Anyway, just curious how people who have reacted if the names of the plaintiff and defendants were kept anonymous… Sure it would have been drastically different…

Samsung chose to stick with Android. Android has evolved at a much faster pace than iOS has and if you’re honest with yourself you’d know that there are only so many ways to take things. You’d also realize that keeping up with the competition means making sure you have their bases covered as well as your own. Apple knows it, which is why they’ve taken features from Android.

So jump down from your high horse. Unless you’re on the jury, have stock in Apple(judge Koh) or Samsung, get over it.

Same thing is (literally) happening in tech world. All we are doing is “improving”. It’s nearly impossible to build a device without outside influence.

Yes, we want to shout that Samsung has huge influence from Apple and that Samsung copied off apple, but Apple has had as much influence as Samsung from other companies, and arguably in this case Sony.

What us “techies”, “geeks” are sick and tired of is how Apple tries to claim that the “invented” these devices. What apple is known for is, NOT THE FIRST ONE TO MAKE/USE. They (usually) come to the market later. What Apple does is make the products flashier and then market it. And then go on about how they “invented” the market.

You (Basically) have the largest “copier” of them claiming that THEY INVENTED the market.

What “hurts” technology is Sci-fi. Basically Sci-fi IS the future of our products!

patent. The question is, is the patent valid? That is a problem Apple has. How many patents does it have that is truly valid? There were several judges that threw out (countless) of apple patents because they were found to be invalid.

Once you get rid of “prior art” and invalid patents, then you can determine if infringement is happening, but ONLY THEN.

The real deal is in “Korean”. That being said, we don’t know how much Apple has tainted in the translation. Apple has been caught (numerous) times flavoring stuff like this in their favor.

The big thing is. PRIOR ART. How much stuff is “Prior Art”? Honestly? Once you start digging, The stuff that Apple “claims” is copied, has already been “invented”, “used” previously.

Also, this 132 page thing is nothing new. everybody compares their products to everyone. but I guess Apple has to fling some sort of ammunition towards Samsung.

Here is the questions: Is Company S doing what the market wants and trying to figure out why their version isn’t as good, or is Company S just copying Company A?

What if a company made a bigger widget than another, and the public changed their buying habits for a bigger widget? Would it be copying for the other company to increase their widget size to what the first company has shown the public truly wanted?

To me, the answer is simple, it’s not copying, it’s doing what the market wants.

You’re argument doesn’t even hold, all patented technology is based on some previous technology just like all patented design is based on some previous design. Just like mostly only engineers knows if one chip is a rip-off of another chip, mostly only designers know if one design is a rip-off of another design. As I said before, telling a designer it’s all just rectangles is like telling an engineer they’re all the same chip.

The problem is most techies can’t get over the fact that design is as much part of a smartphone as what’s inside. And that’s why you would never understand what this battle is all about.

There’s no doubt that the Galaxy phones and tablets (except the S3, the perfect example that you don’t need the iPhone design to make a smartphone) are not complete copies of the iPhone and they made slight changes here and there but the basis is obviously the iPhone and the iPad. The idea of innovation is to improve on what currently exists. Before this wasn’t much of a problem because the measure was basically quantifiable. Apple changed all that with their idea that what’s outside is as important as what’s inside. They changed the equation because they made the “look” and the interface of the phone an actual innovation in an industry dominated by engineers who could care less about that. And because tech companies like Samsung are being beaten badly by the “outside” factor no matter how good their inside is, they copied it, put some sprinkles in it and put their logo on top of it. They don’t understand that this is a big issue simply because, they never really cared about that before.

Essentially this is a battle between designers and engineers. Any decent designer will tell you it’s an obvious rip-off but a techie will say it’s not a “true” innovation and thus perfectly useable. Telling a designer that it’s all just rectangles is like telling a mathematician that it’s all just numbers. Basically it’s a battle between fashionistas and geeks. And both sides will never understand the other side.