Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?
Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?
Maybe even beyond RAND, MS has been required to make the patents it bought from Novell available under Linux friendly licenses. It seems that law is still being made in this area, but at any rate the DoJ and presumably the EU competition directorate are starting to look more seriously at IP as it pertains to competition.
There's really no sane way that it applies to Apple today of course.
As an Aussie I am disgusted by this and I would not be the only one...
Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is Don't worry mate, our courts will sort it out and put the rest of the world on the right path
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.
3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.
4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.
You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?
1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
Product Placement comes more under the heading of marketing or advertising than PR, I would argue. It's about showing the product rather than sending a message, and yes Apple do a LOT of product placement in TV shows and movies.
So do Dell, and I've seen the odd WP7 phone on 'Castle'.
Sometimes though it seems like they refused to pay. There's a whole part of the movie 'Runaway Jury' which involves evidence stored on a 1-G iPod that the characters ALWAYS refer to as 'an MP3 Player'. It's funny because it dates the movie, you really have to think back hard to remember a time when the entire category wasn't called iPod
Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is Don't worry mate, our courts will sort it out and put the rest of the world on the right path
I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.
This case should have been thrown out before it even started.
I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.
This case should have been thrown out before it even started.
So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.
In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.
So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.
In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
Indeed, its just embarrassing as an Australian that our courts were foolish enough to buy into this crap.
By the way, I'm typing this on my iMac and currently own 4 other pieces of Apple gear before I get called Microsoft fanboy or something.
I didn't accuse you of being a fanboy (MS, Apple, Android or otherwise). As far as being embarrassed for your country, well the court hasn't even made a decision yet sooooo there's still hope?
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.
Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.
Apple is not a patent troll. Apple 1) actually builds things, 2) spends hundreds of millions of dollars in research to build things, 3) doesn't want competitors to ride freely on it's expensive research, 4) made a public statement that it's products were heavily patented, and 5) made it clear that it planned to protect its investment.
Patent trolls don't do research, don't build things, and they do allow companies to rely on allegedly patented ideas and sue as a way to extract money. Apple doesn't want money. It wants Samsung to stop copying its products.
Some Samsung phones are almost exact replicates of iPhones. You have to look carefully to see they are not.
Apple's just defending it's IP. Ugly business, but very much part of the game these days...
Comments
It's complicated - if you're interested there is a weighty DoJ paper on IP and anti-trust
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovatio...ionrpt0704.pdf
Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?
Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?
Maybe even beyond RAND, MS has been required to make the patents it bought from Novell available under Linux friendly licenses. It seems that law is still being made in this area, but at any rate the DoJ and presumably the EU competition directorate are starting to look more seriously at IP as it pertains to competition.
There's really no sane way that it applies to Apple today of course.
As an Aussie I am disgusted by this and I would not be the only one...
Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is
Yes, they have that choice. But they can't buy the product which is arguably the next best after the iPad 2.
Actually, in Australia the Galaxy Tab is a piece of rubbish. There are other Android tablets that are far better than it.
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.
3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.
4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.
You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?
1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
Product Placement comes more under the heading of marketing or advertising than PR, I would argue. It's about showing the product rather than sending a message, and yes Apple do a LOT of product placement in TV shows and movies.
So do Dell, and I've seen the odd WP7 phone on 'Castle'.
Sometimes though it seems like they refused to pay. There's a whole part of the movie 'Runaway Jury' which involves evidence stored on a 1-G iPod that the characters ALWAYS refer to as 'an MP3 Player'. It's funny because it dates the movie, you really have to think back hard to remember a time when the entire category wasn't called iPod
Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is
I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.
This case should have been thrown out before it even started.
I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.
This case should have been thrown out before it even started.
So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.
In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.
So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.
In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
Cool, that's your opinion just as others have the opinion that Samsung did and right now it's up to a handful of judges around the globe to decide.
Cool, that's your opinion just as others have the opinion that Samsung did and right now it's up to a handful of judges around the globe to decide.
Indeed, its just embarrassing as an Australian that our courts were foolish enough to buy into this crap.
By the way, I'm typing this on my iMac and currently own 4 other pieces of Apple gear before I get called Microsoft fanboy or something.
Indeed, its just embarrassing as an Australian that our courts were foolish enough to buy into this crap.
By the way, I'm typing this on my iMac and currently own 4 other pieces of Apple gear before I get called Microsoft fanboy or something.
I didn't accuse you of being a fanboy (MS, Apple, Android or otherwise). As far as being embarrassed for your country, well the court hasn't even made a decision yet sooooo there's still hope?
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.
Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.
Yes I have.
Yes I have.
Go on then - go through each of the patents being asserted and explain why they aren't being infringed or aren't valid.
No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
Well in that case, Samsung has absolutely nothing to worry about. As far as I'm concerned, Apple has gone through the proper channels to seek redress.
Go on then - go through each of the patents being asserted and explain why they aren't being infringed or aren't valid.
I really cant be bothered but you can if you want. No matter what I said you would disagree anyway.
Apple is not a patent troll. Apple 1) actually builds things, 2) spends hundreds of millions of dollars in research to build things, 3) doesn't want competitors to ride freely on it's expensive research, 4) made a public statement that it's products were heavily patented, and 5) made it clear that it planned to protect its investment.
Patent trolls don't do research, don't build things, and they do allow companies to rely on allegedly patented ideas and sue as a way to extract money. Apple doesn't want money. It wants Samsung to stop copying its products.
Some Samsung phones are almost exact replicates of iPhones. You have to look carefully to see they are not.
Apple's just defending it's IP. Ugly business, but very much part of the game these days...
Samsung says it's not going to release - http://www.itwire.com/reviews/mobile...axy-tab-in-aus
I really cant be bothered but you can if you want. No matter what I said you would disagree anyway.
If you can't be bothered substantiating your opinion, don't expect anybody to believe that it has any substance.