Why are various judges all around the world ruling mostly in Apple's favor mostly and against Samsung? Are all these judges corrupt and in the pocket of Apple? Are all these judges secret Apple fanboys and hardcore Mac users?
Get a life Fandroids. Just admit that Samsung is in the wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee and put down the Android kool-aid that is apparently causing your brains to melt, severely diminishing your mental capabilities and reducing your thought processes to that of a vegetable.
Why are various judges all around the world ruling mostly in Apple's favor mostly and against Samsung? Are all these judges corrupt and in the pocket of Apple? Are all these judges secret Apple fanboys and hardcore Mac users?
Get a life Fandroids. Just admit that Samsung is in the wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee and put down the Android kool-aid that is apparently causing your brains to melt, severely diminishing your mental capabilities and reducing your thought processes to that of a vegetable.
Again. Since some people are ridiculously dense. No one supports Samsung. Most of us feel patent laws need reforming and as such that includes Apple patents
And judges around the world mostly throw Apples claims out. -_- if you want to look at it that way.
Again. Since some people are ridiculously dense. No one supports Samsung. Most of us feel patent laws need reforming and as such that includes Apple patents
And judges around the world mostly throw Apples claims out. -_- if you want to look at it that way.
Really?
Samsung's devices are banned in Germany.
Samsung's devices are banned in Australia.
US judge made it clear that Samsung copied Apple - and if Apple can demonstrate the validity of their patents (which is presumed under US law unless proven otherwise), then Samsung will lose there.
ITC has largely sided with Apple.
Even in the Netherlands which you like to brag about, the court found that Samsung infringed Apple's patents.
While it is true that Apple has used multiple claims in many of these courts and not all claims were accepted, they don't need to win EVERY claim. As long as the product is banned, Apple wins.
US judge made it clear that Samsung copied Apple - and if Apple can demonstrate the validity of their patents (which is presumed under US law unless proven otherwise), then Samsung will lose there.
ITC has largely sided with Apple.
Even in the Netherlands which you like to brag about, the court found that Samsung infringed Apple's patents.
While it is true that Apple has used multiple claims in many of these courts and not all claims were accepted, they don't need to win EVERY claim. As long as the product is banned, Apple wins.
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
I cannot really acknowledge this as any kind of valid test. Of course we do not know the actual details, so any discussion questioning the validity of the test can be met with a different set of assumptions that changes the direction of discussion.
Still, from head on, as someone mentioned before, the aspect ratios are different. Add that all you have to do is look to see which one has a home button and which one does not. Of course lighting and other conditions can make the home button more or less difficult to see from ten feet away. But even that is not the crux of the issue with the judge using this as a definitive test.
I do not think that most common consumers can tell the difference between the tablets on the market. For that matter, consumers who have not done a lot of research, and are not steeped in a given industry cannot tell the difference between specialty products in general. If I had a Dodge Challenger and a Dodge Charger out in my front yard and brought my wife outside, put her at an angle where she could not read any brand badges or names, and asked her to tell me which was which, she could not do it. If I ran that test using a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Camaro, same result. Or what if I had a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and a Yamaha R1 in my yard and asked passersby to tell me the difference, with no badging visible. A Droid Bionic and a Nokia N900? Two HDTVs from different manufacturer's? A Blackberry Playbook and the Dell Streak 7? No, consumers could not tell the difference between those two 7" tablets from 5 feet away. Mainly because, if they have looked at any tablet for any length of time, they have likely only looked at an iPad. As a matter of test validity, what makes ten feet the magical distance anyway? Is that how far away consumers stand when they are in a store trying to decide which tablet to buy? No. Is that the average distance that a user stands away when using a tablet? No.
Most consumers cannot tell the difference between most mobile tech devices from 5 feet away unless they can see the brand name or unless the device is one that they have owned before, or currently own. Again, unless it is a product category they have heavily researched, or unless they are part of the tech-geek community, which, of course, at that point, means that they are not the average consumer.
I field too many questions a day, both online and off, from the layman to believe that average consumer America, understands how to visually differentiate between one tablet and another from ten feet away. Sure, it can be argued that the lawyers should have been studied enough to be able to do so, but I do not think it is reasonable to demand that the average consumer should be able to do so from ten feet away. The earlier poster who feels that you should be able to differentiate the devices without being intricately familiar with the details I feel is being unreasonable, for a class of devices that is designed around having, for the most part, little to no fixtures on the chassis. let's even say that the devices were on, and there was a widget on the Galaxy Tab's screen. I would not expect the average consumer walking into a store to understand that that device was not an iPad from ten feet away without walking up to it and reading the details, unless it had Samsung branding emblazoned all around it, which of course, most tablet kiosks do. It sort of begs the question: if someone, if some company, Apple and others included, expect their devices to be recognizable within the constraints of this judge's test, why do there need to be six foot banners above every kiosk or section of an electronics store where these devices are on display? I think it is because it is recognized and understood that without being beat over the head with the brand name, most average consumers do not know the difference between these devices from a visual inspection only, even from less than 10 feet away.
The whole validity of this test, and the defense of it ass some kind of smoking gun that proves that the designs are too close, is questionable. In my own opinion, it is completely useless, because I would not expect most people, who do not frequent sites like this or other tech sites on a daily basis, to be able to pass this test. Again, this is just my opinion; I understand that there are a lot of others who feel differently and I respect those opinions. I own an iPad, and an iPhone, and have owned a MacBook and MacBook Pro. I believe in the value of Apple products and see them as useful, and believe in the advantages that my iPad has over other devices I have used and owned. But I do not believe this test exercises anything resembling a real-world consumer scenario
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Of course. If you're charged with 100 counts of murder and they only prove one, that's enough to send you to the electric chair. You wouldn't be any more dead with 3 counts or 100.
Apple accomplished its objectives. That's exactly what they wanted to do. They don't really care WHICH arguments are the ones that won the case for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
No one really cares whether you agree with it or not. It's dishonest to simply ignore it because you don't agree. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Doesn't matter. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
That description fits Samsung's products, as well. Obviously, the German and US judges felt that the similarity was more than coincidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
That's only your opinion. Many other people think that innovation is better for the industry than blatant copying. Apple has certainly done well with innovation. It is likely that other companies would do well, also. The industry CLEARLY benefits if companies are encouraged to innovate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Sorry, but your view amounts to "anyone should be able to steal anything they want because it's better for the industry". That just doesn't fly. Innovation is what drives the industry ahead - and innovation is encouraged when companies can benefit from it rather than sitting idly by and watching their innovations stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
Yeah, you keep doing that. You make blanket statements that are absolutely false and then when cornered on it, you try to spin it in some completely unrelated direction.
The fact is that Apple is winning cases left and right while Samsung is consistently getting slapped down. Could that change in the future? Sure. But today, Apple has won something important in every jurisdiction - including the Netherlands which you keep bragging about.
Of course. If you're charged with 100 counts of murder and they only prove one, that's enough to send you to the electric chair. You wouldn't be any more dead with 3 counts or 100.
Apple accomplished its objectives. That's exactly what they wanted to do. They don't really care WHICH arguments are the ones that won the case for them.
No one really cares whether you agree with it or not. It's dishonest to simply ignore it because you don't agree. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
Doesn't matter. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
That description fits Samsung's products, as well. Obviously, the German and US judges felt that the similarity was more than coincidental.
That's only your opinion. Many other people think that innovation is better for the industry than blatant copying. Apple has certainly done well with innovation. It is likely that other companies would do well, also. The industry CLEARLY benefits if companies are encouraged to innovate.
Sorry, but your view amounts to "anyone should be able to steal anything they want because it's better for the industry". That just doesn't fly. Innovation is what drives the industry ahead - and innovation is encouraged when companies can benefit from it rather than sitting idly by and watching their innovations stolen.
Yeah, you keep doing that. You make blanket statements that are absolutely false and then when cornered on it, you try to spin it in some completely unrelated direction.
The fact is that Apple is winning cases left and right while Samsung is consistently getting slapped down. Could that change in the future? Sure. But today, Apple has won something important in every jurisdiction - including the Netherlands which you keep bragging about.
When you can find where I said Samsung keeps winning I'll take you a bit more seriously.
And obviously this is just my opinion. I make that quite clear by how utterly subjective I am in my posts.
And no. A basic previously used design of a rounded rectangular device that never went into production is not innovation. The actual iPad is.
Also the Netherlands patents are up for review. No one won there yet.
But being that this entire thread is based on visual similarity the courts there (and Australia) disagreed with Apple. Hence my "bragging"
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
I can't really disagree with anything you said there, but I'd add a couple of observations.
In the German case, Apple brought a number of complaints to the court, of which the drawing was just one. The fact that the court only upheld the complaint relating to the drawing is odd or not, depending on your point of view, but that they then banned the device based only on that is somewhat perverse. But we can't blame Apple for not withdrawing the complaint or asking for a lesser judgement just because it was the only one upheld.
In the multitouch dispute, it does not appear that Apple is going after the whole concept - just certain specific implementations that they do believe patentable and patented.
I cannot really acknowledge this as any kind of valid test. Of course we do not know the actual details, so any discussion questioning the validity of the test can be met with a different set of assumptions that changes the direction of discussion.
Still, from head on, as someone mentioned before, the aspect ratios are different. Add that all you have to do is look to see which one has a home button and which one does not. Of course lighting and other conditions can make the home button more or less difficult to see from ten feet away. But even that is not the crux of the issue with the judge using this as a definitive test.
The judge didn't use it as a definitive test. If you read the press reports, the judge had already pointed out her concern that the Samsun device appeared to be a close copy. The lawyer stunt was simply to highlight the concerns the judge already had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeuxidamas
I do not think that most common consumers can tell the difference between the tablets on the market. For that matter, consumers who have not done a lot of research, and are not steeped in a given industry cannot tell the difference between specialty products in general. If I had a Dodge Challenger and a Dodge Charger out in my front yard and brought my wife outside, put her at an angle where she could not read any brand badges or names, and asked her to tell me which was which, she could not do it. If I ran that test using a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Camaro, same result. Or what if I had a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and a Yamaha R1 in my yard and asked passersby to tell me the difference, with no badging visible. A Droid Bionic and a Nokia N900? Two HDTVs from different manufacturer's? A Blackberry Playbook and the Dell Streak 7? No, consumers could not tell the difference between those two 7" tablets from 5 feet away. Mainly because, if they have looked at any tablet for any length of time, they have likely only looked at an iPad. As a matter of test validity, what makes ten feet the magical distance anyway? Is that how far away consumers stand when they are in a store trying to decide which tablet to buy? No. Is that the average distance that a user stands away when using a tablet? No.
Most consumers cannot tell the difference between most mobile tech devices from 5 feet away unless they can see the brand name or unless the device is one that they have owned before, or currently own. Again, unless it is a product category they have heavily researched, or unless they are part of the tech-geek community, which, of course, at that point, means that they are not the average consumer.
I field too many questions a day, both online and off, from the layman to believe that average consumer America, understands how to visually differentiate between one tablet and another from ten feet away. Sure, it can be argued that the lawyers should have been studied enough to be able to do so, but I do not think it is reasonable to demand that the average consumer should be able to do so from ten feet away. The earlier poster who feels that you should be able to differentiate the devices without being intricately familiar with the details I feel is being unreasonable, for a class of devices that is designed around having, for the most part, little to no fixtures on the chassis. let's even say that the devices were on, and there was a widget on the Galaxy Tab's screen. I would not expect the average consumer walking into a store to understand that that device was not an iPad from ten feet away without walking up to it and reading the details, unless it had Samsung branding emblazoned all around it, which of course, most tablet kiosks do. It sort of begs the question: if someone, if some company, Apple and others included, expect their devices to be recognizable within the constraints of this judge's test, why do there need to be six foot banners above every kiosk or section of an electronics store where these devices are on display? I think it is because it is recognized and understood that without being beat over the head with the brand name, most average consumers do not know the difference between these devices from a visual inspection only, even from less than 10 feet away.
The whole validity of this test, and the defense of it ass some kind of smoking gun that proves that the designs are too close, is questionable. In my own opinion, it is completely useless, because I would not expect most people, who do not frequent sites like this or other tech sites on a daily basis, to be able to pass this test. Again, this is just my opinion; I understand that there are a lot of others who feel differently and I respect those opinions. I own an iPad, and an iPhone, and have owned a MacBook and MacBook Pro. I believe in the value of Apple products and see them as useful, and believe in the advantages that my iPad has over other devices I have used and owned. But I do not believe this test exercises anything resembling a real-world consumer scenario
- Vr/JLM Jr.
You clearly do not understand trade dress and copyright issues. The major factor to be considered is whether an average consumer would be confused. If a lawyer who has been involved with the product extensively for 6 months or more is confused, then it is even more likely that an average consumer would be confused.
Samsung just lost a large chunk of their legal arguments. They can really no longer claim that their tablet isn't a close copy of the iPad. if they do, they'll get this incident thrown back in their faces. So one of their major legal arguments is gone. And it's a VERY bad thing when you have to drop one of your major legal arguments.
Furthermore, Samsung just lost an ENORMOUS amount of credibility on the world stage. They are now a laughingstock among those studying intellectual property issues. This will haunt them for years. And that lawyer might as well apply for a job at Wal-mart.
I can't really disagree with anything you said there, but I'd add a couple of observations.
In the German case, Apple brought a number of complaints to the court, of which the drawing was just one. The fact that the court only upheld the complaint relating to the drawing is odd or not, depending on your point of view, but that they then banned the device based only on that is somewhat perverse. But we can't blame Apple for not withdrawing the complaint or asking for a lesser judgement just because it was the only one upheld.
In the multitouch dispute, it does not appear that Apple is going after the whole concept - just certain specific implementations that they do believe patentable and patented.
Oh okay (about multitouch) that makes sense then.
honestly I expected the trade-dress complaints to be upheld easily considering how much Samsung apes Apple more so than the design one, especially on the Tab. The Galaxy S I thought would be the smoking gun, especially the Galaxy S Vibrant for T-mobile USA.
Comments
That's the first accurate statement you've made in over 650 posts.
Congratulations.
Yes us being evil is accurate.
Evil now equals not 100% pro-Apple. You guys even jump down the throats of Apple fans who disagree with any aspect of Apple policies or products.
Get a life Fandroids. Just admit that Samsung is in the wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee and put down the Android kool-aid that is apparently causing your brains to melt, severely diminishing your mental capabilities and reducing your thought processes to that of a vegetable.
Why are various judges all around the world ruling mostly in Apple's favor mostly and against Samsung? Are all these judges corrupt and in the pocket of Apple? Are all these judges secret Apple fanboys and hardcore Mac users?
Get a life Fandroids. Just admit that Samsung is in the wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee and put down the Android kool-aid that is apparently causing your brains to melt, severely diminishing your mental capabilities and reducing your thought processes to that of a vegetable.
Again. Since some people are ridiculously dense. No one supports Samsung. Most of us feel patent laws need reforming and as such that includes Apple patents
And judges around the world mostly throw Apples claims out. -_- if you want to look at it that way.
Again. Since some people are ridiculously dense. No one supports Samsung. Most of us feel patent laws need reforming and as such that includes Apple patents
And judges around the world mostly throw Apples claims out. -_- if you want to look at it that way.
Really?
Samsung's devices are banned in Germany.
Samsung's devices are banned in Australia.
US judge made it clear that Samsung copied Apple - and if Apple can demonstrate the validity of their patents (which is presumed under US law unless proven otherwise), then Samsung will lose there.
ITC has largely sided with Apple.
Even in the Netherlands which you like to brag about, the court found that Samsung infringed Apple's patents.
While it is true that Apple has used multiple claims in many of these courts and not all claims were accepted, they don't need to win EVERY claim. As long as the product is banned, Apple wins.
Really?
Samsung's devices are banned in Germany.
Samsung's devices are banned in Australia.
US judge made it clear that Samsung copied Apple - and if Apple can demonstrate the validity of their patents (which is presumed under US law unless proven otherwise), then Samsung will lose there.
ITC has largely sided with Apple.
Even in the Netherlands which you like to brag about, the court found that Samsung infringed Apple's patents.
While it is true that Apple has used multiple claims in many of these courts and not all claims were accepted, they don't need to win EVERY claim. As long as the product is banned, Apple wins.
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
Still, from head on, as someone mentioned before, the aspect ratios are different. Add that all you have to do is look to see which one has a home button and which one does not. Of course lighting and other conditions can make the home button more or less difficult to see from ten feet away. But even that is not the crux of the issue with the judge using this as a definitive test.
I do not think that most common consumers can tell the difference between the tablets on the market. For that matter, consumers who have not done a lot of research, and are not steeped in a given industry cannot tell the difference between specialty products in general. If I had a Dodge Challenger and a Dodge Charger out in my front yard and brought my wife outside, put her at an angle where she could not read any brand badges or names, and asked her to tell me which was which, she could not do it. If I ran that test using a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Camaro, same result. Or what if I had a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and a Yamaha R1 in my yard and asked passersby to tell me the difference, with no badging visible. A Droid Bionic and a Nokia N900? Two HDTVs from different manufacturer's? A Blackberry Playbook and the Dell Streak 7? No, consumers could not tell the difference between those two 7" tablets from 5 feet away. Mainly because, if they have looked at any tablet for any length of time, they have likely only looked at an iPad. As a matter of test validity, what makes ten feet the magical distance anyway? Is that how far away consumers stand when they are in a store trying to decide which tablet to buy? No. Is that the average distance that a user stands away when using a tablet? No.
Most consumers cannot tell the difference between most mobile tech devices from 5 feet away unless they can see the brand name or unless the device is one that they have owned before, or currently own. Again, unless it is a product category they have heavily researched, or unless they are part of the tech-geek community, which, of course, at that point, means that they are not the average consumer.
I field too many questions a day, both online and off, from the layman to believe that average consumer America, understands how to visually differentiate between one tablet and another from ten feet away. Sure, it can be argued that the lawyers should have been studied enough to be able to do so, but I do not think it is reasonable to demand that the average consumer should be able to do so from ten feet away. The earlier poster who feels that you should be able to differentiate the devices without being intricately familiar with the details I feel is being unreasonable, for a class of devices that is designed around having, for the most part, little to no fixtures on the chassis. let's even say that the devices were on, and there was a widget on the Galaxy Tab's screen. I would not expect the average consumer walking into a store to understand that that device was not an iPad from ten feet away without walking up to it and reading the details, unless it had Samsung branding emblazoned all around it, which of course, most tablet kiosks do. It sort of begs the question: if someone, if some company, Apple and others included, expect their devices to be recognizable within the constraints of this judge's test, why do there need to be six foot banners above every kiosk or section of an electronics store where these devices are on display? I think it is because it is recognized and understood that without being beat over the head with the brand name, most average consumers do not know the difference between these devices from a visual inspection only, even from less than 10 feet away.
The whole validity of this test, and the defense of it ass some kind of smoking gun that proves that the designs are too close, is questionable. In my own opinion, it is completely useless, because I would not expect most people, who do not frequent sites like this or other tech sites on a daily basis, to be able to pass this test. Again, this is just my opinion; I understand that there are a lot of others who feel differently and I respect those opinions. I own an iPad, and an iPhone, and have owned a MacBook and MacBook Pro. I believe in the value of Apple products and see them as useful, and believe in the advantages that my iPad has over other devices I have used and owned. But I do not believe this test exercises anything resembling a real-world consumer scenario
- Vr/JLM Jr.
