or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad - Page 7

post #241 of 301

For apple to suggest that the apology equates to advertising is approaching contempt of court. Where are they being told to upsell Samsung over apple products? Perhaps apple are suggesting that apple customers are unaware that alternatives exist...

post #242 of 301

It would be more useful to Samsung if Apple had to post that the Samsung Tablet WAS a copy of an Ipad.
 

post #243 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

LOL

****************************
"Samsung did not copy the iPad"
****************************

Consumer: "Ok, so I WANT an iPad now."

ROFL

lol squared!
post #244 of 301

Chalk this up as a win for common sense!! I believe it was nothing more than Apple being spiteful after a failed attempt to buy the Super AMOLED screen from Samsung on the cheap. Besides, how many different ways can you make a rectangle?

post #245 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by newcode View Post

Apple's ad should have a picture of the two products followed by this:

"Apple iPad and Samsung Galaxy Tab. They couldn't be more different."

(and then the legal blurb underneath)

That would do it.
Edited by jragosta - 7/19/12 at 9:14am
"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 #246 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 Apple have pretty much done that anyway.

 

Corp. taxes in Ireland are lower, meanng that Apple save money, unfortunately it means that UK itunes customers have to pay the higher levels of Irish Vat on itunes purchases. Thanks Apple...

 

What was that Beatle's song:- 

 

"Let me tell you how it will be

There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman"

 

Obviously things haven't changed much since 1966.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #247 of 301
Quote:

...VAST majority of tablets that anyone will see anywhere are iPads.  From a distance, all touch-screen tablets are going to have a similar design.  There's a big screen that you touch, a headphone jack, a possible volume control button, and likely a button or two that have to be on the edge of the case (where else would you click it?)  

 

touch-screen tablets...

 

iPad and…. before that, what?

 

Add "rounded corners, thin aluminum surrounding bevel, screen bevel width, position (and the very EXISTENCE of) a "home button", the thin form factor, rounded back…", and so on and so on… so many small, non-trivial design details that WERE 'slavishly copied' (a premise that judges in OTHER countries have agreed with)...

 

I'm not advocating that Apple is 100% the sole innovator here. But I am saying that, if you drive up in a Ferarri… and then another guy drives up in a Ferarri and… oh, wait, it sure looked like a Ferarri, but it has a different logo on it, and oh, yeah, on second and third glance, the wheels are just a LITTLE bit further apart, and the rear end shape isn't QUITE the same… and if I lift the hood, oh well shyah! different engines! Of course, I shoulda known!
 

Should no-one have an issue here with the "Ferarri Clone" taking sales from Ferarri using designs that are clearly a "signature design style" developed by Ferarri?

 

There has to be a point at which you draw lines. One says, don't overdo it on the "that's mine!" side, but also don't go too far in the "I'm going to do it EXACTLY like they did" side...

 

Who's more in the wrong here in the end? I think Samsung, but hey… that's just me...

post #248 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 700Perhaps the judge took devices such as the iTablet (from 2007) into account when ruling that Samsung did not steal the overall design from apple and may have been inspired by more than one pre-existing device

 

Nice try. See earlier prototypes from Apple, 2002 ~ 2004………….

post #249 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

I'm just going on all the iPads I sell and the fact that we never bothered restocking Tabs because no-one ever asks for them.

 

 

That is exactly why Apple's efforts in court are so laughable.  They need to pick their battles instead of wasting time and resources on these loser cases.

post #250 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


That is exactly why Apple's efforts in court are so laughable.  They need to pick their battles instead of wasting time and resources on these loser cases.

I suspect that Apple knows what they're doing more than you do.

In the end, look at the results. Put a Samsung Tab next to the original iPad. That was the situation before Apple filed suit. Now, put the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Apple appears to have achieved its goal of getting Samsung to stop copying.



Now that Jerrytroll's idiocy is out of the way, let's get back to the original topic. Reuters reports the following:
"The judge, however, rejected Samsung's request that Apple be forbidden from continuing to claim that its design rights had been infringed, saying that Apple was entitled to hold the opinion, the news agency said."

I can't quite reconcile an order telling Apple to publish that Samsung did not copy the iPad but at the same time allowing Apple to continue to claim that it's design rights had been infringed. The entire order doesn't make any sense.
"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 #251 of 301

-


Edited by habi - 7/19/12 at 10:21am
post #252 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

So Phil, I've asked this before of others and I'm curious to know what your response would be.  If you had designed a product and patented the design - then went to a manufacturer to source parts for this product, then months later see this company's product come to market looking suspiciously like your product that they supplied parts for - how would you feel and what would you do?  Would you simply shrug your shoulders and say they can just do whatever they want?

 

As a patent holder myself, I will defend my patents against any and all infringement - which is something you have to do if you want to maintain your patent.

 

Your assertion that samsung copied the ipad at the manufacturing stage is pure crap.  First, apple is one of the most secretive companies EVER.  I doubt most of their employees knew what the ipad looked like before it was released.  Why would Samsung have to know what it was going to look like in advance?  They manufacture what... the screens, the processors, and the flash.  You don't need to know what the shell of a device looks like to manufacture any of these parts, and they're all commodity parts (the processor is a bit different, but it's essentially the same as a commodity processor, but contains apple's IP that is not resold to other vendors).  I doubt most of Apple's internal designers (designing the logic board etc) even knew what the device would look like, but had a set of specifications they had to try and meet.  Do you really think apple was dumb enough to ship samsung the shell of an ipad months or years before the ipad's relase?  The only manufacturer who was likely to know what it looked like in advance would be foxconn who manufactured the actual device, and they aren't involved in this lawsuit.

 

As far as the design of the ipad... It's essentially the design of a touch screen smart phone (that many different companies have made, some concepts even before apple) blown up into a larger form factor.  No one else made it first, mostly due to the lack of a software infrastructure to use, because it was clear with the old tablets that the Windows OS was not (at the time) designed for tablet use, and the model had to be different.  It wasn't until google made android work on tablets (an obvious extension) that competitors could come to market.  But as for the actual look of the product... What design there is patented?  Unless you want to argue that a rectangle with a large screen and a flat surface is patentable...  This isn't much different than many existing laptop screens, and old tablets had a similar look and feel from the front (when in tablet mode), but yes, the OS was largely different, and the device itself was much thicker and bulkier (computer technology has minaturized components, I bet you think apple should be able to patent the fact that computer devices can get smaller over time too).  But, if you put those devices into a box with the screen facing outward, and it turned off, from 10-15 feet the front would look like an ipad... Apple wants to be able to put design patents on their hardware for their simplistic designs, but when you make the HW so simplistic in design, there's little room to patent the hardware's look and feel, because it's little more than a flat rectangle.  They can patent the software to use it (and they have and are fighting that), but the hardware design?  Might as well patent the look and feel of a piece of paper.  Apple's devices were not made without prior attempts by other companies coming along first.  The difference is the other companies failed where apple did not.  If those companies were sueing apple over the look and feel of the ipad, you'd say they were just sour that they lost, and money trying to steal apple's hard earned money, and you'd be right. In the same regards, apple is trying to patent a look of a device, but because they're the behmouth they are, they might get away with it. 

 

 

Phil

post #253 of 301

Why spend the money to appeal when Apple could post something funny similar to the following:

 

Judge Rules that Samsung Tablet "not as cool" as Apple iPad.

 

A recent decision by Judge xxxx ruled that Apple is not entitled to legal patent protection against the Samsung Tablet because it is "not as cool" as the Apple iPad.  While Apple believes that it is obvious to any impartial observer that the Samsung is a poor attempt to create a cheap knock-off of the iPad's design, we do take comfort in the Judge's legal finding that the Samsung Tablet's ripped-off design is still not a "cool" as the iPad.  While we always felt that our tablet was cool, it is nice to now have legal precedent for our belief.

post #254 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The decision from Judge Colin Birss means Apple will have to post the notice on its U.K. website for six months, as well as "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad

I can understand the lack of infringement but the conclusion is dumb. The judge is making his own allegations about the damaging impression that Apple has caused without providing any evidence. Apple hasn't advertised that Samsung has infringed their design, they sued them and they had every right to. Is the judge asserting that Apple shouldn't have raised the lawsuit? It's such a ridiculous decision that it should result in him being removed from his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Birss determined that Samsung's products, including the Galaxy Tab, are distinctive from Apple, as they are thinner and have "unusual details" on the back.

Interesting how he made the opposite decision in another case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Teas

"Judge Birss QC, found for the claimant, as he found "the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work."

Birss held that, while some aspects of the claimants' work were absent from the offending image, sufficient aspects were present to constitute copyright infringement."

Not only does the Galaxy Tab clearly take design cues from the iPad as evidenced by Samsung's UMPC designs before the iPad and subsequent designs after the iPad, Samsung reproduces a substantial amount of Apple's designs as evidenced by most of their products:

http://www.mactrast.com/2011/09/samsungs-imitation-of-apple-products-is-just-too-obvious/

The decision reached reeks of bias. I wonder what would happen if their appeal fails and they don't comply.
post #255 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Not by comparison this socialist shit hole. I spend much time in both places. My preference by far is California.

 

In fairness, I do like the bikini-clad women and the weather, generally.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #256 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


It's been said before, but again: their would be NO touch Smartphones, Tablets or Ultrabooks anywhere, without Apple leading the way first with their products.

 

But it has only been said by the uniformed or those trying to manipulate history to make a point.

 

Any informed person would be aware that there were touch-screen*  smartphones long before Apple entered the phone area and that there were tablets that (from a distance </S>) looked like the ipad long before 2010. That is not to say that they have had a significant impact on both markets.

 

Just because people publish selective photos showing phones pre and post 2007 it doesn't make it fact.

 

 

 

 

*Copyright of this term is not officially owned by Apple

post #257 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

Nice try. See earlier prototypes from Apple, 2002 ~ 2004………….

 I dont see your point... Are you suggesting that Samsung were privvy to those protoypes? And that they waited a decade to "copy" the said prototypes.

 

Why are you unwilling to accept that Samsung may have been influeneced by more than one source?

 

Or are you suggesting that iTablet stole the overall look from Apple?

post #258 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Not by comparison this socialist shit hole. I spend much time in both places. My preference by far is California.

 I think that this is first time that I have ever heard of anyone referring to Lord Snooty's government as socialist....

 

Wow, do find the Daily Mail too left wing???

post #259 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The decision reached reeks of bias. I wonder what would happen if their appeal fails and they don't comply.

 Whilst not dismissing your points, why do you think that the judge would be biased?

 

I am not sure what the result of non compliance would be but ultimately the "head" of Apple UK might be found to be in contempt of court and imprisoned. I shouldn't imagine that Apple would want that kind of PR

post #260 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
Any informed person would be aware that there were touch-screen*  smartphones long before Apple entered the phone area and that there were tablets that (from a distance ) looked like the ipad long before 2010.

They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this:



That's not even close, nor is it in the same class of device. Microsoft makes an interesting claim here though:



But you will note that the iTablet never tried to mimic the iPad even after the iPad came out. Samsung tried to make the experience on their device almost identical to the iPad with their design, which extends to the accessories. Samsung's earlier efforts looked like this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
Whilst not dismissing your points, why do you think that the judge would be biased?

The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
I am not sure what the result of non compliance would be but ultimately the "head" of Apple UK might be found to be in contempt of court and imprisoned. I shouldn't imagine that Apple would want that kind of PR

I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?
post #261 of 301

1000

post #262 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

1000

 

Yes, Barrister?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #263 of 301

1000

 

It's official: Got a screen shot of it.

"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 #264 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

1000

 

It's official: Got a screen shot of it.

 

Man, people are stupid.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Yes, Barrister?

 

I was thinking more this:

 

1000

 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME. NO. NO. I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS. I HAD TO DOWNLOAD FLASH TO UPLOAD THAT IMAGE FROM MY COMPUTER. PLUS, I HAD TO GO TO A SECOND PAGE WHERE I HAD TO TELL IT THE SIZE I WANTED (INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE IMAGE, LIKE I WOULD ALWAYS WANT IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE) AND HAD TO CLICK A BOX THAT SAID I WASN'T POSTING ANYTHING INFRINGING (WHICH I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AS IT'S A FREAKING INTERNET FORUM).

 

NO. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, HUDDLER.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 7/19/12 at 9:06pm

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #265 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this:That's not even close, nor is it in the same class of device. Microsoft makes an interesting claim here though:But you will note that the iTablet never tried to mimic the iPad even after the iPad came out. Samsung tried to make the experience on their device almost identical to the iPad with their design, which extends to the accessories. Samsung's earlier efforts looked like this:The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?

 Hi marvin

 

I agree that that the t226 device looks quite different but the earlier t221 (capacitive version) does look like the white ipad.  Yes i am aware that apple had already made (unseen) prototypes but these would have not been part of the public domain. So if iTablet managed to make iPad look-a-likes even before Apple then it is conceivable that Samsung weren't drawing their inspiration exclusively from Apple.

 

I do agree that the images that you posted of the samsung power lead suggest that someone was taking the pee but I guess that is not proof positive as far as the judge was concerned

 

It's a matter of semantics but the judge isn't insisting on a global response but you are correct that compliance will end up becoming global. I still fail to see how it equates to advertising.

 

I might well  be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws. I have no idea of the extent to which Apple have publicly defamed Samsung but they do have the filings of an earlier case on their site where they make the "slavish" claim. Incidentally lines such as "Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control." probably do not help their cases, if I were a judge i would consider that someone were not be totally honest.. Had the Aple team used such techniques during the case then it might explain the sarcastic "cool" remark.

 

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

post #266 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

I might well  be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws.

 

 

Cool precedent if it is not exempt, better than the US's 5th Amendment.

 

"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may make me liable to libel or slander laws, I refer to Apple vs Samsung, your worship."

 

At least it will make a change from the "I cannot recall" response when people don't want to answer questions in court.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #267 of 301
Sure, Samsung shouldn't be allowed to copy Apple. Apple was so sure they would win their case they had to use Photoshopped evidence. Bravo, Apple, bravo. You say this heavily mangled image looks like this other heavily mangled image ? You're Apple, you must have the monopoly on quality.

What you fansheep fail to remember is Steve Jobs stole everything his company started on, straight from Xerox. So if you want to accuse Samsung of copying products, why don't you have Apple return all its stolen ideas first?
post #268 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreadSlayer View Post
Abject nonsense, posted ad infinitum

 

No, you're not a thread slayer. You're not even a bad troll. Our bad trolls here are better than this crap.

 

Come back when you have an actual argument.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #269 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
I agree that that the t226 device looks quite different but the earlier t221 (capacitive version) does look like the white ipad.

I still don't think it looks that much like it:

http://m.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/?icid=eng_ItabletT221_art

The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:


Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
Yes i am aware that apple had already made (unseen) prototypes but these would have not been part of the public domain. So if iTablet managed to make iPad look-a-likes even before Apple then it is conceivable that Samsung weren't drawing their inspiration exclusively from Apple.

Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.

If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
I still fail to see how it equates to advertising.

Apple's site is the 36th most visited website on the internet:

http://mostpopularwebsites.net/

The presence of a competitor's product to a portion of that amount of traffic is advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
I might well be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws.

If there's no evidence provided, their allegations could be slander but they provided plenty examples of Samsung's infringing practises.
post #270 of 301

Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art.  Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them.  Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.
 

post #271 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post
Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art.  Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them.  Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.

 

Prior art my foot. *insert every prior art argument here*

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #272 of 301

700

post #273 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I still don't think it looks that much like it:
http://m.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/?icid=eng_ItabletT221_art
The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:

Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.
If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Apple's site is the 36th most visited website on the internet:
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/
The presence of a competitor's product to a portion of that amount of traffic is advertising.
If there's no evidence provided, their allegations could be slander but they provided plenty examples of Samsung's infringing practises.

 Hi

 

Re the itablet, I appreciate that it was much thicker, not suprising when you consider that it was made in 2007. I was referring more to the rounded rectangle with a border rather than the whole package.

 

I must admit that I had not realised that the icons in the grid were samsung's own, I'd assumed that they were the stock andriod ones.

 

Not having any legal training, I'd thought that it was the job of the claimant to prove that consumers would be confused into buying the defendant's product (thinking that it was the claimant's). Mirroring the case of Apple Corps Vs Apple, where Apple argued that as they had no presence in the music industry and thus as such there was no harm to Apple Corp.

 

Whilst apple have been told to add a page to their site, they haven't been told to add a hyperlink to samsung, nor have they been ordered to give that page any special positioning. I guess they will just have a single page that one has to actively search for.

 

Slander, I don't know enough about the details of the case but would assume that by virtue of the fact that they lost the case (rightly or wrongly) they have maligned samsung (as far as the judge is concerned). Judges are human, they don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, IF apple went down the "we invented the smartphone and tablet" path then the judge would doubt their probity and possibly give less weight to the honest statements.

post #274 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
I was referring more to the rounded rectangle with a border rather than the whole package.

That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.

The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
Slander, I don't know enough about the details of the case but would assume that by virtue of the fact that they lost the case (rightly or wrongly) they have maligned samsung (as far as the judge is concerned).

The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-false-rape-accusation-considered-slander--335806.html

"Defamation requires proof that incorrect statements of fact, not opinion, were made to third parties and that it caused harm"

Apple has not publicly made any statements about Samsung and any references they put online have substantial evidence to back them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover 
Judges are human, they don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, IF apple went down the "we invented the smartphone and tablet" path then the judge would doubt their probity and possibly give less weight to the honest statements.

Apple had every right to make those claims. Everybody who was alive in the past 6 years could see the impact the products they made have had.

In 6 years, they went from $300m profit per quarter to $13b to become the most profitable company in the world and most of it from iOS devices:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/

You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.

Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.
post #275 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.
The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-false-rape-accusation-considered-slander--335806.html
"Defamation requires proof that incorrect statements of fact, not opinion, were made to third parties and that it caused harm"
Apple has not publicly made any statements about Samsung and any references they put online have substantial evidence to back them up.
Apple had every right to make those claims. Everybody who was alive in the past 6 years could see the impact the products they made have had.
In 6 years, they went from $300m profit per quarter to $13b to become the most profitable company in the world and most of it from iOS devices:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/
You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.
Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.

 I am second guessing here, but.. the judge would be willing to accept that Apple changed the phone landscape. That doesn't give them the right to rewrite history though.

 

I have not responded to the slander stuff, sorry, I don't know enough about it.

post #276 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

Chalk this up as a win for common sense!! I believe it was nothing more than Apple being spiteful after a failed attempt to buy the Super AMOLED screen from Samsung on the cheap. Besides, how many different ways can you make a rectangle?

 

"...make a rectangle"? You make it sound like Apple is trying to patent/copyright simple geometry. It's silly oversimplifications like this which end up sounding the most petty and spiteful...

 

As for wanting AMOLED screens, I believe Apple already decided a long time ago that it was going in a different direction (retina tech)… I don't think we'll be seeing retina AMOLED for a very long time.

post #277 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

I am second guessing here, but.. the judge would be willing to accept that Apple changed the phone landscape. That doesn't give them the right to rewrite history though.

I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?

Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.
post #278 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?
Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.

 Sorry Marvin, i didn't explain myself very clearly, by re-writing history I was pooh-poohing any suggestion that there were no smartphones prior to the iphone. Regardless of the validity of one's case, one doesn't have the right to make such claims and IMO doing so makes one seem less honest. As a lay person, based on my partial reading of the PDF they have a good case, it is a shame that they feel it necessary to embellish the truth in such  a brazen way.

post #279 of 301
Seems quite fair to me. Apple must have known that this could be a possible outcome and after seeing both devices I would agree Samsung has not copied to iPad to a large enough extent. Yes there are similarities but the 2 devices ultimately look different. In the same way that you get lots of furniture that's very similar or tvs, bikes basically any category you look at there's lots of things that are very similar but ultimately different / different enough that there not breaking any rules.
post #280 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
…different enough that there not breaking any rules.

 

See, that's Samsung's only argument. And by virtue of that being the argument, they are copying. Inherently. Purposefully.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad