AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied - Page 3

post #81 of 91
6/15/12 at 6:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
I said that Apple accomplished what has to be its main objective - it got Samsung to stop making slavish copies if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.
Here's an experiment.
Put an iPad next to a Samsung Tab (before all the legal battles).
Now, put a Galaxy SIII next to an iPhone 4s (after all the legal battles).
It is blatantly obvious that Samsung is not making their product look as much like Apple's product as they did before Apple sued them.
So where's the lie?
No, the matter was not settled. The injunction was not granted. The court stated that the Samsung product was a copy of the iPad, but declined granting the injunction until the patent validity was settled. There has not been a hearing yet on infringement (and won't be until the patent validity challenge is settled).

Dude what's your reading comprehension level? This was solely a trial seeking an injunction against Samsung and yes the matter was settled and an injunction was not awarded, now that ruling was overturned and Apple will have another chance at it but by then there'll probably be no more Galaxy Tabs on the market.
"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 #82 of 91
6/15/12 at 7:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Dude what's your reading comprehension level? This was solely a trial seeking an injunction against Samsung and yes the matter was settled and an injunction was not awarded, now that ruling was overturned and Apple will have another chance at it but by then there'll probably be no more Galaxy Tabs on the market.

Funny that you accuse others of not being able to comprehend.

We're not talking about whether Apple gets an injunction or not. The issue is whether Samsung copied Apple - and it's very clear the they did. Not only does even a cursory inspection of the products make it clear, but Koh was very clear that she agreed that Samsung had copied Apple's visual appearance, but simply couldn't rule on infringement until after the validity of the patents was established. The question of whether Samsung copied Apple is effectively settled - they did. The only remaining question is whether they did so illegally or not.

And, yet, no one has responded to my repeated statement. Apple has won the important matters. Look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Clearly, Samsung has decided to stop making slavish copies of Apple products - which is what Apple was trying to accomplish. All the skirmishes are irrelevant.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 91
6/15/12 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Funny that you accuse others of not being able to comprehend.
We're not talking about whether Apple gets an injunction or not. The issue is whether Samsung copied Apple - and it's very clear the they did. Not only does even a cursory inspection of the products make it clear, but Koh was very clear that she agreed that Samsung had copied Apple's visual appearance, but simply couldn't rule on infringement until after the validity of the patents was established. The question of whether Samsung copied Apple is effectively settled - they did. The only remaining question is whether they did so illegally or not.
And, yet, no one has responded to my repeated statement. Apple has won the important matters. Look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Clearly, Samsung has decided to stop making slavish copies of Apple products - which is what Apple was trying to accomplish. All the skirmishes are irrelevant.

Well I'm still waiting for which Samsung device is an identical copy of a Apple one. What proof do you have that Samsung designed the SGS 3 because of the lawsuits? I'd believe they changed the SGS 2 they released in the US to avoid anymore problems with Apple. And this article is about Apple yet again being denied an injunction so it is the topic in hand.
"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 #84 of 91
6/15/12 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


 Koh was very clear that she agreed that Samsung had copied Apple's visual appearance
 
FALSE

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And, yet, no one has responded to my repeated statement. Apple has won the important matters. Look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Clearly, Samsung has decided to stop making slavish copies of Apple products - which is what Apple was trying to accomplish. All the skirmishes are irrelevant.
 

 

No one has answered you because your claim is absurd. Saying that the Galaxy SII is a copy of the iPhone is being blind as hell

 

My God, Apple has lost EVERY trial concerning trade dress for the pones, Samsung must be very scared, really, thay havent't lost anything


Edited by Gwydion - 6/15/12 at 8:52am
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 91
6/15/12 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Koh was very clear that she agreed that Samsung had copied Apple's visual appearance.

 

This is completely false, you have been challenged on this several times with no rebuttal on your part, but yet, you continue to make this false claim. You cannot simply "interchange" words and phrases with different meanings because they help your argument. To clarify, 'INFRINGE' != 'COPY', so please stop swapping out words that are not synonymous. Do I need to hold your hand and provide dictionary links as well???

 

Quote:
And, yet, no one has responded to my repeated statement. Apple has won the important matters. Look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Clearly, Samsung has decided to stop making slavish copies of Apple products - which is what Apple was trying to accomplish. All the skirmishes are irrelevant.

 

What are you talking about??? All one has to do is read the handfuls of previous comments that respond to this statement directly by contesting your premise that Samsung was "making slavish copies of Apple products". Comments like this is why your reading comprehension is being questioned.

 

The only question now is whether you are just being intellectually lazy, or intentionally trolling/fishing to rile people with your nonsense...

Reply
Reply
post #86 of 91
6/15/12 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

This is completely false, you have been challenged on this several times with no rebuttal on your part, but yet, you continue to make this false claim. You cannot simply "interchange" words and phrases with different meanings because they help your argument. To clarify, 'INFRINGE' != 'COPY', so please stop swapping out words that are not synonymous. Do I need to hold your hand and provide dictionary links as well???

Even you admit that Koh said that Apple would probably be able to show infringement if the patents are valid. That completely supports what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

What are you talking about??? All one has to do is read the handfuls of previous comments that respond to this statement directly by contesting your premise that Samsung was "making slavish copies of Apple products". Comments like this is why your reading comprehension is being questioned.

The only question now is whether you are just being intellectually lazy, or intentionally trolling/fishing to rile people with your nonsense...

Sorry, but comments from people who hate Apple and have a clear "Android can do no wrong" isn't proof of anything. Any thinking person can look at the Tab and the iPad and see that its a close copy.

It is interesting, however, to see how the Apple haters alternate between two mutually incompatible positions:
1. "The Samsung products look nothing like the Apple products"
and
2. "It's only natural that they look the same - it's truly generic and there's no other way to make a phone or tablet".
The fact that they're contradicting themselves supports the fact that they're not thinking rationally.

Finally, you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Samsung's attorney couldn't tell the difference from only 10 feet - and the rest of the team took time to figure out which was which. It is absolutely amazing that you can see that fact and STILL say that they look nothing alike.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 91
6/15/12 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Even you admit that Koh said that Apple would probably be able to show infringement if the patents are valid. That completely supports what I said.

 

No, it doesn't supports what you said. NO court has said that Samsung phones has copied and Apple phone or that a Samsung tablet has copied an Apple tablet

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, but comments from people who hate Apple and have a clear "Android can do no wrong" isn't proof of anything.
 

 

And were are those comments? In the same imagination land were a court has said that a Samsung phone slavishly copies an Apple phone?

Reply
Reply
post #88 of 91
6/15/12 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Even you admit that Koh said that Apple would probably be able to show infringement if the patents are valid. That completely supports what I said.

 

Except that you are leaving out the part that Koh DID NOT think the patents would be considered valid. I have already contested your allegations of "copying" if a patent is invalidated here. Again, if Apple's patent is invalidated due to prior art, then how can you claim Samsung copied from Apple, and not derived their designs from the prior art itself? So no, this by itself DOES NOT support your "copied from Apple" claim, let alone "completely" as you suggest.

 

Quote:
Sorry, but comments from people who hate Apple and have a clear "Android can do no wrong" isn't proof of anything.

 

Just because people have issues with Apple's excessive litigation does not mean they are "people who hate Apple". Do you love your mother? Can you think of anything about her that annoys you? Think about it....

 

Quote:
Any thinking person can look at the Tab and the iPad and see that its a close copy.
It is interesting, however, to see how the Apple haters alternate between two mutually incompatible positions:
1. "The Samsung products look nothing like the Apple products"
and
2. "It's only natural that they look the same - it's truly generic and there's no other way to make a phone or tablet".
The fact that they're contradicting themselves supports the fact that they're not thinking rationally.
 

 

I disagree with your statement about the 2 points being incompatible. It really depends on how granular you get to determining 'similarity'.

 

I couldn't tell you the difference between the style of a Picasso and an El Greco, because to me, they look the 'same'. However, I'm sure an Art connoisseur would have no difficulty, because their level of discerning it is much more granular than mine.

 

Quote:
Finally, you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Samsung's attorney couldn't tell the difference from only 10 feet - and the rest of the team took time to figure out which was which. It is absolutely amazing that you can see that fact and STILL say that they look nothing alike.

 

I have not ignored your question, in fact, I have addressed it here and here.

 

Forgive me if I don't believe that the "Samsung Copying Conspiracy" has FINALLY been proven by an anecdotal story of a couple of lawyers with potentially poor eyesight... Hey, BTW, turn to Channel 12! They are running a Moon Landing Hoax documentary again. See, NO STARS :)

Reply
Reply
post #89 of 91
6/15/12 at 4:47pm
Did someone say prior art? jragosta will deny there's any but here's a few.

344 500 328

oh and the Samsung one is from 2006, here's the link

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
"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 #90 of 91
6/15/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied? And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?

Id like to see if a Apple lawyer could tell the above devices from an iPad.
"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 #91 of 91
6/15/12 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Did someone say prior art? jragosta will deny there's any but here's a few.
344 500 328
oh and the Samsung one is from 2006, here's the link
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

haha that's too funny, anyone who says that picture frame doesn't resemble the iPad is either full of shit or blind.

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied