or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung files patent case against Apple in Australia over iPhone, iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung files patent case against Apple in Australia over iPhone, iPad - Page 3

post #81 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Consider the collective billions of dollars siphoned ultimately from consumers to pay for these suits, counter-suits, and counter-counter-suits....

The dollars do not come from consumers. They come from the owners of the companies involved.

And those owners hire management types who decide that it is more profitable to use the dollars for lawsuits, rather than pursuing other available alternatives.

If you are talking about this crap being a drain on the economy overall, I won't argue. Litigation is, IMO, a huge waste of resources compared with many alternatives. But the resources are not public resources, but instead, are privately owned. The companies involved can use their money any way they choose. That is the nature of capitalism.

Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.

It is useful to question whether granting bullshit patents to Apple and then allowing Apple to foreclose obvious designs by other companies makes any sense. But that is a meta-question in the sphere of economic regulation, and should rightly be discussed in those terms. Many posters dislike these bullshit patents that Apple has been granted. May posters dislike the regulatory scheme which allows Apple to secure and to exploit such patents.

The money which consumers pay is to support the USPTO and the court system. Apple uses both of these public goods to gain higher private gains. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that Apple's owners pay to use litigation as a means to increase their profits.
post #82 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Using your method, we can then revisit when the Galaxy S III is released. See how that works?

And just because you live in the boonies does not mean that 4G is not an improvement overall. By that logic, one could claim that the iPhone is no good, because some people live in the Yukon and have no cellular service.

Um what? If you are trying to compare a phone that is 6 mos. Old to one that is 16 mos. Old then it is definitely a valid point. As for 4G, I had an edge phone (original iPhone) until this year. 4G is simply not as important to some as others and it's especially not a big deal to someone who doesn't even get it in his/her area. Seems like android fans on this site (with the exception of Gator) can't do anything but insult and have no skills in debate. What's worse is the insults aren't just for people calling them fandroids, etc. But extend to people who actually try to treat these squatters (yep, if your sole purpose of coming to an Apple-centric website is to insult the company and its products then you are a squatter) with respect. Oh, and as for your Yukon comment, YES, an iPhone would do that person NO good if there is no cellular service or wifi.
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 #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Samsung could have made the device non-infringing by having non-equal borders. Or by having the rim invisible from the front (or thick from the front). Or by not using a back panel that rounded up to form the thin rim around the surface.

It's the flipping DESIGN that is infringed, not the general shape.

I agree with your analysis. Samsung is enjoined form selling:


computer products characterized by

(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,

(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,

(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,

(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,

(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and

(vi) a thin form factor


Notice the conjunctive used at the end of no. 5. If any one of the elements were to be changed, they would not be in violation.

IMO, Samsung should start silkscreening their logo onto the bezel. In that manner, they would not violate no. 2, and would be free to sell once again.

But the big question in my mind is whether the government should use its regulatory powers to grant monopolies on this sort of obvious stuff. My initial reaction is that it is a total waste of taxpayer money, and does not foster innovation. (My unstated assumptions are that tax money should be used sparingly, and that the Community Design regulations are intended to foster innovation by offering protection to those who innovate, in the manner of patent laws.)

When one company is granted a monopoly on production of obvious designs, and that monopoly is enforced with tax money, I don't see it as a Good Thing.
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

The dollars do not come from consumers. They come from the owners of the companies involved.

And those owners hire management types who decide that it is more profitable to use the dollars for lawsuits, rather than pursuing other available alternatives.

If you are talking about this crap being a drain on the economy overall, I won't argue. Litigation is, IMO, a huge waste of resources compared with many alternatives. But the resources are not public resources, but instead, are privately owned. The companies involved can use their money any way they choose. That is the nature of capitalism.

Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.

It is useful to question whether granting bullshit patents to Apple and then allowing Apple to foreclose obvious designs by other companies makes any sense. But that is a meta-question in the sphere of economic regulation, and should rightly be discussed in those terms. Many posters dislike these bullshit patents that Apple has been granted. May posters dislike the regulatory scheme which allows Apple to secure and to exploit such patents.

The money which consumers pay is to support the USPTO and the court system. Apple uses both of these public goods to gain higher private gains. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that Apple's owners pay to use litigation as a means to increase their profits.

OK, this post shows that you have no clue how business works or patent law. Lawyers aren't free. Court cases aren't sure fire revenue generators. And to say that Apple would "use other methods to generate profits" if it worked but it doesn't so it just sues is insane. Have you ever listened to one of quarterly conference calls? I have and nowhere is it stated that, "Gee, we increased our revenue 100% YoY with some damn good lawsuits.". Apple makes its money from selling products. Don't like it? Too bad. Going out on the interwebz and showing your ignorance is not a good look. Please go back to school.
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 #85 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

OK, this post shows that you have no clue how business works or patent law. Lawyers aren't free. Court cases aren't sure fire revenue generators. And to say that Apple would "use other methods to generate profits" if it worked but it doesn't so it just sues is insane. Have you ever listened to one of quarterly conference calls? I have and nowhere is it stated that, "Gee, we increased our revenue 100% YoY with some damn good lawsuits.". Apple makes its money from selling products. Don't like it? Too bad. Going out on the interwebz and showing your ignorance is not a good look. Please go back to school.

I never said nor implied that lawyers are free. I never said that court cases are sure fire revenue generators. I never said that Apple uses no other methods to generate profits, or that no other methods work. I have listened to many quarterly conference calls. I do not dislike the fact that Apple makes money from selling products.

Your insults are based mostly upon things I never said nor implied, but rather, on your misunderstandings of the things I DID say.

That being said, if court cases were a path to lower profits for Apple, Apple would not initiate court cases. It is obvious to me that profit maximization is the underlying rationale behind each and every action that Apple takes. They avoid pursuing activities which lower overall profits.

If you disagree, then I think you are wrong.
post #86 of 112
Quote:
Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.

What other way could this quote be interpreted? Whatever profits (if any) through litigation is negligible for Apple. You can't even use any current "victories" because they have been so recent that they can't influence current profits at all. Also, you seem to imply that Apple is unique in initiating lawsuits which is not true at all. I normally wouldn't post something so harsh but your post was just waaaay off base.
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 #87 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So I wonder if any of the parts Samsung sold Apple are involved in these patent infringements?

If so it may provide legal grounds for Apple to seek an immediate refund of all monies paid for parts Samsung sold them knowing that they were patent encumbered and without giving permission to use them.

Could Samsung have acted fraudulently if this is the case?

Actually Samsung would counter argue that their parts division isn't the same as their licensing office and all contracts for parts are done so on the assumption that the ordering company has taken care of all legal issues prior to placing the order (see section 12.1.5.7.3.a.z of your purchasing contract). And therefore said department acted in good faith.

If anything Samsung could use such a clause as a reason to halt all parts shipments to Apple and refuse to pay any penalties they agreed to in the contract. Provided they actually have a legal leg to stand on and this isn't, for example, a case of Apple licensing whatever as part of a standard via the group that holds the standard's rights and Samsung trying to double dip.

Samsung has been trying this counter sue tactic for a while and so far Apple isn't backing down. Which suggests they feel they are on solid ground with the 'offending' patents and thus don't need to leverage relief by dropping their trade dress claims.

It is rumored that they have been talking to second production companies to supplement Samsung's supplies and that those talks have been adjusted to increase how much the non Samsung companies are providing. If true, this could be a move to shut Samsung out over the next couple of years. Payback and also likely cutting off their advance knowledge about Apple products. Could get interesting.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I agree with your analysis. Samsung is enjoined form selling:


computer products characterized by

(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,

(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,

(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,

(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,

(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and

(vi) a thin form factor


Notice the conjunctive used at the end of no. 5. If any one of the elements were to be changed, they would not be in violation.

IMO, Samsung should start silkscreening their logo onto the bezel. In that manner, they would not violate no. 2, and would be free to sell once again.

But the big question in my mind is whether the government should use its regulatory powers to grant monopolies on this sort of obvious stuff. My initial reaction is that it is a total waste of taxpayer money, and does not foster innovation. (My unstated assumptions are that tax money should be used sparingly, and that the Community Design regulations are intended to foster innovation by offering protection to those who innovate, in the manner of patent laws.)

When one company is granted a monopoly on production of obvious designs, and that monopoly is enforced with tax money, I don't see it as a Good Thing.

Geez. Finally, one of the Apple bashers is willing to look at the facts.

There is a reason why the government stops blatant copies like this. Companies create their products and spend a lot of money creating a brand identity. Customers buy products because the expect to be able to tell what they're buying. When someone makes a copy that is so exact, it's easy for the consumer to be confused. The government has a stated goal of preventing companies from intentionally confusing consumers.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #89 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

IMO, Samsung should start silkscreening their logo onto the bezel. In that manner, they would not violate no. 2, and would be free to sell once again.


They already do - on retail units. The Tab 10.1 prototype didn't have the logo on the front, just like the prototype Galaxy SII.
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #90 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really wish people would stop with that nonsense.

The German court relied on the SPECIFICS of the community design patent, not any one element. If you look at the final German decision:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-regional.html.

German court decision is not "final" and is a subject to appeal. The ruling was made without presence of Samsung lawyers and the "rectangle" patent will be eventually invalidated.

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #91 of 112
but, again, the Tab wasn't banned for looking like an iPad.
post #92 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

The dollars do not come from consumers. They come from the owners of the companies involved.

And those owners hire management types who decide that it is more profitable to use the dollars for lawsuits, rather than pursuing other available alternatives.

If you are talking about this crap being a drain on the economy overall, I won't argue. Litigation is, IMO, a huge waste of resources compared with many alternatives. But the resources are not public resources, but instead, are privately owned. The companies involved can use their money any way they choose. That is the nature of capitalism.

Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.

It is useful to question whether granting bullshit patents to Apple and then allowing Apple to foreclose obvious designs by other companies makes any sense. But that is a meta-question in the sphere of economic regulation, and should rightly be discussed in those terms. Many posters dislike these bullshit patents that Apple has been granted. May posters dislike the regulatory scheme which allows Apple to secure and to exploit such patents.

The money which consumers pay is to support the USPTO and the court system. Apple uses both of these public goods to gain higher private gains. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that Apple's owners pay to use litigation as a means to increase their profits.

Many poster's dislike that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone and iPad and that the money they contribute as consumers buying products, has to be wasted on lawsuits instead of on improving on future products through spending on R&D (which deserves to be protected).

Say whatever you want about patents but APPLE IS PLAYING WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #93 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really wish people would stop with that nonsense.

I'm sorry, what I said wasn't nonsense, I was responding to the nonsense of others here.
post #94 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Um what? If you are trying to compare a phone that is 6 mos. Old to one that is 16 mos. Old then it is definitely a valid point.

It's Apple's own problem, that they unable to come up for 16 month with another iPhone. So if we compare phones it would be fair compare current-to-current.

But even 16 month ago the iPhone 4 was already obsolete on arrival vs. HTC and Samsung phones. For instance, unlike iphone 4, the HTC EVO offered: 4G, 4.3" screen (while screen sizes 3.5"-4" also available), wi-fi hot spot capabilities - 8 devices, FM radio, HDMI port, removable battery, better camera (both back and front), removable flash memory, Swype input option, wireless system updates, Flash, OS notifications. As result, inspite the all this iphone hype and huge apple marketing effort, the HTC EVO 4G still has higher user rating on all 3 sites: Amazon.com, Cnet.com and Phonearena.com


Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

As for 4G, I had an edge phone (original iPhone) until this year. 4G is simply not as important to some as others and it's especially not a big deal to someone who doesn't even get it in his/her area.

"Not important" until a new steve jobs would proudly keynote talk about world fastest 4G iPhone
If this Fall Apple unable to release 4G iphone and large screen version, they will continue losing market share.

In stead of innovating, Apple is trying to ride the old hype, trying to compensate the lack of new products with bogus "rectangle" law suites and massive marketing campaigns. Apple is lazy and greedy.

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #95 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

...better camera...

That is definitely not true, although I agree with you for the most part.
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #96 of 112
Quote:
"Not important" until a new steve jobs would proudly keynote talk about world fastest 4G iPhone
If this Fall Apple unable to release 4G iphone and large screen version, they will continue losing market share.

Nice to know that you don't read the posts you quote. I had stated that I had the original iPhone until THIS year which had edge only. If I were to react the way you stated, wouldn't I have run out and bought the 3G when it was available? Hell, I had the money. As I sated before, those things aren't important to some people.

As for "losing market share" talk to me when a non-iPhone becomes the best selling smartphone in a given year.
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 #97 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Nice to know that you don't read the posts you quote. I had stated that I had the original iPhone until THIS year which had edge only. If I were to react the way you stated, wouldn't I have run out and bought the 3G when it was available? Hell, I had the money. As I sated before, those things aren't important to some people.

As for "losing market share" talk to me when a non-iPhone becomes the best selling smartphone in a given year.

eh Android phones compete against iPhones and each other. impossible for a single Android device to outsell the iPhone or even 2.

Also I hate that "iPhone is losing marketshare" argument as if they are losing customers. The smartphone segment is exploding. as such both platforms are gaining users
post #98 of 112
deleted
post #99 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really wish people would stop with that nonsense.

You did not understand what I meant. I think you can go back my post and visit those 3 links. Take your time.
post #100 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

eh Android phones compete against iPhones and each other. impossible for a single Android device to outsell the iPhone or even 2.

Why? I understand why it would be difficult since most carriers would showcase all Androids next to each other. But why would be it be impossible? If someone can make their Android phone stand out based on feature or price, it can rival the iPhone. For example, the Galaxy S (and now S2) stands out with a great display and it is outselling phones from HTC and Moto, even though Samsung gave the other companies to have a head start.
post #101 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Why? I understand why it would be difficult since most carriers would showcase all Androids next to each other. But why would be it be impossible? If someone can make their Android phone stand out based on feature or price, it can rival the iPhone. For example, the Galaxy S (and now S2) stands out with a great display and it is outselling phones from HTC and Moto, even though Samsung gave the other companies to have a head start.

True. But everyone who wants an iPhone usually has one or two options. Everyone who wants Android has many options. Granted impossible was a strong word. Unlikely is more suitable. (Fixed autocap BTW. Turns out I had the setting set to off)
post #102 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

You did not understand what I meant. I think you can go back my post and visit those 3 links. Take your time.

I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:
Quote:
computer products characterized by

(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,

(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,

(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,

(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,

(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and

(vi) a thin form factor

So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #103 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:


So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.

Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?

Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.

GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.

Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?
post #104 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?

Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.

GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.

Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?

Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.

The judge was clear. The injunction covers:
Quote:
computer products characterized by

(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,

(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,

(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,

(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,

(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and

(vi) a thin form factor

It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.

Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #105 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.

The judge was clear. The injunction covers:


It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.

Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.

You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)

Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.
post #106 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)

Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.

Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #107 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.

I thought the judge in the case was female, not that it affects the judgement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.

Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.
post #109 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.

Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #110 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.

I dont know why you keep saying this copy thing. When I purchased Ipad2, I compared it with GT 10.1, it is nothing a like apart from retangular shape with rounded corners. You have more possiblilites with GT 10.1 whereas Ipad2 has quite limited usage. In this sense, GT 10.1 is more like tablet computer whereas Ipad2 is more like an expensive toy.

I have been saying since around two month ago, if Apple add more features in Iphone 5 to match Galaxy S2, would you call this time 'copy' to Apple?

By the way, I think Ipad aluminum case is really cool. Would Iphone 5 be comming out in aluminum case?
post #111 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.

The tab wasn't banned for looking like an iPad though o.O
post #112 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youarewrong View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99

better camera...

That is definitely not true, although I agree with you for the most part.

What do you mean "definitely not true"? HTC has 1.3 mpx front camera vs. iPhone's 0.3 mpx camera. iPhone front camera is just crappy.

The iPhone back camera is pretty good, but again at 5mpx you can't get as much detail and low noise as 8mpx camera. Check out this comparison and you will see that iPhone camera has high noise level vs. older 2010 8mpx HTC. The new Galaxy camera is even better.
http://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?...&idPhone3=3788

Also HTC has face recognition which is very handy.

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung files patent case against Apple in Australia over iPhone, iPad