The tech word is abuzz by news of the ongoing Samsung vs. Apple lawsuit. The majority of the population seems to be inclined towards Apple's case. However, I will present a few points here that I hope will be enough to change your mind.
Apple has accused Samsung of copying its designs. Designs of its iPhone and iPad. I shall be countering the statement regarding Samsung copying the iPhone's design here.
Apple's first iPhone was released in 2007. These are some of the phones Samsung was planning on releasing in summer of 2006, six months before the unveiling of the iPhone.
Take a close look at the phone on the bottom right. It is what later became the Samsung F700. Apple added this phone to its list of infringing phones after they launched the iPhone. They later removed it from the list after finding out that it predated the iPhone. Or so that's the story. Who's to say that Apple didn't slyly copy the F700, and then later add it to the list so as to show the world that they did not have any idea there was another phone already in the market that looked similar to theirs.
As for the look and feel, take a look at this image.
Samsung was already working on a user interface that looks like iOS in 2006. Again, a whole 6 months before the first iPhone was released.
The most interesting picture is this one. In it, Samsung quite effectively demonstrates that its current phones are clearly descendants from Samsung's pre-iPhone designs, and not from the iPhone.
Samsung is being accused of stealing, even though the company was clearly working on what it supposedly stole before the iPhone was even released. Samsung's phones bear more resemblance to its own pre-iPhone designs than to the iPhone, yet Apple and its supporters still insist Samsung is a thief.
It looks pretty straightforward to me. Samsung didn't need to look anywhere else for inspiration, it has all it needed within itself. Apple wants to believe that it alone invented the concept of touchscreen phones.
Protection of intellectual property is justifiable. Apple's actions to misuse its money and sway to be the sole owner of the intellectual property that was never its own is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment