Samsung is such a copycat

Well, I must agree with the jury in the Apple-Samsung patent trial, after seeing the shocking look-a-likes the South Korean electronics giant announced yesterday during IFA Berlin. Have you seen these Apple rip-offs? Samsung simply is shameless in its copying.

For example, there's a new phone with large screen and stylus, as well as another with big zoom lens. The audacity of Samsung to take features from iPhone or iPad and offer them on its devices. The company just thumbs its nose -- or whatever gesture they use on the Asian peninsula -- at the American jury and US District Judge Lucy Koh.

Galaxy Camera

Advertisement

Let's start with the shooter, which is really an iPhone or iPod touch in disguise. Samsung's Galaxy Camera is all touchscreen on one side and big, whopping zoom lens on the other. What a freakin' Apple rip-off. iPhone and iPod touch are all screen on one side, with icons, too -- and they have cameras! Samsung's device will be available with Wi-Fi (like iPod touch) and also cellular radio (like iPhone). Look at the photo above and compare to your iPhone. I can hardly tell them apart!

Other features: 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 4.8-inch HD Super Clear Touch Display, 308 pixels per inch; 16.3-megapixel camera, with F2.8, 23mm 21x zoom lens; 1080p video recording at 30 frames for second, 720p at 120fps; 8GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 3G/4G radio; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Bluetooth 4; 1,650 mAh battery; and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. The device is 128.7 mm wide by 70.8 mm high by 19.1 mm deep and weighs 305 grams.

Okay, I admit that iPhone doesn't have a big zoom lens yet, but iPhone 5 isn't released and everyone knows that Apple thought of this feature first anyway. Because that's what Apple does -- innovates first.

Galaxy Note II

There are more rip-offs, and who could ignore Galaxy Note II? Samsung already stole Apple's ingenuity with the first Note and now there's a second flaunting good old American know-how. For starters, both Notes come with a stylus -- ripped off from Apple Newton in the 1990s -- and what Samsung cleverly tries to disguise with new name S Pen. Ha! We aren't fooled. We know who copies whom.

Galaxy Note II is nothing more than a large iPhone (look at the rounded corners) or small iPad. Say, it's really ripping off iPad mini's design. We know Apple will ship the tablet soon, because the Mac rumor sites are always right.

Core features: 1.6GHz quad-core processor; 5.5-inch HD Super AMOLED display, 1280 x 720 pixels; 2GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 8MP front- and 1.9MP rear-facing cameras; 1080p video recording (and playback); HSPA+/LTE; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; Near Field Communication; 3,100 mAh battery; TouchWiz UI; and Jelly Bean. The "phablet" measures 151.1 mm wide by 80.5 mm high by 9.4 mm deep and weighs 180 grams.

Sure, Note II is sized in-between iPhone and iPad mini, but that's just a clever ploy to avoid more copying claims. This device is exactly how Apple would design iPhone Newton. Sharing, sync, search and stylus functions are all blatant Apple rip-offs.

ATIV Windows Phone

I suppose Samsung deserves some credit for skirting around some copying. Take the ATIV smartphone, for example. The jury found that Samsung had copied Apple iPhone icons and groundbreaking features like slide-to-lock. So Samsung dumps Android and Touch Wiz UI for Windows 8, which looks nothing like iOS. Clever, but what about those rounded corners?

Core features: 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED display; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; 8MP front- and 1.9MP rear-facing cameras; HSPA+; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; 2,300 mAh battery; and Windows Phone 8. The phone measures 137.2 mm wide x 70.5 mm high x 8.7 mm deep and weighs 135 grams.

Samsung's Windows Phone 8 gambit won't fool anyone, not as long as ATIV physically looks like iPhone. Turn off the screen, and who could tell the difference between the Apple and Samsung phones in a darkened room?

Samsung Tablets

The California jury threw Samsung a bone by deciding Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't copy iPad. But we know it does, because Judge Koh issued a preliminary injunction before the trial and refused to lift it after the verdict. Samsung dares to take on iPad with tablets running Windows 8 or Windows RT.

The ATIV RT model packs a 10.1-inch display; 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB or 64GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 5MP rear- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; micro HDMI; NFC, Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; 8,200 mAh battery; and Windows RT. The tablet measures 265.8 mm x 168.1 mm x 8.9 mm and weighs 570 grams.

But wait there is another! The Series 7 Slate running Windows 8. Among the base features: Intel Core i5 processor; 4GB RAM and 128GB SSD.

But those money-grubbing South Koreans couldn't bring themselves to copy Apple pricing. Oh, no! The Series 7 slate starts at $1,199, or $700 more than the 16GB Wi-Fi iPad. And Microsoft fanboys say Apple products cost more. Yeah, right. In your dreams, flunky.

Samsung knows it's copying -- eh, really ripping off -- Apple designs and innovations. The launch venue tells all. Samsung announced these products in Germany, not the United States. Over here, the cops would cuff `em and throw away the key. If Samsung's smart enough to copy the most-compelling Apple features, it knows where not to introduce them to market. Not with the jury verdict so fresh -- hey, not even a week ago. Bwah, Samsung is such a copycat.

You do know I'm being sarcastic, right?

97 Responses to Samsung is such a copycat

  1. Astal says:

    You should have been at Apple Inc , Joe. What a convincing all-bad Samsung story you wrote!

    • Apparently it is sarcasm (yes, I missed it too). A sentence at the end declares it such. Otherwise, I don't think I would have ever figured that out ;p

      • CA says:

        You guys!!!... Come on now!!!

        Have not you figured it out???

        The REAL "sarcasm" is the sarcasm about his last line implying sarcasm!!!

        Sorta like a double-negative equals a positive!!! :-)
        Example::;
        "I didnt did not go to the game"

  2. Guest says:

    this is an idiotic post ...

  3. Peter B. says:

    As captain obvious would say, that is some classic sarcasm right there ;)

    • Guest says:

      Bad sarcasm I'd say, when coming from someone who makes a living writing very sensationalist articles, it is really hard to know when he's being sarcastic. The last line was easily missed.

  4. snworf says:

    If you're going to write about the recent Samsung/Apple patent case and rulings, then write about it. Doesn't make sense to talk about newly announced devices as if they're somehow part of a legal case they weren't even a part of. I guess some days it's just plain hard to come up with stuff to fill the pages of BetaNews.com, but, this wasn't it :-(

  5. KingMotley says:

    I realize you are just being an idiot Joe, but considering that Samsung internal documents showed that them copying major parts of iOS into their phones is pretty concrete evidence that it was blatant and intentional. Open your eyes and see:

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=126253497

    • therealciviczc says:

      I'm bored, so I'll play... certainly you HAVE to realize that all companies do this. Back in the old days, you could find Ford tearing chevy's down piece by piece in their R&D garages to see how every aspect of the car performed. The opposite was true as well. Even to this day, the car companies do this, the tech companies do this, everyone does this. Apple interviews people to find out why the prefer android to iOS. Do you think they do that just out of curiosity, or do you think maybe the will make changes as the conclusions are drawn? This document was nothing unusual at all. It was simply Samsung doing what everyone else does... looking at their competition and seeing why they're losing.

      • extremely_well says:

        Of course everyone copies everyone, to the max extent of the law. But if you copy something protected by a patent, you damn well be sure you have strong evidence to get that patent invalidated, or suffer the consequences. Now, if you're as stupid as Samsung, you won't be "testing" the validity of just one or two patents, but break a whole lot of them (being so stupid).

        Simple statistics will tell ya that the more you play with fire, the more likely you're gonna be burned. Nobody in the Supreme Court is gonna invalidate all patents infringed by Samsung. Only the most IT-and-law retarded people in the world can believe that.

      • Yacko says:

        You can steal a general idea because a general idea cannot be patented. You can patent a specific implementation of an idea and that can't be stolen. See?

    • John Mann says:

      Blatant and intentional infringement gets you trebled damages only if you can prove that it was infringement of a valid patent. Samsung can say "We are going to copy the iPhone and use a touchscreen." That is intentionally copying but using a touchscreen is not infringement.

    • extremely_well says:

      That was one awesome doc. Thanks for that one!

      And yes, I too agree that Samsung deserved to partially lose specifically for playing with fire. They were warned by Google not to make iPhone 1 clones and they ignored it. And they also infringed on pinch-to-zoom which probably will be upheld by the Supreme Court as it was bought by Apple from a company "inventing" it in the late 90's. All the android fans couldn't come up with IP-expert-agreeable prior art to that. IANAL BTW.

      The jury's verdict is illegal, though, for admittedly punishing Samsung, contrary to jury instructions. The jury didn't understand it's the judges job to punish / determine mal intent. Jury's job was supposed to be to assess damages BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF NO MAL INTENT.

      So now the appeal judges would have to lower the fine in order to avoid retrial. Keeping penalty as is basically would mean that the judges allow the jury to become mal intent judges. Increasing the fine means punishing Samsung twice for the same mal intent (if there was one).

      Samsung will appeal and get the judgement reduced, then Apple will appeal because the reduced judgement would be equivalent to forcing Apple to license pinch-to-zoom and the other patents at $10 a pop. In other words, if Apple refuses to license you for $10/pop, infringe on that patent, and the Supreme Court will force them to take $10/pop on that patent...

      Apple is far from total win on this case and Samsung & consumers are far from total loss.

  6. stjones911 says:

    I thought Apple had patented the rectangle too. Samsung just can't help themselves, I guess. Career criminals.

    • extremely_well says:

      Nah, that design patent was practically invalidated by the jury. Samsung's press reaction to the verdict probably made you and millions of others believe that disinformation. Jury said Samsung doesn't need to pay a penny for square shapes with round corners...

      Apple did the right tactical thing: threw lots of shit on the wall, knowing some of it's GOTTA stick.

      • Yacko says:

        Not to mention, Apple asked for $2.5 bn yet the jury only awarded slightly over 1. Android fanboys can't seem to come to grips and be grateful that Samsung was let 60% off the hook.

      • extremely_well says:

        So if Apple asked for $10trillion, Samsung should be ecstatic to be 99.99% off the hook? ;)

        Normally, the judge can triple the damages based on willfulness -- so it could have gone to $3b. In this case, however, since the jury admitted they already punished WILLFULLY INFRINGING Samsung with their $1b figure, the formerly-Apple-representing- Judge Koh will find it legally challenging to increase that punitive amount by even a penny (double jeopardy).

        Regardless, the $1b amount is based on misunderstanding of prior art ("we didn't accept it as prior art because it was on a different processor & OS", something to that effect), on punitively deciding on willfulness for the judge, and coming up with non-industry-standard methods of compensating for patents -- 14% instead of fixed LOW $ amount per stupid little patent. An entire OS can be licensed for "14%".

        Samsung will do just fine on appeal.

  7. I thought you were boycotting Apple for them suing Samsung? Now you are calling Samsung a copycat -- even saying they are 'ripping off' Apple? Which is it?

  8. I know it is hard to write new article almost every day, but this one is a bit too lame.

  9. John Mann says:

    I have a square Samsung printer with rounded edges and a square is just a special kind of rectangle. Skin the copycat!

    • extremely_well says:

      Nah, that design patent was practically invalidated by the jury. Samsung's press reaction to the verdict probably made you and millions of others believe that disinformation. Jury said Samsung doesn't need to pay a penny for square shapes with round corners...Apple did the right tactical thing: threw lots of shit on the wall, knowing some of it's GOTTA stick.

      [every time this square-patent bullshit is raised, I'll paste my shit too. It actually weakens Samsung's case to dilute reality with disinformation] ;)

    • CA says:

      LoL

      LTE patents are standards essentials.

      Samsung would be committing major violations if it refuses to license dem patents!

  10. Neoprimal says:

    Anyone who doesn't feel the sarcasm in the first few lines doesn't know what it is.

    I am on Samsung's side but I must agree that Samsung really did copy the iPhone with 2 of the phones that were agreed to infringe on the trade dress part of the patent, no sarcasm from me. I mean, it isn't blatant when you put them side by side on a table but when you look at them in pictures and pull up the Android apps screen they do look extremely similar to the iPhone 3G/S so I'll give them that.

    As for the rest of stuff. TBH it feels like the jurors just followed what one or 2 others decided to go with and that this 1 or those 2 people were somewhat tech savvy but for the most part fooled by a lot of what Apple put forth in court. It is beyond me how they went over 700 questions so quickly. That's unheard of. I do feel that some of Apple's claims and wins were warranted, but not anywhere close to the sweep they did - I also thought that Samsung had a point in all it did, but not for the case at hand. They were there to defend their designs, not prove that Apple copied other stuff. Either way, I do feel that as important a case as it was, this should have been taken into account. Apple is very, "I can do, but you're not allowed to" and at some point it needs to bite them in the ass.

    Furthermore there are obvious discrepancies in the judgement, I haven't gone through the whole thing but one of the most obvious is between the Fascinate, Captivate and Vibrant phones, which are triplets. As most of us know, they are the US variants of the Galaxy S 1. I have used all 3 devices and the software is a carbon copy between the 3, apart from of course the carrier tweaks...they all came with the same version of Touchwiz over Android 2.1, yet, they vary in the judgement at the trial. This alone should invalidate the jury in terms of their decision. Very basically this is like giving people jello that is green, like lemon but is cherry flavored and them saying that it tastes like lemon. Apple lawyers did an exceptional job.

    In essence, I do feel that Samsung did a bit of copying, or at least were inspired heavily - but I disagree that the punishment fit the crime. Apple should not have won the way it did and Samsung certainly should not have lost the way it did.

  11. olirosee says:

    Misplaced and badly implemented sarcasm (obvious really from line One, not just the final para, guys!). There's zero connection to the Apple lawsuit, Samsung is also a manufacturer of TVs, fridges, cameras, apartment buildings... very pointless to connect unrelated products with unrelated events. Fortunately other sites have covered the latest SS products without attempted humour.

    BTW, even though Oscar Wilde said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, it still has to be witty! By my reckoning, this article doesn't qualify for sarcasm on that issue alone.

  12. ilev says:

    For $1199 you will be able to buy next month the new Macbook Pro 13" Retina Display.
    Why settle for less ?

  13. woe says:

    Sarcasm or not, Samsung has NO shame.

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/29/3276599/samsung-series-5-series-7-slate-windows-8

    Can you say Macbook? Read the very first comment......only Samsung is clueless the rest of the world (minus Google/Android fangirls) can see that have no talent and must get from others.

  14. fredreed says:

    From what I have been reading It looks like Samsung and Apple will probably head to the supreme court over the legal issues. The jury made all kinds of mistakes in the case against Samsung. Fortunately I think that Apple is just plain dumb to go to court. Apple should just drop the case and move on to bigger better things.

    • CA says:

      I dont think Apple is du mb at all!!!
      How could anything du mb go from near-bankruptcy to become the worlds largest and most profitable company in just 15 years? Hint: IT CANT!!!!

      On the other hand however, I can definately share with you my prospect of who/what is DU MB!!!

      But ill let you figure that one out! LOL
      ;-)

  15. trm96 says:

    I was about to write a very not so nice comment to this article until I read "You do know I'm being sarcastic, right?"...

  16. Ermal says:

    this is wrong! I mean if you think that every touch phone is a copy of the iphone thats not true... I own a Galaxy SII and i can surely say that it has its own characteristics and has nothing to do with apple products.

  17. Tejas says:

    This is one of the most dumbest post I have ever seen... If you say that its samsung's fault to release a camera touchscreen phone with a camera and a touchscreen, you are out of your f ** king mind dude...I didn't get any of your argument here in this post..... I would say that every smart phone released by samsung is a generation ahead (with LTE, high resolution, faster, form factor, stylish, more devices, better camera, better signal, undeniable Android OS) of all iphone's released so far.

  18. Guest says:

    Apple needs to be ripped off... What a waste of time reading this stupid blog from a apple zombie!

  19. Minhas Ismail says:

    I appreciate this post as this is very true to accept.

    You see Samsung has been copying an idea or an innovation of a Cupertino company's hard work and years and years of research. It's ridiculous.

    Simply I would like to finish my argument as:
    We must Never ever forget to pay our tributes to Steve Jobs for making our life much better, elegant and convenient while other tech giants were driving us crazy. WE ALL GOT TO ADMIT THIS!.

    APPLE IS ALWAYS UNIQUE.

  20. billb says:

    Don't write articles, it is a waste if your time and everyone reading it.

  21. Zonky says:

    Normally don't like when people say "this author should be fired". Not going to say that here, but just won't be upset when others say it.

    Troll article fishing for views, rather then do anything else. "I know I will write and article that will get the fanboys on each side fired up, then say "i'm being sarcastic" so really no one has any clue where I stand so they debate it and I get tons of views without ever giving any opinion or reason why should have read this"

    Added note that probably doesn't mean anything, first time on "betanews.com", also last. Writing this comment was just as much a waste as reading the article I bet.

  22. ed says:

    The guy who wrote this is a dweeb and media
    Controlled

  23. ed says:

    Android is the best I've owned both

    • CA says:

      Liar Liar Pants on Fire!!!

      You have not and never will own an iPhone, or anything Apple for that matter.!!!!!

  24. Rodge Snyder says:

    Joe Wilcox must have been paid handsomely by Apple to write such a dumb article.

  25. Hugh says:

    Good article, full of sarcasm :-)

    Oh and Apple, up yours with your law suits and whining ways

  26. Mayusan says:

    I will never buy an i-anything. Not an iPad, not an iPhone, not an
    iTurd. Wasn't Apple the one who claimed the proudly "stole" ideas from
    other companies... I think as Jobs put it, his favorite quote was: "Good
    artists copy, Great artists steal" Yeah everyone claims they patented
    the ideas before the others could, but stealing of ideas and getting
    them patented first is still stealing. Microsoft came up with the first
    portable pad computer. They didn't sue Apple when they released the
    iPad. Apple is nothing more than a social status for hipsters who want
    to claim they're part of the 99%, while buying over priced toys from the
    1%.

    • CA says:

      hey genius...

      EVEN GOOGLE told scamsung that they copied the iPhone too much.

      Additionally despite scamsung deleting all the evidence which would have proved beyond doubt that they ripped off the iPhone intentionally, Apple still found some documents where scamsung developers and designers compared the iphone to scamsung phones LITERALLY side by side and listed ALL differences in features and design elements one-by-one and even explained how and what to copy/rip-off.

      Lastly, there are several NON-Apple fans in the techno blog-sphere which have written articles stating the obvious points where scamsung ripped off Apple.

      This is a clear cut, black and white case of justive being served.
      Scamsung has a reputation of immitating-instead of-innovating and it didnt start nor will it end with the iPhone and iPad.

      So keep crying, whining, spreading lies, cursing Apple, cursing Lucy Koh, cursing Apple's VERY VALID patents, BUT just go to it somewhere else!

      You, Joe Thrilcox, ALL fAndroid GEEKS, haters, losers, pathetic people, and everyone else who has wrongly convinced themselves that this verdict is ANYTHING BUT LOGICAL VALID AND JUSTICE-SERVED..... SHOVE IT!!!!!!!!

  27. paul says:

    I owned a iPhone 4, and I stopped using it a year back. For sure, I prefer SamSung or Motorola than Apple. I like Motorola better than my old Apple. I don't know about SamSung, but some of my friends said it is a great product.

  28. Rolbert says:

    Yes... Every Tech company is copying Apple in one way or another... Soon Flash and Adobe will be words of the past.. as every tech company will take Apples' lead of getting rid of both and Apple will sue all because of this. And all phones to come out of any company down the road will have been found to be originated by the only inventor of portable phones and pads, Steve Jobs. No other individual in the 21st century matches to the inventor of all time as it will be found that Jobs and Apple both created the internet and all portable phone technology. So goes the followers and Cult geniuses of the Apple Zombies.

  29. Shane Stewart says:

    I get that its sarcasm (hopefully. because this Apple v samsung thing about samsung copying apple is unfair and not even true, there is NOTHING that samsung is doing different (in terms of design of smartphones) that any other smartphone manufacturer is doing. Apple started a trend towards mainly touchscreen smartphones. No one is copying anyone. Its almost childish in the way the are blaming only Samsung. Its like, Apple has no way of further innovating, (have you seen iOS 6, and remember the 4S, i mean iPhone 4.5?) that they have to just turned to greedy selfish patent troll fucks. Its sad. And i used to be such an Apple fanboy. They've taken the vision of making tech simpler, too far..

    • CA says:

      wah wah wah

      oh boo hoo hoo

      would you like a tissue for that river you're crying?

      Apple is only suing people who used Apple's patents without licensing them.

      Microsoft uses pinch-to-zoom and they are not being sued... why? OHH YEAAH BECAUSE THEY LICENSED IT!

  30. bananas says:

    The patent system is flawed when form and function can be patented. I like to patent rectangle displays or scrolling left to right, not. The patent should apply for the implementation of the function using specific software code and hardware to support it.
    The average juror as well as expert will have a difficult time reviewing the complexity of the underlying patent. And when the verdict took 24 hours, it told me the jurors did not do their due diligence and did not comprehend the issues.
    Besides, none of the patents are inventions, they are improvements. Apple is doing what everyone else is doing, improving products. And like they never copied and improved on something. Did they invent media players, did they invent smart phones, did they invent pc tablets?

    • Yacko says:

      There are three patent categories: 1. Utility patents concerning how things work, 2. Design patents concerning how things look and 3. Plant patents. There is also a separate issue of trademark and trade dress also implemented by the USPTO. You need to acquaint your self with patent and trade law before you let any more flecks of spittle hit your LCD and dim your screen.

      • bananas says:

        You missed the point and patent categories distracts from the major point? Now try to look at the big picture and the outcome. Apple was granted these patents and won this patent case. My opinion does not change, the U.S. patent system is flawed. Do you work for Apple?

  31. Kielan says:

    This is pure android fan boy bait, I must bow to such epic trolling, everyone knows that the shape of a product has never been an issue before and Apple is like a muling infant who can't accept that imitation is the best form of flattery, I hope more courts throw out these ridiculous claims.

  32. Jillxz says:

    Samsung copied ? Oh really , did you say that ? Apple copied IBM, Xerox and many others. So what else is new ?

  33. arindam banerjee says:

    Who is the copy cat ......apple stole all the technology of xerox w.r.t. mouse,GUI,etc without remorse and justified it ...and now has the gall to sue samsung....I am sure the jury must have been bribed by apple........in no other country would such a verdict be possible except america.....

    • CA says:

      Ummm NOOOOO!!!!

      Apple didnt "steal" anything

      Apple had "permission" to see and use the technology since xerox had no clue on how to go about taking their GUI's and making awesome products. This is DOCUMENTED FACT!!!! Even Joe Thrilcox cannot deny this.

      Your LIE is as blatant as scamsung's copying and ripping off!

      And it just so happens that KOREA, scamsung's home, BANNED several products from BOTH Apple and scamsung and also ordered BOTH to pay each other damages for patent infringement.

      So you are WRONG about every LIE you ranted on here!

  34. techgeek123 says:

    You are so stupid.. I really miss dislike button, People like you are disgrace for society. Where did apple get its pull down notification , oh i forgot it was from Android. Stupidest fan boy. Did you even graduate. Do you even have degree, are you even educated. I doubt after seeing this post. Accusing a company copy cat is big word. Infringing patent is hole another thing. By the way patents that never should have given to Apple at first place. So next time when you write something think before you write.

  35. Jesse Allen Mayo says:

    Oh. It's sarcasm.

  36. Jesse Allen Mayo says:

    I love you again.

  37. techgeek123 says:

    Laugh all you want, USA is not World and World is not USA. Look how Apple is doing in China. There are 6,662,146,516 people who don't live in USA and most of those are not Apple Fan boys like you. No matter what Apple has pulled very negative image around the world with this stupid thing, i can't wait for the day when US reforms its patent system and invalidates broad patents like pinch to zoom and swipe to unlock.

    • CA says:

      hey dont get mad because Apple's genius invents the best innovations which lets them design and build and produce the best products and services in the world

      :-)

      • techgeek123 says:

        Invent and innovate are not part of apple, its copy before everyone knows and patent it and make other people product as theirs. Apple didn't invent capacitive multi touch. but patented inch to zoom on phone which should never be allowed. and now its get hold of the capacitive multi touch just because of one stupid patent, by the way multi touch was invented much before apple put it on phone. Who copied it , was it not apple. pinch to zoom is basic thing on capacitive multi touch screen. Its as basic as answering phone call on cell phone. No one can change this world as long as there are Apple Zombies like you, who thinks that they are seriously holding phone in wrong way. Exactly i am talking about antenna gate here. If you followed apple case exactly you will know iphone 4 and 4s design was copied from Sony.

      • techgeek123 says:

        I guess you were not even born when apple copied GUI from xerox

  38. oxfo says:

    Just a smile. Thanks Joe for making me laugh aloud!

  39. techgeek123 says:

    good sarcasm...

  40. tommariner says:

    Love my S3 -- great, sarcastic article. I get the same feeling when I see the S2 and the 4S side by side in images accompanying the patent suit -- "Are you kidding? This isn't Apples and Oranges comparison, it is Apples and Coca Cola machines comparison". What were those jurors smoking?

    But it's going to get worse -- a lot worse -- the $1 Billion will be trebled by Judge Koh to $3 Billion and everything that Samsung makes that is smaller than a television and has a screen will be banned at the border. But that's not the worse -- wait until we get to Google and everything Android. Wait, there's more -- Microsoft's W8 uses gestures and a touchscreen. When you're going for total market monopoly and your innovation engine just ran out of steam, the US courts will help.

    • CA says:

      HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

      Oh yeah totally liike Apple did not get MS to license the technologies that scamsung ripped off... OH WAIT... neburmynd because like MicroSoft DID license those technologies from Apple.!

  41. 49343518 says:

    Apple is a true marketer, but always a re-developer of whats out there. Thats exactly what Samsung is doing. How many of those Apple patents are non-trivial, geniune inventions that can stand up to a challenge? Samsung should hold contempt and instead of paying Apple, use those money to invalidate Apple's patents.

  42. Padunka says:

    Joe, your cutting sarcasm of Apple's cynical response to strong competition hits the nail on the head. Your article made me smile, to know that I am not the only one who sees the absurdity of Apple's copyright contentions and the lameness of the USA judicial system for it's blinkered support of Apple.

    • CA says:

      Oh dude like totally so rad dude like im so smiling, like!

      Yeah like totally I mean that whole patent system is like so bogus dude like it makes no sense like you know wadda mean.!?

      Those people who depend on patents to protect the products and services they offer are like totally whack like not cool dude.

      I mean, like, the system should not even have patents at all unless like its scamsung or android because only android needs like patents.

      Or like they should just reject all Apple patents because like Apple sucks and like they should not be allwoed to have patents because like I want to buy cool products but I am a broke loser who cannot afford Apple so like those absurd practices known as patents are like bogus because scamsung like cant copy them legally so we have to make it legal for android to copy whatever they want.

      Seriously like Apple does not deserve patents because like why should scamsung spend so much money and time and resources like to research and develop new products and services when all they have to do is wait for Apple to do all that R&D and like assume all that risk and like then scamsung can just copy what apple does like that way I can buy Apple products that were made by scamsung and cheaper, LIKE!!!

      LOL
      HaHaHaHaHa
      LMFAO
      ROTFL

      • Padunka says:

        CA , spoken like a true Apple phanbois. If that bland shallow mindless blathering is the best response you can muster then I understand why you might gravitate to the fruit club. But it is the sort of predictable attitude expected of Applewankers in the eyes of the non-followers of the faith.

        Apple has made great products and I have owned many over the years. I have a working Mac Plus in the basement and still use a Mac Mini. So don't assume that I am anti-Apple because I am not. I just don't like anti-competitive behaviour. And to suggest that Apple alone invented all of the features of their iDevices is naive at best and ludicrous to any objective observer.

        Apple is no different from any other tech company that iterates on good ideas. If you want to call it copying then good for Apple doing it and good for Samsung doing it because the consumer wins with more choice and constantly changing, improving products. Apple would freely admit (off the record of course) that they got ALL of their best product ideas from something that came before.

        Sorry, CA, but despite your best attempts, you have neither changed my mind nor hurt my feelings. I will keep buying the best products, whoever makes them. You keep drinking the koolaid if you like the taste.

  43. rebradley says:

    Oh dear, what will Samsung do since Apple can't get their iPhone 5 (1st generation 4G) out the door? What will Samsung copy? Apple will put out the iPad mini, you know the one that Steve Jobs thought was too small). Desperation in Cupertino. I miss Steve Jobs.

  44. Hoek says:

    haha at all the Apple fans coming here and congratulating him on a great article, wow you guys would believe anything. Thanks to the writer for showing us how dumb Apple supporters really are and how easily it is to fool them.

  45. jecosen says:

    I agree that Samsung Galaxy S did copy iPhone. But saying Samsung Galaxy Note, Samsung Galaxy SIII, and Galaxy Camera copying Apple Gadgets is a bit too far.

  46. XXXXXXX says:

    God Created Apple
    And Apple Created Everything Else

  47. CA says:

    Mr. Joe Thrilcox.

    I know you had to throw in the sarcasm line to save face amongst your fellow geekhood following... BUT we both know your sarcasm ends at the camera/phone device (note, its camera with phone, not phone with camera) because OBVIOUSLY Apple's elite design team would never release such a hideous product like that.

    BUT the rest of your article is the most accurate article you have written in months! Possibly years! I am SOOO proud of you!

    And dont worry, your secret is safe with me!!!!! :-)

    I know that you know how blatantly obvious scamsung's ripping off really was!
    It is so obvious why the jury of VERY tech savvy and smart people found 'ol scammy-wammy GUILTY of ILLEGAL copying and rip-off tactics!

    I want to work for scamsung and help them with their company "Logo" and company "Catch Phrase"" because a catchy logo and catchy catch phrase can grab a consumer's attention and leave a lasting impression. Examples;

    Safeway = "Ingredients for Life"
    All-State = "You're in Good Hands"
    Nike = "Just Do It"

    SCAMSUNG = "Dont Innovate, We Imitate"

    The logo shows a stick-figure running out the stick-bank carrying a bag of loot!!!

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.