2) I'll have to look into that. Does it cost to change your IP address?
Where I live if you just disconnect your cable modem for awhile (say a half-hour) and when you plugged it back in you'd likely get a new IP address because they use DHCP servers to assign addresses randomly from a list. However, you should be able to call your provider and have them release and renew the address to get a new one. Usually it's only commercial setups where you pay extra for a dedicated IP address to your business.
Is that a serious question? It's an obvious answer to me. With their fingers in so many products already, and without an indication of a viable market for a slate computing device, why would they be inclined to be the first? Apple delayed for years until they felt the time was right to take a chance, and the hardware was in place to make it more likely to be successful.
Something that's seldom (never) mentioned. Without the years of innovation, design, engineering and creation of critical technology and components provided by companies like LG, Sony, Samsung, etc., the iPad wouldn't be possible. The hard work and investment made by those suppliers is greatly underestimated and under-appreciated. Without them Apple would be a simple software company.
1. Samsung had no indication of a viable market you say? Until Apple created it. If apples designs were so obvious samsung wouldn't have waited to see how successful Apple was before doing their own "innovating".
2. Without cars apple employees couldn't get to work. Maybe the car companies should get a little credit too.
... because I wasn't talking about the judgement. I was talking about Apple's litigation actions in the first place. I'm quite sure if Samsung had differentiated their tablet even in the slightest, so that it didn't resemble the iPad so closely then Apple wouldn't have gone after them.
Samsung had inside knowledge of Apple's design. I'm sure this is what is pissing them off so much.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.
Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.
If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:
I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?
I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
You might be right, but it all depends on what aspects of the device Samsung had inside knowledge. It seems to me that Apple only gives their vendors as much as they need them to know with Foxconn being one of the very few places that have any idea what the final product will look like since they are the only actually assembling it in full. Therefore, Samsung may not have privy to the thinness of the iPad 2, but had used their position to get access to other features being used in the device.
Yes it is a serious question and what you have stated is no real excuse. Why should company X take all of the risk just to have company Y capitalize on it and then scream "Obvious!!!!" when it's taken to court?
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
Samsung made components. They didn't put together the whole iPad. How would they get a look at the whole device?
And yeah if they had inside knowledge, why would they not be able to match the iPad 2 in the first place? Who gets inside knowledge and then designs something sub-par only to have to announce they are going to redesign their product to match the specs they knew about before their competitor's product launched? Logic fail.
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.
Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.
But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?
By the way, there was no intention of clipping out a part of your quote to make your argument appear to be less than it was. In any other forum I visit or moderate quotes of the prior post are not only frowned upon, they'll get pointed complaints from the admin, moderators and even some other members. "Please, no need to quote the previous reply" is the common refrain. When I was composing my reply it would have been the next. In the meantime a few others chimed in.
Nice to see that Samsung got put in its place. Wait till the US case goes on stream.
IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.
The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.
No, Apple will NOT pursue this somewhat weak EU community design patent against all tablet makers. This is ONLY about Samsung's blatant copying of the design of multiple Apple products.
I can imagine the key meeting at Apple, where Jobs said to the lawyers: "Enough. Throw everything we have at them, boys...."
And the EU community design patent was sitting there in the drawer and someone said: "Ha, ha! Maybe we can even use this!"
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
Samsungs(and other tablet makers) problem is that they didn't know what to do with their best technology before the ipad came out.
If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:
I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?
I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.
I was going to mention that... from 2006 no less (that is if the court ruled solely on "looks"):
But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?
Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.
Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
Tablet computer, minimalist design, rectangle with rounded corners.
Yes, it was a "concept." but that's kinda the point. Again, I'm not arguing specifically about the Tab here (that seems to be pointless on AI) but rather the community design Apple used.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
Gator, first I apologize regarding the quoting. What you stated makes sense. Different boards have different rules/etiquette.
I agree that a rectangle isn't innovation, but copying isn't either. If Samsung had a modicum of respect for other people's work, it wouldn't be in this mess. Hate the game and not the player.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
The crux of the story is the background. Apple would likely not have used this ridiculous patent if Samsung hadn't blatantly copied thier work.
Comments
2) I'll have to look into that. Does it cost to change your IP address?
Where I live if you just disconnect your cable modem for awhile (say a half-hour) and when you plugged it back in you'd likely get a new IP address because they use DHCP servers to assign addresses randomly from a list. However, you should be able to call your provider and have them release and renew the address to get a new one. Usually it's only commercial setups where you pay extra for a dedicated IP address to your business.
Is that a serious question? It's an obvious answer to me. With their fingers in so many products already, and without an indication of a viable market for a slate computing device, why would they be inclined to be the first? Apple delayed for years until they felt the time was right to take a chance, and the hardware was in place to make it more likely to be successful.
Something that's seldom (never) mentioned. Without the years of innovation, design, engineering and creation of critical technology and components provided by companies like LG, Sony, Samsung, etc., the iPad wouldn't be possible. The hard work and investment made by those suppliers is greatly underestimated and under-appreciated. Without them Apple would be a simple software company.
1. Samsung had no indication of a viable market you say? Until Apple created it. If apples designs were so obvious samsung wouldn't have waited to see how successful Apple was before doing their own "innovating".
2. Without cars apple employees couldn't get to work. Maybe the car companies should get a little credit too.
I'm quite sure you're wrong on this point, Menno.
Why?
... because I wasn't talking about the judgement. I was talking about Apple's litigation actions in the first place. I'm quite sure if Samsung had differentiated their tablet even in the slightest, so that it didn't resemble the iPad so closely then Apple wouldn't have gone after them.
Samsung had inside knowledge of Apple's design. I'm sure this is what is pissing them off so much.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.
http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/p...ail&returnurl=
I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?
I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
You might be right, but it all depends on what aspects of the device Samsung had inside knowledge. It seems to me that Apple only gives their vendors as much as they need them to know with Foxconn being one of the very few places that have any idea what the final product will look like since they are the only actually assembling it in full. Therefore, Samsung may not have privy to the thinness of the iPad 2, but had used their position to get access to other features being used in the device.
Yes it is a serious question and what you have stated is no real excuse. Why should company X take all of the risk just to have company Y capitalize on it and then scream "Obvious!!!!" when it's taken to court?
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.
I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.
And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."
Samsung made components. They didn't put together the whole iPad. How would they get a look at the whole device?
And yeah if they had inside knowledge, why would they not be able to match the iPad 2 in the first place? Who gets inside knowledge and then designs something sub-par only to have to announce they are going to redesign their product to match the specs they knew about before their competitor's product launched? Logic fail.
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.
Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.
Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.
But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?
By the way, there was no intention of clipping out a part of your quote to make your argument appear to be less than it was. In any other forum I visit or moderate quotes of the prior post are not only frowned upon, they'll get pointed complaints from the admin, moderators and even some other members. "Please, no need to quote the previous reply" is the common refrain. When I was composing my reply it would have been the next. In the meantime a few others chimed in.
Nice to see that Samsung got put in its place. Wait till the US case goes on stream.
IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.
The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.
No, Apple will NOT pursue this somewhat weak EU community design patent against all tablet makers. This is ONLY about Samsung's blatant copying of the design of multiple Apple products.
I can imagine the key meeting at Apple, where Jobs said to the lawyers: "Enough. Throw everything we have at them, boys...."
And the EU community design patent was sitting there in the drawer and someone said: "Ha, ha! Maybe we can even use this!"
Good for Apple.
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
Samsungs(and other tablet makers) problem is that they didn't know what to do with their best technology before the ipad came out.
If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:
http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/p...ail&returnurl=
I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?
I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.
I was going to mention that... from 2006 no less (that is if the court ruled solely on "looks"):
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/
But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?
Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.
I was going to mention that... from 2006 no less (that is if the court ruled solely on "looks"):
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/
Apple's community design was registered in 2004 so that would have been inapplicable.
Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
Apple's community design was registered in 2004 so that would have been inapplicable.
This is from 1994: http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI
Tablet computer, minimalist design, rectangle with rounded corners.
Yes, it was a "concept." but that's kinda the point. Again, I'm not arguing specifically about the Tab here (that seems to be pointless on AI) but rather the community design Apple used.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
Gator, first I apologize regarding the quoting. What you stated makes sense. Different boards have different rules/etiquette.
I agree that a rectangle isn't innovation, but copying isn't either. If Samsung had a modicum of respect for other people's work, it wouldn't be in this mess. Hate the game and not the player.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
The crux of the story is the background. Apple would likely not have used this ridiculous patent if Samsung hadn't blatantly copied thier work.
Chances are good it will get overturned, but Apple won't mind even if they have to pay Samsung's lost revenue . See http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...alaxy-tab.html