AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany - Page 2

post #41 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

You over-simplify things to suit your simplistic argument. Is Apple suing all tablet manufacturers over this same issue? No.

Because typically what you do in cases like this is win a case and then use that win against others.

How am I over simplifying it? The judge did NOT compare the tab to the ipad2, but to the community design drawing (which doesn't look like an ipad2 either, it's a lot thicker)

So you're right, Apple's not going after others. But apple has this win in Germany that they CAN use against any others if they want to.

So say next year Asus comes out with a windows8 tablet that docks with their transformer dock and it's a runaway success (tablet/laptop transforming has that chance) Apple can use this lawsuit to strengthen the case against them, and this judge will most likely grant it there as well.

So again, how do you make a tablet in another way and still have it be USEFUL (as in, the additions are done for some other reason than to JUST avoid this design) Sure, Sony did it. But read the reviews. They ALL say that while it's drastically improved in one orientation, the design severely limits other use cases.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

If it was such a generic design, why did it take Samsung many many years, and several other design choices before they developed this? ...

Most of the reason here is because of the mis-use of the word "generic." What they really mean is "simple," as do most people who use the "generic" term which is commonly misused in this way.

"Generic" actually means "common to a larger group," so to call the iPad design generic is only to say that it has common elements to all tablets like a screen and a battery. It doesn't address anything about the particular design of the thing, except to the degree that it implies a sort of "off the shelf" construction of readily available, unremarkable and common parts. This is more descriptive of Samsung's designs than of Apple's. Almost everything about the iPad design is custom.

The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.

The Special Theory of Relativity looks amazingly obvious and simple once you've read it, but it still took a real Einstein to figure it out for the first time.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Most of the reason here is because of the mis-use of the word "generic." What they really mean is "simple," as do most people who use the "generic" term which is commonly misused in this way.

"Generic" actually means "common to a larger group," so to call the iPad design generic is only to say that it has common elements to all tablets like a screen and a battery. It doesn't address anything about the particular design of the thing, except to the degree that it implies a sort of "off the shelf" construction of readily available, unremarkable and common parts. This is more descriptive of Samsung's designs than of Apple's. Almost everything about the iPad design is custom.

The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.

The Special Theory of Relativity looks amazingly obvious and simple once you've read it, but it still took a real Einstein to figure it out for the first time.

you just compared an iPad to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That just happened. Think on that.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because typically what you do in cases like this is win a case and then use that win against others.

How am I over simplifying it? The judge did NOT compare the tab to the ipad2, but to the community design drawing (which doesn't look like an ipad2 either, it's a lot thicker)

So you're right, Apple's not going after others. But apple has this win in Germany that they CAN use against any others if they want to.

So say next year Asus comes out with a windows8 tablet that docks with their transformer dock and it's a runaway success (tablet/laptop transforming has that chance) Apple can use this lawsuit to strengthen the case against them, and this judge will most likely grant it there as well.

So again, how do you make a tablet in another way and still have it be USEFUL (as in, the additions are done for some other reason than to JUST avoid this design) Sure, Sony did it. But read the reviews. They ALL say that while it's drastically improved in one orientation, the design severely limits other use cases.

don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:45am
i dnt like this at all, its a bad precedent, and what make it worse , in my opinion apple got the whole tablet market on its own and already tops in quality hardware, software support and pricing. even the most touted android tablet the Asus Transformer is still way below ipad in quality. Android devices as it stand currently are not a competitior to ipad, they are not even at the same playing field.

apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..

competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..

regards
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

All Samsung had to do is offset the actual working area of the glass... thin bezel on top with a thicker bezel on the bottom...

Nope, the size of the screen, or the amount of bezel (or shame of screen) has nothing to do with this community design. All these changes would still be in "violation"

Quote:
and then put a row of buttons at the bottom... maybe a slight trapezoid shape... easy peezy... instead...

So make completely useless changes to the design that add NOTHING to the usability of the product, just to avoid a design. That's not "encouraging innovation."


Quote:
Personally, I'm leaning towards a limited amount of time that something like this can be upheld... say 3 to 5 years... but that's jmho.

It shouldn't be granted in the first place. Hopefully a judge will overturn it. Remember, we're not talking about the Tab vs ipad2 here. we're talking about a drawing that can be used against any device currently on the market. Potentially, several devices that came out Before the ipad would also violate it (even though they used resistive screens)
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.

http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

That's from 1994
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Wow is that ever an intelligent comment.

It's another Coming to America reference.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

The whole point Apple is making is that by copying the design it muddies Apple's reputation with people falsely believing that it may be an Apple product when it isn't. Licensing the design is NOT going to resolve that issue, is it?

I agree. I'm not sure what else Apple licenses, but I think past history has proven to Apple that licensing is a losing game for them. OSX doesn't get licensed. Ask Psystar

Why give Sammy the right to produce something that looks like the iPad and iPhone, when you can make a sale of the real thing at considerably more profit?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.

A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides.

Once touchscreens became economically viable and plainly the preferred method for buyers to interact with their mobile devices, the consumer expected shape (based on newspapers, magazines, laptops, computer displays, TV screens, windows) was rectangular. . . and obvious. Surely you don't consider a rectangle shape to be innovative do you?

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #51 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Perfect analogy.

A little obscure, but I like it!

Not if you know your cult classics! Com'on people, we all just gotta "let our soul glow"
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 246
9/9/11 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dprijadi View Post

i dnt like this at all, its a bad precedent, and what make it worse , in my opinion apple got the whole tablet market on its own and already tops in quality hardware, software support and pricing. even the most touted android tablet the Asus Transformer is still way below ipad in quality. Android devices as it stand currently are not a competitior to ipad, they are not even at the same playing field.

apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..

competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..

regards

But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?

Trust me, given what Apple has done over the past few years with their iDevices and computers, they are not going to let third rate companies who's MO is to copy and not innovate motivate them to do better. They've needed no one (except for Steve jobs) to motivate them to come up with the things they have.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

Excellent! Let's all turn on some "Sexual Chocolate"
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:00am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?

Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #56 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin24 View Post

So it looks like Apples Monopoly Grows leaving no room for competition. Obviously Apple doesn't know how to invent anymore since it's nothing more than a patent troll. It would be nice to see anonymous to take down apple. These suits by apple are ridiculous if a company can't design something similar but have a completley different OS then innovation is dead because Apple controls everything. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't stand for this.

Can't wait to see the end of Steve Jobs

LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.

Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:07am
i love apple's products and their innovative thinking but a lawsuit against a corporate giant (especially if the product consist of their technology) is not going to help apple in the long run. since now samsung(and their partners!) has all the reason to be on the offensive side of the legal battle, they will most likely file an injunction to all new apple products (ie iphone5, ipad3 etc) in the future...assuming that the product consist of samsung parts and technology...in a legal point of view, apple is going to have a lose-lose situation. loss of profits -> disruption of new products -> loss of customer's selection -> loss of innovation (to either sides). so iphone5 will most likely get delayed for a year if the injunction is filed...i wish apple didn't start this lawsuit...apple is digging its own grave man....not cool
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.

Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.

Agreed. Derogatory comments about Steve Jobs are well out of line, adding nothing to the conversation.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #59 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.

Their designs were completely different than what Apple had to offer and nobody wanted them. Can't blame Apple for that. That's why they weren't competitive. The AT&T guy had one when he came to check my phone lines. Jeez, I'd throw out my back if I had to carry one of those bricks.

I'm talking about the early tablet PC's, not the TouchPad by HP. Apple's design was completely different from this. That's why HP probably never thought of suing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tablet.jpg
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin24 View Post

Apple did innovate now they recycle the same shit, or take other peoples ideas.

This'll be a good one.

Mind telling us what they're "recycling" or "taking from others"?

Oh, for bonus points, explain either how they're not innovating on their own or when they "stopped" innovating.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #61 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The ban will likely be extended to 7" devices too. Nothing to do with how the device works or what OS it uses. It could be a Windows8 device for that matter. If it's a rectangle with rounded corners it may be swept up in the same trap and banned in Germany.

This is not at all about icons, the OS, touchscreen or anything of that sort as the article plainly says. Apple wasn't suing about any of those. It's simply based on line drawings of a possible shape of a future device that Apple originally filed years before the iPad. This ruling could effectively ban any other rectangular, rounded corner slate or tablet offered by anyone else with any OS.

Is this the case for sure or was the injunction based on other factors (ie. trade dress) or patents?

If it's the case that it's based on a rectangle with rounded corners, that would be a rather wide-ranging ruling, effectively handing the whole tablet market to Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin24 View Post

I'm sorry about talking about your mind slave god that way

I know it seems a bit premature, but mods, could you, uh

Quote:
it's not like you guys act immature towards your competation

While you're answering my earlier questions, you can answer how this is the case, too.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #63 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

It's worth noting that the judge did NOT compare this product to the ipad2 for this ruling, but ONLY the drawings in the filed community design.

The drawings in the filed community design show a rectangle

Buttons, bezel, and thickness are all NOT part of the community design. JUST that rectangle

So unless a company goes the route of sony (making odd looking tablets that limit use-cases) , or they make a tablet with something other than four sides, EVERY tablet developed will infringe.

Not if it doesn't have rounded corners, which makes it not technically a "rectangle", so go play your broken record somewhere else.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #64 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Is this the case for sure or was the injunction based on other factors (ie. trade dress) or patents?

If it's the case that it's based on a rectangle with rounded corners, that would be a rather wide-ranging ruling, effectively handing the whole tablet market to Apple.

The initial injunction on the 7" Tab was based on the same vague drawings that Apple used against Samsung's 10" Tab.

You can bet that if anyone (other than Microsoft themselves for other reasons) sees any success in Germany with a rectangular slab computing device, Apple will be after them too. They'll include at least one or two small guys just to avoid claims of stifling valid competition.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #65 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:25am
Boy... they're surely coming out of the woodwork in spades....
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

While you're answering my earlier questions, you can answer how this is the case, too.

Please don't feed or engage the trolls.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides.

Once touchscreens became economically viable and plainly the preferred method for buyers to interact with their mobile devices, the consumer expected shape (based on newspapers, magazines, laptops, computer displays, TV screens, windows) was rectangular. . . and obvious. Surely you don't consider a rectangle shape to be innovative do you?

Then riddle me this. If Samsung actually MAKES the touchscreen panels and are developing new screen technology constantly and the idea/design was so obvious, then why didn't it come to market first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinpark86 View Post

i love apple's products and their innovative thinking but a lawsuit against a corporate giant (especially if the product consist of their technology) is not going to help apple in the long run. since now samsung(and their partners!) has all the reason to be on the offensive side of the legal battle, they will most likely file an injunction to all new apple products (ie iphone5, ipad3 etc) in the future...assuming that the product consist of samsung parts and technology...in a legal point of view, apple is going to have a lose-lose situation. loss of profits -> disruption of new products -> loss of customer's selection -> loss of innovation (to either sides). so iphone5 will most likely get delayed for a year if the injunction is filed...i wish apple didn't start this lawsuit...apple is digging its own grave man....not cool

And that's their right. Unfortunately, Apple's position is that the patents that these companies use in countersuits (and sometimes lawsuits filed FIRST) are FRAND patents which must be paid regardless and cannot be used for injunctions unless Apple straight up refuse to pay after a judgement.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #68 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Apple has every right to protect their intellectual property and anybody suggesting that Apple shouldn't be suing anybody or that Apple should just let things slide has got to be totally brain damaged and they should wake up and smell the coffee, because they are thinking and acting like a clueless fool.

I don't have anything in particular against Samsung, but blatant copying is blatant copying and anybody who engages in such pathetic and cowardly actions deserves to get smacked down.

HTC, WiLAN, Openwave, Samsung and Paul Allen have every right to protect their intellectual property and anybody suggesting that they shouldn't be suing Apple or that they should just let things slide has got to be totally brain damaged and they should wake up and smell the coffee, because they are thinking and acting like a clueless fool.

I don't have anything in particular against Apple, but blatant infringements of patents is blatant infringement and anybody who engages in such pathetic and cowardly actions deserves to get smacked down.

Or something like that.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff View Post

Please don't feed or engage the trolls.

People who don't like what Apple does aren't automatically trolls. Those with justification for their beliefs are welcome here.

But you have to ask them questions to see if they even have any arguments or if they're just parroting copy-pasted text on troll websites. You can't know otherwise.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #70 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Then riddle me this. If Samsung actually MAKES the touchscreen panels and are developing new screen technology constantly and the idea/design was so obvious, then why didn't it come to market first?

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.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #71 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin24 View Post

Apple did innovate now they recycle the same shit, or take other peoples ideas. Steve himself said they are shameless at stealing ideas.

Ahhh, how much ignorance you show. Lets see if we can fix some of that. This blog entry by a designer isn't a bad introduction to the concept.

Picasso: Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #72 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

I'd also like to say... There are some people who say that Apple is only doing this because they don't like competition. Obviously they don't realize that Apple has been competing with the mother of all cmetitors for the last 20 years, Microsoft.

And dealing with that for the last 20 years made Apple LIKE competition?

How does that work?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin24 View Post

you want the mods to ban my free speech.... and I'm only showing how many of you act.

My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.

Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

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 stated that the reason these products didn't see the light of day before Apple is because the tech wasn't there yet. Well, I am simply pointing out that these same companies are the exact ones who developed a lot of the tech. What they didn't do was put it all together to make a successful product. That's their own fault and not Apple's. All of this talk about "stifled innovation" is laughable if the only argument is: "This new innovation is soooo obvious. We totally would have done this first, but we just didn't get around to it."
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #75 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20 View Post

My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.

Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?

1) No IP is banned for posting anti-Apple stuff. It would be banned for trolling or spamming.

2) You can use a proxy at home or get your service provider to give you a different IP address.

3) You should lock down your network. No free rides unless you're a trucker with a hat that says free mustache rides.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 246
9/9/11 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Nope, the size of the screen, or the amount of bezel (or shame of screen) has nothing to do with this community design. All these changes would still be in "violation"

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.
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #77 of 246
9/9/11 at 9:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) No IP is banned for posting anti-Apple stuff. It would be banned for trolling or spamming.

2) You can use a proxy at home or get your service provider to give you a different IP address.

3) You should lock down your network. No free rides unless you're a trucker with a hat that says free mustache rides.

1) All he'd admit to was hating on Apple.

2) I'll have to look into that. Does it cost to change your IP address?

3) Who says I'm not? (honestly, my network is locked now. I recently moved and forgot to set a password when I had my new router installed. I'm paying the price now but damn it sucks to pay for what someone else did).
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 246
9/9/11 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20 View Post

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #79 of 246
9/9/11 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 246
9/9/11 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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."
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany