decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That's so one-sided | 256 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's so one-sided
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Apple's claims don't have validity that everyone copied their look because LG
and Samsung both preceded them with similar designs before the iPhone.

The concept was always common sense, but hadn't happened before because the
technology wasn't there. To have a big touch screen for the majority of the
phone, you needed a nice display, a fast processor and a powerful battery. When
those things aligned, multiple companies were working on the same thing.

The sad thing is that in a multi-billion dollar trial, the most important piece
of evidence won't be seen by the jury. And this doesn't just effect two
juggernauts who can afford to pay billions, it will shape the entire market for
years to come.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's so one-sided
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT
You can accuse Samsung (like Apple's doing) all you want of
being the "Copyist", but that in and of itself doesn't even
come close to proving it. But if you were actually thinking
straight, you'd realize that.

Here's a basic outline of what it takes to make just a
hardware prototype as was used to demonstrate both iPhone in
January and F700 in February:

1. Design the components and chips that will power the
device.
2. Design and build the fabrication line machinery to
fabricate these chip designs. Then Test and ramp up
production of said chips.
3. This along with either writing the software or adapting
another OS to run on it.
4. Design and Build the machinery to manufacture the
external case parts and pieces.
5. When done send/ship all components to the factory, where
all machinery has also been custom tooled to assemble all
these components.
6. And finally ship them for distribution around the World
after installing the firmware (OS & UI) and packaging them
up (which also needed to be custom designed)!

So you're saying (like Apple is) that Samsung somehow was
able to do that on the F700 in ONE MONTH? Obviously any
knuckleheaded lunatic can accuse the #1 Electronics
Corporation in the World of being capable of doing that. But
in reality, this is Apple going on the BIGGEST WITCH HUNT on
Planet at this point!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )