: Patent protection requires the thing be both unique and non-obvious. A touch screen to control a phone was a blatantly obvious evolutionary path.

It wasn't that long ago that nobody had navigation systems in their cars, nor Bluetooth, keyless entry, keyless start, voice recognition... the list goes on and on. So just because, one year, some-or-another auto manufacturer added a navigation system to their dash, now nobody else can do that? Integrated wireless safety/diagnostics system, such as OnStar? Heads up displays?

Of course not, because those are rather obvious evolutionary advancements. Heads up displays have been in aircraft, particularly military aircraft, for years. It was only a matter of time before the technology advanced to the point where it was economically feasible to stick one in a car. So somebody did. Not revolutionary. Not even particularly innovative. The surprise would've been if it hadn't happened by now.

There's simply nothing revolutionary about a touch screen user interface. The technology simply finally evolved to the point where small, reliable, usable displays worked and somebody (Apple, in this case) thought "No need for the physical keyboard anymore. Let's try it."

You don't see the GPS manufacturers suing one another because one of them (Garmin, probably) was the first one out with a touch screen device.

Jim


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Not only that, but things like awarding damages for phones that DIDN'T infringe?



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine

Except, again, Apple didn't invent any of it.



LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
reply to fifty nine

No, they haven't.



LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
reply to fifty nine

Your vision is skewed and biased then.



Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none

join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

Pretty much. The patents involved weren't for the looks of the hardware though, it was about UI elements. Where is the real keyboard?

You do realize that the HTC Touch was released before the IPhone, and it also does not have a keyboard.

Guess Apple's wasn't the first phone without a physical keyboard. Next time you are going to spew this "stuff" from you mouth at least fact check it, failure to do so show you as an ignorant "fan boy" who has no clue what is is talking about.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime