decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs
Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
Except you haven't been following the EVIDENCE.

Which is that Apple have been copying Samsung. Yes of course they have!

Actually, no. At least one Samsung "copy" of the iPhone PREDATES the
iPhone. Clear proof that Apple copied? Except that the dates are too close.
Apple didn't have time to copy.

The reality is that both sides have been moving closer, but if you're going to
argue copying, the evidence is firmly (if circumstantially, conspiracy theory
style) that APPLE is the copyist.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well argued, sorry PJ
Authored by: nuthead on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
I think you got your wires crossed. Apple has been copying other people's ideas.
There's compelling prior art for almost everything Apple has 'innovated.' Apple
didn't come first and suddenly invent the iphone, with nothing there before it.
You might find it hard to believe, but Apple really isn't a religion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Same old whine, new bottle
Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT

I mean really, how many times have we seen this attack? It's gotten tiresome.

For newcomers or those who have forgotten, a typical specimen reads like this:

PJ, back when you did XYZ, I thought the sun rose and set at your command. Herds of unicorns grazed outside your window and butterflies threw themselves to the ground to mark your path.

But now you are doing PQR and a thicket of thorns surrounds you. My PC emits a cloud of sulfurous smoke every time I visit Groklaw.

I am sooooooooo disappointed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oh, and
Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
Your writing style gives you away. You're shilling yourself.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well argued, sorry PJ
Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:10 PM EDT
Well, not to cause your hair to catch on fire, but let me point out two things before you go away forever. You wrote:
This isn't Microsoft lunging out at Linux for being better and threatening their cash cow. This isn't Oracle vs Google either, with Oracle trying to grasp at straws and close off the sandbox after having invited everyone in. This is a lot more like the ugly underbelly of the Psystar lawsuit, where someone (and it may still be a mystery exactly who) was trying to undermine the GPL by challenging authors' rights to control the distribution of their creations. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
With each of those stories, I was called names and told I used to be great but now I wasn't any more. I stopped caring years ago. Someone hates everything a person writes. Maybe not you for all four stories, but someone hated me just that way for each of them.

I don't care.

Two, both the first article I wrote on this litigation and this very one state that I have no idea yet which party is right and which is wrong. How could you miss that?

Or did you?

Anyway, go away if you want to. Lots of others here still, but if there was no one, I would still write what I believe to be true. Groklaw isn't running for anything.

It's about authenticity.

You should try it.

Don't post phony stuff like this here again. Buh bye.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

According to UK courts ...
Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
Samsung have copied nothing, and Apple have been ordered to tell everyone that
on their own website. Currently that order is stayed pending appeal but the odds
appear to be against Apple winning that appeal, and when and if they lose they
will both have to pay monetary damages to Samsung and tell the world they were

There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well argued, sorry PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
The only thing I think Samsung might have trouble with is the icon set. I don't
know what that's worth in the grand scheme of things.

I have an android phone. My icons don't look anything like Apple's. The
perusal of Samsung's basic icons (phone, address book, messages, etc... The
color schemes and general icon themes seems like an infringement to me.

Does that warrant the whole 2.5 billion enchilada? I don't think so. Beyond
those Samsung icons and a basic grid the Android and iOS experience are so
vastly different for me.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )