AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins U.S. injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins U.S. injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab - Page 3

post #81 of 103
6/27/12 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

They tried to ban the original model in Australia too but failed.

 

That was the "revised" 10.1, the 10.1V was unaffected.

 

Before iPad 2

 

samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1-p7100-1.jpg

 

After iPad 2

 

samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1.jpg

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #82 of 103
6/27/12 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I tried to explain the difference to you, and I'm pretty certain you understood it even tho you don't want to. No matter really, since probably every other reader now understands what the two patent types are for if they didn't already. Since you have nothing to add apparently, and not a single citation to offer, why don't we just move along? You can't win this one by being honest and I don't feel like talking any further to someone who's not listening anyway. We're done.

Of course you want to move along - because you're flat out wrong.

I never claimed it was a technology patent. I said that patented technology was involved.

Let me spell it out for you - since you're obviously incapable of connecting the dots:
1. The iPad is a technology device.
2. The iPad was covered by a design patent.
3. Therefore, the design of the iPad involves patented technology.

You're the one who keeps dreaming up bizarre interpretations. Especially since you don't even realize that what you're referring to is a 'utility patent', not a 'technology patent'. But since no one but you ever mentioned a technology patent, it's moot.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 103
6/27/12 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're still wrong. Calling names won't make you any more correct.

Unless you've got some citations to prove your claim that design patents are the same as technology patents and that Apple can just add a device to the existing injunction, just as I supply proof when I make claims, perhaps you should quit before the hole you're in gets deeper. No one, much less me, said design patents weren't patents. Of course they are, but they're not the same as patents on technology. Utility patents protect the technology used to make a thing work. Design patents are used to protect the way a thing looks, it's ornamental appearance. Don't muddy the waters for casual readers just to create a flawed argument attempting to show you were right all along. You weren't.

And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.

284
241
"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 103
6/27/12 at 5:06pm
  • hmm
  • Keylogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123 View Post

i really liked Samsung's explanation...

 

well, it doesn't infringe, but even if it did, you shouldn't stop the sales because it doesn't even compete with Apple's iPad because they are using 3G and we are using 4G

 

lol...

 

That like a car company copying a car 75% of the way, then saying... well it doesn't really compete with the product we copied because we put in a 300 hp engine and not a 200 hp engine.

We're talking about an injunction hearing. Actual damages are determined if/once a case has been proven or the parties settle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar View Post

 

You seriously need to get a life.  These are just gadgets. 

There is little point in arguing with the mentally handicapped. I suggest ignoring him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.

 

While that was a picture frame, it does point out the generic nature of  the front of these devices. The comparison photos are always silly because you can make people believe whatever you want. The troll picture of before/Apple on tablets and phones comes to mind. It brought up many phones that in some cases dated back to a decade before the iphone.

Reply
Reply
post #85 of 103
6/27/12 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

While that was a picture frame, it does point out the generic nature of  the front of these devices. The comparison photos are always silly because you can make people believe whatever you want. The troll picture of before/Apple on tablets and phones comes to mind. It brought up many phones that in some cases dated back to a decade before the iphone.

And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
"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 #86 of 103
6/27/12 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.

Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #87 of 103
6/27/12 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet?

It's different in the same way a golf cart isn't an SUV.

You're not that dense. Don't pretend to be.
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 #88 of 103
6/27/12 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's different in the same way a golf cart isn't an SUV.
You're not that dense. Don't pretend to be.

Like this? lol

449

450
Edited by dasanman69 - 6/27/12 at 6:27pm
"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 #89 of 103
6/27/12 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!

 

SolipsismX,

 

No, that was a quite logical comment by dasanman69.  You can not say that photo frame is nothing like IPad.  Designwise, they are almost the same.  Technowise, they are similar but IPad has more features and thin form factor due to mainly technological improvements by others like Samsung over the 4 year difference.

Reply
Reply
post #90 of 103
6/27/12 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So? Are you claiming that something covered by a design patent isn't a patented device?

 

 

No, he's pointing out that you have only a vague understanding of the facts at hand.

Reply
Reply
post #91 of 103
6/27/12 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Are you this dense in real life?
How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?
Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.
I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.

You don't quite understand what is said to you.  And you keep insisting that you are correct without offereing a shred of evidence. 

Reply
Reply
post #92 of 103
6/27/12 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Technowise, they are similar but IPad has more features and thin form factor due to mainly technological improvements by others like Samsung over the 4 year difference.

I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.
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 #93 of 103
6/27/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


No, he's pointing out that you have only a vague understanding of the facts at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

You don't quite understand what is said to you.  And you keep insisting that you are correct without offereing a shred of evidence. 

ROTLFMAO,

Of course, you're ignoring one major fact. I predicted months ago that Koh would have to issue the injunction based on the wording of her order and the appeals court order. I was right.

OTOH, you and all the other Apple hating shills were busy saying that Apple lost and would never win any major court battles. You were wrong.

So who understands the issues?
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 103
6/28/12 at 3:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.

Tallest Skil,

 

visit following link and READ the spec.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Reply
Reply
post #95 of 103
6/28/12 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hub View Post

Tallest Skil, visit following link and READ the spec.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Did.

I'm sorry, but you really cannot believe what you have said.
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 #96 of 103
6/28/12 at 8:50am

just invalidate the stupid utility patents that do not really add "EFFECTS" to already existing tablet devices.

 

becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.

 

allowing apple's design/utility patent regarding the ipad is equivalent to saying to LG, 'don't make lcd TVs anymore because Samsung patented the TVs that are slim and thin with black glass edge-to-edge bezel.' 

 

come on USPTO. time to be serious about invention and novelty in each patents filed to your office.

 

btw, i think Samsung did copy Apple, but the whole case should have been based on the trademark (which protects arguably less) for consumer confusion, period.

 

there should have been nothing to argue about patents for Apple's side.

Reply
Reply
post #97 of 103
6/28/12 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

...becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.

 

Patents are issued on thin/slim/minimal form factor.

Reply
Reply
post #98 of 103
6/28/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

 

Patents are issued on thin/slim/minimal form factor.

did i say they aren't issued?

Reply
Reply
post #99 of 103
6/28/12 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

just invalidate the stupid utility patents that do not really add "EFFECTS" to already existing tablet devices.

becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.

allowing apple's design/utility patent regarding the ipad is equivalent to saying to LG, 'don't make lcd TVs anymore because Samsung patented the TVs that are slim and thin with black glass edge-to-edge bezel.' 

come on USPTO. time to be serious about invention and novelty in each patents filed to your office.

btw, i think Samsung did copy Apple, but the whole case should have been based on the trademark (which protects arguably less) for consumer confusion, period.

there should have been nothing to argue about patents for Apple's side.

That's a nice straw man argument.

Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.

Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.

Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 103
6/28/12 at 1:11pm
  • hmm
  • Keylogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!

I was only saying they used that screen style before. Anyway I googled design patents a while ago hoping to come across some lawyer's blog. It didn't turn up anything interesting. I'm not sure the majority of these arguments really present much either way. None of them really mention anything about how a design patent is tested. It would be more interesting if we had anyone posting with some kind of background in patent law. The photo frame thing does show that the side by side things are silly whether they're for or against your side of the argument.

Reply
Reply
post #101 of 103
6/28/12 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's a nice straw man argument.
Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.
Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.
Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.

 

you have no clue what i am getting at.

 

i am saying that designs that do not add any "real" values to a device shouldn't be granted with patent rights from the beginning.

be it slim, rectangular, triangular, and what not. if there's no real additional effects/values on a device, then why do you grant a patent?

 

come on. 

 

like i said, this entire case is more related to trademark infringement, the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Reply
Reply
post #102 of 103
6/29/12 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.

 

 

Why not?

 

I'm under the impression that this case is about the design/customer impression of the look of the product. A digital picture frame is in many ways just an under-powered tablet. So, Samsung already had a device, of similar functionality, which looked like the iPad. If Company X designed a golf cart which looked like a Hummer before the Hummer was ever designed, would you not consider it ridiculous for Hummer to take legal action against Company X selling a larger, more beefed up version of Company X's original design?

 

If you are reacting to the idea of apple using components made by Samsung... that is just how it goes. The R&D from other companies develop components which are incorporated into and improve many other companies' devices. Not sure what percentage comes from Samsung, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were substantial (though I have no idea the percentage).


Edited by gwjvan - 6/29/12 at 8:53am
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 103
6/30/12 at 5:56am

samsung sung its last note LMAO!!!  just give up some of that good $$$ you made off the people with all those junk ass smartphones too and fire all your research and  development and marketing they the reson your in this mess in the first place ill work for you if the price is rght or we can do business
 

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins U.S. injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab