4 ms·

I'm wondering what kind of institutional respect for IP and spirit of innovation would lead Samsung to whip up this UI? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjX

I'm wondering what kind of institutional respect for IP and spirit of innovation would lead Samsung to whip up this UI? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjXozc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjXozc Sure, one can argue that Samsung and Apple both look to a common ancestor for their ideas, but I think Samsung is more insidious than people are willing to admit here.

aristidb 14y ago
The Galaxy Nexus doesn't use / have that.
- siglesias 14y ago
  I'm not saying it does. I'm saying Samsung has no shame in copying this closely.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago
    Neither did Steve Jobs. What's your point?
    - acchow 14y ago
      For those who missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
      - siglesias 14y ago
        Stealing is not copying. Stealing means making it your own.
itp 14y ago
I'm not sure what that has to do with the most recent injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. The judge issued the injunction on the strength of U.S. Patent 8,086,604, which "provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques". The infringing technology is specifically called out as Android's Quick Search Box, which has been present for years. The Apple patent in question is obvious on its face. Off the top of my head, Google Desktop Search, which was released a month or so before Apple filed for the patent, is prior art. Nat Friedman's Dashboard project (http://nat.org/dashboard/ http://nat.org/dashboard/) represents significantly more advanced prior art and predates Apple's patent filing by over a year. Samsung may be insidious, but that's not the issue at play here. The judge ruled that Google's Quick Search Box violates an Apple patent that should never have been issued, and represents a toe hold to go after Android as a whole. This is a farce.
- siglesias 14y ago
  I don't feel that this lawsuit is specifically over the four patents in question and only the four patents in question. It's punishment (in the game theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. Obviously the discourse here has taken on import beyond the purely legal realities and into a more moral conversation about right and wrong. Morally speaking, I feel that many of Samsung's design decisions are wrong. This isn't to say that Apple is totally clean either, but it bears mentioning that the "victim" here has no problem with seeing how much copying it can get away with, and I see no problem with its getting punished for it once in a while.
  - pavanky 14y ago
    > It's punishment (in the game theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. That is not how the law works. That shouldn't be the way any law works!
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    That's classic ad hominem 101. "It doesn't matter if what you're doing is wrong or not. You... you.. you're dirty! And a jew! You should get sued!"
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

aristidb 14y ago

The Galaxy Nexus doesn't use / have that.

siglesias 14y ago
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying Samsung has no shame in copying this closely.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago
  Neither did Steve Jobs. What's your point?
  - acchow 14y ago
    For those who missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
    - siglesias 14y ago
      Stealing is not copying. Stealing means making it your own.

itp 14y ago

I'm not sure what that has to do with the most recent injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. The judge issued the injunction on the strength of U.S. Patent 8,086,604, which "provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques". The infringing technology is specifically called out as Android's Quick Search Box, which has been present for years. The Apple patent in question is obvious on its face. Off the top of my head, Google Desktop Search, which was released a month or so before Apple filed for the patent, is prior art. Nat Friedman's Dashboard project (http://nat.org/dashboard/ http://nat.org/dashboard/) represents significantly more advanced prior art and predates Apple's patent filing by over a year. Samsung may be insidious, but that's not the issue at play here. The judge ruled that Google's Quick Search Box violates an Apple patent that should never have been issued, and represents a toe hold to go after Android as a whole. This is a farce.

siglesias 14y ago
I don't feel that this lawsuit is specifically over the four patents in question and only the four patents in question. It's punishment (in the game theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. Obviously the discourse here has taken on import beyond the purely legal realities and into a more moral conversation about right and wrong. Morally speaking, I feel that many of Samsung's design decisions are wrong. This isn't to say that Apple is totally clean either, but it bears mentioning that the "victim" here has no problem with seeing how much copying it can get away with, and I see no problem with its getting punished for it once in a while.
- pavanky 14y ago
  > It's punishment (in the game theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. That is not how the law works. That shouldn't be the way any law works!
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  That's classic ad hominem 101. "It doesn't matter if what you're doing is wrong or not. You... you.. you're dirty! And a jew! You should get sued!"

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]