6 ms·
Consider that what you call innovation is seen by many as natural progression built on the shoulder of others and what you call blatant copying is in the same c
by novalis 14y ago
Consider that what you call innovation is seen by many as natural progression built on the shoulder of others and what you call blatant copying is in the same category. You just place each in different adjective narratives. The jury glossed over looking at prior art because it would "bog" them down, isn't that a tad more alarming then all the narrative provided for who is the "good" and who is the "bad" guy in this...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- throwaway64 14y agoare you really suggesting that the iPhone in all aspects had no precedent, at all? That is completely absurd, sorry.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lawdawg 14y ago3 months? I think your math is a bit off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(original) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(original) - June, 2007 vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_i7500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_i7500 - June, 2009
- simplexion 14y agoLG Prada - January 2007
- novalis 14y agoI love apple, they make great stuff and the eco system is a vision so well crafted it dominates anything else ever developed in that field... I had a MBP as my main machine on the road for some years even, don't make it sound like someone with another POV is simply discarding or "rewriting history". Apple copied a lot from several sources to make the original iphone, don't make it sound like they didn't because you prefer and love the brand. I get it, it's a good phone, it isn't a free pass to obliterate every other contribution to what made it great. " It was -- literally -- like nothing that had ever come before it. It was -- literally -- like no other Android phone at the time" No, it wasn't, it was progression on the work of many others and prior art that was discounted by the jury on the apple vs samsung case, is -- literally -- proof of that. Stay well. :)