I'm about as pro Apple as you can get, but I don't think I agree with allowing the competition a look at future products. Is Samsung copying Apple? Absolutely! But, if this ruling was against Apple, we would all be jumping up and down pissed.
I'm about as pro Apple as you can get, but I don't think I agree with allowing the competition a look at future products. Is Samsung copying Apple? Absolutely! But, if this ruling was against Apple, we would all be jumping up and down pissed.
You're right, if this was Apple being sued for blatantly ripping Samsung off, I would be extremely pissed. I'd be jumping up and down shouting "Why, why, why is Apple ripping off a shitty bunch of posers like Samsung!?"
This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.
Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star? How quickly we forget.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star? How quickly we forget.
My God you're right! Forty years ago, they maybe kinda ripped someone off, then...well, nothing at all, really. And we all forgot so soon! Forty years later!
My God you're right! Forty years ago, they maybe kinda ripped someone off, then...well, nothing at all, really. And we all forgot so soon! Forty years later!
What a bunch of ripoff artists!
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.
Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
Yes, because as well all know, one time equals a trend...
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
Totally agree. Apple should be wary as Nokia has a very large number of patents on many aspects of cell phone technology.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star?
No way. I used to use the Xerox Star and it was nicer (and quite different) than the early Macs. For one thing, it had a nice big screen. Not that little 9" excuse for a monitor.
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
Well you cant copy someones product that closely without problems because of the trade dress protection. Ive myself many times made the mistake at first thinking that its an iphone 3Gs picture but its a picture of a samsung phone from the frontside... Im no lawyer but if most people of the street might confuse the two then you are on seriously deep waters.
Samsung has seriously bent the line here and have been wondering for a long time now why Apple didnt do anything about it. But ist all the sweeter if Samsung cant get out of this and they manufacured over 10 million phones of those... It will be big damages if they are considered guilty...
The intresting thing of course is how their prototypes have been evolving as they are also are the manufacurer of Apple phones....
The title "Samsung ordered to show its new prototypes to Apple" is pretty misleading. The court order clearly states the prototypes will only be shown to outside council and not to Apple's in-house legal team or anyone in Apple's engineering department. This is done to protect Samsung from Apple stealing their designs or getting any kind of head start advantage from the sneak peek.
The AppleInsider story clearly says this:
"The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials."
Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).
So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
The original iPhone was accused by technically illiterate bloggers, of being similar to some LG device, or other. The LG device was a full screen phone, with no keyboard, but there the similarity ended. Was it a copy? No. Could we always rely on courts to know this? No.
The precedent is not a legal precedent, well not just a legal precedent, but a precedent For APple. Apple have managed to get another company - and a large one - to show it's future products because of similarities in look and feel of the hardware, and to an extent, the software ( or more specifically, the launcher). However the actual running software is quite different. This opens Apple up to counter suits if it ever tries to do something to iOS which has been done before on Android. Or WebOS. Notifications, maybe, but something.
Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).
Doesn't anybody know how to read any more? NO ONE at Apple can see the products. Only Apple's outside legal counsel. What part of "The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials" don't you understand?
And make an engineer their legal counsel? Do you have ANY idea how foolish that idea is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
Not at all. The issues here (trade dress) require an examination of the finished product. The patent infringement issues that others are suing for are simple technical matters ("does your product do xyz by using abc?") which does not require examination of the product.
So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.
Because the legal system doesn't concern itself with the particulars or rigor of a given case, but instead relies on broad categories such as "someone sued someone for something and won so now all such lawsuits are winnable", apparently.
If Apple prevails it will be because they had a case and made it. No new principle is being articulated, and the bit about allowing outside council to have a look at upcoming products doesn't change that.
The judge in the case specifically noted that his ruling derived from the fact that the images Apple produced provided a reasonable basis for their complaint. I imagine if Apple takes to producing devices that closely mimic a competitors products then they'll possibly be subject to similar treatment, should they prevail in this case. Just like anyone copying trade dress has been all along.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
What's this? Galbi hears tell of Apple's doings on the internet and concludes it can only mean sorrow and destruction and will ultimately backfire on Apple?
Comments
I'm about as pro Apple as you can get, but I don't think I agree with allowing the competition a look at future products. Is Samsung copying Apple? Absolutely! But, if this ruling was against Apple, we would all be jumping up and down pissed.
You're right, if this was Apple being sued for blatantly ripping Samsung off, I would be extremely pissed. I'd be jumping up and down shouting "Why, why, why is Apple ripping off a shitty bunch of posers like Samsung!?"
Dangerous precedent.
Why?
I second that. This might backfire somewhere in the future, with a much larger loss for Apple.
Why?
...... Apple's modus operandi.
Don't use words that guys like asdasd and cykz don't understand.
This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.
Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star? How quickly we forget.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star? How quickly we forget.
My God you're right! Forty years ago, they maybe kinda ripped someone off, then...well, nothing at all, really. And we all forgot so soon! Forty years later!
What a bunch of ripoff artists!
My God you're right! Forty years ago, they maybe kinda ripped someone off, then...well, nothing at all, really. And we all forgot so soon! Forty years later!
What a bunch of ripoff artists!
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.
Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
Yes, because as well all know, one time equals a trend...
Yes, because as well all know, one time equals a trend...
We'll see how the courts view this.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
Totally agree. Apple should be wary as Nokia has a very large number of patents on many aspects of cell phone technology.
Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star?
No way. I used to use the Xerox Star and it was nicer (and quite different) than the early Macs. For one thing, it had a nice big screen. Not that little 9" excuse for a monitor.
Maybe? Kinda? January 22, 1984. Yup that's 27 years ago.
Xerox Star - Bitmapped display, mouse, icons, menus etc etc. Nothing really. Please do tell me how this compares to Samsung. A tablet is a glass slab. Bitmapped display, touch, icons, menus etc etc.
Well you cant copy someones product that closely without problems because of the trade dress protection. Ive myself many times made the mistake at first thinking that its an iphone 3Gs picture but its a picture of a samsung phone from the frontside... Im no lawyer but if most people of the street might confuse the two then you are on seriously deep waters.
Samsung has seriously bent the line here and have been wondering for a long time now why Apple didnt do anything about it. But ist all the sweeter if Samsung cant get out of this and they manufacured over 10 million phones of those... It will be big damages if they are considered guilty...
The intresting thing of course is how their prototypes have been evolving as they are also are the manufacurer of Apple phones....
The AppleInsider story clearly says this: This isn't the precedent it seems to be.
Why?
Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).
So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
Why?
Don't use words that guys like asdasd and cykz don't understand.
To use words you wont understand, that's an ad hominem not an argument.
The original iPhone was accused by technically illiterate bloggers, of being similar to some LG device, or other. The LG device was a full screen phone, with no keyboard, but there the similarity ended. Was it a copy? No. Could we always rely on courts to know this? No.
The precedent is not a legal precedent, well not just a legal precedent, but a precedent For APple. Apple have managed to get another company - and a large one - to show it's future products because of similarities in look and feel of the hardware, and to an extent, the software ( or more specifically, the launcher). However the actual running software is quite different. This opens Apple up to counter suits if it ever tries to do something to iOS which has been done before on Android. Or WebOS. Notifications, maybe, but something.
Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).
Doesn't anybody know how to read any more? NO ONE at Apple can see the products. Only Apple's outside legal counsel. What part of "The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials" don't you understand?
And make an engineer their legal counsel? Do you have ANY idea how foolish that idea is?
So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
Not at all. The issues here (trade dress) require an examination of the finished product. The patent infringement issues that others are suing for are simple technical matters ("does your product do xyz by using abc?") which does not require examination of the product.
Where were all these fully touch-screen smart phones prior to the iPhone? Oh yeah....there weren't any!!
Like the LG KE850 that was presented and releases befor the iPhone?
Because the legal system doesn't concern itself with the particulars or rigor of a given case, but instead relies on broad categories such as "someone sued someone for something and won so now all such lawsuits are winnable", apparently.
If Apple prevails it will be because they had a case and made it. No new principle is being articulated, and the bit about allowing outside council to have a look at upcoming products doesn't change that.
The judge in the case specifically noted that his ruling derived from the fact that the images Apple produced provided a reasonable basis for their complaint. I imagine if Apple takes to producing devices that closely mimic a competitors products then they'll possibly be subject to similar treatment, should they prevail in this case. Just like anyone copying trade dress has been all along.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.
It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.
Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.
At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.
What's this? Galbi hears tell of Apple's doings on the internet and concludes it can only mean sorrow and destruction and will ultimately backfire on Apple?
I'm stunned.