UK judge says Samsung tablet not 'cool' enough to be mistaken for iPad - Page 3

Fantastic - Glad to see the UK legal system thinking straight.

 

As for the "cool" comment - you must be pretty young or not done much with your time to care - after you are judged by what you have accomplished in life, a 400 dollar piece of electronics being cool or not is just silliness.

 

But again iOS usually represent the untalented section of the Apple community - they need to get their value how ever they can I suppose.

Just wait until Apple releases the Apple TV, then Samsung can sue apple for claiming that their device infringes upon Samsung's (and most everyone else in the industry's) design.  Large 16:9 rectangular screen, using LCD or plasma technology.  Integrated speakers to produce sound, Slightly rounded corners, thin, wall-mountable, etc.  Such a lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous, but it's no different than the ipad/galaxy tablet one.  The "design patents" apple is claiming had plenty of prior art... Just because the prior art wasn't hugely successful does not mean it doesn't count.  just because people are now copying some of apple's design does not mean apple is the only one able to use that design. Look at the PC industry, apple wasn't the first company to use metal laptops, but they were the most successful, and afterward other companies copied their design...  Does that make these companies any different than apple?  Not every company can sell tens of millions of every devices they make.  Apple is in a good position currently, and if you ask me, they're just making themselves look greedy through all their lawsuits... Apparently 80% or whatever of the mobile segment's revenues aren't enough, and no one else deserves any profit.  Besides, if Apple could kill off their competition, they could charge even more for their products, and make even LARGER profits!!!

 

Phil

There are people who think all tablets are "ipads". 

 

"Oh hey, what kind of ipad did you get?"

"It's a galaxy ipad, it was cheaper than the other ipads they had at the store."

 

It's not at all crazy to think that people get confused.

We need some sort of definitive post that stops this monopoly crap once and for all.

 

You'd be surprised at the amount of discretion judges get to basically say whatever the hell they want. I highly doubt this was the basis for his argument. The "coolness" comment was probably added just for a bit of flair. You really should read the other portions about prior art. There's no way anyone with a straight face can say Apple made the first tablet.

 

 

But still...haters gonna hate! 

This has happened in the past with MP3 players.  Apple released a device into an already crowded MP3 player market and was roundly criticized for it. It is too simplistic, too expensive, too little, too late... We all know how that turned out with the little device known as the iPod going on to dominate sales even today.  The term iPod became a household term that was interchanged with music device.  I have personally had about 5 people I know, friends and family, who have wanted an iPod. They bought a different music player that had more features and cost less and were dissatisfied with the experience that they were having.  They asked me to come help them setup their new iPod.  When I found that they had instead purchased a competing device I explained that they had not purchased an iPod, but a Sansa, or other competing device.  Very few went back to the store as the device they had gotten was "good enough".  They hated the experience of getting the songs on it and once I had helped them set the thing up they never messed with it again.  They settled for less.  This was a lost sale for Apple.  The iPad is heading in the same direction. If you are being realistic you will see this.  Or you can close your eyes and pretend it does not happen.

 

 

 

Whatever,  I'm just reading the article. She also said that Samsung had unusual details on the back. Of course there are not going to be any details of that sort in Apple's black and white line drawing in a patent application. 

 

Sure the exact phrase was  'design of the iPad ' implied as 'on paper' but why use the word 'cool' in comparison? A line drawing and a broadly worded patent application isn't 'cool'. Don't kid yourself, she has seen a real iPad and thinks it is cooler.

Agreed. It is "cooler" in my opinion too.

For all the moron's who only follow this idiotic blog and its horrible reporting, here's an expanded version of the judges ruling. And I have an iPhone and a Macbook Pro, which I've had for 10 years. I prefer competition that forces companies to innovate and push each other beyond the simple bullshit tech we have now. 

 

"The judge found that Samsung’s products were distinctive because they were thinner and had “unusual details” on the back. He gave Apple 21 days to appeal." -- Bloomberg News

 

More from the Judge--""The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family."

 

 

Edited by bilboteabagins - 7/9/12 at 10:48am

That is irrelevant. That's not the test for deciding on whether the design was copied.

As are you to prove me wrong. In my case it only takes one person to say they were bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad to prove me right.  In order to prove your point, it would require surveying every single purchaser of a Tab whether they thought they were buying an iPad.  If I were assigned one of these tasks, I know which one I would prefer.  But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll let you have first shot.

The part of the quote that caught my eye was this:

 

"Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011..."

I'm sure you wished it worked like that but it was your claim. Surely you can find at least one instance as evidence that you're correct. That's the easy one to prove, right? It won't even require surveying everyone who ever bought a tablet.  

Edited by Gatorguy - 7/9/12 at 11:11am

Another stalemate for Apple

 

Fair enough.  You base the statement "I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. "

 

on 5 people.  This sort of "5 examples indicates what MOST PEOPLE thought" is called a "hasty generalization".  Many people do that.  But it is fallacious, and so the conclusions cannot be relied upon.

Sorry to hear your living room HD TV is only a 9.7 inch -- a little short on the cash that day? Did it come with binoculars?

Did anyone else think of this when they read that Samsung's non-iPad isn't cool enough?
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382794/we-cant-afford-that-one

A lawyer is only as stupid as his client.

That's why we have moderators! ;-)

 

Have you never heard of 'memes' or collective consciousness?

Sometimes an idea or design (the same solution) is discovered by multiple unconnected people at the same time. When an idea is ready to be discovered, it's usually the result of an amalgam of other knowledge.

Because of the nature of technology (limitations of size, shape, capacity, function) - it's conceivable and predictable that technology will be 'similar'.

 

Now, i'm not saying that that is the case here. (My new favorite word is 'slavishly')

However...

Apple didn't invent the rectangle, they didn't invent a flat surface or beveled corners or icons in a grid.

They did however, put them together in a way that was unique from the norm.

Does that mean they should be granted patents to basic design elements and obvious solutions?

For all you know, Ives and Jobs were inspired by the Knight Ridder.

 

So how do we reward Apple for their design and not stifle competition?

 

The problem is with the patent system and how it awards and rewards. This is truly where real innovation is desperately needed.

Reading this forum, you would believe that Apple should be granted a patent on 'innovation'. 

I would say to those readers careful where you throw stones - Apple is infringing on hundreds of patents itself.

 

Samsung should not have been quite so slavish in their copying. They should have taken the design and greatly improved upon it.

Hmmm...so, you feel that being told you've won the lawsuit because your product is CRAP is a big win to you???

 

I think I'd just as soon take a pass on that one...

 

Well, that's the whole point..   The judge just said Apple's design patents are nothing but smokescreen (marketing gimmicks). 

It's clear to me who won. Samsung gets to keep doing what it wanted to.
And Apple's lack of originality was noted in court.
The "cool" comment may influence 10-year-olds though.

If you're a consumer and you're confused by the Samsung Galaxy Tab then you need to educate yourself.

As for the tablets not being "cool enough", then he is a pretty informal judge.

Actually, that "Accept No Substitutes" thing is pretty clever.

 

Actually it was Wurm5150's claim that he didn't think anybody ever bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad.  That came first.  So please inform Wurm 5150 of how he's not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims.  Start there and then when you're finished, come find me.  Try to keep up.  You are really making this too easy, its not even fun anymore.  Maybe I could help by typing slower?

It's not wurm5150 arguing with me.

 

I was simply curious if you could find anything showing you might be right about "I don't think the vast majority of customers got misdirected, but I believe a significant number did."

 

 Making an attempt to throw in an insult or two makes you sound insecure with your position. I'm guessing you couldn't find anyone claiming it happened to them, which certainly wouldn't support "a significant number", do you think? I figured I'd give you a chance to try and convince me that it's not a rarity if it happens at all.

 

No biggie, just relax. We all get challenged here once in awhile. It's not a reflection on you personally.

Edited by Gatorguy - 7/9/12 at 4:38pm

Sorry my moderate position upset your sense of absolutes. Please accept this as a peace offering - I'll now let you have the last word. Go ahead, I promise not to reply to whatever you think you need to say. It won't get any easier.

I like this 'not as cool' line.  It looks like a stupid reasoning, but I guess this line is intended to communicate Apple and Apple die-hard fans which seem to be isolated by day.  I see a humor in there.

 

Here is the full rulling.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html

Edited by hjb - 7/9/12 at 5:39pm

If and when the UK's trial judge becomes the entire world, you might have a point.

We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned. More importantly, the rest of the world seems to recognize Apple's innovation and Samsung's blatant copying.

ID10T.

No. That just proves this hypothetical person is stupid. Or they simply cannot read the word SAMSUNG on the front....or identify the APPLE logo on the back of the iPad. This BS argument over whether Apple has the right to patent a black, rectangular device just astounds me...How can so many people believe this nonsense?

 argumentum ad populum 

I'm certain it will be appealed because that's what lawyers do.

As for "Samsung's blatant copying", you must know more about this case than the judge.

 

Interesting that this AI article made no mention of the poke at Apple's lack of originality. But then, who expects real journalism here? It's all Apple PR fluff.

 

 

True.  But at this point, the decision has been made that Samsung did not infringe under the applicable law.  Maybe someday reality will change.  But as of now...

 

You actually made me laugh with this comment.

 

And I don't mean that is a sarcastic or nasty way. It was genuinely funny.

 

Non-negative posts suit you!

Where did I say that? I was simply giving an example from my own experience. It does not cover every buyer, nor did I claim it did. There are many here who claim, nobody will buy a Tab and think it is an iPad. Anyone who has experience helping the less technical, will know this is not the case. And, anyone with a lot of experience with support knows that the less technical outnumber the technical by a wide margin. Don't dismiss something out of hand simply because you don't want it to be true. Apple is right to worry. That does not mean they are right about how they deal with it always. But they are right that they need to protect their intellectual property. All your sweeping generalizations about my position aside. I bring a real situation that applies to what is being discussed, what do you bring other than talk and conjecture? If it holds true for 5 people, it holds true for more than 5. Does it make it most people, no necessarily. But it is real data. What real data have you brought?

Interesting username you have there.  I wonder, is this an example of nominative determinism at work?

 

If they have design patents, they are entitled to sue.

 

The problem with your little scenario is that they probably don't, as the TV market has been around with multiple manufacturers using similar designs for many years, whereas the iPad market has one manufacturer and has only been around a few years.

What's interesting is I thought today, did the judge say "when" the coolness factor was taken into account? Because when the Galaxy Tab (10.1, in this case, I see) came out, the iPad may not have been "cool" yet. Therefore it stands that Samsung copied Apple, because the "cool" argument wouldn't apply. You gotta say I have a point here, no?

Isn't it the point when the dispute occurred, it is arguable that the iPad was not that wildly successful ~yet~. You can't retroactively say, oh, it's so cool now, so therefore no one ~back when Tab 10.1~ came out could have mistaken it?

Maybe I missed something in the legal stuff.