Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones

mrk said:
Le Sigh indeed, via Android Central!



http://goo.gl/TgeyP

Somehow I have a feeling Samsung are just trolling Apple here :p
Click to expand...

As they're clearly coming off worse here, they should probably stop poking the bear. :p

BOBPegasus said:
Can see why they are though :)

This can't really be that much of a big thing for Samsung, their still selling the Galaxy S2 like crazy and its not really their only venture.

As far as im aware Apple dont have much outside ipods/iphones/ipad/itelevision??

Although im not really up to date on their new products so if somone can correct me please do :)
Click to expand...

That depends whether you would class the entire Mac computing line of products their company is built on as 'much of a venture' or not.
 
dasyad said:
I like all gadgets.

I don't think there is anyway someone could say with a straight face that the iPhone is any less useful at being a phone than say a Nokia, BlackBerry or any other Android phone. Arguably the only thing it is less useful at is the fringe features such as HDMI out and DLNA etc.

I think people need to stop bashing things as x vs y when in fact both x and y are very good at what they do. Things being different doesn't necessarily make them bad :p
Click to expand...


Indeed I very nearly bought an iphone but the Galaxy SII was on an equal par and free and the contract was better value for money. But that doesn't mean the phone isn't a good phone haha.

The whole apple fan/hater argument is hilarious. I see apple fan boys hating and accusing people of being haters as much as you see genuine haters accusing apple users as fan boys. Really gets my goat if you like that I can't say something is bad without being called a hater or a fanboy.

Back on topic

iPhone was a flawless concept apple owned it Android has worked hard and with some patent infringements levelled the playing field and rather than leading Apple are trying to prevent others from producing. This I think in-time will force others to innovate better designs and eventually have the reverse impact apple intends.
 
To make the situation a bit clearer, because none of the news sites are likely to do it:

This is really not a new thing. Apple filed the original swipe to unlock patent back in 2005, this is a continuation of that patent.

The exact claim of the patent:

"A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display. "

The method used by that other phone in that Android Central article does not actually fall under this patent. However the Dutch judge basically decided that it was close enough that Apple's method would be an obvious next step, so it got thrown out. Of course whether or not courts in other countries will reach the same conclusion remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
NuclearWinter said:
To make the situation a bit clearer, because none of the news sites are likely to do it:

This is really not a new thing. Apple filed the original swipe to unlock patent back in 2005, this is a continuation of that patent.
Click to expand...

December 23, 2005 to be exact.

That device (the 'm' version) came out in March 2005. The original device (N1) came out in July 2004.
 
The whole thing is getting more pathetic as it goes on with the "patents" getting wilder and wilder.

The only thing I care about now, and what a lot of the fanboi's don't seem to realise, is that it is costing the consumer money as we eventually end up paying for the lawsuits etc....

Can Apple (or anyone) REALLY expect a "slide to unlock" style patent to go unchallenged when it is seen as a fundamental operation of a touchscreen smartphone?

I don't care what side you are on here (Apple v Android), if you think this is anything but crazy then you're an idiot.
 
englishpremier said:
Is google smart enough to patent the use of facial recognition to unlock smart phones?
Click to expand...
You'd think so, I doubt they'd announce it at a news conference in the current climate without having the wheels already in motion - otherwise it'll be

"THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING AGAIN - FACE UNLOCKING ON iOS8!!!"
 
Richie said:
Can Apple (or anyone) REALLY expect a "slide to unlock" style patent to go unchallenged when it is seen as a fundamental operation of a touchscreen smartphone?
Click to expand...

Assuming the device has no physical buttons of corse.
Whats wrong with hold to unlock? i mean, that was a fundamental feature of unlocking phones through the 90's and early 00's yet no one cared that Nokia had it patented.
 
Richie said:
I don't care what side you are on here (Apple v Android), if you think this is anything but crazy then you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

it's what patents are, all companies do it. The difference is due to modern media we see how crazy the system is. 10years ago, you probably wouldn't of heard anything. Or if you did x-company punished. With no. In depth analysis of what happened.
 
leaskovski said:
December 23, 2005 to be exact.

That device (the 'm' version) came out in March 2005. The original device (N1) came out in July 2004.
Click to expand...

Right, but the method used by that device to unlock is not what Apple have patented. The point is that the patent is a lot more specific than the Abstract suggests. You can't just go by the title of a patent and use that to judge the contents.

Now some courts may still decide that phone is prior art if they deem it close enough to Apple's patent that the specifics don't matter (as in the Dutch case), and some may not. But it's not nearly as clear cut and generic as people are making it out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom