or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia - Page 4

post #121 of 171
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/...t.html?_r=1&hp

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #122 of 171
Quote:

well this should get even more interesting huh?
post #123 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

I should stop replying all these comments...

The problem with upholding the Apple's design claim is that it will give a way too favorable advantage to Apple in the long run.

Current design trend is minimal and simple; rather than adding craps on the hardware, people now try to make it clean and slim. I will give some credits to Apple for leading this trend.

In that case, if Apple succeed in this lawsuit against Samsung who tried to mimic Apple's design philosophy and doing so blatantly copied some of their accessories, all the other manufacturers will be discouraged from designing or manufacturing the designed in such a way products.

Then people will ask, while buying another Apple product, why do other manufacturers make products this ugly? Well, you know why. Apple will sue you if you make it clean like Apple does.

Also to note is that Apple's design is more of a bare minimum of a product type.

Even if technology allows in the future, if Apple's current design is upheld to be a right, others cannot make a paper like tablet without adding some dongles and shit around the side corner or back, or make the display triangle. (I know it is extreme but you see how ruling on a design can have serious consequences.) I perceive some counter arguments for this argument, but I am more of an opinion with not upholding Apple's design claim, so I will stop here.

This real issue is:

We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"

So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.

So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?

Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #124 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

This real issue is:

We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"

So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.

So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?

Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.

I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.

As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
post #125 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.

As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.

If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"

The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.

But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
post #126 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?

Among others, he's me, SFB....
post #127 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

SFB....

Super-Fly Brosephus?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #128 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.

It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.

I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.

Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.
post #129 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.

True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.

It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.

How this will shake out remains to be seen.
post #130 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around

Well, if it was so danged easy, they should have done it, and saved everybody a world of grief. So you're probably full of that dark, brown, smelly stuff.
post #131 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"

The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.

But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."

When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?
post #132 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.

No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.

And Apple did improve them.

But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
post #133 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

It is about monopoly nothing else.

Um, that's what a patent is; a monopoly.
post #134 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.

It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.

How this will shake out remains to be seen.

Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.

It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.
post #135 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.

I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.
post #136 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Um, that's what a patent is; a monopoly.

Not true at all.
post #137 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.

Did they look like iPhones?
post #138 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Not true at all.

You saying it's not true doesn't make it so.
post #139 of 171
Quote:

Only if Apple has valid patents. You need to read the article.
post #140 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.

It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.

Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?

Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
post #141 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

You saying it's not true doesn't make it so.

Damn, you're right. You saying so must make it true.

Juvenile answer.
post #142 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Not true at all.

From Wikipedia:

"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."

"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."
post #143 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"

The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.

But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."

Good point. But I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the only manufacturer that Apple is trying to enjoin in federal court (and in courts of other nations) is Samsung. The others as far as I know are federal and ITC cases that involve many claims and counterclaims that will take a long time to settle, and appear to be more a part of normal day-to-day competition between technology companies under our crazy patent system.

But seeking and getting an injunction, which can take effect in days or weeks rather than the years of normal cases, and which costs Samsung $$$$$ immediately, is going nuclear.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #144 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?

both...though Apple seems to be going after the other companies less harshly...no doubt due to the fact that Samsung IS a copycat...whereas the others are possible infringers.
post #145 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did they look like iPhones?

If Samsung has slavishly copied the iPhone, then the others must resemble it too?

post #146 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

From Wikipedia:

"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."

"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."

post #147 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Damn, you're right. You saying so must make it true.

Juvenile answer.

Where's your proof? Put up or shut up.
post #148 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?

Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.

I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?

Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.
post #149 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


I'm still waiting for that proof....
post #150 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?

Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.

Do you mean to say that it's hard NOT to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against Apple claims?
post #151 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

I'm still waiting for that proof....

Still waiting....
post #152 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

I'm still waiting for that proof....

What is a monopoly, dude?
post #153 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

What is a monopoly, dude?

What, you can't read, dude? Just type in a bunch of ?
post #154 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

What, you can't read, dude? Just type in a bunch of ?

You're boring. EOL.
post #155 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.

Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.

OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.

However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.

And Foss seems to like Apple's chances - and he seems to know more than any of us...
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-to-shut.html

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #156 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.

That's an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate on the "not playing by the rules" bit? I guess I'm not fully aware of that aspect of the situation.
post #157 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

If Samsung has slavishly copied the iPhone, then the others must resemble it too?


Of course. Silly of me to ask.
post #158 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.

And Apple did improve them.

But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.

way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.
post #159 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.

And Apple did improve them.

But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.

Cynical is perhaps the wrong word, but in any case, you may be taking too narrow a view. It would be unfair to say that in improving those things, Apple did not innovate and invent, and I think stelligent is saying that it diminishes your arguments by making that claim. Slightly paraphrased of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?

Do you believe that other companies don't also use the legal system to their best advantage, or that Apple should not? That the obvious failings in the patent laws around the world that allow this type of claim should be magnanimously ignored by companies who might be in a position to use them? As in "we could have obtained legal protection against being copied, but we think the law is badly written so we chose not too"? Shareholders might regard that as somewhat negligent.
post #160 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.

However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.

Indeed, they appear to have a dozen or more USA patents applied for, some of which have been granted, related to multitouch. Presumably they have similar portfolios in other international jurisdictions which permit software patents.

None of the so-far granted patents cover the principle of multi-touch in general. Rather, they deal with specific use-cases of ways in which objects in a graphical user interface react to various touch stimuli.

For example, one of the patents that Apple has had success with in the Netherlands, apparently has to do with using a swiping gesture over a photograph in an album to move on to the next or previous photo. The patent doesn't cover swiping gestures in general -- it only covers one specific way in which a photo album specifically would react to a swiping gesture -- by switching photos.

Samsung already plans to circumvent that patent, on its way to getting around the Netherlands injunction, by releasing a software update that presumably uses a different mechanism to switch between photos.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia