Some if those are moronic. Not a rectangle? What other shape would it be? A black bezel is necessary for perceived contrast in video. Which is why 99 percent of all TVs have a black bezel. Apple has a design patent on flatness and thinness? I love my iPad, but this case just shows how patent law is moronic and needs reform. The only thing other products haven't had for years is round edges and the home button.
It is interesting to see what Apple thinks that actually are the main distinguishing features of an iPad. So far, I've only encountered the uninformative "Samsung copied", or detailed arguments coming only from the groupies.
It is also noteworthy that there is nothing of substance in the above list, just superficial features. It is almost as if Apple doesn't believe that the OS and specs of the iPad are enough to let it keep its momentum on the market.
Samsung changed their whole plans after they got terrified and nearly had a heart attack after they saw the iPad 2.
Their current tablet that they were developing at the time was a ripoff based on the iPad 1 design, so they had to quickly scrap those plans and do as best as they could to ripoff the iPad 2 design.
Samsung tablets have been given away for free with certain TV's. That sounds real successful. It seems like the main way to move Android devices is to give them away for free.
All Samsung did was make their device both thinner and lighter than Apple's iPad 2, otherwise retaining all of the following:
- a screen size/aspect-ratio/resolution that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- a native device orientation (landscape) this is the complete opposite of the iPad 2.
- a camera location thats is in a completely different location than the iPad 2.
- material composition that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- corner radii that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- bevel angles that are completely different than the iPad 2.
- rear panel styling that shares absolutely nothing with the iPad 2.
The rest of your post amounts to completely unrelated fanatical nonsense... period.
...and given how utterly generic and ridiculous these 'design infringement' claims are, they'll likely lose in every country they continue this anti-competitve nonsense, and Samsung will then sue them for any potentially lost sales/revenue... And Win Big!
...and given how utterly generic and ridiculous these 'design infringement' claims are, they'll likely lose in every country they continue this anti-competitve nonsense, and Samsung will then sue them for any potentially lost sales/revenue... And Win Big!
Looks like the injunction was denied, not that the case was lost to apple.
And in all fairness it looks like Apple is relying more on technical patents than design here. the '381 patent seems to be the 'bounce animation' from overscrolling.
On the other hand, that should be an easy fix for Samsung.
Looks like the injunction was denied, not that the case was lost to apple.
And in all fairness it looks like Apple is relying more on technical patents than design here. the '381 patent seems to be the 'bounce animation' from overscrolling.
On the other hand, that should be an easy fix for Samsung.
Yes, a very easy fix. Already done in Netherlands and none of their newer devices are coming with this animation, rather a blue glow.
And it not true that Apple is relying more on Utility patent, they have tried very hard to convince court about design patents. But ultimately were not successful.
If the Android tablet/phone manufacturers were smart they would have come out with their devices in white to start with. Since the iPhone/iPad was originally only in black there's no way they could have been accused of 'look & feel' problems. It would have in fact forced Apple's hand in not coming out with a white iPhone/iPad or else 'they' would have been seen as the copycats. Even in a courtroom at 20' away you would have been able to tell which tablet is white and which was black. Would even be cool if the Android tablets had a red line around the front edge like they have on the Canon 'L' class lenses.
Too late now. Skate to where the puck is going to be.
Apple must think their customers are extremely stupid.
How many people would buy a Galaxy because they mistook it for an iPad, and then not notice the difference within 30 days?
I?m going to guess that you're in the US? The rest of the world doesn't enjoy the same consumer protection as America. If I buy a tablet computer here in Australia I can only return it if it is faulty. So, no Apple don't think their customers are stupid
OTOH, I think the issue here is more about going after the most blatant rip off of the iPad. This is a legal requirement in many countries to protect either patents or copyright. Doing nothing when these are infringed essentially can mean giving up all legal protection on your investment in design.
I don't believe Apple's product is under threat yet as the whole ecosystem, software, hardware combination is what sets iOS devices apart. It's not just about colours or shape. However, if there is a possibility that uninformed consumers (the normal kind) could be confused by similar looking products then it is good that a company takes a stand. Despite having the word "Samsung" on the box even the packaging of the Samsung Tab was almost a clone of the iPad's.
Apple does stand a chance of coming out of this looking like a bully but I for one am glad they are doing it. It is the responsible thing to do. I just hope they use a bit of common sense and attempt to win the media war as well as the legal one. They are generally quite good at that.
I?m going to guess that you're in the US? The rest of the world doesn't enjoy the same consumer protection as America. If I buy a tablet computer here in Australia I can only return it if it is faulty. So, no Apple don't think their customers are stupid
Let's face facts here...the chances of someone walking into an electronics store, and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy device somehow thinking it was an Apple product/iPad 2 are nearly infinitesimal, if for no other reason than the devices are all clearly labeled SAMSUNG on their surfaces, start-up screens, and packaging, in addition to running a completely different operating system.
Actions such as these by Apple should be seen for exactly what they are, anti-competitive attempts to stifle the competition by any means...legal, ethical or otherwise, and very little more.
Let's face facts here...the chances of someone walking into an electronics store, and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy device somehow thinking it was an Apple product/iPad 2 are nearly infinitesimal, if for no other reason than the devices are all clearly labeled SAMSUNG on their surfaces, start-up screens, and packaging, in addition to running a completely different operating system.
Actions such as these by Apple should be seen for exactly what they are, anti-competitive attempts to stifle the competition by any means...legal, ethical or otherwise, and very little more.
You have to be able to sell something to be competitive. The Galaxy Tab doesn't sell and is therefore not competitive, hence Apple is not being anti-competitive. Think you can wrap your thick skull around that concept? This lawsuit is nothing more than to crush crappy companies from southeast Asia from continuing their tradition of creating knockoffs.
You know when Samesung will come out with their next great product? After Apple creates it.
Comments
A front surface that is not black.
A shape that is not rectangular.
No rounded corners.
A front surface that is not flat.
Varying Bezel size.
A device that is not thin.
A cluttered appearance.
ROTFL.
It is interesting to see what Apple thinks that actually are the main distinguishing features of an iPad. So far, I've only encountered the uninformative "Samsung copied", or detailed arguments coming only from the groupies.
It is also noteworthy that there is nothing of substance in the above list, just superficial features. It is almost as if Apple doesn't believe that the OS and specs of the iPad are enough to let it keep its momentum on the market.
Samsung changed their whole plans after they got terrified and nearly had a heart attack after they saw the iPad 2.
Their current tablet that they were developing at the time was a ripoff based on the iPad 1 design, so they had to quickly scrap those plans and do as best as they could to ripoff the iPad 2 design.
Samsung tablets have been given away for free with certain TV's. That sounds real successful. It seems like the main way to move Android devices is to give them away for free.
All Samsung did was make their device both thinner and lighter than Apple's iPad 2, otherwise retaining all of the following:
- a screen size/aspect-ratio/resolution that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- a native device orientation (landscape) this is the complete opposite of the iPad 2.
- a camera location thats is in a completely different location than the iPad 2.
- material composition that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- corner radii that is completely different than the iPad 2.
- bevel angles that are completely different than the iPad 2.
- rear panel styling that shares absolutely nothing with the iPad 2.
The rest of your post amounts to completely unrelated fanatical nonsense... period.
See the court document in below link
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/81...injunction.pdf
they have already lost case in US
...and given how utterly generic and ridiculous these 'design infringement' claims are, they'll likely lose in every country they continue this anti-competitve nonsense, and Samsung will then sue them for any potentially lost sales/revenue... And Win Big!
LOL. Almost feels like Apple is trollin' Samsung
...and given how utterly generic and ridiculous these 'design infringement' claims are, they'll likely lose in every country they continue this anti-competitve nonsense, and Samsung will then sue them for any potentially lost sales/revenue... And Win Big!
Looks like the injunction was denied, not that the case was lost to apple.
And in all fairness it looks like Apple is relying more on technical patents than design here. the '381 patent seems to be the 'bounce animation' from overscrolling.
On the other hand, that should be an easy fix for Samsung.
Looks like the injunction was denied, not that the case was lost to apple.
And in all fairness it looks like Apple is relying more on technical patents than design here. the '381 patent seems to be the 'bounce animation' from overscrolling.
On the other hand, that should be an easy fix for Samsung.
Yes, a very easy fix. Already done in Netherlands and none of their newer devices are coming with this animation, rather a blue glow.
And it not true that Apple is relying more on Utility patent, they have tried very hard to convince court about design patents. But ultimately were not successful.
Too late now. Skate to where the puck is going to be.
How many people would buy a Galaxy because they mistook it for an iPad, and then not notice the difference within 30 days?
Apple must think their customers are extremely stupid.
How many people would buy a Galaxy because they mistook it for an iPad, and then not notice the difference within 30 days?
I?m going to guess that you're in the US? The rest of the world doesn't enjoy the same consumer protection as America. If I buy a tablet computer here in Australia I can only return it if it is faulty. So, no Apple don't think their customers are stupid
OTOH, I think the issue here is more about going after the most blatant rip off of the iPad. This is a legal requirement in many countries to protect either patents or copyright. Doing nothing when these are infringed essentially can mean giving up all legal protection on your investment in design.
I don't believe Apple's product is under threat yet as the whole ecosystem, software, hardware combination is what sets iOS devices apart. It's not just about colours or shape. However, if there is a possibility that uninformed consumers (the normal kind) could be confused by similar looking products then it is good that a company takes a stand. Despite having the word "Samsung" on the box even the packaging of the Samsung Tab was almost a clone of the iPad's.
Apple does stand a chance of coming out of this looking like a bully but I for one am glad they are doing it. It is the responsible thing to do. I just hope they use a bit of common sense and attempt to win the media war as well as the legal one. They are generally quite good at that.
I?m going to guess that you're in the US? The rest of the world doesn't enjoy the same consumer protection as America. If I buy a tablet computer here in Australia I can only return it if it is faulty. So, no Apple don't think their customers are stupid
Let's face facts here...the chances of someone walking into an electronics store, and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy device somehow thinking it was an Apple product/iPad 2 are nearly infinitesimal, if for no other reason than the devices are all clearly labeled SAMSUNG on their surfaces, start-up screens, and packaging, in addition to running a completely different operating system.
Actions such as these by Apple should be seen for exactly what they are, anti-competitive attempts to stifle the competition by any means...legal, ethical or otherwise, and very little more.
Well US Judge did not fall for these.
She has denied Apple's request for injunction, another win for Samsung
Another win? Don't you have to have a previous win to use a word like "another".
Let's face facts here...the chances of someone walking into an electronics store, and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy device somehow thinking it was an Apple product/iPad 2 are nearly infinitesimal, if for no other reason than the devices are all clearly labeled SAMSUNG on their surfaces, start-up screens, and packaging, in addition to running a completely different operating system.
Actions such as these by Apple should be seen for exactly what they are, anti-competitive attempts to stifle the competition by any means...legal, ethical or otherwise, and very little more.
You have to be able to sell something to be competitive. The Galaxy Tab doesn't sell and is therefore not competitive, hence Apple is not being anti-competitive. Think you can wrap your thick skull around that concept? This lawsuit is nothing more than to crush crappy companies from southeast Asia from continuing their tradition of creating knockoffs.
You know when Samesung will come out with their next great product? After Apple creates it.
With 80 billion in cash and the hottest notebooks, phones, tablets, and mp3 players in the world, you'd think they wouldn't be so envious.
Next they will go after the highly successful Google Tv.
You know when Samesung will come out with their next great product? After Apple creates it.
Happens every time. Apple invents. Then the "me too group" rush a similar product to market with features Apple left out in the first generation.
[/CENTER]Victory![/CENTER]
Happens every time. Apple invents. Then the "me too group" rush a similar product to market with features Apple left out in the first generation.
Except Apple 'invented' nothing in this case... Especially not the rectangle, or the color black
Except Apple 'invented' nothing in this case... Especially not the rectangle, or the color black
Well, Apple didn't invemt the tablet, but they did invent the tablet market.
I've also come to realize, that you must live in your own "special" little world.