or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away - Page 3

post #81 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Wow! I can't even make this stuff up.

This was definitely a Perry Mason moment in the courtroom!
post #82 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I hope you never become near-sighted, but I also hope you live a long life, and the two rarely coincide.

Right. Samsung's lawyer can't afford glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

This will just make it bad for tech over all. Can you tell a samsung Tv, Lg Tv, Sony TV, and Vizio TV from 20 feet away. This may set a precedent going the wrong way.

The problem with that logic is that if all TV's look the same, then it's not a trade dress issue. It would only be an issue if someone created a TV that looked entirely different and then others copied it - which is what happened with the iPad.

And to disarm some of the other stupid arguments, you'll notice that Apple isn't going after all the rectangular tablets with rounded corners. If you read the German judge's decision, Samsung's tablets were only banned because they are near exact copies of Apple's iPad in 5 or 6 different criteria - which would have been easy to work around if Samsung weren't trying so hard to confuse 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 #83 of 194
I don't think a common consumer will be able to tell which one is iPad and which one is Galaxy if they're new to the tablet market. They have no idea what they suppose to look like other than a rectangle shape tablet.

Can you tell which digital camera is by Canon and which is by Olympus without looking at the logo? The 2 cameras may be totally different look but you may not be able to tell if you're new to the digital camera market.

A more fair question for a common consumer is "Are these 2 pads different products or they're the same product?" I think a common consumer should be able to answer that.

A common consumer thinking about buying a tablet will do his/her research and try the devices out before plunging >$500 into it. They will not mistake one tablet from another.
post #84 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.

Ja, maybe from 30 or more feet away ... if you can't stand ten feet in front of a TV and tell if it's Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox then you really need to get your head or your vision checked.

Any idiot could stand 10 feet into front of a TV and tell what brand it was ... your suggestion is just patently absurd.

The fact this lawyer, standing just 10 feet away, couldn't tell the difference between an iPad2 and the Samsung Galaxy Tab II speaks volumes about the issue at hand ...
post #85 of 194
deleted
post #86 of 194
Can you tell the TV is by Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox if the logo is missing or is on the back of the TV?
post #87 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Apple doesn't seen to be playing up the trade dress angle; most of their claims right now center around design patents, which present a very different set of requirements.

Really? Then why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney to tell the difference?
"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 #88 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Can you tell the TV is by Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox if the logo is missing or is on the back of the TV?

I like how you left LG off that list. You can always tell LG from the "Touch of Crap" they put on all their stuff.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #89 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're probably going to want to reread his post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder6 View Post

Isn't that what he just said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

While a ban on selling Galaxy pads would be brutal for Samsung, the sting felt as Apple slowly withdraws from every contract with them will hurt even more.

Oops! You guys are right. I misread it to mean Apple will feel the sting when Samsung withdraws from the contracts to build idevices.
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
post #90 of 194
deleted
post #91 of 194
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #92 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Ask Meuller. He's done a good job explaining the difference between design patents and trade dress in the past, so I'm sure he'll be able to arrive at an answer you'll find satisfying.

No, I'm asking you. You're the one that said the appearance was irrelevant. Once again, if the appearance is irrelevant, why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney which was which.
"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 #93 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Some iPads have a black screen with a White border.

In fact, if Sammy were smart, they'd pick a different color for their tablets -- maybe:


I think you know that's being pedantic. Apple make black iPads and white ones, so those colours are out? Each company should use a different colour?

The tech industry has a long history of using black as it's primary colour. Almost every television is black for a reason; it's less distracting.
post #94 of 194
deleted
post #95 of 194
First to innovate. Not first to patent or first to conceptualize or first to "air design." Ideas and notions cannot be patented.
Apple owns FingerWorks and it's patents. Also many of their patents have to do with specific ways to implement multitouch.
But this case is mostly about design patents, which are a slam dunk for Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.

But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:

Pinch and zoom circa 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY

Microsoft Multi-Touch Patent App Predates Apples
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609

Tablet UI concepts, circa 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

Touch gestures, including two-finger pinch, circa 1992:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30828816089246

Multitouch UIs, 1970s forward:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

And then there's this summary from Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.

That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
post #96 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Other highlights from the article:

HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"

"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."

"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."

"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."

"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"


So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.

What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.

Ummm... it is called APPLE insider... Go troll the Android Insider board...
post #97 of 194
Wow. She slapped down Samsung Judge Judy style. =)
post #98 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Right. Samsung's lawyer can't afford glasses.




Maybe she's too vain? And she ran out of fresh contacts, because she's been working 20 hour days?

Impossible.
post #99 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind

Well jump in a time machine and go back and help Samsung's lawyer to do that.

Tough luck, you can't.

Could have, would have, should have, the lawyers blew it.

The lawyers blew it, get over it, move on.

Samsung slavishly copied Apple and everyone except a few diehards knows that.
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 #100 of 194
Yep,

You simply have to turn them on and realize that they are completely different...

I hate the look and feel patents.... The patents should be banned not the hardware....
post #101 of 194
In deference to MacRulez, I think Bill Buxton summed things up nicely with this phrase:

Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee

Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation:

http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf Note the FACT that Wayne Westerman and his company FingerWorks were acquired by Apple in 2005. In regards to the Knight-Rider think tank. It went belly up more than 10 years before the Apple Multi-Touch patent was filed for. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/03/bu...earch-lab.html So much for any prior patents there, as they would have expired if there were any. As to Microsoft's "Competing" patent, they have not sued Apple for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be that they are the ones trying to run patent interference. Would a company that has been accused and convicted of anticompetitive business practices in more than one country possibly be the guilty party? Maybe this "patent" is part of the reason why Microsoft chose to strong-arm Android licensees rather than actually challenge Google directly.

Leave it to the FanDroids to use specious logic to defend IP theft. Like product like consumer.
post #102 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmith123 View Post

In deference to MacRulez, I think Bill Buxton summed things up nicely with this phrase:

Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee

Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation:

http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf Note the FACT that Wayne Westerman and his company FingerWorks were acquired by Apple in 2005. In regards to the Knight-Rider think tank. It went belly up more than 10 years before the Apple Multi-Touch patent was filed for. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/03/bu...earch-lab.html So much for any prior patents there, as they would have expired if there were any. As to Microsoft's "Competing" patent, they have not sued Apple for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be that they are the ones trying to run patent interference. Would a company that has been accused and convicted of anticompetitive business practices in more than one country possibly be the guilty party? Maybe this "patent" is part of the reason why Microsoft chose to strong-arm Android licensees rather than actually challenge Google directly.

Leave it to the FanDroids to use specious logic to defend IP theft. Like product like consumer.

You just pretty much pointed out that multi-touch screens should be unpatentable as well as some gestures....then you somehow saw that as something bad and pro Apple because the company went under? If the patents expired aren't they open to all at that point?
post #103 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Well jump in a time machine and go back and help Samsung's lawyer to do that.

Tough luck, you can't.

Could have, would have, should have, the lawyers blew it.

The lawyers blew it, get over it, move on.

Samsung slavishly copied Apple and everyone except a few diehards knows that.

if Samsung slavishly copied Apple they would've made a 4:3 device with a single button on the front and an iOS like modification of Android on it.

What samsung did was take a few too many design cues from Apple and SHOULD pay for that. However what Apple is going for sets a negative precedent for the entire industry.

IN

MY

OPINION.
post #104 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1h15233 View Post

This lawyer should have at least guessed. She had a 50/50 shot haha.

And if the lawyer guessed and got it wrong, it would be ten times the story. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing the rule to follow in court is "Don't bullshit the judge. It'll bite you."
post #105 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

that Apple's patent might be invalid

A little logic for you...

The fact that it MIGHT be invalid is the same as saying it MIGHT NOT be invalid.

If you allow for the possibility that something might be true, it's corollary is also true.
post #106 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Yep,

You simply have to turn them on and realize that they are completely different...

I hate the look and feel patents.... The patents should be banned not the hardware....

I don't mind look and feel patents...but they should be a LOT more specific.
post #107 of 194
IF you can't tell a 16:9 screen apart from at 4:3 screen you shouldn't be ab;e to be a lawyer.
post #108 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

well, i probably can't tell samsung tv and sony tv apart from 10 feet away.

Well... that's the point of these lawsuits. Sammy copies everyone's popular products!
post #109 of 194
This will all blow over eventually. I really don't think Apple will lose much business to Samsung regardless of the outcome here. The huge pool of apps alone justifies buying the ipad.
post #110 of 194
The ability of human beings to miss the point can be astonishing.

When this case started, Apple had to prove that Samsung violated patents. The judge has agreed that Samsung did violate Apple's patents. To pretend that isn't a huge victory or that now they won't be able to prove that those violations are valid is silly. Apple has been winning these cases.

In fact, isn't this the fourth time a judge in a court of law has said or ruled that Samsung violated Apple's patents?

How many times does this have to happen before Samsung buckles? Plus, Samsung hasn't won any of their countersuits. It's getting worse for them.

To miss the overall point that yet another judge has said that Samsung violated patents, and to miss how Samsung keeps losing, and instead focus on one narrow point, that doesn't even go against Apple really, shows that one has a myopic viewpoint concerning this case.
post #111 of 194
This article was written to be fanboy flame bait \
*saying that and not arguing gives me a special feeling of superiority*
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #112 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

I think this whole lawsuit is just a warning shot to Samsung. They obviously copy the style, which, no coincidentally, is what most of Apple's and Steve's patents are for: design.

