Steve Jobs Contacted Samsung in July, 2010 About Patent Infringement

[Oowoon]

So they just want them to stop making them like they are? Its just a phone.

Sent from Apex'd GB Droid 2

 

[regkilla]

Samsung did copy Apple's products. Proof: News - Samsung doesn’t copy Apple

 

[sbenson]

Chicken or the egg?

 

[OneTenderRebel]

I think that ultimately it's, well you know, that one time, he also, but then it....right?

 

[trestevenson]

In no way does Touchwiz look like ANY other OEM skin of Android!! It is a total "Hong Kong" special.

I LOL'd. You're probably aware that Samsung is a Korean company. Although I understand the comparison to a cheap, Chinese knock-off, the fact that you called it a "Hong Kong" special was pretty amusing. :laugh: That is all.

 

[UNC]

I disagree. Apple can't claim exclusive rights to a thin rectangle. Outside of a few icons their claim is BS.

I'm not - and most people aren't - particularly tuned into the form factor and aesthetics of the phone and can't tell many phones apart on the surface without looking closely side-by-side. Black or silver border around a screen all look pretty similar to me.

You have to agree that TouchWiz is nothing like any other OEM Skin and to the layman is virtually indistinguishable from iOS.

This has nothing to do with what company makes better products, what OS is better, who you "root" (or jailbreak?) for... This to me is just a clear case of infringement, I don't care about the legal mumbo-jumbo, I know that TouchWiz is a rip-off of iOS.

I agree with ilikemoneygreen 100%. Steve Jobs call was the "diplomatic" way to end that relationship without saying "Go %!#$ # %&^&*$".

Samsung and Apple both have more money than all of us combined, who cares if they have to throw around a couple hundred million bucks?
Hopefully it's done in American courts so we can get our tax cut!!!

 

[debdroid1a]

. Steve Jobs call was the "diplomatic" way to end that relationship without saying "Go %!#$ # %&^&*$".

Where's the transcript? From what I've read there isn't any transcript of the phone call, so we don't know if it was "diplomatic". Could have been "threatening" could have been "begging". Please provide a link and source to the transcript.

If one person goes to VZW or AT&T and says "I want the iPhone, but the Galaxy S is so much cheaper and it's the same anyway" and chooses the Galaxy S than Apple is right and should be compensated.


/rant

So why can't the customer choose the cheaper phone if they want it? I would. But that's me. I know people who want the iPhone, not any other phone. Some want an Android. Some don't know what they want (this is where they need to research or get what they deserve).

 

[Pleirosei]

From the article, it also sounds as though Jobs made only a token gesture and then "turned it over to the lawyers". That's not particularly how you would act hoping to avoid the courts or to work-out a licensing deal. CEO's don't directly remove themselves from negotiations with key suppliers involving multi-billion dollar contracts. He made the token gesture, but I would guess the intent/goal was always to block production, which is why the lawyers were allowed to run with it. When you want to get a deal done, you keep the lawyers out of it, other than to write-up the terms.

Greatest point made on this thread thus far bro. +1

 

[UNC]

So why can't the customer choose the cheaper phone if they want it? I would. But that's me. I know people who want the iPhone, not any other phone. Some want an Android. Some don't know what they want (this is where they need to research or get what they deserve)

The part I highlighted is the only thing that is relevant!!!

You know people who want iPhone and NOTHING else, those people would NEVER buy a phone with any other OEM Android skin, but they might buy TouchWiz because it is "close enough". Which means that they are profiting (atleast potentially) off of the R&D work that Apple has done, specifically the "R".
Why spend money figuring out how people want their icons to look when you can just copy Apple?

Be honest with yourself and ask "Why is TouchWiz so similar to iOS and so dissimilar to Sense and Blur?" and "Am I ok with blatant theft?".

 

[debdroid1a]

UNC, okay that was completely uncalled for.

did i touch a nerve? Hit it on the head.

Disappointed that iPhone4s that copied Android.

Maybe you need to go to an iPhone forum if you can't be decent here. I was at least trying to be fair to both OS brands. Is it too much to ask the same of you.

Sent from my Droid 1 using DroidForums

 

[azules9780]

The part I highlighted is the only thing that is relevant!!!

You know people who want iPhone and NOTHING else, those people would NEVER buy a phone with any other OEM Android skin, but they might buy TouchWiz because it is "close enough". Which means that they are profiting (atleast potentially) off of the R&D work that Apple has done, specifically the "R".
Why spend money figuring out how people want their icons to look when you can just copy Apple?

Be honest with yourself and ask "Why is TouchWiz so similar to iOS and so dissimilar to Sense and Blur?" and "Am I ok with blatant theft?".

Because Sense and Blur look so much alike too right? Or LG's skin looks like anything else? Pantech? and every other manufacturer? They need to differentiate themselves from each other and there are only so many ways one can do this. Samsung makes some very stylish phones as does Apple. Do I think that Touchwiz looks like iOS? yes and no. Not enough to call it a total rip. Widgets throw that idea right out the window, you know, cuz, iOS doesn't have them. And there are only so many ways that one can differentiate a phone.

Based on your argument, and Apple's, we shouldn't have any automobiles because I can think of many that extremely similar. Hyundai Genesis looks real similar to another high end car, Benz perhaps? Lexus? Or how about midsize sedans, accord and camry, sonata, etc. I can go on and on and on. When the same markets are targeted, then usually the end products will be very similar. That's just how it is.

And usually when people start suing(sp) others, they do so because they are being blatantly ripped off, or they cannot compete. I think it is 80/20 Samsung being the number 1 phone maker in the world and apple cannot compete(exhibit A, the just announced iPhone4s is WAAAAYYY behind the curve) and there are similarities between the apple products and samsungs products. We'll see what pans out from this.

 

[ilikemoneygreen]

UNC you seem to be taking this personally, reading this thread i think we should take it down a notch. :icon_eek: We all should, kinda stop getting into any possible chance of insulting someones character. Peace not war in the forums. :icon_ lala: Keep it cool. The iPhone will remain the iPhone and Android will remain android after this argument, I promise. Strong opinions on both sides.

 

[GBH2]

I dont know, there are people who bought the samsung galaxy phone just cause it looked like the iphone. And in China where a lot of things are copied to make knockoffs I can see Apple's point. As far as I am concerned its the jobs of the lawyers to handle litigation. Being I do not have a taped phone conversation for me to hear I can not say whether it was an olive branch or an extortion. I say we leave it for the courts to decide.

Exactly! I find it a bit annoying that it is assumed to be an "olive branch". We don't know and it really depends on your point of view and the assessment of the legal claims involved. They are probably both somewhat correct - in that Steve Jobs may have thought it was an olive branch while Samsung thought it was extortion.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

"A good way to threaten somebody is to light a stick of dynamite. Then you call the guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone. "Hear that?" you say. "That's dynamite, baby."

Seemed fitting for this thread, BTW this is not meant to side one way or the other, so there.

 

[SquireSCA]

I think that in cases where someone steals intellectual property, like technology, that is where they should sue. If they make a complete knock-off and don't pay royalties or whatever, then sue.

But the Samsung phones are similar, not the same. Some icons look similar. Is it because they copied? Or is is that they wanted it to stand out from the other 7 Android phones on the shelf at Verizon? Is it because they know that "sleek is in"?

Look at cars. For awhile the trend was square and angular. Then the trend was round and curvy. Not is is more sleek and refined.

Markets go through things like that, and I am sure that whoever put out the first "curvy" car to market could try to claim that they "started it and everyone else is copying them", but I don't really think that it holds a lot of water. If something is very popular from an aesthetic, you will see other products take on a "similar" look.

But I don't think that having a "similar look" is enough to justify spending uncounted millions on lawyers and trying to use the legal system in order to block the competition from sales.

Of course, in light of the fact that there is no iPhone 5 imminent, and that all Apple has going into the Holiday season is a tweaked iPhone 4, perhaps that is why Apple is so desperate. I mean, they know that Android sales are crushing theirs worldwide. They know that most of their sales come from upgrades, and a lot of them happen around the end of the year and the Holidays. And they know that this season, they don't have the latest and greatest to offer. They have a mild update to a 16 month old phone going up against the newest cutting edge devices that the dominant platform has to offer.

Is it any wonder that Apple sees no other recourse than to try to use the courts to stop the competition? They saw the writing on the wall. They saw Android walk in and slap them around and take over the market and see no end in sight, and they know that this season they had nothing to even fight back with other than a rehash of their old phone.

Yesterday's iPhone 4S announcement suddenly makes all this legal crap make a little more sense. They are doing whatever they can to stop the bleeding.