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 2

post #41 of 171
Consumers may benefit in the short term from blatant copying, but they lose in the long term because companies like Apple lose the inceptive to spend hundreds of millions in research. It costs much less to copy somebody else's designs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

and a great loss for consumers. and thinking again what Apple did with iOS5's notification system, oh and think again what invention means in dictionary.
post #42 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

The picture you provide is just evidence for Apple.

Every single Tablet before Apple had a stylus. I think you know that Samsung does not use stylus on their tablets.

Apple releases a tablet without Stylus. Somehow all competitors decide to do the same.

The multitouch/touch patent is something that Apple have. Just build your beloved Samsung's without these features, and there would not be a problem. (beside all the patent infringements that Linux have. But Apple does not care about that. Other companies will sue for that)

The stylus doesn't matter. The fact that a design patent was granted based on a design that already existed does.

my point was simply to rebut his claim that tablets didn't have that shape beforehand. This really has no bearing on this case as the two patents that are allegedly violated are not based on design.

And no, I don't think anyone should be able to patent multitouch specifically, maybe certain gestures sure, but not the tech.
post #43 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Wrong.

I think you need to learn what is a trend.
I can prop as much as you'd be pleased about the fact that Apple leads a trend in industrial design: minimalistic and yet premium look and feel.

And that fact itself gives them competitive advantages.
People already know what Apple creates, how Apple products look like, and who is KIRF-ing.

Sure, they were the first manufacturer that actually created a tablet that looks like prototypes/concept designs that were introduced long before in movies and tv shows.

Just because they did so first, Apple claims that they should have exclusive control over the design and the trend.

WTF?

Hey a Tablet is still a Tablet. Looking good Tablet is one thing, and the other manufacturers can follow the good looking tablet design cues and that creates a tablet design trend.

and let's be honest.

Apple INVENTED NO SHIT. A Patent right is for protecting Innovations.
What Apple wanted to protect from their design is their trademark.
And Apple should've registered their design as a trademark which would be much more reluctantly give preliminary injunctions for infringements.

Again, Apple VASTLY IMPROVED already existing tablets, I give that, but NOT INNOVATED.

Design trends don't exist anymore...now it's all about who did it first should own it forever...as long as it's Apple. -_-
post #44 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Can you say monopoly? Nice try. Can you say samsung? I knew you could. Any one care for a macintosh apple? The world loves apples. One a day keeps the teacher away.

An apple was the instrumentality of original sin.
post #45 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Who cares. A ban is a ban, and it hurts where it should.

Ouch. Don't copy, don't steal.

yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.

The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.

The second is based on two broad patents.

soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
post #46 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Every single Tablet before Apple had a stylus. I think you know that Samsung does not use stylus on their tablets.

More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.
post #47 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

you were saying?



and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?

why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?

First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones

And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)

It's crazy.

PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start



Reality Ignorance Field is more like it.
post #48 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow415 View Post

More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.

THAT

does

NOT

matter.


The point was that the shape existed yet Apple has a patent on it and thus the Tab was banned over a DRAWING of a product that does not exist, and Apple will most likely NEVER create.

Peep the images I linked in a previous post.
post #49 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The only ones who refuse to acknowledge the blatancy of Samsung's copying are probably shills paid for by Samsung.

Stop the Apple fanboyism. This injunction isn't about copying the appearance of the Apple iPad, it is about patents. Get your facts straight.
post #50 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post


No one is complaining about WebOS. Palm at least tried to innovate.
Android in other hand is a flawed system. Google have so far almost spent 20 billion on a "free" system. Instead of buying things: try to build your own. It would have been much cheaper.

Cough...Siri...Cough
post #51 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The Federal Court in Australia has agreed to Apple's request to a preliminary ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the country, providing the iPad maker with yet another victory in its tense legal battle against its rival.

Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.
post #52 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80025 View Post

Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.

NO. This isn't about copying the iPad's appearance. This is about patents, specifically multitouch patents. The looks of the iPad and the other tablets are TRENDS...that has nothing to do with this injunction.
post #53 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.

The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.

The second is based on two broad patents.

soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.

www.thesaurus.com You're right, it's not copying..... :-)

Main Entrytinfringe  
[in-frinj] Show IPA
Part of Speechtverb
Definitiontviolate
Synonymst borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass
Notestto impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate
Antonymst comply, discharge, obey, observe
post #54 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

You should really stop playing that 'Apple copied the iOS5 notification system from xyz' crap, because it's really a stupid poor man's excuse for anything. There is nothing special about the iOS 5 notification system, but there wasn't anything special about it when every other phone or desktop OS implemented it before. I have had Linux distro's from 1999 on my PC that have a notification tray that works exactly the same. Android copied it from someone, WebOS did, WM did, and so on and so forth.

The only thing you can say about the iOS 5 notification system is that it was long overdue, and Apple really should have improved iOS notfications long ago, but they screwed up there. That's it. Fortunately there's a million other things in iOS that are a million times better than they are in Android, which have always compensated for the crappy notification system by a large margin.

Obsessively trying to point out how Android already had notifications sorted out long ago makes it look like Android must otherwise be extremely crappy, if the best you can come up with is 'OMFG iOS now has a feature that works just like Android, Apple is copying Android'. Doesn't Android have any other strong points where it beats iOS or have all the advantages it ever had been sorted out and we can leave the platform to die now?


that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.

the point of Apple "copying" was to show that Apple "cleverly" uses the legal system to protect what they IMPROVED (NOT INNOVATED) and still be allowed to copy from others that cannot be protected.

stop bitching about choice of examples. you get the point.

*besides I used quotation marks for the word copied not to emphasize but to indicate it is a subjective interpretation.
post #55 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.

The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.

The second is based on two broad patents.

soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.

You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.

Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.

It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
"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 #56 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

you were saying?



and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?

why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?

First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones

And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)

It's crazy.

PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start

The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
"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 #57 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Consumers may benefit in the short term from blatant copying, but they lose in the long term because companies like Apple lose the inceptive to spend hundreds of millions in research. It costs much less to copy somebody else's designs.

I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.

Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.

First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?

Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?

Meh, that's way too harsh. The rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction, though I think Apple should get 0 off the design claims.
post #58 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

www.thesaurus.com You're right, it's not copying..... :-)

Main Entrytinfringe  
[in-frinj] Show IPA
Part of Speechtverb
Definitiontviolate
Synonymst borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass
Notestto impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate
Antonymst comply, discharge, obey, observe

You do know you're being disingenuous right?
post #59 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.

Again, the Tab was not banned for looking like an iPad.

The Tab was banned for resembling a drawing of a product that does not exist.
post #60 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.

Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.

It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.

6 criteria based on a drawing. If I'm wrong, correct me and I will stand corrected.

edit: let's not even bother getting into that as this injunction isn't based on any design.
post #61 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.

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.
post #62 of 171
The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.

Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.

Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.

Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.

So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.

Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.

First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?

Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?

Meh, that's way too harsh. the rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction.
post #63 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You do know you're being disingenuous right?

Wrong.
post #64 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

if you really can't distinguish and make mistake between Galaxy Series and iPhone/iPad, I am sorry.

A few judges around the world couldn't either, maybe we're all dumb and you and Samsung are the smart ones.
post #65 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


are these two patents on a) a multitouch screen and b) using a multitouch screen to controll a user interface?????

wow if that's the case.

Yep, those patents.

I love this part of Steve's introduction of the iPhone in '07:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

We waited a long time for this day!

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #66 of 171
"MultiTouch" as a trademark was ruled against recently. The court said that the word was in such common usage, almost immediately after Apple released the iPhone, that it couldn't be trademarked. Of course it was in common usage because of Google's rip-off of Apple's technology.

Well, it looks like the copyists will be able to use the word but not the technology!

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #67 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.

If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .

The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.

If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
post #68 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .

The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.

If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.

Isn't it just easier to point to how Android's notifactions reselembed Palm's and that Apple hired the guy who designed Palm's implimentation?
post #69 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post

A few judges around the world couldn't either, maybe we're all dumb and you and Samsung are the smart ones.

Wasn't one of them lacking physical units to examine? Also did they turn on the devices and use them? I'm just wondering what the method of determination was here. I like the ipad. I haven't seen the other around to really look at it. I've read the articles on these things. It's still unclear how far they went with testing. Computers in general have had a tendency toward design homogenization with regard to fairly mainstream volume devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

you were saying?



That really made me laugh. The one with the carrying handles and bumpered corners are hilarious. I'm sure at least some people realize the design styles on the right have existed for quite some time. Windows CE also existed as a low overhead OS for such devices. It may not have been popular but it has existed since the 1990s.
post #70 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Yep, those patents.

I love this part of Steve's introduction of the iPhone in '07:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

We waited a long time for this day!

we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?
post #71 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .

The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.

If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.

so ironic...
post #72 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 View Post

Isn't it just easier to point to how Android's notifactions reselembed Palm's and that Apple hired the guy who designed Palm's implimentation?

which palm OS had Android like notifications?
post #73 of 171
deleted
post #74 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

which palm OS had Android like notifications?

webOS

http://www.electronista.com/articles...notifications/

or

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...porate_hq.html

last paragraph
post #75 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.

If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?

This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.

If these patents hold up (In Australia) then Apple could effectively monopolize the modern touch device sector as single touch devices are not very functional.


Now one thing I don't get...

Apple didn't invent multitouch specifically as related to tech nor the entire concept of using more than one appendage/finger to manipulate something

nor did they invent the tech that is necessary for multitouch to exist...

so how do they own the patent to using more than one appendage of your body to manipulate something?
post #76 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.

If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?

This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.

In this case they are armed with a couple of patents, not a sketch. Perhaps you only read the first paragraph of the article?
post #77 of 171

ummmmmm Android came out before Web OS though....sooooooooooo wtf? Did you just rewrite time for your own personal agenda?

A) I'm aware they hired the Palm guy...so what.

B) I don't feel that copying and improving upon Android's implementation is wrong in any way. A bit hypocritical, sure, but not wrong at all. I don't think software should be patentable to the degree that it is. It's practically like trying to patent slide to unlock or something...utterly ridiculous.
post #78 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

ummmmmm Android came out before Web OS though....sooooooooooo wtf? Did you just rewrite time for your own personal agenda?

I simply answered your question: "Which Palm OS had android like notifications?"
I have no agenda. FWIW, I use an android phone. Big deal - it's a phone - no more, no less.
post #79 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In this case they are armed with a couple of patents, not a sketch. Perhaps you only read the first paragraph of the article?

a lot of people are skimming then commenting...both pro and con...


it should've been made clear that this injunction is not like the German one.
post #80 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

I simply answered your question: "Which Palm OS had android like notifications?"
I have no agenda. FWIW, I use an android phone. Big deal - it's a phone - no more, no less.

the way you worded it implied a succession of events that didn't take place.

It'd be like saying Androids notifications resemble iOS's...that implies that Android's came after iOS's....

so the confusion is because of wording...plus people have adamantly said that Android stole WebOS's notifications...what went unsaid was if Google stole or made the time machine in house.
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