They must have been off because Android does not look like iOS.

Most of Apple's patents aren't on design. But those design patents often tie in with non-design patents.
post #113 of 194
deleted
post #114 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamme73 View Post

The ability of human beings to miss the point can be astonishing.

When this case started, Apple had to prove that Samsung violated patents. The judge has agreed that Samsung did violate Apple's patents. To pretend that isn't a huge victory or that now they won't be able to prove that those violations are valid is silly. Apple has been winning these cases.

In fact, isn't this the fourth time a judge in a court of law has said or ruled that Samsung violated Apple's patents?

How many times does this have to happen before Samsung buckles? Plus, Samsung hasn't won any of their countersuits. It's getting worse for them.

To miss the overall point that yet another judge has said that Samsung violated patents, and to miss how Samsung keeps losing, and instead focus on one narrow point, that doesn't even go against Apple really, shows that one has a myopic viewpoint concerning this case.


Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #115 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.

No kidding. I was reading Ars and a poster asked, "How is copying uncompetitive?" I almost spat out my coffee. It makes me wonder if some of the people who says/writes this stuff have jobs or have business dealings in day-to-day life in any meaningful way.
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 #116 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.

What people are saying at least here is that no one should have a patent on the general concept of a minimal tablet. The specific design? Hell yes (and Apple has the specific iPad design patent and rightfully so) a general drawing of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad and resembles tablets prior to the filing? No.

As far as the more technical software patents go I and apparently s lot of judges feel some of them are too broad and basic for a legal monopoly to be upheld.

Those who feel Samsung should be allowed to continue its copying are misguided yes, but as I see here most of the opposers are against some of the most general of patents.

Opinions on these cases aren't a zero sum game. I don't like Samsungs non Nexus devices. In some iterations the subpar ripping off is so blatant Samsung should be forced to recall. The docks and connector similarity as well.

But rounded rectangles? No.

And I'm not really sure what the multi touch patents are specifically so I can't comment on those but if I'm reading them correctly then they are ridiculously general and in some cases nullified (it seems) by prior art.
post #117 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

No kidding. I was reading Ars and a poster asked, "How is copying uncompetitive?" I almost spat out my coffee. It makes me wonder if some of the people who says/writes this stuff have jobs or have business dealings in day-to-day life in any meaningful way.

Whoever said that is probably too anti Apple to think clearly.

Or picked their words poorly.

I feel if company A causes a paradigm shift in a market then others should be allowed to modify business and tech accordingly to compete in this new or modified market. As long as enough differentiation exists it should be allowed (iOS and Android post iOS).
post #118 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

What people are saying at least here is that no one should have a patent on the general concept of a minimal tablet. The specific design? Hell yes (and Apple has the specific iPad design patent and rightfully so) a general drawing of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad and resembles tablets prior to the filing? No.

As far as the more technical software patents go I and apparently s lot of judges feel some of them are too broad and basic for a legal monopoly to be upheld.

Those who feel Samsung should be allowed to continue its copying are misguided yes, but as I see here most of the opposers are against some of the most general of patents.

Opinions on these cases aren't a zero sum game. I don't like Samsungs non Nexus devices. In some iterations the subpar ripping off is so blatant Samsung should be forced to recall. The docks and connector similarity as well.

But rounded rectangles? No.

And I'm not really sure what the multi touch patents are specifically so I can't comment on those but if I'm reading them correctly then they are ridiculously general and in some cases nullified (it seems) by prior art.

I would understand (and even agree) with much of your post except the "rounded rectangle" argument. In that particular case, there were six (6) criteria which included rounded edges and Samsung's product had ALL six (6). There are tons of products that are "rounded rectangles" sold every year and Apple isn't suing those companies. The fact of the matter is there is an amalgamation of design elements that must be used in a product before it is deemed a "copy" and Samsung crossed that line. Boohoo, reap the consequences.
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 #119 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I would understand (and even agree) with much of your post except the "rounded rectangle" argument. In that particular case, there were six (6) criteria which included rounded edges and Samsung's product had ALL six (6). There are tons of products that are "rounded rectangles" sold every year and Apple isn't suing those companies. The fact of the matter is there is an amalgamation of design elements that must be used in a product before it is deemed a "copy" and Samsung crossed that line. Boohoo, reap the consequences.

But the Tab 10.1 really doesn't look like an iPad though.

Do you know what the six criteria were? Because all I could find was that the ban was based on a drawing.
post #120 of 194
The lawyer should have said "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Samsung lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away