So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Lol @ your fanboi rage.
Your logic is so flawed this time, its embarassing.
Apple tries to patent someone else's design concept as their own and your fine with it until someone else also implements the earlier design comcept.
Why dont you just leave it at what it is - exposing the whole patent system as the fraud it is.
Leave your fanboi glasses at the door on this one Tallest-shill.
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
Hehehe, you're funny.
Apple makes waaaay more money per handset sold than any of their competition. Why on earth would they want to adopt an inferior OS like Android? Apple's success is based on creating the entire widget.
Who really cares if Android is on more handsets? That doesn't equal better. I'd rather be the guy doing the better job, while making more money than putting crap on any handset under the sun that will have it.
Agreed. Apple's products need to stand or fall on their own merit (and I think they will). The thing that will take down Apple is not Android, etc., but instead will be some future internal decisions. That is what almost killed Apple the first time around. Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.
I agree. As much as fandroids and haters fantasize about Apple's "hubris" or "patent trolling" destroying Apple, in the long run, it will be Apple's missing an opportunity to disrupt markets and create new ones in the process, from sheer lack of foresight. I'm not sure who on Apple's leadership team can do that the way Steve did. It was one of Steve's strongest talents: being able to sense intuitively where technology was going. And it's not something you teach in management school. My only hope is that Apple's culture of wanting to change the world will collectively net some good, disruptive ideas that management will get behind, and turn into future products.
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
<insert Tim Cook "Not sure if serious" pic/>
Even if you're not serious, people back in 96 were seriously telling Apple to drop hardware and adopt Microsoft's model of selling OS licenses to cloners. Windows 95 and NT were seemingly on top of the world, and Apple was a has-been, sitting on the Mac market for 10 years without any real change (System 7.5 was hardly state of the art by then). Pundits were telling Apple that Microsoft was the one to copy.
Of course, today, many of those pundits are sporting MacBooks under their arm, like PC Magazine's once-Apple-hater John Dvorak.
If Apple ever does go back to the days when this kind of advice can be taken seriously, then Apple has fallen and is no longer the master of its destiny.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Crappy analogy.
A car is a car even if its from the 1920s.
Modern car vs old school car
1) Both transport people from one location to another via voluntary control by the users on, mostly, paved roads.
2) Both have engines, 4 wheels, hard cover passenger compartment, headlights, instruments, user interfaces, and both use gasoline as the primary fuel.
On top of that, their general layout (design) is similar.
Apple is required to attempt to protect their IP wherever they deem it is being challenged, but they are at the mercy of the ability of their legal team to properly present the case, the judges to properly understand and accept the assertions and make a correct decision. So this isn't wasted money, in that it is part of IP ownership.
That being said, I doubt the legal team assumed a complete sweep of legal decisions, and each dismissal and non-infringement decision causes the Apple legal team to review and strengthen their arguments, tighten their case and become more effective. Which is why you are seeing these get delivered in Europe first. By fielding these in less impactful countries market-wise, they are preparing for the larger battles in the markets where it will make a difference, like China or India.
As a tactical move, it causes Samsung to hedge their bets designwise and forces them to consider retrenching their approach - so the Dutch decision is a point of relief for them, but not definitive in the sense that it only affects sales in the Netherlands, and could possibly color somewhat the EU court action later, but that is not assured. And that court is going to look at Samsung's alleged mishandling of standards patents. The court will look for a pattern of abuse as well as the specifics of the case in question. Samsung has already been hit with adverse decisions on their other "copying" issues, so they are not clearly not going to enjoy any favoritism by the court.
Anyone who has been a part of international corporate life understands the requirements that create the sort of actions that Apple has taken - it doesn't really matter if you agree with them or not in your particular version of reality as you see it. There are facts on the ground of which most of us are not aware, and parts of the picture completely obscured for you if you don't have the necessary background. Absurdly reducing the factors impacting here to a simple few, fails utterly to reflect the complex reality of the environment in which international corporations are required to operate.
I appreciate the calm, well-reasoned argument. It's rare these days. Hence, my posting the whole thing again.
I would add that Apple lost a huge battle over the Macintosh interface long ago that permitted the rise of Microsoft. Many of us at the time felt it was a horribly bad call on the part of the judge, but none of us thought the battle shouldn't have been fought. As a 65 year old stockholder who has a major part of their retirement tied up in Apple stock, I sincerely hope they fight every last one of these patent disputes to the bitter end. And I only ask that they win the ones they deserve to win. That won't happen, I know. They'll lose some and maybe win some they didn't deserve to. Hopefully, it'll balance out in the end.
In any case, I couldn't be prouder of Apple, win, lose, or draw.
I appreciate the calm, well-reasoned argument. It's rare these days. Hence, my posting the whole thing again.
I would add that Apple lost a huge battle over the Macintosh interface long ago that permitted the rise of Microsoft. Many of us at the time felt it was a horribly bad call on the part of the judge, but none of us thought the battle shouldn't have been fought. As a 65 year old stockholder who has a major part of their retirement tied up in Apple stock, I sincerely hope they fight every last one of these patent disputes to the bitter end. And I only ask that they win the ones they deserve to win. That won't happen, I know. They'll lose some and maybe win some they didn't deserve to. Hopefully, it'll balance out in the end.
In any case, I couldn't be prouder of Apple, win, lose, or draw.
Yeah Apple (SJ) did a great job coming from near bankruptcy.
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?
You OK with that?
Just asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
As I'm Dutch I'll react...
Absolutely no problem with your suggestion, as long as you don't claim the paintings are real van Goghs.
Samsung has never sold their galaxy tab as an 'Apple iPad'
People, just get over it. Take off the armchair lawyer hats and stop pretending you're legal experts. You really don't have a say in telling the courts of Netherlands and Germany what's legal. The people there decide what's legal, not you.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
Lol @ your fanboi rage.
Your logic is so flawed this time, its embarassing.
Apple tries to patent someone else's design concept as their own and your fine with it until someone else also implements the earlier design comcept.
Why dont you just leave it at what it is - exposing the whole patent system as the fraud it is.
Leave your fanboi glasses at the door on this one Tallest-shill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Crappy analogy.
A car is a car even if its from the 1920s.
Modern car vs old school car
1) Both transport people from one location to another via voluntary control by the users on, mostly, paved roads.
2) Both have engines, 4 wheels, hard cover passenger compartment, headlights, instruments, user interfaces, and both use gasoline as the primary fuel.
On top of that, their general layout (design) is similar.
The same goes with the "tablets".
The importance of reasoning via logic and proper analogy is lost on them. Their avid defense of Apple's tactics comes from neither, but rather from a self-esteem and identity that are tied too closely to a brand.
But I'm glad to see we're hearing more from sounder minds in this thread.
Get some popcorn. Its good to be a lawyer with Apple going thermonuclear.
Just read that Apple spent 100 mil on lawyer fees against HTC
$100 million? Jesus.
Wanna know the sad part? IP law is one of few legal fields that's actually growing in this recession. Everyone likes to bash on lawyers and call them scum until they need one. Ladies and gentlemen, frivolous lawsuits are the reason lawyers get a bad rap. And I think we should be well aware that lawyers don't pay for themselves. The money always comes from somewhere.
Comments
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Lol @ your fanboi rage.
Your logic is so flawed this time, its embarassing.
Apple tries to patent someone else's design concept as their own and your fine with it until someone else also implements the earlier design comcept.
Why dont you just leave it at what it is - exposing the whole patent system as the fraud it is.
Leave your fanboi glasses at the door on this one Tallest-shill.
Link, sure, but they don't appear.
They do for me.
Lol @ your fanboi rage.
Your logic is so flawed this time, its embarassing.
Apple tries to patent someone else's design concept as their own and your fine with it until someone else also implements the earlier design comcept.
Why dont you just leave it at what it is - exposing the whole patent system as the fraud it is.
Leave your fanboi glasses at the door on this one Tallest-shill.
I'll thank you to leave your insults at the door, particularly when they're wrong.
Who else's design concept was Apple trying to 'patent as their own'?
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
Hehehe, you're funny.
Apple makes waaaay more money per handset sold than any of their competition. Why on earth would they want to adopt an inferior OS like Android? Apple's success is based on creating the entire widget.
Who really cares if Android is on more handsets? That doesn't equal better. I'd rather be the guy doing the better job, while making more money than putting crap on any handset under the sun that will have it.
Agreed. Apple's products need to stand or fall on their own merit (and I think they will). The thing that will take down Apple is not Android, etc., but instead will be some future internal decisions. That is what almost killed Apple the first time around. Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.
I agree. As much as fandroids and haters fantasize about Apple's "hubris" or "patent trolling" destroying Apple, in the long run, it will be Apple's missing an opportunity to disrupt markets and create new ones in the process, from sheer lack of foresight. I'm not sure who on Apple's leadership team can do that the way Steve did. It was one of Steve's strongest talents: being able to sense intuitively where technology was going. And it's not something you teach in management school. My only hope is that Apple's culture of wanting to change the world will collectively net some good, disruptive ideas that management will get behind, and turn into future products.
Winner: Lawyers
Also Samsung and all other rectangular tablets
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...re-Design.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ace-Icons.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ge-Design.html
Samsung should be sued for packaging. Did Apple patent that?
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
<insert Tim Cook "Not sure if serious" pic/>
Even if you're not serious, people back in 96 were seriously telling Apple to drop hardware and adopt Microsoft's model of selling OS licenses to cloners. Windows 95 and NT were seemingly on top of the world, and Apple was a has-been, sitting on the Mac market for 10 years without any real change (System 7.5 was hardly state of the art by then). Pundits were telling Apple that Microsoft was the one to copy.
Of course, today, many of those pundits are sporting MacBooks under their arm, like PC Magazine's once-Apple-hater John Dvorak.
If Apple ever does go back to the days when this kind of advice can be taken seriously, then Apple has fallen and is no longer the master of its destiny.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Crappy analogy.
A car is a car even if its from the 1920s.
Modern car vs old school car
1) Both transport people from one location to another via voluntary control by the users on, mostly, paved roads.
2) Both have engines, 4 wheels, hard cover passenger compartment, headlights, instruments, user interfaces, and both use gasoline as the primary fuel.
On top of that, their general layout (design) is similar.
The same goes with the "tablets".
Also Samsung and all other rectangular tablets
Nope, they still have to pay unnecessary legal fees.
Crappy analogy.
Nope. In this analogy, "street legal" is the equivalent of "modern definition of a tablet".
Nope, they still have to pay unnecessary legal fees.
I wonder if Samsung countered sued for legal fees.
So winners so far Lawyers, Rectangular tablet makers and blog sites?
Maybe Samsung.
Who else's design concept was Apple trying to 'patent as their own'?
Wasn't the design first used in Star Trek?
Also Samsung and all other rectangular tablets
Don't forget consumers. They are the biggest winners here.
Apple is required to attempt to protect their IP wherever they deem it is being challenged, but they are at the mercy of the ability of their legal team to properly present the case, the judges to properly understand and accept the assertions and make a correct decision. So this isn't wasted money, in that it is part of IP ownership.
That being said, I doubt the legal team assumed a complete sweep of legal decisions, and each dismissal and non-infringement decision causes the Apple legal team to review and strengthen their arguments, tighten their case and become more effective. Which is why you are seeing these get delivered in Europe first. By fielding these in less impactful countries market-wise, they are preparing for the larger battles in the markets where it will make a difference, like China or India.
As a tactical move, it causes Samsung to hedge their bets designwise and forces them to consider retrenching their approach - so the Dutch decision is a point of relief for them, but not definitive in the sense that it only affects sales in the Netherlands, and could possibly color somewhat the EU court action later, but that is not assured. And that court is going to look at Samsung's alleged mishandling of standards patents. The court will look for a pattern of abuse as well as the specifics of the case in question. Samsung has already been hit with adverse decisions on their other "copying" issues, so they are not clearly not going to enjoy any favoritism by the court.
