That's like saying a Sony TV has to look different from a Panasonic TV. It's what's displayed on the TV. In other words, can you tell the difference from 10 feet when they are turned ON. Or for example, you could say Apple copied Lenovo's ThinkPads by making the MacBook black (of course this is nuts but just let's say for example). But they're different when they are turned ON. This judge is a moron. Trying to get some My Cousin Vinnie fame.
I mean what's the solution, require Samsung to make it in a circle shape?! It's a friggin' tablet. Chances are it'll be a shiny black rectangle. Big surprise.
And as someone else pointed out, if the lawyers weren't idiots they'd have been familiar with the difference in aspect ratios and been able to answer the question, anyway.
It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.
First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.
And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.
Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.
... And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. ...
This particular assertion is just a talking point that Apple haters, Fandroids and Samsung/Google PR shills (and a few trolls with nothing better to do with their lives) have latched onto. It's one of those deliberate lies that it's hoped if repeated often enough people will start to believe it. A basic propaganda technique.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.
Pro Tip: when you use different derogatory names for the same product, it gets confusing, as people tend to think you're talking about two different things, particularly when you use them in close proximity.
For what it's worth, I like "Scamdroid", but not nearly as much as I like "Scamsung". You hear how it's inherently better phonetically?
And while "Hemroid" is somewhat witty, I find it to lean more toward the "I'm talking about actual hemorrhoids and don't know how to spell the word" camp.
I'd say use "Androne" for Android, but that lends itself much better to fanboys of the OS than the OS itself.
Try out "Anclone" or "iPhone OS 0.7 alpha release offshoot" on for size. I particularly like the latter.
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
Which of these is without utilitarian benefit?
i. No apparently utilitarian value. If the corners were not rounded, it would work the same way. Or if there were different radii at the different corners, it would work the same.
ii. Lack of ornamentation is not utilitarian. Of course ornamentation, isn't utilitarian, either, but lack thereof has no specific useful value.
iii. Having the delineation equidistant from all edges has no utilitarian value. Look at the iPhone, for example
iv. Having a thin rim is of no value. The device would work just as well without the thin rim
v. Having the backside wrap and bend toward the front has no value. A multi-piece device (such as the iPhone 4 vs the iPhone 3GS) would be equally useful.
It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.
First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.
And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.
Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.
The trade dress patents weren't upheld.
Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.
And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.
In the Netherlands. Unfortunately for your argument, the Netherlands isn't the whole world. Germany specifically banned the import of Samsung's product on design patent issues. And it looks like the US judge may do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.
Obviously the judge and Samsung's lawyer disagree with you.
Since the judge is the one who will make the decision, your opinion isn't worth much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.
So you think that a company can only one one identifying mark? You really ARE confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Also why is Apple targeting the Xoom?
Because it violates Apple's patents. Or do you think that a company can only choose one aspect of their intellectual property to defend?
Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.
What's the matter with kids today? Why can't they be like we were?
It's really amazing the depths the paid Android shills will go to to deny reality.
You think its amazing? Why?
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
They are Google. They are Evil.
That's the first accurate statement you've made in over 650 posts.
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but O.J. was not found "innocent"... he was found "not guilty". And civil proceedings have different standards than criminal proceedings.
But in this civil proceeding between Apple and Samsung, yes, it is hard to predict how it will turn out.
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
They are Google. They are Evil.
Google does not pay me. Does Apple pay you?
Also evil seems to have a different meaning in Apple fan land than reality.
Also I've never seen anyone say Android is good. Being technology Android is incapable of being good or evil. Unless you mean good as in a quality sense in which case I'm allowed to hold that opinion.
And please tell me how I'm evil. I'd love to know your criteria on such a distinction.
Must be easy to ignore arguments when you so easily dehumanize those who disagree.
Comments
Why?
That's like saying a Sony TV has to look different from a Panasonic TV. It's what's displayed on the TV. In other words, can you tell the difference from 10 feet when they are turned ON. Or for example, you could say Apple copied Lenovo's ThinkPads by making the MacBook black (of course this is nuts but just let's say for example). But they're different when they are turned ON. This judge is a moron. Trying to get some My Cousin Vinnie fame.
I mean what's the solution, require Samsung to make it in a circle shape?! It's a friggin' tablet. Chances are it'll be a shiny black rectangle. Big surprise.
And as someone else pointed out, if the lawyers weren't idiots they'd have been familiar with the difference in aspect ratios and been able to answer the question, anyway.
It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.
First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.
And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.
Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.
... And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. ...
This particular assertion is just a talking point that Apple haters, Fandroids and Samsung/Google PR shills (and a few trolls with nothing better to do with their lives) have latched onto. It's one of those deliberate lies that it's hoped if repeated often enough people will start to believe it. A basic propaganda technique.
you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.
Pro Tip: when you use different derogatory names for the same product, it gets confusing, as people tend to think you're talking about two different things, particularly when you use them in close proximity.
For what it's worth, I like "Scamdroid", but not nearly as much as I like "Scamsung". You hear how it's inherently better phonetically?
And while "Hemroid" is somewhat witty, I find it to lean more toward the "I'm talking about actual hemorrhoids and don't know how to spell the word" camp.
I'd say use "Androne" for Android, but that lends itself much better to fanboys of the OS than the OS itself.
Try out "Anclone" or "iPhone OS 0.7 alpha release offshoot" on for size. I particularly like the latter.
computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
Which of these is without utilitarian benefit?
i. No apparently utilitarian value. If the corners were not rounded, it would work the same way. Or if there were different radii at the different corners, it would work the same.
ii. Lack of ornamentation is not utilitarian. Of course ornamentation, isn't utilitarian, either, but lack thereof has no specific useful value.
iii. Having the delineation equidistant from all edges has no utilitarian value. Look at the iPhone, for example
iv. Having a thin rim is of no value. The device would work just as well without the thin rim
v. Having the backside wrap and bend toward the front has no value. A multi-piece device (such as the iPhone 4 vs the iPhone 3GS) would be equally useful.
So, even your own silly argument fails.
you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.
Hey guy. How are you? Tell me how Android is a clone of iOS.
Also tell me when Android was stolen from Oracle.
And yes Samsung rips of Apple. Fact. But what does that have to do with Android?
It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.
First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.
And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.
Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.
The trade dress patents weren't upheld.
Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.
And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.
Also why is Apple targeting the Xoom?
Hey guy. How are you? Tell me how Android is a clone of iOS.
Some of Android was stolen from Apple in the prelaunch days of the iPhone.
Also tell me when Android was stolen from Oracle.
Not sure when; probably early on. I also forget what of the code was stolen, but it was indeed a line-for-line rip.
And yes Samsung rips of Apple. Fact. But what does that have to do with Android?
Not sure.
The trade dress patents weren't upheld.
Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.
And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.
Also why is Apple targeting the Xoom?
They're alike enough that Samsungs own lawyer couldn't tell the difference. Alike enough for the judge to ask the question.
The trade dress patents weren't upheld.
In the Netherlands. Unfortunately for your argument, the Netherlands isn't the whole world. Germany specifically banned the import of Samsung's product on design patent issues. And it looks like the US judge may do the same.
Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.
Obviously the judge and Samsung's lawyer disagree with you.
Since the judge is the one who will make the decision, your opinion isn't worth much.
And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.
So you think that a company can only one one identifying mark? You really ARE confused.
Also why is Apple targeting the Xoom?
Because it violates Apple's patents. Or do you think that a company can only choose one aspect of their intellectual property to defend?
Unfortunately for your argument, Germany isn't the whole world.
But since I'm not the one who said that made a blanket statement - you were.
And it looks like that same US judge raised questions about whether Apple can maintain the validity of the patents at all.
Meanwhile, whatever became of the other two dozen or so Samsung devices Apple originally dragged into court?
Have any of them met with any action of any kind at all?
Why don't you tell me? You're the one making claims - back up your own claims.
[QUOTE=MacRulez;1966906One Galaxy 10.2 comes out this whole thing goes away. Poor AppleInsider - what will they have to write about?[/QUOTE]
Really? The courts around the world have already heard the cases involving Apple and Galaxy 10.2? Wow. You have quite an imagination.
Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.
What's the matter with kids today? Why can't they be like we were?
It's really amazing the depths the paid Android shills will go to to deny reality.
You think its amazing? Why?
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
They are Google. They are Evil.
You think its amazing? Why?
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
They are Google. They are Evil.
That's the first accurate statement you've made in over 650 posts.
Congratulations.
1st. Lawyer: "Um..., The one on the right? your honor?"
Judge: "Nope!"
1st. Lawyer: (Shooot!) "Uh, with all due respect, Not at this distance, your honor."
-Moment later-
2nd. Lawyer: "Uh..., is it not the one on the left? Your honor?"
Judge: "You got it!"
-Another moment later-
Judge: {Putting the devices back on the desk, seeing the back side of them)
"Sh*t! I'm the one who got it wrong. The 1st. Lawyer was right..."
Something like that could happen. Maybe. I dunno.
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but O.J. was not found "innocent"... he was found "not guilty". And civil proceedings have different standards than criminal proceedings.
But in this civil proceeding between Apple and Samsung, yes, it is hard to predict how it will turn out.
You think its amazing? Why?
After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!
How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!
Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.
They are Google. They are Evil.
Google does not pay me. Does Apple pay you?
Also evil seems to have a different meaning in Apple fan land than reality.
Also I've never seen anyone say Android is good. Being technology Android is incapable of being good or evil. Unless you mean good as in a quality sense in which case I'm allowed to hold that opinion.
And please tell me how I'm evil. I'd love to know your criteria on such a distinction.
Must be easy to ignore arguments when you so easily dehumanize those who disagree.
Judge: (Holding two devices above the head) "Now, which of these is the Galaxy Tablet?"
1st. Lawyer: "Um..., The one on the right? your honor?"
Judge: "Nope!"
1st. Lawyer: (Shooot!) "Uh, with all due respect, Not at this distance, your honor."
-Moment later-
2nd. Lawyer: "Uh..., is it not the one on the left? Your honor?"
Judge: "You got it!"
-Another moment later-
Judge: {Putting the devices back on the desk, seeing the back side of them)
"Sh*t! I'm the one who got it wrong. The 1st. Lawyer was right..."
Something like that could happen. Maybe. I dunno.
Doubtful.