And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.
I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
How about the other patents, those that don't pertain to manufacturing? And are not encumbered with FRAND terms?
Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69
There's a difference between you and I.
I am forward-looking.
Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles. Nor can I see Rolex ever stating that some Timex was a close copy of their high quality and respected timepieces. As far as Rolex and Lexus are concerned publicly, other non-premium companies (ie. Timex or Hyundai) aren't capable of building either a Rolex or Lexus. To give even a second thought would be ridiculous to their marketing arms.
Then I guess you're not paying attention.
Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.
The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.
For your analogy to work, the Galaxy Tab has to resemble the iPad so much that customers cannot distinguish them. Even Apple is not arguing that. Rolex fakes, on the other hand, are made to look identical the genuine article.
Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.
... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.
[...] Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).
Simple, eh.
Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.
It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.
Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:
Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.
It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.
Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:
If Apple is using encumbered patents, then simple non-discrimatory fees are straight forward to address. These are usually associated with standards etc., and reflect agreements for the standard to be put in place, e.g., cell phone communications standards like 3G. If the violated patent is not encumbered, then SAMSUNG should get value from its intellectual property, same as Apple. Apple does not use standards based patents e.g., H.264 for the kind of suits currently under way.
However, If SAMSUNG has not revealed patents it has on standards and failed to reveal those this is not a good place for SAMSUNG. If some countries, Korea, have lower legal criteria for patents required in standards, e.g., Korean local favor 3G or CDMA then this could be a very bad precedent for Korea.
If I was SAMSUNG, I would be a lot more worried about Google and Oracle from a business perspective. This could dramatically change the business model landscape for SAMSUNG.
I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.
Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.
Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.
Then I guess you're not paying attention.
Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.
The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.
If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.
Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.
... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.
Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.
Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.
In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.
If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.
Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
That says premium.
Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
This whole line of reasoning assumes that Apple pays a lot for chips, compared to other chip buyers. I have seen reports to the contrary.
Other than the general principle that big orders are better than small orders, do you have any data showing that Samsung makes better profits (more in an absolute sense, more %, more $/unit of risk, whatever relevant metric you can cite) from Apple compared to other chip buyers?
I don't follow this reasoning so I can't really say anything sensible about it. Did you consider that maybe, Apple pays less for their chips, for exactly the reasons I described? In other words, because they place large orders over a predictable, relatively long timeframe, for identical chips?
IC production doesn't just follow the 'general principle that big orders are better than small orders', it follows the 'every new design takes millions of $$$, lots of time and high risk of unexpected production issues' principle, which basically means the more you want of the same thing, the better. If you went to Samsung to buy 10,000 complex IC's you would probably pay over $1000 a chip. If you want 10,000,000 of them, the price will be closer to $10 a piece. It's much more extreme than any other business I know of. The savings of large volumes and predictable demand go both ways (customer and supplier), since 10 hours of downtime figuring out why you get bad yields from a particular design is entirely on the supplier, and I can tell you an hour of downtime on a wafer stepper is likely a lot more expensive than you can imagine.
Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.
Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.
In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.
Are you absolutely sure? Source.
[on edit: when a company is willing to say that their product is the same as another product... but better; then think about how it will be marketed at the retail level. Android does not have to be mentioned. The type of apps or the name of the app store does not have to be mentioned... "Wow... I just got a tablet that is better than the iPad! Shit! Why won't Apple let me log into their app store?!". ]
Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".
I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".
Do you see anywhere where they say they are different... as in Android?
[on edit: Its like saying that the Chev truck is better than the ford truck, but it looks exactly the same as the Ford truck... but then not telling the public that it runs on pig manure...
Point being... they are trying to pass it off as one thing when it's another ]
I have done a quick search for Samsung's inventions and I am not seeing a whole lot out there, perhaps I am missing something. From anecdotal evidence I have watched Samsung come in and be successful manufacturing things that other people have first invented, TV's, washer/dryers, vcr's, dvd players, cell phones, etc. In Korea: ships, heavy machinery, etc. I think Samsung's forte is to copy other peoples ideas and make them cheaply, efficiently, and often of good quality. But I do not see them as inventors. I think they are kinda cheesy in the way they are acting. I mean seriously, name one thing that Samsung has invented that never existed before. You can't do it. They are a commodity producer, not a commodity inventor.
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
. . . and offer the same features, with the same form factor, and the same capabilities.
Agreed that Samsung sees what makes the iPad successful and imitates that while making improvements/changes where they see it make's sense. Fair? Dunno. That's how business has been done for eons. Apple's not above imitation if it makes sense to their business.
In any case, the Tab and iPad are not the same product, and no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad. Claiming "confusion" is a silly talking point for lawyers, not the real world.
I have done a quick search for Samsung's inventions and I am not seeing a whole lot out there, perhaps I am missing something. From anecdotal evidence I have watched Samsung come in and be successful manufacturing things that other people have first invented, TV's, washer/dryers, vcr's, dvd players, cell phones, etc. In Korea: ships, heavy machinery, etc. I think Samsung's forte is to copy other peoples ideas and make them cheaply, efficiently, and often of good quality. But I do not see them as inventors. I think they are kinda cheesy in the way they are acting. I mean seriously, name one thing that Samsung has invented that never existed before. You can't do it. They are a commodity producer, not a commodity inventor.
?as far as I have read, are considered "successes" when they only have TEN LINES OF DEAD PIXELS and are nowhere near the stage where they'd be put into any product, consumer or otherwise.
Hope I'm wrong, though (here's where you link me to a story where they've created one that doesn't suck). I've always liked the flexible display idea.
It's funny because you think you can actually say that without looking like a completely uninformed fool.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that people buy the Galaxy TAB or Moto Xoom, but are confused and think it was really an Apple iPad? Seriously?
Apple's not above imitation if it makes sense to their business.
Example?
Quote:
In any case, the Tab and iPad are not the same product, and no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad. Claiming "confusion" is a silly talking point for lawyers, not the real world.
Comments
And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.
I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.
How about the other patents, those that don't pertain to manufacturing? And are not encumbered with FRAND terms?
Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.
There's a difference between you and I.
I am forward-looking.
Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.
The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles. Nor can I see Rolex ever stating that some Timex was a close copy of their high quality and respected timepieces. As far as Rolex and Lexus are concerned publicly, other non-premium companies (ie. Timex or Hyundai) aren't capable of building either a Rolex or Lexus. To give even a second thought would be ridiculous to their marketing arms.
Then I guess you're not paying attention.
Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
For example:
http://www.internationallawoffice.co...5-001143e35d55
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y01/m05/i16/s04
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2...watchreps.html
And many, many more.
What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.
The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.
For your analogy to work, the Galaxy Tab has to resemble the iPad so much that customers cannot distinguish them. Even Apple is not arguing that. Rolex fakes, on the other hand, are made to look identical the genuine article.
Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.
... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.
[...] "We've been quite respectful and also passive in a way," Lee reportedly said. "However, we shouldn't be... anymore." [...]
Hell hath no fury...
[...] Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).
Simple, eh.
Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.
It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.
Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
Sophistry. If law were that easy, you could be a lawyer.
It's called "trade dress" in trademark law. Samsung has blatantly copied many features of the iPhone and iPad. The average consumer (who knows even less about trademark law than you do) might actually believe that Samsung's copycat products were made by Apple. Or that Samsung is somehow affiliated with Apple due to the strong resemblance.
Improve yourself a bit today hermit. Read this Wikipedia entry. Make us all proud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
WTF are you saying?
Are you saying that Samsung copied Apple?
[0n edit: I think SockRolid has comprehension problems... or he's not following the thread... he'll improve]
However, If SAMSUNG has not revealed patents it has on standards and failed to reveal those this is not a good place for SAMSUNG. If some countries, Korea, have lower legal criteria for patents required in standards, e.g., Korean local favor 3G or CDMA then this could be a very bad precedent for Korea.
If I was SAMSUNG, I would be a lot more worried about Google and Oracle from a business perspective. This could dramatically change the business model landscape for SAMSUNG.
I see you're still back to the same silly misinterpretation of Apple's design patents. Go back and read the German decision. Apple's design patent covered devices which met 6 different criteria. It was clear that what they designed had not been in use before - and Samsung could have easily circumvented the design patent if they weren't so bent on making a near-exact copy.
Go ahead and name them. After all, you're the one claiming that Samsung has some great non-FRAND patents that Apple is violating. Prove it.
Anyone who was forward looking would be talking about Apple's incredible resurrection over the past decade to the point the the entire industry is following Apple.
Then I guess you're not paying attention.
Rolex and other luxury brands go after counterfeiters all the time. They also go after people making near exact copies but with some minor change ('Ralex' instead of 'Rolex', for example).
For example:
http://www.internationallawoffice.co...5-001143e35d55
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y01/m05/i16/s04
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2...watchreps.html
And many, many more.
What you'll find is that reputable companies who have their brand stolen tend to bring quiet law suits without fanfare or major PR efforts. Sort of like Apple.
The infringers are the ones who tend to make a lot of noise and try to obfuscate and create press releases about how unfair it is and how they're not being allowed to compete. Like Samsung and Google.
If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.
Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
That says premium.
Have you seen the latest GT ads... they basically say that they are the same but the GT is better... not once mentioning Android.
... and, yes, Apple is saying they are copies in its own way.. ie. community design.
Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.
Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.
In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.
If Samsung put Apple's logo on their devices and perfectly matched the interface, size and design to pass it off as an iPad/iPhone as the Chinese counterfeiters do, then your reply would be accurate. But neither Rolex not Lexus sues Timex or Hyundai for making anything that has some similar traits to their products. Why? Because neither Timex nor Hyundai can build a Lexus or Rolex. Acknowledging they could is begging for a comparison and consideration.
Just the same as Apple marketing says, "If you don't have an iPhone. . ."
That says premium.
Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
This whole line of reasoning assumes that Apple pays a lot for chips, compared to other chip buyers. I have seen reports to the contrary.
Other than the general principle that big orders are better than small orders, do you have any data showing that Samsung makes better profits (more in an absolute sense, more %, more $/unit of risk, whatever relevant metric you can cite) from Apple compared to other chip buyers?
I don't follow this reasoning so I can't really say anything sensible about it. Did you consider that maybe, Apple pays less for their chips, for exactly the reasons I described? In other words, because they place large orders over a predictable, relatively long timeframe, for identical chips?
IC production doesn't just follow the 'general principle that big orders are better than small orders', it follows the 'every new design takes millions of $$$, lots of time and high risk of unexpected production issues' principle, which basically means the more you want of the same thing, the better. If you went to Samsung to buy 10,000 complex IC's you would probably pay over $1000 a chip. If you want 10,000,000 of them, the price will be closer to $10 a piece. It's much more extreme than any other business I know of. The savings of large volumes and predictable demand go both ways (customer and supplier), since 10 hours of downtime figuring out why you get bad yields from a particular design is entirely on the supplier, and I can tell you an hour of downtime on a wafer stepper is likely a lot more expensive than you can imagine.
Not (truly) disputing what you are saying. But what you are saying does not imply the two products are indistinguishable.
Remember the Cabbage Patch Dolls? There are copycats too. When the case went to court, Dr. Joyce Brothers were called in as an *expert* witness to testify that kids could not tell the real CPDs from the fakes.
In the case of tablets, experts are not necessary. No one is confusing GTs for iPads, marketing notwithstanding.
Are you absolutely sure? Source.
[on edit: when a company is willing to say that their product is the same as another product... but better; then think about how it will be marketed at the retail level. Android does not have to be mentioned. The type of apps or the name of the app store does not have to be mentioned... "Wow... I just got a tablet that is better than the iPad! Shit! Why won't Apple let me log into their app store?!". ]
Except that Samsung is trying to pass its GT off in their ads as the same as an iPad... but better. No mention of Android.
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".
I see them saying they're better, not the same. "Better than Ford's F-150". "Faster than cable". "Better fuel economy than Toyota". "A better internet experience".
Do you see anywhere where they say they are different... as in Android?
[on edit: Its like saying that the Chev truck is better than the ford truck, but it looks exactly the same as the Ford truck... but then not telling the public that it runs on pig manure...
Point being... they are trying to pass it off as one thing when it's another ]
Samsung does everything except put Apple's logo on their products.
. . . and offer the same features, with the same form factor, and the same capabilities.
Agreed that Samsung sees what makes the iPad successful and imitates that while making improvements/changes where they see it make's sense. Fair? Dunno. That's how business has been done for eons. Apple's not above imitation if it makes sense to their business.
In any case, the Tab and iPad are not the same product, and no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad. Claiming "confusion" is a silly talking point for lawyers, not the real world.
?no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad.
It's funny because you think you can actually say that without looking like a completely uninformed fool.
I have done a quick search for Samsung's inventions and I am not seeing a whole lot out there, perhaps I am missing something. From anecdotal evidence I have watched Samsung come in and be successful manufacturing things that other people have first invented, TV's, washer/dryers, vcr's, dvd players, cell phones, etc. In Korea: ships, heavy machinery, etc. I think Samsung's forte is to copy other peoples ideas and make them cheaply, efficiently, and often of good quality. But I do not see them as inventors. I think they are kinda cheesy in the way they are acting. I mean seriously, name one thing that Samsung has invented that never existed before. You can't do it. They are a commodity producer, not a commodity inventor.
Flexible OLED displays. . .
Flexible OLED displays. . .
?as far as I have read, are considered "successes" when they only have TEN LINES OF DEAD PIXELS and are nowhere near the stage where they'd be put into any product, consumer or otherwise.
Hope I'm wrong, though (here's where you link me to a story where they've created one that doesn't suck). I've always liked the flexible display idea.
It's funny because you think you can actually say that without looking like a completely uninformed fool.
Apple's not above imitation if it makes sense to their business.
Example?
In any case, the Tab and iPad are not the same product, and no one that buys one will erroneously think it's Apple's iPad. Claiming "confusion" is a silly talking point for lawyers, not the real world.
You obviously have never worked retail.