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 3

post #81 of 301

It has different details on the back! So if Ford were to accidentally copy the look of a Ferrari to where people can't tell the difference from more than a few feet away, it would actually be find because what's under the hood would still look different? Could this judge tell the difference when NOT looking at the back of the Tab?

 

Ugh, what a crock.

post #82 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

Yeah because a single British judge (wearing a whig no doubt) made a ruling?

 

Sure, we can go with that.

 

Or not.

 

 

Not because his ruling will get press in and of itself.  

 

But instead, due to the advertising Apple is being ordered to run.  Combined with the buzz about the ruling.

post #83 of 301

I've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.

 

No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.

 

It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent.


Edited by Shaun, UK - 7/18/12 at 12:08pm
post #84 of 301

Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright  over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )

 

He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.

 

Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.

 

And then again, the patents Apple has been awarded today will probably make Samsung shit themselves.. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/

post #85 of 301

While it is obvious that a lot of people think this decision should be met by Apple complying with the order in an infantile and dismissive way, I doubt they will.  At this point I doubt Apple would be relishing the likely consequences of being found in contempt of a court order.
 

post #86 of 301

Today's Woot Shirt seems to encompass this news perfectly.

 

http://shirt.woot.com/offers/alas-haters

alas, haters
 

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply
post #87 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright  over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )

 

He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.

 

Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.

 

And then again, the patents Apple has been awarded today will probably make Samsung shit themselves.. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/


uhhh, you DO know that copyright law and patent law are two TOTALLY diff things right?

 

I mean, surely you wouldn't post something like that being serious? Maybe you are just being sarcastic then. Cause i mean, who would be stupid enough to confuse copyright law with patent law, what kind of ifiot would do that?

 

Good one guy, almost got me, lol.

post #88 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?

I'm a patent holder.  And I've fought for the rights of my patents.  Regardless of "what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle" I sit on, I support the right to fight for your rights granted under international patent laws.  Do you know how patents work?  Do you know that if you don't fight for your rights, you are likely to loose said rights?  Also, if you've ever worked with or for a company that is both a component manufacturer and a finished product manufacturer, you'd know that the often touted "fence" that separates the two business units without fail has a giant gate that swings both ways.  Even with the tightest of NDA's, chances are anything shared with one unit will find its way to the other.  It's human nature.


Edited by jmgregory1 - 7/18/12 at 12:12pm
post #89 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apparently they cant appeal - Apple should move all its infrastructure in the UK to Ireland. Not that it has much. 


Yea, it's not like a country with a legal system that ruled you can't libel a dead person is going to do anything about a company effectively doing that to a competitor.

post #90 of 301
deleted
Edited by kellya74u - 7/24/13 at 9:25am
post #91 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

We have to remember speech is not a fundamental right in the UK. Apparently not even in a court of law.

Beg pardon?

Do manga carts and the bill of rights not ring a bell? We have the right of free speech in the uk, just like the USA.

Thanks for playing though.
New books out now! www.jonathanbaldwin.co.uk
Reply
New books out now! www.jonathanbaldwin.co.uk
Reply
post #92 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

In for what will be an epic thread

 

dyups9.gif

 

lol.gif

post #93 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Well when you go all about the place saying

 

"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"

 

Well, that does very bad damage to Samsung's public image. So when you lose in court and it is found that Samsung did NOT copy your design, well, it seems only fair for you to have to correct the wrong you put into people's minds. 

 

 

 

 

Are you sure?  AppleThink says otherwise.  You seem to Think Different.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Rogoff View Post

Who paid the Judge off? I have never heard of such a bizarre and might I say juvenile ruling....extraordinary.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

I would take this a step further:  "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Is this judge for real?? 

 

post #94 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.

 

No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.

 

It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent. I wonder if that is the end of the matter or if Samsung will now sue for defamation and loss of sales.

The issue is - Apple has not publicly defamed or libelled Samsung.  Apple fought for their rights or supposed rights granted by international patent law.  It was Apple's duty to protect their patents.  What the judge is requiring does not fall within the realm of being a reasonable directive based upon the case.  If you can show me where Apple has publicly defamed Samsung, I'll humbly stand corrected, but the last I saw, it was Samsung advertising that poked fun at Apple, not the other way around.  Apple doesn't need to, nor has, advertised against someone else's product. 

post #95 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellya74u View Post

No appeal needed. Give it a few days . The supervising judges will issue a statement similar to:
'In the matter of Apple vs Samsung, we reviewed the elements of the case, & set aside the original decision as being in error, as it did not reflect the totality of the facts presented. We hereby reverse that decision, & find in favor of Apple. Samsung will not have to advertise or in any way, publish the decision or an apology to Apple.'
Wait a couple days more, and you will see an article indicating, "Apparently, the UK judge that issued the original court decision in 'Apple vs Samsung,' was apparently found to, ' not be cool enough to be judge' anymore. It would appear that, based on a review of his peers, the judge's logic & reasoning for the decision was so faulty, that his peers had no confidence in his ability to render fair & equitable findings in future cases.
Apparently, the judge has been offered a job resolving disputes in a herd of sheep, as to who would lead. That should keep him busy & him mind sharp & active for years to come.

 

You obviously didn't read the article. The Judge has not granted Apple leave to appeal to a higher court. His decision is final and binding. If Apple fails to comply they will be fined and/or someone will go to prison.

post #96 of 301

I simply wouldn't do it. It's not like the people in the UK won't simply scalp for the devices anyway. 

post #97 of 301

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

Really?  Really?  Are you freaking trying to be serious, or are you just looking to pick a fight.  Apple NEVER advertised or "go all about the place saying" Samsung did anything.  They rightfully took Samsung to court to support their own patented designs.  It's not only their right to do so, it's their duty to fight for their rights.  Apple wasn't slandering Samsung and Samsung can't counter sue for damages.

 

Please either go away and peddle your drivel elsewhere or actually read up on what you are talking about before spouting off like this.

 

 

 

check your facts, apple, via it's official spokesman, did make explicit public accusations about samsung, so you are the one spouting drivel

 

 

as this thread seems to be rapidly turning into yet another fact-free stream of childish nonsense, let's be clear

 

on july 9th apple lost it's case in the high court, follwing which an apple spokesman is quoted in the uk press as saying...

 

Quote:

“It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” a spokesman said.

“This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

 

a rather childish fit of pique from apple, so it's no surprise that the judge took exception to this blatant act of contempt, and as a result decided that...

 

Quote:

Comments made by Apple after that ruling unfairly implied that Samsung had copied designs, Samsung’s lawyer Kathryn Pickard said at the hearing. That “caused real commercial harm.”

As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.

Apple’s lawyer said the company would appeal the July 9 decision and Judge Birss granted the company permission to take its case to the court of appeal.

The case is Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v. Apple Inc., High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, HC11C03050.

 

 

the law may sometimes be an ass, but in the uk you don't **** around with judges, they bite

 

maybe they'll be stupid enough to try it again, next time they could end up in prison

post #98 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

According to the article "Apple does not have the ability to appeal the ruling"

 

Not the article I read -- perhaps it has been revised. The Article currently says Apple does have the right to appeal.

post #99 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

It has different details on the back! So if Ford were to accidentally copy the look of a Ferrari to where people can't tell the difference from more than a few feet away, it would actually be find because what's under the hood would still look different? Could this judge tell the difference when NOT looking at the back of the Tab?

 

Ugh, what a crock.

 

That's the thing about design patents that always confuses me. Since you make a car analogy, I have a couple examples: A Chrysler 300m looks like Bentley, Hyundai Genesis looks a lot like a Mercedes Benz, Honda NSX looks like a Ferrari. I'd say those are just as similar as the iPad is to the Galaxy. Why don't we see a lot more of these suits?

 

IANAL so just trying to understand.

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Nook reader, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 FireTV

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply
post #100 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent.

No it isn't.
Newspapers do it as a result of a voluntary code, and occasionally as the result of losing a libel case. But "quite common" is a bit of a stretch. I can't think of one example. Presumably you have many?
New books out now! www.jonathanbaldwin.co.uk
Reply
New books out now! www.jonathanbaldwin.co.uk
Reply
post #101 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealestmc View Post

It has to start somewhere. I am glad the judge ruled that way. The idea the square is invented by Apple is absolutely absurd. I like Apple products and all, but this one was a stupid suit to begin with. 

The most charitable correction I can offer is that the iPad is not a square, it's a rectangle. Although it does appropriately sets the tone for your comment's level of intelligent contribution.

Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
post #102 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

"Justice is blind" ?.. Forgive me. I could not resist.

 

judge_birss_b.jpg

 

And apparently looks more like a dog with sunglasses and a fancy bib.

post #103 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

One of the baseless, unproven, so-called "principles" of the quackery known as neurolinguistic programming is that the human brain does not store negation.  ...

 

Fixed that for you. 

post #104 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by artistry View Post


Beg pardon?
Do manga carts and the bill of rights not ring a bell? We have the right of free speech in the uk, just like the USA.
Thanks for playing though.

The magna carta - an ancient charter for Barons which led to no liberty for anyone else - has no legal status. There is no constitutional regard for free speech in the UK, as there is no constitution. The twitter trial, the racist tweets, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

You obviously didn't read the article. The Judge has not granted Apple leave to appeal to a higher court. His decision is final and binding. If Apple fails to comply they will be fined and/or someone will go to prison.

 

it has the right to appeal. The article has changed.

 

I do think that 
 
1) The Apple spokesman should have said nothing when the case went against them.
 
Edit: scratch that. Apple merely said that "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging"
 
latest products: not the Tab. 
 
2) They should just forget the Tab. Times have moved on. Stop wasting time.
3) Nevertheless appeal this stupid decision.

Edited by asdasd - 7/18/12 at 12:31pm
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #105 of 301

There is something decidedly discriminatory in both the tone & manner, and rulings directed toward Apple by this particular judge...

 

Apple has similar lawsuits all over the world. Each has had slightly different results, but none quite as egregious in attitude as in this particular court. One should not be punished for bringing what one thinks is a justifiable suit (and I think it's even more questionable to treat Apple this way, given the history of this and other cases that demonstrate that Apple's position is entirely legitimate).

 

When I first saw a Galaxy Tab from a distance, I thought for a moment it was an iPad… then immediately thought, oh, something's weird with that one (because it seemed longer, due to its 16:9 dimensions). Other than that, it and their nexus phone could both be mistaken for Apple products at a glance. 

 

That kind of blatant copying of design and finishing style is now OK apparently……? "look-alike" products, not a problem, eh?

 

SO what's the point of a trademark, copyright or patent then?

post #106 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

 

 

 

 

check your facts, apple, via it's official spokesman, did make explicit public accusations about samsung, so you are the one spouting drivel

 

 

as this thread seems to be rapidly turning into yet another fact-free stream of childish nonsense, let's be clear

 

on july 9th apple lost it's case in the high court, follwing which an apple spokesman is quoted in the uk press as saying...

 

 

a rather childish fit of pique from apple, so it's no surprise that the judge took exception to this blatant act of contempt, and as a result decided that...

 

 

 

the law may sometimes be an ass, but in the uk you don't **** around with judges, they bite

 

maybe they'll be stupid enough to try it again, next time they could end up in prison

Just a second - you (and/or the UK press) took the quote from an Apple spokesman out of context.  That quote was referring to the ruling in the US case, and if you dig further you'd know that this is the statement that Apple has used regarding cases around the world since last April.  The judge didn't rule Apple was in contempt of court for comments made, unless you have information the rest of us do not.

post #107 of 301
I own many Apple products which include an iPhone, iPad, iMac, MacBook, Apple TV ... etc. but, I agree with this UK judge on his rulings.

Apple need to stay focused on innovations instead of wasting resources and talents on suing its competition.

Apple should know that their customers are paying premium prices for innovations not to fund the fightings in court rooms around the world.

Perhaps, Apple need to appologize to its customers for wasting customer's money in the court rooms.. Otherwise, we should stop buying Apple products.
post #108 of 301

Proof is in the pudding, as they say. Before Apple's iPad, there was no lack of companies making tablets, they were made, they were pushed, they were shown around and hyped. Nothing came of them. To the dump, all of them.

 

iPad was shown, just 3 years ago. It was cool, it did stuff, it was touch like the iPhone but better in many ways. Where everyone before had failed, Apple succeeded. Why? Because Apple created a product that worked, and on many levels.

 

Now, everyone and his mother are coming out with tablets, which they claim don't copy Apple. Horse hockey! If Apple merely created a market for tablets, then their competitors should just offer their old junk and see how that flies. Bet they wouldn't sell, and they couldn't give them away.

 

No, Apple's competitors stole the essence of the iPad -- they had to to compete. The iPad is the emergent result of many technical parts, many of which existed before, but were tweaked by Apple engineers and combined in ways others had failed to see.

 

Yes, Apple's competitors all had the hydrogen and oxygen, but it was Apple who made the water. 

post #109 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post it (Apple) has the right to appeal. The article has changed.

 

Correct. Judge Birss has granted Apple's request to ask the Court of Appeal to have a look-see.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 301

Do it in Korean.

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 #111 of 301

I read the first page... laughed, and then decided to try and explain this. The UK has pretty stringent libel laws. If you make a complaint to a court for the purpose of a lawsuit, and it is decided by the court that your complaint was wrong, then by definition of making the complaint, your statement is considered libelous. Therefore you have to publicly retract the statement.

 

This probably seems odd, especially to those in the US, however in the UK you cannot simply sue with impunity, lose and continue to assert your complaint. By taking it to court, you're asking a judge to determine if the complaint is true. If they decide no, you're technically making a libelous claim.

 

Apple's lawyers in the UK would have known and advised of this risk before taking it to court. You win some, you lose some.
 

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #112 of 301

The other thing which confuses me is the Judge's belief that he is supposed to be concerned with "Informed Consumers" only. He says himself that:

 

 


He said: "When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table.

"They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out.

"However, to the informed user - which at that stage I was not - these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent.

 
So if every user gets to be a judge in a trial on the issue, they will get the differences. Is this the way trade dress usually works?
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #113 of 301
deleted
Edited by kellya74u - 7/24/13 at 9:24am
post #114 of 301

I just remember this from the judge in the US

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/14/samsung-lawyers-also-struggle-to-tell-ipad-and-galaxy-tab-apart/

 

The article as it presently stands, as far as I could see, does not mention if Apple has the right to appeal or not but says that Apple will have to advertise in newspapers and magazines as well as on their own website in the uk for 6 months about this result. I would include a link to the macrumors article or a similar one though as part of whatever advert that Apple may need to make as well as the galaxy tab not being cool comment from the judge, whether he meant it or not. One other thing that was not specified was what the specifics of the advertising should be. Could it be an eighth of a page in the back of some magazine that nobody reads or does it need to be in a tech magazine. How big does the newspaper ad need to be and what does it need to say.

 

I am sure this is not the last we will hear about this.

post #115 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by artistry View Post


Beg pardon?
Do manga carts and the bill of rights not ring a bell? We have the right of free speech in the uk, just like the USA.
Thanks for playing though.

Hah! I think the judge knows better than you.

post #116 of 301

I'd say just pull iPads from the UK. Maybe the judge can handle illegal imports and an unhappy public instead.

post #117 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

I read the first page... laughed, and then decided to try and explain this. The UK has pretty stringent libel laws. If you make a complaint to a court for the purpose of a lawsuit, and it is decided by the court that your complaint was wrong, then by definition of making the complaint, your statement is considered libelous. Therefore you have to publicly retract the statement.

 

This probably seems odd, especially to those in the US, however in the UK you cannot simply sue with impunity, lose and continue to assert your complaint. By taking it to court, you're asking a judge to determine if the complaint is true. If they decide no, you're technically making a libelous claim.

 

Apple's lawyers in the UK would have known and advised of this risk before taking it to court. You win some, you lose some.
 

really - can you link to similar cases?

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #118 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by artistry View Post


No it isn't.
Newspapers do it as a result of a voluntary code, and occasionally as the result of losing a libel case. But "quite common" is a bit of a stretch. I can't think of one example. Presumably you have many?

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Barely a month goes by without someone suing one or more of the newspapers for libel. I'm not saying they always win but if they do they usually have to publish an apology. Nothing to do with that waste of space PCC voluntary code which has been shown to be a sham by the Leveson Inquiry.

 

I suppose the last big one I can think of is Christopher Jefferies successfully suing a number of newspapers for libel last year over the Joanna Yates murder. I guess you don't remember that case - it is was only the lead news story for days across TV and the Press here. I'm sure I could find a lot more celebrity cases if I could be bothered to Google it but I'll leave that to you.

post #119 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark View Post

 

That's the thing about design patents that always confuses me. Since you make a car analogy, I have a couple examples: A Chrysler 300m looks like Bentley, Hyundai Genesis looks a lot like a Mercedes Benz, Honda NSX looks like a Ferrari. I'd say those are just as similar as the iPad is to the Galaxy. Why don't we see a lot more of these suits?

 

IANAL so just trying to understand.

 

DARN IT!!!!

 

STOP WITH THE FACTS ALREADY! We don't take kindly to those around here.

 

But i must say, to me the genesis says more Acura than mercedes. Also, see the f430 and mclaren mp4-12

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01771/McLaren-MP4-12C-1_1771192b.jpg

http://lasvegasnevadaexoticcarrentals.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ferrari-f430-las-vegas.jpg

 

Not to mention that pretty much every post-war car resembled each other.

 

But even more than that, I still can't tell the difference between two HDTV's, they all look alike (will be interesting to see how Apple can make a non-rectangular, sharp edged TV)

And is it me, or do Ferragamo wingtips look like a copy of Gucci wingtips?

 

If i was Ferragamo, I would sue the snot out of Gucci. I mean, Ferragamo cannot be the developer of the shoe world. They are all for innovation, but they can not allow competitors to steal their ideas.

post #120 of 301

To be fair, I do think that the iPad is generally considered the best tablet by most people and for most uses. Some may want something smaller for carrying around, some may feel an affinity for Android or a particular hardware manufacturer, and some tablets are cheaper, but I think most people, if you offered to give them a tablet for free, would choose an iPad without hesitation. So I doubt it would hurt Apple much to claim that Samsung tablets are nothing like Apple tablets, even if I don't entirely agree with the claim.

 

One of my co-workers got a Samsung tablet last year, and when I asked him why he got it instead of an iPad, he said he just wasn't an Apple fan in general. He couldn't really identify any specific differences. He let me play with it, and it sure seemed a lot like an iPad to me, which I thought was funny given his reason for getting it.

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