AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S. - Page 4

post #121 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Apple is claiming only front design in most of their design patents.

So it is not wrong to compare the front side of two devices.

Though it is also clear that from other sides it is quite dissimilar with IPAD

Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But your claim was that there were no tablets on the market and you were proven wrong. Regardless of thickness and it's touch input. All Apple did was take an existing form factor and make it svelte and sexy and showed that it worked much better with a mobile OS than a streamlined version of a PC OS.

I never said there were no tablets on the market. Please quote me where i said that. I said there were no tablets on the market anything like the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

It seems to me that in various subjects, more can be patented in the US than in the rest of the world, which, as the example seems to show, does not give necessarily any protection to the one who owns the patent. There has been a long debate in Europe about software patents, for example (I cannot even say what is now the current status). Legislation differ depending on what part of the world you are, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of any particular justice decision.

No, but I think you can draw conclusions based on the overall marketplace offered by the laws/regulations inherent to it.

Even though the US has faltered and isn't the clear leader in innovation, there are still more new products and ideas emerging first in the US than other countries. In tech and software, look at revenues for companies based in different countries. To imply there isn't direct correlation is just silly.

Quote:
As noted by many posts, there is a specific antagonism between Apple and Samsung which explain the energy they put into these disputes.

Yes, blatently copying of the entire Apple user experience developed for the iPad. Plenty of alternative experiences have been demonstrated in this and other threads.

Quote:
I believe all Apple competitors will be cut into tiny bits in a near future, with the exception of Samsung.

I believe all Android iPad competitors will be cut to bits - but by the Kindle fire sucking out what little oxygen exists aside from the iPad, not because of Samsung or the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.

Quote:
Although these two companies differ on many points, they strangely have one point in common, in their common complete disregard of planet finance opinion, which give them the unique advantage of conducting long term strategies.

Huh? If you are implying money doesn't matter for either company... even with it's cash horde, I guarantee you Apple doesn't take anything fiscal related for granted.

You don't generate huge profits by being cavalier about expenses or profits.

Whether or not it's epic remains to be seen. I personally don't see it going more than a couple of years, and I don't see it making a major difference in the market. But I do think it will set precedent for other companies - particularly other asian companies - that copying Apple will come at a steep price.

As it should.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

In 1997 tablets looked very different from today's iPad.

not to the fandroids/samesung astroturfers. According to them, the iPad is a rip off as there were so many tablets on the market which looked exactly like the ipad. Every tablet before the ipad looked just like the ipad. Thin. Black bevel. No buttons on the bevel. Ran a non-windows OS. All that...before the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.

This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?

If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #126 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Very impressive, but I wonder if the specific devices were cherry-picked.

care to back up your claims or are you just trolling like you always do? I hear Fox News is hiring...you would fit right in there.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Justice has been served.

Nothing has been served - except heaping plates of stupidity.

Quote:
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court. The court has determine it does not.

Sigh - go read the article again. Then try to comprehend. The judge said she doesn't agree with Apple's point that they won't be able to recoup and therefore an injunction isn't merited.

There wasn't a ruling about the merits of Apple's or Samsung's claims. Not in the least.

Quote:
Are you trying to go against the court here?

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse, or are you really just this ignorant of basic processes of the American legal system?

Quote:
Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization. As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster. The same goes for tablets.

Yes, miniaturization is a direct contributor to multi-touch, app stores, glass facing, bezels, tapered cases, single home buttons on the face, etc.

Yup, it's all obvious because of miniaturization

Quote:
Apple's patent argument in court was only about the front.

No it wasn't, but nice try. Thankfully your not a lawyer for either Apple or Samsung. It would probably be more entertaining though!
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?
If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.

Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"

They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."

This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.

Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 275
12/3/11 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

And look at how many people cared... Heck, they were even Bill Gates priority! For over a decade!

His statement was factually incorrect. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
I'd tell you to be careful flinging around so much crap, but then realized it's probably all you know how to do

Doc on the offensive... wrong side of the bed today?
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.

Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.

FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.

It's more like evolution, not revolution.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvshow View Post

So you say that tablet don't look like a iPad?
I think the iPad look exactly like that Joojoo tablet
thin, lightweight, touch UI, no buttons, black bezel, all-glass front panel

The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.

This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/cru...a-little-early
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?

FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.


DaHarder, let me correct your statement:

"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.

They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.

These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.

Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnemani View Post

The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.

This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/cru...a-little-early

Unless the dates have been altered there is plenty of evidence an acknowledgment of the CrunchPad being adead and showing an Atom-based JooJoo at the end of 2009, a month before the iPad was demoed, that had a nice glossy black border and a nice rounded back panel for a 16:9 12" display.

With products being so close together there is no feasible way that these working demos could could have copied each other with a month's difference. Samsung on the other hand has shown too many comparative points that mirror Apple products months after they are released.

Just look at their remote control that looks like an iPhone 4.

Because it's not a phone I don't think Apple would go after this product but it's definitely infringing on the iPhone 4/4S look and feel.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #134 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"

They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."

This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.

Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same

I don't think most people are against all patents, which seems to be the extreme position you're arguing against. There are a number of patents that should probably not have been granted. The "wide-screen" ones recently asserted against Apple might be one example.

Because most patents may have been properly awarded for original/unique inventions does not equate to all patents are good, nor proper, nor wielded fairly and equitably.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #135 of 275
12/3/11 at 12:55pm
One thing is abundantly clear in reading this thread: Androidians are not terribly good at reading comprehension, and do not come through as being thoughtful (or even particularly smart).

All one sees are the proforma knee-jerk nonsense being spewed forth time and again. Like a broken toy that has its battery replaced every once in while....
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Guess you'll have to stop buying Apple products; Samsung supplies a lot of the screens and memory chips in Apple products....

that's all changing and samsung has many divisions...they dont want to lose apple's biz and if they do there be setting up a new co. that will compete with samsung with other clients and not just apple biz.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

DaHarder, let me correct your statement:

"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.

They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.

These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.

Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.

And surely you realize that they had resistive screens because capacitive were either not economically viable, didn't exist in a commercial capacity or weren't manufactured at all at the time those previous tablets were offered. Devices were thick and heavy because the miniature components weren't yet invented.

In essence, if Apple had wanted to build today's version of the iPad in 1994 they could not have. The technology did not exist for Apple anymore than it did for Samsung, Microsoft or any builder of a tablet/slate device.

That makes the talking point "see what tablets look like since the iPad" a ridiculous one. Not belittling Apple's successful design and marketing strategy at all. They are the first to be successful in the segment. It's the "before & after" arguments that show such little intelligent thought.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #138 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G View Post

Really?


Samsung = cheap plasticity knock off, thats why no one lines up for there products


The background wall doesn't belong to Samsung.

Read the facts buddy. Dont believe everything you see and also dont jump to conclusions before you know all the facts.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #139 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:13pm


Samsung: " Sue me"


I wonder what would've happened if Samsung patented the design of a flat screen TV.

Would they have taken the same legal steps that Apple is (childishly) taking now?

IMO, no.

They would create better products that would compete on innovation and additional features in the MARKETPLACE and not in the COURTS.

Companies utilize the courts as a LAST RESORT if all else fails.

Apparently, Apple's ideas are running out for them to resort to these extremes.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #140 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

image: http://www.techshout.com/img/samsung-lcd-750.jpg

Samsung: " Sue me"

1) No rounded corners, much less rounded corners that are nearly identical to the iPad's curve.

2) Most importantly: That's a TV, neither a tablet nor a smartphone.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #141 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post



Samsung: " Sue me"

I'm curious how many times you people have to be proven so completely wrong before you'll shut up about that.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #142 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:27pm
oops
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One thing is abundantly clear in reading this thread: Androidians are not terribly good at reading comprehension, and do not come through as being thoughtful (or even particularly smart).

All one sees are the proforma knee-jerk nonsense being spewed forth time and again. Like a broken toy that has its battery replaced every once in while....


Droidtards are envious of anything Apple. Because they lust after Apple products, but are too greedy to buy them, they get wratthful whenever it is pointed out that Apple makes big profits. They all just gluttons for market share, while slothfully avoiding any work that might result in innovation. And for some reason they are proud of themselves.

You can't say anything too bad about droidtards. It is all OK.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 275
12/3/11 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

DaHarder has been a troll like forever. Don't waste your time responding to his post. Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.

Haha! He's also turned the forums into his own personal web photo service. Most people would just use Picasa or whatever, lol. "And here's my iPad and my Galaxy Tab and Kindle Fire the day we went to the beach. iPad kept kicking sand in Galaxy Tab's face, calling him unloved POS. Oh, those tablets, they love to tease each other."
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #145 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

not to the fandroids/samesung astroturfers. According to them, the iPad is a rip off as there were so many tablets on the market which looked exactly like the ipad. Every tablet before the ipad looked just like the ipad. Thin. Black bevel. No buttons on the bevel. Ran a non-windows OS. All that...before the iPad.

If they really believe that, so what? The irony is that Samsung, Motorola, HP, and all the rest know, they KNOW the iPad is the design to shoot for. Those companies aren't stupid, and they know they're taking design ideas from Apple, whether their fans admit it or not. THEY KNOW.

I thought the iPad more or less took its design cues from the iPhone and iPod Touch designs. Didn't the haters call it "a giant iPod Touch"? Back in 1997, full sized tablets resembled laptops without keyboards, and that's what they were. Heavy, short battery life, slow processors: crippled Windows laptops. Or else they were devices like the Newton 2000.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #146 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:05pm
Now that the Galaxy Tab is still allowed to be sold in the USA, at least for the time being, then everybody can get back to not buying any of them, as has been the case all along.

You'd think that with all of the Fantards around, sales would be much higher. I guess it's all talk and no action for certain people, which is hardly surprising.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Get your facts right. Apple is suing a lot of companies not only Samsung.

In fact in Australian court , apart from debunking Apple's claims, Samsung lawyers also successfully showed that if Galaxy Tab is considered infringing, then a lot of other tablets also. They demoed those devices in court also. Though Australian case is not about design, still Apple made a conscious choice to sue Samsung only not other device makers.

And the sort of design claim Apple is making a lot of tablets will fall into the category.

In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/10/...f-xoom-tablet/

They should have also sued HP for touchpad also by the same logic


: Really?
: then WHY you wrote In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements & Though Australian case is not about design?
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.

Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!:

Look and feel does not equate experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?:

Where you been? we live in that world now



Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.:

So transmissions werent allowed to first shift into first gear and then into second gear, etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.

Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?:

There's a natural progression to technology, and Apple has shown what that is with two devices, the touchscreen smartphone and the tablet computer. Imagine if you will if nobody was allowed to copy Philips' flat panel TVs, after all they were the first ones to bring plasma TVs to public retail, and now every flat panel TV whether it be, plasma, LCD, or LED, or built by Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung, etc... all look like that first TV sold by Philips.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #149 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:24pm
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #150 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:33pm
the judge is of korean descent. i noted this a while back and thought this could be a problem. and guess what?
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.

Definitely Apple's patents include both front and back sides, but in the court they are claiming front view for most cases. Excerpt from court document:

"The D087 patent provides 6 different embodiments. None of the embodiments, however, claims anything other than the front view of the patented design. Although the patent contains a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article, Door-Master, 256 F.3d at 1313 (internal citations and quotations omitted), all views except for the front view are delineated with broken lines and are explicitly excluded from the design patent claim scope. See D087 patent (None of the broken lines form a part of the claimed design.). Thus, Apple has only claimed the front face of the cell phone in the D087 patent."
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're looking at the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.




Apple does NOT copy. Apple steals. Apple has always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

the judge is of korean descent. i noted this a while back and thought this could be a problem. and guess what?

You'll want to not go down this road.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #154 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnemani View Post

The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.

This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/cru...a-little-early

I never said the ipad was copied from joojoo tablet, but based on your logic about showed date then the ipad must copied from joojoo tablet.

12/2009
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/j...ands-on-video/
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post



Samsung: " Sue me"


I wonder what would've happened if Samsung patented the design of a flat screen TV.

Would they have taken the same legal steps that Apple is (childishly) taking now?

IMO, no.

They would create better products that would compete on innovation and additional features in the MARKETPLACE and not in the COURTS.

Companies utilize the courts as a LAST RESORT if all else fails.

Apparently, Apple's ideas are running out for them to resort to these extremes.

LOL. The only innovation coming out of Samesung is deciding where to place the Samesung logo on their rip-off products. If you aren't loving their iphone, ipad and ipod knock-offs, check out their Macbook Air wanna-be. Whatever Apple creates, Samesung immitates. They figure it is the only way that can get sales.

As for Apple running out of ideas like the iPhone, iPod, and iPad all ThE MOST successful products on the planet in their categories... Well, I guess we'll see. But name one item that Samesung can lay claim to as somethng that changed the industry.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 275
12/3/11 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

: Really?
: then WHY you wrote In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements & Though Australian case is not about design?

Reading comprehension? Though I believe you understood What I was trying to say.

Other tablets will also fall into Apple's patent claims whether technical ( as in Australia) or design ( as in Germany) patents , but conscious choice to choose largest competitor and defeating it, is not all a bad strategy by Apple. Others will automatically comply
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 275
12/3/11 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.


Other than a black bezel and glass screen, that's where the similarities end. I'd say they were 20% similar.
Differences include slimmer design, single integrated button on the front, volume buttons on opposite sides and of different shape and composition, different antenna design, completely different dock connector.
Now why not show an iphone and a Samesung phone side by side, prior to all the legal action. Now you have you 90% similarities.

Reply
Reply
post #158 of 275
12/3/11 at 4:30pm
Pathetic. Samsung blatantly rips off Apple's intellectual property and this judge can't see the obvious! Geez.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 275
12/3/11 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And if you get caught copying, obfuscate.

Lol for sure!
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 275
12/3/11 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-

"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices

Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.

The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.

_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."

Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips

True that they have won a patent for a method of fabricating the A5 but they dont own the design of the A5. That design property is still Apples. Also with the A6 Apple has already started working back in july with Taiwan Semicondutor Manufacturing Company to buid the A6. They Also have sharp and lg building flat panels for the iphone 4s and the ipad 2. I think the days of samsung making anything except nand flash for apple may be coming to an end soon because of this law suit mess.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S.