Welcome!
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Of course. If you're charged with 100 counts of murder and they only prove one, that's enough to send you to the electric chair. You wouldn't be any more dead with 3 counts or 100.
Apple accomplished its objectives. That's exactly what they wanted to do. They don't really care WHICH arguments are the ones that won the case for them.
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
No one really cares whether you agree with it or not. It's dishonest to simply ignore it because you don't agree. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Doesn't matter. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
That description fits Samsung's products, as well. Obviously, the German and US judges felt that the similarity was more than coincidental.
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
That's only your opinion. Many other people think that innovation is better for the industry than blatant copying. Apple has certainly done well with innovation. It is likely that other companies would do well, also. The industry CLEARLY benefits if companies are encouraged to innovate.
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Sorry, but your view amounts to "anyone should be able to steal anything they want because it's better for the industry". That just doesn't fly. Innovation is what drives the industry ahead - and innovation is encouraged when companies can benefit from it rather than sitting idly by and watching their innovations stolen.
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
Yeah, you keep doing that. You make blanket statements that are absolutely false and then when cornered on it, you try to spin it in some completely unrelated direction.
The fact is that Apple is winning cases left and right while Samsung is consistently getting slapped down. Could that change in the future? Sure. But today, Apple has won something important in every jurisdiction - including the Netherlands which you keep bragging about.
brilliant post omitted for space
- Vr/JLM Jr.
Good post.
Of course. If you're charged with 100 counts of murder and they only prove one, that's enough to send you to the electric chair. You wouldn't be any more dead with 3 counts or 100.
Apple accomplished its objectives. That's exactly what they wanted to do. They don't really care WHICH arguments are the ones that won the case for them.
No one really cares whether you agree with it or not. It's dishonest to simply ignore it because you don't agree. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
Doesn't matter. There is an injunction right now. You were wrong when you said that Samsung keeps winning.
That description fits Samsung's products, as well. Obviously, the German and US judges felt that the similarity was more than coincidental.
That's only your opinion. Many other people think that innovation is better for the industry than blatant copying. Apple has certainly done well with innovation. It is likely that other companies would do well, also. The industry CLEARLY benefits if companies are encouraged to innovate.
Sorry, but your view amounts to "anyone should be able to steal anything they want because it's better for the industry". That just doesn't fly. Innovation is what drives the industry ahead - and innovation is encouraged when companies can benefit from it rather than sitting idly by and watching their innovations stolen.
Yeah, you keep doing that. You make blanket statements that are absolutely false and then when cornered on it, you try to spin it in some completely unrelated direction.
The fact is that Apple is winning cases left and right while Samsung is consistently getting slapped down. Could that change in the future? Sure. But today, Apple has won something important in every jurisdiction - including the Netherlands which you keep bragging about.
When you can find where I said Samsung keeps winning I'll take you a bit more seriously.
And obviously this is just my opinion. I make that quite clear by how utterly subjective I am in my posts.
And no. A basic previously used design of a rounded rectangular device that never went into production is not innovation. The actual iPad is.
Also the Netherlands patents are up for review. No one won there yet.
But being that this entire thread is based on visual similarity the courts there (and Australia) disagreed with Apple. Hence my "bragging"
If I file a dozen or so claims against a company and only 1 is held (but not won just under further review) did I win anything?
Germany injunction I will never agree with...sure it's legal, but the drawing they held up against the Tab and the 6 design criteria are overly broad...hence why most other cases seem to dismiss them (Hell I wouldn't be shocked if Apple was shocked it worked in Germany, as someone said they probably threw it in there to see if it would work...and it did)
The Australian one is under further review...and I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being permanent, I don't know enough about the patents though what I know of them I don't agree.
Bounceback? I agree. Touchwhiz should be banned altogether and I'm shocked that hasn't happened. Hell they should definitely be forced to modify their designs on smartphones as the inspiration from Apple is too thick.
But anything that seems bad for the industry as a whole is bad IMO...the industry is bigger than Apple...and a monopoly on a super minimal tablet? Can't agree. And a monopoly on multi-touch? I cannot agree.
If the Samsung cases had no negative impact on the entire industry, Android or otherwise, I'd be all for it, but looking at the bigger picture? I can't be.
Also I'm speaking of the design patents...which have only held up in ONE case, all others have thrown them out so far.
I can't really disagree with anything you said there, but I'd add a couple of observations.
In the German case, Apple brought a number of complaints to the court, of which the drawing was just one. The fact that the court only upheld the complaint relating to the drawing is odd or not, depending on your point of view, but that they then banned the device based only on that is somewhat perverse. But we can't blame Apple for not withdrawing the complaint or asking for a lesser judgement just because it was the only one upheld.
In the multitouch dispute, it does not appear that Apple is going after the whole concept - just certain specific implementations that they do believe patentable and patented.
I cannot really acknowledge this as any kind of valid test. Of course we do not know the actual details, so any discussion questioning the validity of the test can be met with a different set of assumptions that changes the direction of discussion.
Still, from head on, as someone mentioned before, the aspect ratios are different. Add that all you have to do is look to see which one has a home button and which one does not. Of course lighting and other conditions can make the home button more or less difficult to see from ten feet away. But even that is not the crux of the issue with the judge using this as a definitive test.
The judge didn't use it as a definitive test. If you read the press reports, the judge had already pointed out her concern that the Samsun device appeared to be a close copy. The lawyer stunt was simply to highlight the concerns the judge already had.
I do not think that most common consumers can tell the difference between the tablets on the market. For that matter, consumers who have not done a lot of research, and are not steeped in a given industry cannot tell the difference between specialty products in general. If I had a Dodge Challenger and a Dodge Charger out in my front yard and brought my wife outside, put her at an angle where she could not read any brand badges or names, and asked her to tell me which was which, she could not do it. If I ran that test using a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Camaro, same result. Or what if I had a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and a Yamaha R1 in my yard and asked passersby to tell me the difference, with no badging visible. A Droid Bionic and a Nokia N900? Two HDTVs from different manufacturer's? A Blackberry Playbook and the Dell Streak 7? No, consumers could not tell the difference between those two 7" tablets from 5 feet away. Mainly because, if they have looked at any tablet for any length of time, they have likely only looked at an iPad. As a matter of test validity, what makes ten feet the magical distance anyway? Is that how far away consumers stand when they are in a store trying to decide which tablet to buy? No. Is that the average distance that a user stands away when using a tablet? No.
Most consumers cannot tell the difference between most mobile tech devices from 5 feet away unless they can see the brand name or unless the device is one that they have owned before, or currently own. Again, unless it is a product category they have heavily researched, or unless they are part of the tech-geek community, which, of course, at that point, means that they are not the average consumer.
I field too many questions a day, both online and off, from the layman to believe that average consumer America, understands how to visually differentiate between one tablet and another from ten feet away. Sure, it can be argued that the lawyers should have been studied enough to be able to do so, but I do not think it is reasonable to demand that the average consumer should be able to do so from ten feet away. The earlier poster who feels that you should be able to differentiate the devices without being intricately familiar with the details I feel is being unreasonable, for a class of devices that is designed around having, for the most part, little to no fixtures on the chassis. let's even say that the devices were on, and there was a widget on the Galaxy Tab's screen. I would not expect the average consumer walking into a store to understand that that device was not an iPad from ten feet away without walking up to it and reading the details, unless it had Samsung branding emblazoned all around it, which of course, most tablet kiosks do. It sort of begs the question: if someone, if some company, Apple and others included, expect their devices to be recognizable within the constraints of this judge's test, why do there need to be six foot banners above every kiosk or section of an electronics store where these devices are on display? I think it is because it is recognized and understood that without being beat over the head with the brand name, most average consumers do not know the difference between these devices from a visual inspection only, even from less than 10 feet away.
The whole validity of this test, and the defense of it ass some kind of smoking gun that proves that the designs are too close, is questionable. In my own opinion, it is completely useless, because I would not expect most people, who do not frequent sites like this or other tech sites on a daily basis, to be able to pass this test. Again, this is just my opinion; I understand that there are a lot of others who feel differently and I respect those opinions. I own an iPad, and an iPhone, and have owned a MacBook and MacBook Pro. I believe in the value of Apple products and see them as useful, and believe in the advantages that my iPad has over other devices I have used and owned. But I do not believe this test exercises anything resembling a real-world consumer scenario
- Vr/JLM Jr.
You clearly do not understand trade dress and copyright issues. The major factor to be considered is whether an average consumer would be confused. If a lawyer who has been involved with the product extensively for 6 months or more is confused, then it is even more likely that an average consumer would be confused.
Samsung just lost a large chunk of their legal arguments. They can really no longer claim that their tablet isn't a close copy of the iPad. if they do, they'll get this incident thrown back in their faces. So one of their major legal arguments is gone. And it's a VERY bad thing when you have to drop one of your major legal arguments.
Furthermore, Samsung just lost an ENORMOUS amount of credibility on the world stage. They are now a laughingstock among those studying intellectual property issues. This will haunt them for years. And that lawyer might as well apply for a job at Wal-mart.
I can't really disagree with anything you said there, but I'd add a couple of observations.
In the German case, Apple brought a number of complaints to the court, of which the drawing was just one. The fact that the court only upheld the complaint relating to the drawing is odd or not, depending on your point of view, but that they then banned the device based only on that is somewhat perverse. But we can't blame Apple for not withdrawing the complaint or asking for a lesser judgement just because it was the only one upheld.
In the multitouch dispute, it does not appear that Apple is going after the whole concept - just certain specific implementations that they do believe patentable and patented.
Oh okay (about multitouch) that makes sense then.
honestly I expected the trade-dress complaints to be upheld easily considering how much Samsung apes Apple more so than the design one, especially on the Tab. The Galaxy S I thought would be the smoking gun, especially the Galaxy S Vibrant for T-mobile USA.
When you can find where I said Samsung keeps winning I'll take you a bit more seriously.
And obviously this is just my opinion. I make that quite clear by how utterly subjective I am in my posts.
And no. A basic previously used design of a rounded rectangular device that never went into production is not innovation. The actual iPad is.
Also the Netherlands patents are up for review. No one won there yet.
But being that this entire thread is based on visual similarity the courts there (and Australia) disagreed with Apple. Hence my "bragging"
Your bragging is ridiculous.
Apple won a preliminary injunction in Germany.
Apple won a limited victory in the Netherlands. Samsung will be able to work around it, but it's still a victory for Apple.
Apple won a preliminary injunction in Australia.
And Apple appears to be well on the way to winning in the U.S.
Meanwhile, how is Samsung doing on getting the iPhone and iPad banned in Europe and elsewhere? Oh, yeah. Zero success.
Then, of course, is the PR battle which Samsung just handed to Apple by hiring stupid lawyers.
Bragging about ANYTHING that Samsung is doing is absolutely ridiculous.
Your bragging is ridiculous.
Apple won a preliminary injunction in Germany.
Apple won a limited victory in the Netherlands. Samsung will be able to work around it, but it's still a victory for Apple.
Apple won a preliminary injunction in Australia.
And Apple appears to be well on the way to winning in the U.S.
Meanwhile, how is Samsung doing on getting the iPhone and iPad banned in Europe and elsewhere? Oh, yeah. Zero success.
Then, of course, is the PR battle which Samsung just handed to Apple by hiring stupid lawyers.
Bragging about ANYTHING that Samsung is doing is absolutely ridiculous.
Excuse my language but where the fuck am I bragging at all?
Excuse my language but where the fuck am I bragging at all?
Your own words:
"But being that this entire thread is based on visual similarity the courts there (and Australia) disagreed with Apple. Hence my "bragging""
Your own words:
It's in quotes for a reason genius.