Apple offered alternative designs for Galaxy Tab to protect patents - Page 3

Those looks nothing like the iPad. If Samsung made a tablet that looked like that, I doubt Apple would have a problem with it.

Let's see... they're cluttered, have varying bezel sizes, aren't perfect rectangles (they have uneven edges), not all are black, etc.

You don't think there's difference between a Ford and a Toyota? The engines are different, the bodies are different, the finish is different, the performance is different, their reliability is different, etc. And Ford would sue Chevy if Chevy copied Ford's exact motor design bit by bit.

The reason why blue jeans makers don't sue each other is because you can't patent or copyright fashion. The only part of fashion that can be protected are logos and things like the particular stitching on the rear pockets of Levi's jeans. (And while a topic for another day - the fashion industry is actually a very interesting case -- an industry that survives without copyright protection.)

What is actually a "most ridiculous load of crap" are people who make assumptions about the law off the top of their heads without researching it first. And I say that even though I don't necessarily personally agree with all of Apple's arguments in the case.

What I do agree with is this: There was no effective tablet market before Apple because no one knew how to design a tablet properly - they were all taking a PC and shoving it into the form factor of a tablet. Apple re-imagines the tablet, is enormously successful and then is copied by everyone in both the physical design of the products and in many aspects of the UI. No one was producing anything like the iPad before it came along. I'd be pissed if I were Apple as well. Obviously, there's certain aspects of that design that are inherent to a tablet. And Apple cannot protect the basic concept of a tablet. But they can and should fight against anyone who blatantly steals the total idea of their tablet and that's what Samsung has done in this case.

At this point, Apple probably doesn't even really care about Samsung's existing products. They're probably just trying to establish precedents to keep Samsung and others from blatantly copying future Apple devices.

I think you're right. None of the existing "slavish copy" products are much of a threat even in places where they have been sold.

I think it's worth pointing out that the two most successful tablets are ones that were not slavish copies of the iPad - and Apple hasn't made any effort to sue them: HP Touchpad and Amazon Kindle Fire. Clearly, it is possible to create a product that has its own character and design without attracting a lawsuit from Apple. And, based on the above two examples, it looks like a successful strategy.

Consumer confusion is a legal term. Look it up.

Here's a scenario:

Since the iPad is far and away the most dominate tablet computer and the device the majority of average people associate with tablet computing, Grandma sees an ad on the television and wants to buy one for her grandson.

She goes to the store and sees a display with a tablet who's profile looks pretty much like what she saw on the commercial. It doesn't say "iPad" on it, but the price is either the same or lower and it looks like it is pretty much the same. Not knowing the huge difference between Samsung and Apple, she buys it.

Apple's commercial just caused a sale for Samsung.

"Ferdinand Verbiest" or atleast Ford should have received billions in compensation from all car manufactures for 'copying' the design? They could have easily asked other designers to build cars that do not have 4 wheels (or else does not have round wheels??), is not operated by a 'round' steering wheel, does not use side doors for passengers to enter the car and uses something other than gasoline/diesel for the fuel. Thank god Apple did not invent this!

"Should not be thin"? I consider this to be a killer of innovation. If other manufacturers could not come up with a thin design so far does not mean they didnt want to. Just that they could not design one.

Any computer that has a flap, has built-in keyboard and runs the same OS as that of a desktop is not a MacBook. Efficiency and elegance is what it matters and that what Apple should concentrate on. They have power in this space which no one can beat.

Innovation at a fair reach to people is just. when it comes bundled with 300% profit, its greed.

Let's see how many people can use the car analogy!

Do people realize many laws have changes in the last CENTURY? We're also living in a time where it doesn't take years to come out with a me-too product; it can be done in weeks.

Also, Apple doesn't make 300% profit. Besides, the price is set by what the consumer is willing to pay. That's capitalism 101. Since its successful, Apple's prices are exactly what they should be.

What Apple needs to do is stop buying parts from Samsung.
Then enter the TV market and hurt Samsung on all fronts.

And if you agree with Apple, then stop buying Samsung products and spread the word to your friends.

What's really funny is that that list of characteristics has been tried by Apple already. It seems like Apple doesn't care as long as it doesn't look like an iPad.





Here's a history of Apple tablets that never made it to market, but don't have rounded corners and are cluttered.

http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/0...puter-history/

Sigh - at one point there was a company talking about coming out with an iPhone case that would provide real buttons - I wish someone would. It would be perfect for the iPhone/iPod touch.


LOL - one of my favorite Samsung/Apple in-court moments is when one of the judges (in America if memory serves) held both over her head and challenged the Samsun lawyers to point out the Samsung tablet over the iPad.

Not in this forum they can't.

Apple has no choice but to protect its intellectual property.

What does that have to do with anything? Companies copying other companies is only bad if the company copied from is small?

What kind of twisted relativistic logic is that?


How about letting the process work it's way out before coming to conclusions?


from your lips...


If your right and governments are really that stupid, expect more economies to continue to suck.

Even China has realized the economic detriment of cloning and has started cracking down on stuff that five years ago wouldn't have even gotten attention.


Well, at least we agree there are "dumb-ass arguments"

I was playing with a Galaxy Tab 8.9 at Best Buy yesterday. It is sweet.

The 10 inch pads are too big to carry outside the house, and the 7 inch ones can be hard to read without zooming.

The Galaxy Tab 8.9 seems to really hit the sweet spot.

Maybe they are just pissed that other companies waited for their success and then blindly copied them?

Nope - it can't be that at all

When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone and multi-touch, how did he end it?

"And boy have we patented it"

If that's not a clear warning, I don't know what more you would have to have him do?!?

If the design of the iPhone and iPad was so obvious, why was Apple the first to combine all those elements? Why isn't that question being asked or answered? Probably because it doesn't follow the "Apple is just being mean" groupthink

No kidding.


He's not the only one, unfortunately. It never ceases to amaze me for someone who is so non-plussed with Apple products how many he purports to own, and then post about how disappointed or neutral he feels about them. Continually. In an Apple fan site. If there were only a term for such people...

Maybe you don't understand. Apple is targeting the stupid and the gullible among its expected iPad customers. Those customers need Apple's protection against dishonest companies like Amazon and Samsung.

The salesmen all say that the Samsung is basically the same as the iPad, but cheaper. So they fool Apple's rightful customers - the stupid and the gullible.

They should be put in jail. Apple is doing the right thing.

haha, yeah if samsung would have ripped off one of these, they wouldn't be in this trouble

And Apple should be allowed to OWN that sort of customer. They came in to the store because of Apple. If they are uninformed, they should be sold an Apple product. Simple as that. Anything else is misleading Apple's customer. Those Apple customers need protection against these dishonest companies who fool them. Apple is merely extending their warm blanket of consumer protection to the uninformed portion of their rightful customer base.

Dude, I agree with you.

What if you write Nivrel?

[/I][/IMG]

Or Omega?



Or Casio?







Here's the Rolex:

For me, Samsung has copied Apple. That said, this list of suggestions, if it's real, is utterly facetious/ridiculous. I would pay money to see this read aloud in court with a straight face and watch the reaction of Samsung's representatives.

Poor form Apple, and that's from a fan.

A 9.7" tablet is too big to carry outside of the house, but 8.9" is OK?

Are you as delusional in real life as you appear here?

Galaxy Tab: 9.09" x 6.21" (230.9 mm x 157.8 mm)
iPad 2: 9.50" x 7.31" 241.2 mm x 185.7 mm)

Love to see the argument that 0.41" x 1.10" larger is a deal breaker. There are Samsung phones that have more of a size variance than that over the iPhone and won't fit in your pocket but are somehow not a big deal. As you move to larger devices the window for usable size clearly expands yet less than an inch on the diagonal puts the iPad into the "too big" category. I miss when trolls could actually form a decent rebuttal.

You need to actually pick it up and use it to understand. It is magical.

Here's what works for me:

In other words, Samsung could avoid lawsuits (and sales) by unleashing the Power of the Pyramid.

According to the EU, if there is only one way of designing something you can't patent that design

Exactly.

The entire point of this lawsuit is not to defeat Samsung or stop them from selling phones & tablets, but to humiliate and expose them to the public for their copy cat lineup.

When this is all said and done, the LAST thing Samsung will be attempting to do in the future.. is continue to copy an apple product.

I see now these were examples of how Samsung could have differentiated their copycat designs, not specific things that vendors can't do.

This is all I know, and you can bet the farm that after all is said and done, much will have been said and nothing done to Samsung.

Clearly there are multiple ways to design a tablet.

Also, per my example, it is the COMBINATION of a round inflatable trampoline AND the specific color scheme. Neither on its own means anything; it is the specific combination that is more than the sum of its parts. Which is what is central to a trade dress suit.

I dont like the way any large tablet fits in my had, its hard to grip them, never really feels secure, I wish nook would resigned their belt loop, making large enough to slide your thumb in it, that way you have a positive grip on it.

Anything but a rectangle.

What about white iPads & iPhones?

Apple did not file on any single of these points. It was the combination of them all so the final product looks like an iPad.

How many ways is there to design a rectangle?

Other tablets aren't simple rectangles. An organic shape that better fits the hand could work. Sony presented a slopes design. The front doesn't have to be flat: it could have a ridge along the bezel. The bezel doesn't have to be glossy. Etc.

Apple uses a minimalist design. You mistake that for the only way to make it. Minimalism isn't the only way to design things. Look at phones: most look way different than the iPhone, which is "just a rectangle".

Not from the front they dont. They all have a flat slab of glass with a black border and rounded corners.

You got it, although it's trademarks. That said in most countries trade dress patents fall into the same group.

Part of that requirement is that if you don't protect now you lose the right to protect later. Apple can't risk that a judge would say that Samsung is a blatant copy when they are trying to sue some company over a point for point knock off. And since they let Samsung get away with it clearly they don't care about the design etc so they lose this new case also

iPhones started in 2006 so one would hazard that, since the iPad is just a big iPhone, it would look basically like that.

And according to Apple, there clearly is NOT.

Heck even they with the iPad have had two different physical designs. Similar in some ways yes. But the iPad 1 is not an identical copy of the iPad 2. Plus you have Microsoft showing that you most definitely do not have to have little icons on a screen or even a 'bar' to make a UI. And so on

And when exactly did all of those phones start having a flat slab of glass with a black border and rounded corners.

About the same time that the iPhone was originally announced. More to the point, shortly after.

Even Android turn a huge right turn after the iPhone was announced. Before that, the prototypes etc showed a RIM style program. Then after the iPhone was announced they suddenly went all touchscreen etc.

but of course that's total coincidence.