AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs - Page 3

post #81 of 121
1/24/12 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Have you looked at all modern flat tv's?
Where's all the lawsuits over those.
Luckily Apple hasn't made a tv. Oh wait...
Get some popcorn. Its good to be a lawyer with Apple going thermonuclear.
Just read that Apple spent 100 mil on lawyer fees against HTC



$100 million? Jesus.


Wanna know the sad part? IP law is one of few legal fields that's actually growing in this recession. Everyone likes to bash on lawyers and call them scum until they need one. Ladies and gentlemen, frivolous lawsuits are the reason lawyers get a bad rap. And I think we should be well aware that lawyers don't pay for themselves. The money always comes from somewhere.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

As mentioned before, the dutch case was solely based on the community design. Heck, the ipad doesn't even look like the community design


Wow thats looks like my picture frame in my house! Will Apple now sue me over this?? hahaha
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.

Ah, Slapppy! You're so amusing! You're the 'Bitch-Stewie' of the Apple Insider community forums.

I will pay you fifty bucks if you allow my university to medically study you. This is a genuine offer. Please PM me if you're interested.

Do your copy-and-paste Android rants ever take into consideration that despite the results of many of these court cases, and all of the free advertising that they provide, these Samsung Tablets are still barely selling?

The day after a court lifted the ban on them being sold in Australia, despite all the gloating posts of Android fans on the Sydney Morning Herald website forums saying they would now purchase them, one major electronics retailer has since reported selling fifteen.

FIFTEEN.

If that isn't the tablet version of premature ejaculation, then I don't know what is.

Android Dominance: All your warehouses belong to us.

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply
post #84 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Are you on something? Being sarcastic? Or just idiotically trolling? I certainly can't see how anyone can take you seriously.

No. For one Apple is one company selling iOS products, it may look successful comparing Apple to lets say Samsung or HTC. You need to look at the overall big picture. Android is one OS. Compare that number to iOS and you can see that the numbers are overwhelming iOS quickly. Playing with numbers doesn't erase the fact that iOS is dying a slow death and Android has quickly become the dominant platform.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?

No, you are saying that...I am making no such claims. Apple is free to try that approach if they want.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

IIRC, Sony used a proprietary digital music format in its early portable players. IMO, that is what killed them in that market. They had it sewn up with the Walkman, and they blew it with their early digital players.

MiniDisk too - a good format, but limited to Sony, and therefore less appealing commercially. Sony also insisted on using a proprietary memory card format, which was distasteful to many people.

What side of the BluRay/HD DVD war was Sony on? I've not paid much attention to Sony since the late 1990's.

AAC is also a proprietary format, just as is ATRAC. The format alone wasn't what took out Sony, at least not by itself. ATRAC is actually a great codec. It is unfortunate that Sony didn't open it up for general use.

Sony waited too long to get their players on the market, after the iPod's march to dominance had already begun. Sony felt their Minidisc (spelled with a "c") was a better format. In some ways it was, but its storage and speed limitations were its weaknesses. Sony also added WAY TOO MUCH DRM nonsense to the Minidisc when they added the USB support. I used Minidisc for years, but finally relented. Again, the word proprietary is thrown around too much. Other companies had the rights to build Minidisc players/recorders as well as the discs themselves. Those little discs were tough as nails and came in SO MANY great designs. The storage limitation of HiMD and the transfer speeds (plus the DRM) were the killers.

BluRay belongs to Sony, and in a sense they "won". Of course it is rather pointless at this point. I won't repurchase movies in any format BluRay or digital to replace my DVD versions. I know many folks feel this way as well. Of course, I am sure there are many who feel just the opposite.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 121
1/24/12 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Have you looked at all modern flat tv's?
Where's all the lawsuits over those.
Luckily Apple hasn't made a tv. Oh wait...
Get some popcorn. Its good to be a lawyer with Apple going thermonuclear.
Just read that Apple spent 100 mil on lawyer fees against HTC

I have to agree here. Computer monitors and TVs have the same general design and it is easy to confuse one for the other without really looking at the logo on the monitor/TV. Why is the iPad and iPhone physical construction so special?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 121
1/24/12 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracker View Post

Pay no attention to those 70 inch Samsung set's being delivered to the courthouse or all the sudden high end cars the officials are now driving.



Just kidding.

Too bad Apple couldn't find and hire the lawyer that is married to the judge.

Reply
Reply
post #89 of 121
1/24/12 at 12:31pm
Again, I must ask...why do people pay Slapppy any mind?

It's like picking on a quadraplegic "bully".
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 121
1/24/12 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Again, I must ask...why do people pay Slapppy any mind?

For every swing of the pendulum (Apple ][), there is an equal and opposite swing back (slapppy).
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 #91 of 121
1/24/12 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.

Your sense of humour is simply over the top, particularly when you contradict yourself. Thanks for the laughs.

Reply
Reply
post #92 of 121
1/24/12 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I have to agree here. Computer monitors and TVs have the same general design and it is easy to confuse one for the other without really looking at the logo on the monitor/TV. Why is the iPad and iPhone physical construction so special?

Because Apple wants it so. The law is on their side wrt this, at least in general. If Apple could prove that Samsung (or anyone else) deliberately mimicked their products to create market confusion, it would be literally back to the drawing board for Samsung (or back to the CAD workstation). After all, in every case Apple has lost in the courts, it wasn't due to the judge saying it was ok for competing products to be indistinguisable.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 121
1/24/12 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

For every swing of the pendulum (Apple ][), there is an equal and opposite swing back (slapppy).

Indeed. lol.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 121
1/24/12 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Because Apple wants it so. The law is on their side wrt this, at least in general. If Apple could prove that Samsung (or anyone else) deliberately mimicked their products to create market confusion, it would be literally back to the drawing board for Samsung (or back to the CAD workstation). After all, in every case Apple has lost in the courts, it wasn't due to the judge saying it was ok for competing products to be indistinguisable.

I don't know if the law really is on their side. If that was the case TV manufacturers would be suing each other with the same vigor, but I just don't see it happening. It does seem more like that this IS because Apple wants it to be so.

I simply don't buy the "create market confusion" concept. It seems more likely that Samsung decided they liked the looks figuring they would help sell their products, which really hasn't been the case. Apple has little to fear. Samsung CLEARLY labels their devices with the SAMSUNG logo on the front. I don't think there can be much confusion when the device has the company name on the front.

Samsung makes nice products, but people who buy these slate devices want an iOS device, not something running Android. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future unless Apple makes some serious errors.

I hate to say this, but Apple reminds me of the corporate version of George Lucas. BIG ideas, many good products, some bad products, and a galactic-sized ego. I just hope Apple never makes the iOS equivilant of the episodes I - III.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 121
1/24/12 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

BluRay belongs to Sony, and in a sense they "won". Of course it is rather pointless at this point. I won't repurchase movies in any format BluRay or digital to replace my DVD versions. I know many folks feel this way as well. Of course, I am sure there are many who feel just the opposite.

Blu-ray does not belong to Sony, they are one of many interested parties in the technology behind Blu-ray
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 121
1/24/12 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Blu-ray does not belong to Sony, they are one of many interested parties in the technology behind Blu-ray

Okay, maybe I should have put "belongs" into quotes so as to avoid reader confusion.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 121
1/24/12 at 1:49pm
it was a group effort to make blu-ray the winning standard.

I know you can play blu-ray movies on macs. Whats your favorite software?
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 121
1/24/12 at 2:08pm
The iPad and iPhone clearly created new categories that revolutionized the form factors and functions of the laptop and mobile phone. But once the innovator shows the way, the whole world creates look alikes with little protection for the creator.

Android software, new smart phones by the boat load and now iPad "laptops" with Wifi and touch screens have taken over the world. So every one wants in on the action by profiting off of Apple's genius -- by essentially stealing Apple's ideas.

By not protecting innovation, certain bad players like China and other countries with laws that fail to protect innovators are harming creativity for all of us.

This is why many of us respect Apple as the innovator where unscrupulous competitors quickly become scum to us when they ruthlessly rip off great ideas. We first saw this with Microsoft. Now we see it with Google and to an even greater extent in despicable places like China.

Granted that this is reality. But that doesn't mean that we have to like it.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 121
1/24/12 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post

This is why many of us respect Apple as the innovator where unscrupulous competitors quickly become scum to us when they ruthlessly rip off great ideas. We first saw this with Microsoft. Now we see it with Google and to an even greater extent in despicable places like China.

Err...we didn't think MS was evil because they were ripping off everyones ideas, we thought they were evil because of the ways they used their monopoly to kill off all competition. Which isn't the same as what Google is doing. I know this is the same as suicide here on AI but I see more of Apple doing similar MS shenanigans than Google, though admittedly, Google probably isn't in a position to do what Apple has.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 121
1/24/12 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermonkey View Post

Err...we didn't think MS was evil because they were ripping off everyones ideas, we thought they were evil because of the ways they used their monopoly to kill off all competition. Which isn't the same as what Google is doing. I know this is the same as suicide here on AI but I see more of Apple doing similar MS shenanigans than Google, though admittedly, Google probably isn't in a position to do what Apple has.

Actually, didn't Microsoft steal Apple's windows scheme for which Microsoft paid $100 million and agreed to develop Microsoft Office for 5 years as part of the settlement? Microsoft also abused their monopoly power as you mentioned. And Google actively copied the iOS interface with Android. At least that's my perception (as well as Steve Job's).

To Google's credit, they have created more innovations than most of Apple's competitors.

Has Apple done everything right? No. But they are definitely the innovation leader. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that point.

All in all, Apple will continue to surpass the copiers. So I'm not worried.

The Android user experience doesn't come anywhere near as excellent as the iOS. And Apple's total experience control will continue to win the day. Apple's phenomenal growth and product demand continues to escalate and proves my point. It's been great show from an Apple user's perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 121
1/24/12 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Blu-ray does not belong to Sony, they are one of many interested parties in the technology behind Blu-ray

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Okay, maybe I should have put "belongs" into quotes so as to avoid reader confusion.

Lamewig- no need to apologize. Sony invented Blu ray technology And also purchased and owns the patent to Take advantage of the highest end uv spectrum as of 1997. So, of course, that technology and the invention behind it belongs to them. So you're dead on by saying Blu-Ray belongs to Sony, as they single-handedly created Blu-Ray technology and own all patents pertaining to it.
Much more than just an "interested party" as jfanning incorrectly states. But in typical jfanning manner, he will speak as fact and say youre wrong, when in actuallity, he is.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #102 of 121
1/24/12 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Lamewig- no need to apologize. Sony invented Blu ray technology And also purchased and owns the patent to Take advantage of the highest end uv spectrum as of 1997. So, of course, that technology and the invention behind it belongs to them. So you're dead on by saying Blu-Ray belongs to Sony, as they single-handedly created Blu-Ray technology and own all patents pertaining to it.
Much more than just an "interested party" as jfanning incorrectly states. But in typical jfanning manner, he will speak as fact and say youre wrong, when in actuallity, he is.

Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc

That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 121
1/24/12 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so.

Apple has already appealed.
This article is about Apple losing that appeal.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 121
1/24/12 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc

That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.

Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.

But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Quote:
It was originally invented by Sony.
This has become a very contested notion since the emergence of a technology trail going back some 25 years in the Silicon Valley. Patent Office research indicates the submission of a methods and apparatus patent application being issued to Kenneth W. Easterling of San Jose, California. This application clearly defines the novel and unpatented domain of Ultraviolet light sources as applied to laser diodes used in optical storage devices.
Historically, these light sources were of an Infra-red nature which meant they were to be found on the lowest end of the light spectrum and at a lower frequency. Subsequently, when applied to precision focusing limited the device to a relatively large "footprint". To take advantage of the precision tuning capability of the ultraviolet frequency or the highest end of the light spectrum, and allow the device to have the highest resolution, thus "footprint", Mr. Easterling applied for a methods and appartus patent in November of 1992.
In April of 1997, Mr. Easterling approached Sony's Technology Center in Rancho Bernardo, California with a revolutionary leap in technology for the Compact Disc industry. A non-disclosure agreement was signed by Sony's then Vice President of Technology and a transferrance of technology began. Years passed and the interest level ceased.
In 2001 Sony Corporation introduced Blu Ray Disc technology and rest is history.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invent...#ixzz1kRICSiTb

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #105 of 121
1/24/12 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.

I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.
My Blog
Reply
My Blog
Reply
post #106 of 121
1/24/12 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Anyone know a few Dutch jokes, so we can blow off some steam?

Would that steam be packaged in a Dutch Oven? Because some on these forums are certainly blowing it out their ***
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 121
1/25/12 at 12:08am
One important detail left out on most stories about this ruling. Samsung was ruled not to infringe on a design description of 2004. That is what Apple actually protected. The court never looked at a direct comparison of the tab versus the iPad, it looked at the tab versus the design description from 2004.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 121
1/25/12 at 12:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.

Bias is a noun. You mean biased.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 121
1/25/12 at 1:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.

But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.

Excuse me? Creation of blu-ray technology? There are a lot of companies involved in the technologies behind the creation of Blu-ray, Sony is but one of them, why do you have an issue with that?

Here are a list of companies that have essential patents involved in Blu-ray (this is just one licencing companies, there are many more companies that have essential patents for Blu-ray, including Apple via their one patent in H.264)

http://www.one-blue.com/licensors/

Another link stating Philips owns essential patents

http://us.liteonit.com/us/news/news-...shiba-decision

An old link stating that several companies had joined together to charge for their essential patents

http://www.reghardware.com/2010/03/0..._licence_fees/

Hmm, strange all these people having essential patents when Sony invented everything to do with Blu-ray, heck, if you want some more proof do a patent search for Blu-ray, you'll find a tonne more proof you are wong.

Are you really going to link to a wiki answer as proof? Really?

You are wrong, get over it.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 121
1/25/12 at 4:29am
Once again, another thread where Google/Samsung supporters (mostly, it appears, driven by nothing but irrational hate of Apple), shills, etc. argue that Google and Samsung have done nothing wrong because they didn't lose in court. Apparently, all these people believe that it's just fine to steal other people's work.

There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 121
1/25/12 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Who else's design concept was Apple trying to 'patent as their own'?

In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.

The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.

After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 121
1/25/12 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.

The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.

After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.

Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 121
1/25/12 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)

I'm not sure I can agree with your position that "no rational person" could possibly believe that Apple didn't copy any elements of the design. I don't think I'm being dishonest and I consider myself largely rational.

After the work of others has been found to be ineligible for exclusive protection (for various reasons, but in this particular instance because it, itself, has been found to be a copy of something that came before), yes, I willingly defend the ability to reproduce it.

In situations where the work of others has been found to be eligible for exclusive protection, I would willingly defend the right to prohibit it from being reproduced.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 121
1/25/12 at 10:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.

But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.

Hmm. I think jfanning maybe right on this one. If you do research on the web, you'll find that in 2000, Sony and Pioneer unveiled DVR Blue at Japan's Ceatec show. This was the basis for first-generation Blu-ray Disc and clearly yes, Sony was a major (if not THE major pusher for the tech).

2001: Nine of the world's largest electronics companies unveil plans for Blu-ray Disc: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...0202/02-0219E/

So it seems that Sony did not solely invent blue ray (maybe the concept of using UV lasers, but not the whole spec). Clearly they had a huge influence and largely in the driver's seat and popular view is that Sony "won". That of course was being emphasized since Sony "lost" the previous war (Betamax vs. VHS). But I believe a more accurate statement would be: Blue-ray consortium won.

If I recall correctly, Toshiba was more of a lone player in HD-DVD than Sony in Blue ray. I could remember that one wrong though.

Regs, Jarkko
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 121
1/28/12 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post

The iPad and iPhone clearly created new categories that revolutionized the form factors and functions of the laptop and mobile phone.

Functions? Yes. But form factors? Hardly. There were candybar phones with large screens prior to the iphone, and there were tablets prior to the ipad. One of the big problems I see with these suits is that a large part of design is dictated by form factor; and these design elements that apple is bringing to bear are being invalidated through prior art.

Quote:
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.

The problem with that stance is that there are aspects of android and samsung's tab that are different (some of which can be considered significant) from apple's design. Google and samsung could have easily made these aspect more similar to the ipad (and some other tablets actually do), yet they didn't. So taking that into consideration, and the question of "obvious copying" becomes less clear.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 121
1/28/12 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

So taking that into consideration, and the question of "obvious copying" becomes less clear.

Less clear, huh?

Okay.

Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?
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 #117 of 121
1/28/12 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products.

I just started using a Android tablet (Asus Slider) in the last three months and I don't see many similarities between the two. The first version maybe but now with Android 4.0 not so much, you'll be hard press to find many similarities. Actually I'm starting to wish Apple would start copying some ideas from Google, like maybe a real file-manager. In my opinion iOS is great as a phone OS but seriously lacking as a tablet OS, something Android 4.0 seems to get. If it wasn't for the apps I still would not own a iPad, iPhone yes, still love those.
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
post #118 of 121
1/28/12 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Less clear, huh?

Okay.

Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?

Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?

Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.

And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 121
1/28/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?

Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.

And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?

Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
post #120 of 121
1/28/12 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.

Oh, most likely; that's probably closer to the true reason why apple is filing lawsuit after lawsuit against samsung. They just happen to think they have a case with the design patents. And that's perfectly fine. If they can show that samsung is in violation, more power to them.

However, I'm going to call a spade a spade; apple is not suing because samsung is the closest copy, but rather because they're the closest in competition.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs