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.
Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.
Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.
He simply doesn't want to accept this. It is like talking to a wall.
I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.
Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.
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.
Think of it this way:
If Honda sued Toyota for using bucket seats after Honda "innovated" them, Toyota could show a 1920's car to the judge with bucket seats, in order to prove that Honda had no right to exclusive use of bucket seats.
Likewise, if Sylvania popularized a tubular lightbulb, and someone else copied it, the copier could show that tubular bulbs had been used in Edison's day, to prove that Sylvania should have no exclusive rights.
IIRC, this case used many examples of prior art, ranging from depictions in fiction to Samsung's own prior products.
Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.
AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh
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.
IIRC, Sony used a proprietary digital music format in its early portable players. IMO, that is what killed them in that market. They had it sewn up with the Walkman, and they blew it with their early digital players.
MiniDisk too - a good format, but limited to Sony, and therefore less appealing commercially. Sony also insisted on using a proprietary memory card format, which was distasteful to many people.
What side of the BluRay/HD DVD war was Sony on? I've not paid much attention to Sony since the late 1990's.
So you're an expert in Dutch law. You must be if you are contending that this tactic is 'blatantly illegal'
You might not like the ruling or what the courts examined, but perhaps under Dutch law they are allowed to do so.
And in the end, perhaps even Apple knew they weren't likely to win in all courts of law. But they had other reasons for doing this. The first being the requirement to protect, or attempt to do so, or forfeit all rights under trade dress law. The second being that these cases have been talked about a lot in the blogs etc. The similarities and timings are now known to a lot more people that before wouldn't have been attentive to such details. And while the courts might say that there was no illegal copying, the court of public opinion might think twice on the issue of how much inspiration Samsung is taking from another company. And that could produce a win that is even better for Apple. A loss in court means little if the winner's products still lack in sales. And frankly I haven't seen anything Samsung blowing it away sales wise (especially once you account for high return rates)
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact,
In the Netherlands at this moment yes.
Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so. And might be able to wait to see what other EU courts are saying to use that in the process. Or tweak the approach and file another suit.
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?
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.
Ah, even if justice says they are not copying you say they are copying. Curious view of justice, I won't change my mind even if reality says other thing
So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?
Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not, or to be specific those elements that Apple claimed Samsung was using had already been used by previous devices before Apple drew them.
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'
Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not.
The biggest problem with this whole lawsuit is not the lawsuit itself but whoever allowed the community design and gave it a legal status. The sketches are far too generic.
Seems related to the 'trivial' software patents which should also have not been allowed.
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a different suit between the iPad and the Tab for the purpose of determining similarity of appearance.
Not with that particular Community Design.
EDIT: Tallest Skil, Apple hasn't ever filed an EU court case claiming the Tab resembled the iPad too closely AFAIK. I find that curious and raises the question whether they have a grounds for a legal complaint on that. I don't know.
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.
Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.
So are you calling the judges corrupts?
Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.
He simply doesn't want to accept this. It is like talking to a wall.
I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.
Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.
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.
Think of it this way:
If Honda sued Toyota for using bucket seats after Honda "innovated" them, Toyota could show a 1920's car to the judge with bucket seats, in order to prove that Honda had no right to exclusive use of bucket seats.
Likewise, if Sylvania popularized a tubular lightbulb, and someone else copied it, the copier could show that tubular bulbs had been used in Edison's day, to prove that Sylvania should have no exclusive rights.
IIRC, this case used many examples of prior art, ranging from depictions in fiction to Samsung's own prior products.
Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.
AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh
AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh
And the irony is that the iPad si more different from the community design than the Galaxy Tab
Sigh...it is NOT about copying...
Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad.
AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh
So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?
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.
IIRC, Sony used a proprietary digital music format in its early portable players. IMO, that is what killed them in that market. They had it sewn up with the Walkman, and they blew it with their early digital players.
MiniDisk too - a good format, but limited to Sony, and therefore less appealing commercially. Sony also insisted on using a proprietary memory card format, which was distasteful to many people.
What side of the BluRay/HD DVD war was Sony on? I've not paid much attention to Sony since the late 1990's.
But it's blatantly illegal.
So you're an expert in Dutch law. You must be if you are contending that this tactic is 'blatantly illegal'
You might not like the ruling or what the courts examined, but perhaps under Dutch law they are allowed to do so.
And in the end, perhaps even Apple knew they weren't likely to win in all courts of law. But they had other reasons for doing this. The first being the requirement to protect, or attempt to do so, or forfeit all rights under trade dress law. The second being that these cases have been talked about a lot in the blogs etc. The similarities and timings are now known to a lot more people that before wouldn't have been attentive to such details. And while the courts might say that there was no illegal copying, the court of public opinion might think twice on the issue of how much inspiration Samsung is taking from another company. And that could produce a win that is even better for Apple. A loss in court means little if the winner's products still lack in sales. And frankly I haven't seen anything Samsung blowing it away sales wise (especially once you account for high return rates)
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact,
In the Netherlands at this moment yes.
Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so. And might be able to wait to see what other EU courts are saying to use that in the process. Or tweak the approach and file another suit.
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.
In the Netherlands at this moment yes.
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.
Ah, even if justice says they are not copying you say they are copying. Curious view of justice, I won't change my mind even if reality says other thing
So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?
Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not, or to be specific those elements that Apple claimed Samsung was using had already been used by previous devices before Apple drew them.
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'
Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not.
The biggest problem with this whole lawsuit is not the lawsuit itself but whoever allowed the community design and gave it a legal status. The sketches are far too generic.
Seems related to the 'trivial' software patents which should also have not been allowed.
Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings.
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a different suit between the iPad and the Tab for the purpose of determining similarity of appearance.
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a different suit between the iPad and the Tab for the purpose of determining similarity of appearance.
Not with that particular Community Design.
EDIT: Tallest Skil, Apple hasn't ever filed an EU court case claiming the Tab resembled the iPad too closely AFAIK. I find that curious and raises the question whether they have a grounds for a legal complaint on that. I don't know.