Anyone who has been a part of international corporate life understands the requirements that create the sort of actions that Apple has taken - it doesn't really matter if you agree with them or not in your particular version of reality as you see it. There are facts on the ground of which most of us are not aware, and parts of the picture completely obscured for you if you don't have the necessary background. Absurdly reducing the factors impacting here to a simple few, fails utterly to reflect the complex reality of the environment in which international corporations are required to operate.
I appreciate the calm, well-reasoned argument. It's rare these days. Hence, my posting the whole thing again.
I would add that Apple lost a huge battle over the Macintosh interface long ago that permitted the rise of Microsoft. Many of us at the time felt it was a horribly bad call on the part of the judge, but none of us thought the battle shouldn't have been fought. As a 65 year old stockholder who has a major part of their retirement tied up in Apple stock, I sincerely hope they fight every last one of these patent disputes to the bitter end. And I only ask that they win the ones they deserve to win. That won't happen, I know. They'll lose some and maybe win some they didn't deserve to. Hopefully, it'll balance out in the end.
In any case, I couldn't be prouder of Apple, win, lose, or draw.
I appreciate the calm, well-reasoned argument. It's rare these days. Hence, my posting the whole thing again.
I would add that Apple lost a huge battle over the Macintosh interface long ago that permitted the rise of Microsoft. Many of us at the time felt it was a horribly bad call on the part of the judge, but none of us thought the battle shouldn't have been fought. As a 65 year old stockholder who has a major part of their retirement tied up in Apple stock, I sincerely hope they fight every last one of these patent disputes to the bitter end. And I only ask that they win the ones they deserve to win. That won't happen, I know. They'll lose some and maybe win some they didn't deserve to. Hopefully, it'll balance out in the end.
In any case, I couldn't be prouder of Apple, win, lose, or draw.
Yeah Apple (SJ) did a great job coming from near bankruptcy.
OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?
You OK with that?
Just asking.
As I'm Dutch I'll react...
Absolutely no problem with your suggestion, as long as you don't claim the paintings are real van Goghs.
Samsung has never sold their galaxy tab as an 'Apple iPad'
People, just get over it. Take off the armchair lawyer hats and stop pretending you're legal experts. You really don't have a say in telling the courts of Netherlands and Germany what's legal. The people there decide what's legal, not you.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
Lol @ your fanboi rage.
Your logic is so flawed this time, its embarassing.
Apple tries to patent someone else's design concept as their own and your fine with it until someone else also implements the earlier design comcept.
Why dont you just leave it at what it is - exposing the whole patent system as the fraud it is.
Leave your fanboi glasses at the door on this one Tallest-shill.
Crappy analogy.
A car is a car even if its from the 1920s.
Modern car vs old school car
1) Both transport people from one location to another via voluntary control by the users on, mostly, paved roads.
2) Both have engines, 4 wheels, hard cover passenger compartment, headlights, instruments, user interfaces, and both use gasoline as the primary fuel.
On top of that, their general layout (design) is similar.
The same goes with the "tablets".
The importance of reasoning via logic and proper analogy is lost on them. Their avid defense of Apple's tactics comes from neither, but rather from a self-esteem and identity that are tied too closely to a brand.
But I'm glad to see we're hearing more from sounder minds in this thread.
Have you looked at all modern flat tv's?
Where's all the lawsuits over those.
Luckily Apple hasn't made a tv. Oh wait...
Get some popcorn. Its good to be a lawyer with Apple going thermonuclear.
Just read that Apple spent 100 mil on lawyer fees against HTC
$100 million? Jesus.
Wanna know the sad part? IP law is one of few legal fields that's actually growing in this recession. Everyone likes to bash on lawyers and call them scum until they need one. Ladies and gentlemen, frivolous lawsuits are the reason lawyers get a bad rap. And I think we should be well aware that lawyers don't pay for themselves. The money always comes from somewhere.