or Connect
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 3

post #81 of 275
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.

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 got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #82 of 275
Justice has been served.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroTech View Post

Samsung is obviously copying Apple and deserves to be punished. Boycott them now and for a long time.

There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.

The court has determine it does not.

Are you trying to go against the court here?

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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipad/


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

"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 #83 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.

How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?

Thanks for the laugh.

Google much?

This isn't talking about a TV show at all -- it was a conceptual design presentation from a tech firm that was looking for funding to build a tablet computer. By all appearances, a good deal of the ergonomic design work contributing to the "look and feel" of a functional tablet had already been conceived and fleshed out before the presentation was produced -- in 1994. David Hasselhoff has nothing at all to do with the suggested Knight Ridder prior art.

Since you seem unable to corroborate details for yourself, I'll save you the trouble:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...YEARS-OLD.html
post #84 of 275
Before anyone attacks Judge Lucy Koh because she is of Korean descent (Samsungs hometown). She is a Harvard graduate who worked in Palo Alto (Apples hometown) on intellectual property cases and she's married to a Stanford law professor. Sounds like she is a brilliant person . Although, more than likely, the 9th circuit will overturn her ruling...... As usual.
post #85 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.

How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?

Thanks for the laugh.


Think about this: What if a movie showed, for example, a bicycle that folded up so to be easy to carry, where nobody had ever thought of that before. Let's say that the movie included a scene where the mechanism is described and shown in detail.

Are you saying that somebody could run out and get a patent on that implementation? That there exists no prior art, despite the mechanism having been invented by the script writer and implemented by the prop master?

Hmmm?
post #86 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......

It's the head of Samsung's legal defense team!
post #87 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Justice has been served.

No, it hasn't - no matter which side you're on.

We're a long way from a final decision in this matter.
"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 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.

"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."

You seem to be confusing the definition of the word "essential". A patent can be "essential" in terms of the ability to implement a particular feature, but the feature itself may not be "essential" to conforming to a recognized industry standard.

If the patent in question doesn't cover an application that is essential to implementing a technology that is regulated by a recognized standardization body, then that definition doesn't apply. For example, an essential feature of a cell phone is the ability to place a phone call. Patents related to interfacing with the latest GSM communication standards would be considered essential and would therefore be covered. But an extra feature, for example, to allow the cell phone to additionally prepare a fresh shot of espresso, would not necessarily covered.

So, I may have a patent that is essential to allowing a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso. It may be impossible for a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso unless they use the technology in my patent. But, because it isn't essential for a cell phone to produce an espresso in order to qualify as a cell phone, I wouldn't have any obligation to license that patent to anybody.
post #89 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

This is just a hearing on a preliminary injunction. To my feeble non-lawyer mind, it would have been more a negative for Samsung to lose than for Apple to lose. A preliminary injunction by definition (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) is an appeal to enjoin before the real trial. To get this a company needs to show that there is a preponderance of evidence in its favor - so much so that the court would enjoin prior to the actual trial. To grant one is almost the exception.

It seems to me that the judge here has said - "Not enough to go preliminary - Go have your day in court. If you can prove otherwise there - you will get a full injunction."

In that light I do not see it a a major loss. Once again, the press is blowing it out of proportion. (imho)

(Once again - any lawyers out there correct me if I am mistake.)

You're absolutely correct. In the U.S., a preliminary injunction is only ordered if the defendant is unable to make good any potential harm to the plaintiff. For example, let's say that the court thinks that there could be a final judgment of $10 B. If Samsung had the ability to pay $20 B without going bankrupt, there would be no injunction.

In addition, if the plaintiff could show that there would be irreparable harm (that is, harm that NO amount of money would fix), then the judge can order an injunction.

In this case, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. She simply said that there's no danger of irreparable harm. That is, Samsung has enough money to pay any amount of damages that might conceivably be awarded.
"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 #90 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.

I think Apple is competing just fine outside the courts.

Have you seen which tablets people are buying? It's not Samsung tablets... it's iPads.

And it gets worse... Not only can't Samsung make a tablet more desirable than the iPad... they also can't make one as cheap as the Kindle Fire.

Poor Samsung.

If we're talking about competition... Apple doesn't need to sue anybody. Apple is doing just fine.

This is a patent issue, however... and infringed patents need to be defended.
post #91 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?

I wasn't trying to get involved in this thread's main argument I was making an entirely different point. However, if my assertion is true that Android tablets suck sufficiently to fail all by themselves, it doesn't preclude Apple from protecting their IP in case a copy ever bacame a threat.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #92 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.

"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."

Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #93 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Justice has been served.




There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.

The court has determine it does not.

Are you trying to go against the court here?

The court has done no such thing. The only thing the court has done is to deny the request for an injunction on sales. If you had any kind of reading ability or comprehension you might have noticed the next paragraph in which Judge Koh says that Apple is, in fact, likely to prove that Samsung infringes at east one of Apple's patents. But that little detail somehow escaped your mind didn't it. Those sorts of things always escape minds like yours.
post #94 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvshow View Post

FACT??????? The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/

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

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #95 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.

If you have a great invention unable to be work around, you are definitely granted a monopoly with respect to that patent for certain period of time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a patent holder has the right to a legal monopoly unless they act beyond the confines of the patent monopoly..In other words, a patent monopoly is perfectly acceptable so long as the monopoly only exists as to the patented invention and does not extend so far as to create a monopoly over a product or market.

For example , Samsung's 3G patents are such patents which will grant it a monopoly on 3G market.
post #96 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?

No, you cannot equate essential and unable to work around.

A patent unable to be worked around does not always grant you monopoly. For instance as of now Apple seems to have a monopoly on bouncing animation patent. But it is not something essential for device functionality. Tablet/Smart phone market exists even without it.
post #97 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.

How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?

Thanks for the laugh.



the television show is Knight Rider.

the Knight Ridder referenced by the courts is a media publishing company. Newspapers and such.

Learn the difference.
post #98 of 275
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.


Fact. no one would confuse these for a iPad
post #99 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Really?



Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.

Really?



Samsung = cheap plasticity knock off, thats why no one lines up for there products
post #100 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.

Apple does complete outside courts but they also protect there inventions. maybe if samsung made something that wasn't so ridiculously close to iPad that there own lawyers can't tell them apart they wouldn't have this trouble
post #101 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.

They aren't competing now? Fascinating.

And it's not about competing, it's about copying. I know for some it appears a subtle concept - but that says more about you than the issues at hand.
post #102 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

There were tablets before the iPad btw.

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

Quote:
I guess you can only fight a crap argument with more crap.

I'd tell you to be careful flinging around so much crap, but then realized it's probably all you know how to do
post #103 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?

We need logical fallacy bingo for threads like this. Ad Hominem would be the free center square. For this post we could fill in the Weak Analogy squares
post #104 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

it clearly says Samsung on the product.

Like someone already said... you guys have a lot of difficult understanding the law.
post #105 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.

If we could just get people to stop quoting his entire messages - including ridiculous pictures...
post #106 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

No wonder USA's economy is only good at creating bogus banks.

Yup, this was just a fluke...
post #107 of 275
At least nobody ever went to justice to sue about this form factor ...






http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...-pre-order.ars
post #108 of 275
Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it
post #109 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G View Post

Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it

It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.
post #110 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad.

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!

Quote:
Businesses copy each other all the time!

Uh, and ones that do get sued all the time too!

Go read the US Constitution. It's a surprisingly short document for setting up a government for a country. Make note of how many concepts are in it. There aren't that many, yet patents and intellectual property protections are there - prominently.

They are the foundation of innovation and success of the United States over the last 200+ years.

Quote:
It is part of the free market system.

No, it's part of some weird pipe dream/alternate reality.

Quote:
Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated?

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?

Quote:
We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed.

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.

Quote:
Look and feel patents should never be allowed.

Why? Just because you say so? You sound like the myopic arguers against copyright when it was first conceptualized. And yet it's clear (at least to those with rational reasoning capabilities) that copyright fostered an explosion of knowledge and creativity.

America would not be the country it is today without patents. As I pointed out in another thread, even China is beginning to understand the dangers of rampant copying and as their economy matures they are now starting to enforce copyright and patent protections.

You can't have a stable economy without the promise for being rewarded for your labor. It's the most fundamental of human requirements.

Quote:
Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember?

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?

Quote:
So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad.

... Sigh. Nevermind. Not even worth trying to explain.

Quote:
The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.

Tablet yes, iPad no. Ugh.

Here, if you really want to increase your personal wisdom, check out a book like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Const.../dp/0865973024

Start with the concepts of intellectual property and patents - Benjamin Franklin was a huge proponent and this book has several good writings from him and others on the subject. You might just learn something.

Then again it would take effort to actually try to expand your horizons - much easier to just spout off "feelings" in an Internet forum
post #111 of 275
My understanding of this (thinking in terms of a criminal trial) is that Samsung got charged and released on their own recognizance until the main trial starts.

If they had lost, it would be similar to a person having to stay in jail while they wait for the main trial.

In other words, there's enough evidence to go to trial, but not enough to take any action (prelimiinary injunction) at this time.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #112 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post

It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.

If this keeps up I'm going to run out of popcorn...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #113 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.

Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.

Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...

I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this
post #114 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

When you can't innovate, sue.

you moron, there suing because samsung is stealing there innovations. its samsung who should be innovating and they wouldn't be getting sued. why doesn't that make sense to you
post #115 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics!

Use of logic in Internet forums is doomed to failure.

But great post and spot-on point - even if it continues to sail over their heads
post #116 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations?

I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.

There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #117 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.

There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?

And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #118 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Patent law doesn't exist to keep up "the pace of innovation." Patent law exists to protect the economic (and other) rights of the creators of the innovations.

So, what would the "pace of innovation" be if you knew that any innovation you attempt to develop could be stolen with no recourse?

So while you are technically correct - patent's don't expressly "keep up the pace of innovation", they certainly are a direct contributor to it.

Considered so essential to the success of the country they are one of the few concepts expressly outlined in the US Constitution!

Quote:
How fast innovation does or does not proceed is irrelevant and many things affect that speed.

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.

Especially for a smaller/independent entrepreneur. Another thing that people tend to overlook - Apple is pretty unique for a large company in that they routinely break into or create new markets. Typically it's smaller players (like Tivo for DVRs) that create new markets. Unfortunately, even with patents Tivo has had a hard time - but they wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for patents.

Quote:
There are excellent arguments that Capitalism itself slows down the pace of innovation and invention.

Arguments from people divorced from reality due to what basically boil down to religious beliefs.

For all the "capitalism is evil" crap being spewed, no one has managed to come up with something better. And you can't tell me there aren't fertile grounds for new ideas with merit in the world...

While not perfect - what system is? - capitalism has fostered the greatest achievements in human history.

Had the democracy of ancient Greece not collapsed under it's own stupidity (a path the US and most of the west seems hell bent on following) who know's how much sooner concepts such as mechanization, mass production and electricity would have developed. Ancient people weren't stupid - but factors such as political, social and economic policies all are all contributors to "innovation".

It always saddens me when people complain about history being "boring". Far from it - history holds the answers and examples to many questions that people have. We like to think of ourselves as being special and "ancient peoples" being more like chimpanzees, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that isn't the case.

The real danger to modern society are anti-intellectualism and the emergence of the sound bite. Forget Orwell's 1984, Max Headroom and the blipvert are what we should all be watching out for!
post #119 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.

Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...

I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this

And if Samsung's digital photo frame was such a key point why didn't Samsung use as proof of prior art or trade dress for a tablet in the case and why didn't the judge throw out the case upon seeing this digital photo frame from 2006?

It's really hard to believe anyone can look at that digital photo frame and think that the iPad ripped it off. There is no way to confuse their purpose, HW or SW look and feel.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #120 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.

Of course MS was going to sue. But the children seem to think that MS deciding to license makes them the "good buys" and Apple seking a ban are the "bad guys".

They are both doing what they are entitled to under the law.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

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.