or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads - Page 2

post #41 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See what I frigging mean.

It is not unique to Apple and its products, I've seen people ask for chicken McNuggets in Burger King. Many consumers just aren't as informed as others. I'd be curious to find out how many other tablets were purchased mistakenly, how many Motorola Xooms or Transformer Primes. Apple isn't suing them so who would you blame then?
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/8/12 at 4:53pm
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See what I frigging mean.

Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #43 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See what I frigging mean.

It is not unique to Apple and its products, I've seen people ask for chicken McNuggets in Burger King. Many consumers just aren't as informed as others.

That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
post #44 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I can forgive an initial confusion upon seeing the Tab 10.1 but to actually purchase it and take it home because they thought it was an iPad is the pinnacle of stupidity. I'm also sure many were misled even further by salespeople. That cannot be blamed 100% on Samsung.

 

Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.

 

If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.

 

That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.

post #45 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."

i know that it is pretty much impossible to ignore samsung because they have certain "privileges" in korea that no other similar company gets in any country. my hope is for apple to invest heavily on foxconn and similar companies so they can up their game and together destroy that huge pile of criminals. Personaly i would like to see them exterminated, at least that corrupt culture, not the "name" samsung but that would be a bad thing for me to say.

post #46 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.

it reminds me of that email about google and java... i believe nothing good to apple will happen from this. they have other priorities and more deadly ways to settle this against that pile of criminal garbage.

post #47 of 158

I never really used to think that Samsung copied Apple much...until I saw this picture on someone's Facebook...

 

700

 

At first I was like 'what's up with her iPad?' - then...well...

post #48 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Here's the interesting part: those of us who voiced our concerns and objections about Samsung long before this ever started, and who portended Samsung's eventual exposure for the liars and cheats they are, were called every name in the book by the usual gang of trolls. 

Quadra, assuming that you were LTD, I remember you getting alot of flack over this on MacRumors.
post #49 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.

I'll readily admit that Samsung did cause some confusion as I myself was fooled for a split second when I first picked up a Galaxy Tab but as Mr Wolf said the subterfuge didn't hold up upon closer inspection.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.

If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.

That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.

OK I'll buy that but again were any other tablets other than the Tab purchased believing they were iPads and who's to blame for that?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #51 of 158

haven't people heard of genericized naming?  The first "real" tablet on the market to gain any market share was the iPad.  The iPad has since become associated with every tablet device, with the possible exception of the kindle fire, because people associate that as an ebook reader first.  I imagine a lot of people are lazy and don't want to say computer tablet or whatever (and just saying tablet can be confused with a tablet of paper), and just say ipad.  They are not using it to mean an apple device, but a tablet computer.  It's the same reason people often refer to non-apple mp3 players as an ipod.  it's often easier than saying "it's an mp3 player... similar to an ipod, but made by XYZ and cheaper".  When a company dominates the market as much as apple does, it is expected that people will start to genericize the product's name.  It's not a matter of competitors intentionally fooling the masses, but rather that the masses haven't really seen the other devices.

 

With android, the same is also true.  The term iphone is so well known now that many people use it to refer to all smart phones.  Saying please, no using your iphones during XYZ is often easier than saying smartphones or whatever, and everyone knows what the speaker means.  When one company spends billions advertising their device, it's no wonder other people ask for another companies version of the ipad.  The samsung galaxy tablet performs many of the same functions as an ipad, so to many consumers, it is samsung's ipad.  They realize it's not the exact same thing, but if it can perform the same functions, than why not refer to them the same way.  With  apple performing so much marketing, and having the mindshare they have, it's no wonder other companies have a hard time distinguishing their products from apple's.  

 

Phil

post #52 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

It seems pretty awesome? hilarious? etc that all these documents apple is putting forth in the trial are internal Samsung documents.

 

Samsung must enjoy crucifying themselves?

Here's the kicker: THESE were the documents they didn't have time to destroy. Imagine what got fed into the fire!!!

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #53 of 158
If this article has been linked from AI I haven't seen it so apologies in advance if it has but otherwise enjoy the read. Samsung: power, corruption and lies. Mic Wright wonders why Samsung isn’t more closely scrutinised, given the company’s chequered past and allegations made against its ruling family’s professional ethics. http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
post #54 of 158

In other news, Dominoes has filed suit against Papa Johns.

 

Dominoes claims that they have been damaged by the fact that Papa John's pizzas are also round.

 

lol.gif

 

This has to end sometime, right?

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #55 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.

I'll readily admit that Samsung did cause some confusion as I myself was fooled for a split second when I first picked up a Galaxy Tab but as Mr Wolf said the subterfuge didn't hold up upon closer inspection.

No doubt, but the test is not whether the subterfuge succeeded, but whether it occurred.
post #56 of 158
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post
This has to end sometime, right?

 

It'll end when people who don't understand the argument either accept they don't understand the argument or wise up and start to understand it.

post #57 of 158

Actually, as compelling as this sounds at first, it's really an effect of first to market/advertiser impressions...

 

For example... what do you think of when you see...

 

1. A Bandaid?

2. A Xerox Copy?

3. A Kleenex tissue?

4. A FedEx'd package?

 

These are all examples of incredibly strong product brands now associated with an entire segment of products or services.

 

People don't see or call tablet PCs, tablet PCs... they almost always call them iPads... even if its a POS grey market tablet.

 

My 2-cents.

 

 

 
 
post #58 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.

If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.

That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.

OK I'll buy that but again were any other tablets other than the Tab purchased believing they were iPads and who's to blame for that?

Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.
post #59 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It'll end when people who don't understand the argument either accept they don't understand the argument or wise up and start to understand it.

Or when people like you realize that a question can have more than one answer. And I've posed questions to you and you have chosen to ignore them.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 158

The corporatocracy is as insensitive to poetic justice as it is immune the more usual kinds.

 
post #61 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It is not unique to Apple and its products, I've seen people ask for chicken McNuggets in Burger King. 

And if you are in the south, you go to a restaurant, they ask what you want to drink:

"A coke"

"What kind?"

"Root Beer"

post #62 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 


In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.

 

Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.

 

A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.

 

The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.

 

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

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html

http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/

post #63 of 158
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Or when people like you realize that a question can have more than one answer. And I've posed questions to you and you have chosen to ignore them.

 

"Did Samsung steal wholesale from Apple in hardware design, software design, and trade dress?" can have more than one answer? How? And to the later, I can't remember any, but I imagine it was because of their incorrect or pointless nature.

post #64 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.

I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #65 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Did Samsung steal wholesale from Apple in hardware design, software design, and trade dress?" can have more than one answer? How? And to the later, I can't remember any, but I imagine it was because of their incorrect or pointless nature.

Yes they did and I've answered in the affirmative to these before. I will not however blame people's stupidity on Samsung.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3 View Post

Actually, as compelling as this sounds at first, it's really an effect of first to market/advertiser impressions...

 

For example... what do you think of when you see...

 

1. A Bandaid?

2. A Xerox Copy?

3. A Kleenex tissue?

4. A FedEx'd package?

 

These are all examples of incredibly strong product brands now associated with an entire segment of products or services.

 

People don't see or call tablet PCs, tablet PCs... they almost always call them iPads... even if its a POS grey market tablet.

 

My 2-cents.

 

 

 
 

1. a hidden vagina

2. a virtual vagina

3 a real vagina

4. a gift. (no..a vagina inside of a box)

post #67 of 158

Here is a link to the Knight Ridder tablet presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

post #68 of 158
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. 

 

Exactly, and it's a testament to how close Samsung purposely copied that it didn't end quickly.


Originally Posted by peterring View Post
Here is a link to the Knight Ridder tablet presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

 

Your point being what, that Apple wasn't first and therefore can't patent anything and should lose? News flash: all this crap has been invalidated.

post #69 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

1. a hidden vagina
2. a virtual vagina
3 a real vagina
4. a gift. (no..a vagina inside of a box)

How about a nickname for Richard? And if you don't know what it is then it's Dick.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #70 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Exactly, and it's a testament to how close Samsung purposely copied that it didn't end quickly.

Your point being what, that Apple wasn't first and therefore can't patent anything and should lose? News flash: all this crap has been invalidated.

I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #71 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

As much as you'd like to believe that consumers aren't that silly, they are.

For example, just watch people next time they fill up their car with gas at a gas station:

1. Somebody puts gas in their car.

At this point, in their immediate future, they have now created a 'To Do' list of 'go inside and pay for the gas I just put in the vehicle'.

2. They walk inside the petrol station, go up to the attendant and...

This is it. The moment.

Look at the confused look on their face. What pump number did they use? 'Sh!t', they say, 'I just filled up my car with gas. I didn't anticipate needing the pump number to tell the attendant which pump it was...'. Random pointing and referrals to 'it's the car' begin...

Unfortunately, customers don't live in the world that you and I live in.

Generally, they're in a galaxy far, far away...

let's see: a couple hundred million licensed drivers in the usa, some large percentage of which put fuel in their vehicle every day, and you're faulting people for forgetting to get the pump number before they walk inside to pay for their fuel purchase? i know for a fact that i've done that at least once in the 30+ years i've been driving, so i guess not living in the same world as you makes those of us guilty of this sin inferior to you.

(i suppose there is comfort in the fact that as more and more people use debit and credit cards to pay at the pump, the fewer people you'll have to lord over.)
post #72 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?

I would conclude that you're obfuscating.

You admit that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers by blatantly copying Apple's proprietary product. That's enough to demonstrate guilt and Apple should win.

Whether or not consumers are stupid has no bearing on that matter. And note that not all consumers who were confused are stupid. Samsung's attorneys, for example. I'm assuming that total morons don't easily get law degrees and end up working for major firms in positions of importance.
"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 #73 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

let's see: a couple hundred million licensed drivers in the usa, some large percentage of which put fuel in their vehicle every day, and you're faulting people for forgetting to get the pump number before they walk inside to pay for their fuel purchase? i know for a fact that i've done that at least once in the 30+ years i've been driving, so i guess not living in the same world as you makes those of us guilty of this sin inferior to you.
(i suppose there is comfort in the fact that as more and more people use debit and credit cards to pay at the pump, the fewer people you'll have to lord over.)

I got a better one, how many people have put diesel into a car by mistake? It happens quite often.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 158
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.

 

… The Anti-Apple Brigade never quits, does it? Kicking and screaming and clawing at the men in white shirts as they're taken away… (ha ha)

post #75 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.

I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?

OK - I think I understand your point, but I would argue that whether stupid people mistook Tabs for iPads, or whether salespersons mislead them does not exempt Samsung from liability for infringing on design patents. Similarly, that some customers (even many customers) returned other devices thinking that they were iPads still doesn't let Samsung off, although you certainly could argue that it devalues that particular Best Buy evidence.

The fact that you were only fooled briefly is not evidence in Samsung's favor, given that you are saying, effectively, that yes, you agree they tried to deceive you but you were too knowledgeable to fall for it.
post #76 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I would conclude that you're obfuscating.
You admit that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers by blatantly copying Apple's proprietary product. That's enough to demonstrate guilt and Apple should win.
Whether or not consumers are stupid has no bearing on that matter. And note that not all consumers who were confused are stupid. Samsung's attorneys, for example. I'm assuming that total morons don't easily get law degrees and end up working for major firms in positions of importance.

Sure it does because it'll take away from the point Apple is trying to make in a impartial juror. Kinda like a 400 ft foul ball, it looks good and got hit hard but in the end was meaningless. And of course I don't mean that people are complete morons, just that they're not as tech savvy and you and I.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #77 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.

… The Anti-Apple Brigade never quits, does it? Kicking and screaming and clawing at the men in white shirts as they're taken away… (ha ha)

Did you mean "men in white coats", or are you talking about the lawyers?
post #78 of 158
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
Did you mean "men in white coats", or are you talking about the lawyers?

 

White coats… white coats… Not sure I'm not a little loopy myself. 

post #79 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

… The Anti-Apple Brigade never quits, does it? Kicking and screaming and clawing at the men in white shirts as they're taken away… (ha ha)

Show me one post of mine that's Anti-Apple. You won't blame people for their stupidity but let Apple lose this case and you'll blame them plenty then.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/8/12 at 6:14pm
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #80 of 158
As far as I can tell, based on the evidence presented so far, Samsung can not let this case be decided by a jury.

Having said that, we all know Apple will not settle for anything less that the complete destruction of Samsung's android line, because Apple's suit is not about the money, it's about copying and stealing from Apple, to wit; "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

I think Jobs made it clear he wouldn't settle for any amount of money.
Edited by King of Beige - 8/8/12 at 6:21pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads