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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
A Quibble Regarding Ridiculous | 201 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A Quibble Regarding Ridiculous
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT

I suppose I may have strengthened Samsung's case, but I point out that frequently things are done for multiple reasons. Indeed, if the negative space is ridiculous, than that argues that it's an aesthetic rather than functional choice. Which motivation of Apple's or Samsung's overrides is the heart of this dispute. As to product constraints, I think Apple's point of view is that their customers don't care about these things and for some constraints let's call these non-hackables it would cost more to put in and secure the os hooks than Apple would gain in business. Apple might be wrong, but the proof would be the competitor who develops the successful hackable tablet and wrests away the profitable segment of the market.

As to user choice regarding the number of items at the bottom, I'm going to note that Apple has for years been trying to get its users to not clutter up Desktops. In the PC space, they failed, and very much so with yours truly. For the mobile devices, clearly users (and developers through rigid icon standards) are prohibited from mucking up the appearance. Draconian control or uncanny way to preserve as much as possible the first-day appearance of the iPad/iPhone? I see the latter as adding an intangible value for users (six months later and still pristine!) while also letting passers-by see how much nicer the working space looks, as compared to their pc at home or work and, thus, help sell the product.

I will not argue that four icons, no more, no less, is the perfect solution for all or even any users. But I think I'm arguing that the choice was Apple playing a lot of angles and so ridiculous would not be the adjective I'd use, even were we talking about user modifications and not design aesthetic. I do find industrial design interesting and would love to see the story behind the development.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I wonder
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
whether the four buttons on an iPhone are functional (in that that's all that
will fit without inviting fat finger syndrome).

So Apple design-patents it, and then realises they have to put four buttons on
the bottom of an iPad.

I'm not sure how many icons there are at the bottom of my wife's Nexus 7, but I
think it is 7.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • I wonder - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
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 )