did you even read my last post MY TV HAS ALL THAT CRAP. so if apple thinks they have the right to, black,rounded corners, beveling, and flat screens...ect then my tv DOES infringe on that.
they DONT make more than the rest of the industry put together.
well i would say if samsung broke into the apple store and stole an ipod2 then they should give it back. lol
coke, pepsi, rc cola... ect
ford, chevy, toyota... ect
how many different companys makes blue jeans or shirts for that matter. you dont see them sueing each other because their blue jeans are blue do you. or suing for pockets in t-shirts
you dont see ford sueing chevy because they put a motor in their car?
this apple argument is the most ridiculous load of crap there is
You don't think there's difference between a Ford and a Toyota? The engines are different, the bodies are different, the finish is different, the performance is different, their reliability is different, etc. And Ford would sue Chevy if Chevy copied Ford's exact motor design bit by bit.
The reason why blue jeans makers don't sue each other is because you can't patent or copyright fashion. The only part of fashion that can be protected are logos and things like the particular stitching on the rear pockets of Levi's jeans. (And while a topic for another day - the fashion industry is actually a very interesting case -- an industry that survives without copyright protection.)
What is actually a "most ridiculous load of crap" are people who make assumptions about the law off the top of their heads without researching it first. And I say that even though I don't necessarily personally agree with all of Apple's arguments in the case.
What I do agree with is this: There was no effective tablet market before Apple because no one knew how to design a tablet properly - they were all taking a PC and shoving it into the form factor of a tablet. Apple re-imagines the tablet, is enormously successful and then is copied by everyone in both the physical design of the products and in many aspects of the UI. No one was producing anything like the iPad before it came along. I'd be pissed if I were Apple as well. Obviously, there's certain aspects of that design that are inherent to a tablet. And Apple cannot protect the basic concept of a tablet. But they can and should fight against anyone who blatantly steals the total idea of their tablet and that's what Samsung has done in this case.
At this point, Apple probably doesn't even really care about Samsung's existing products. They're probably just trying to establish precedents to keep Samsung and others from blatantly copying future Apple devices.
You don't think there's difference between a Ford and a Toyota? The engines are different, the bodies are different, the finish is different, the performance is different, their reliability is different, etc. And Ford would sue Chevy if Chevy copied Ford's exact motor design bit by bit.
The reason why blue jeans makers don't sue each other is because you can't patent or copyright fashion. The only part of fashion that can be protected are logos and things like the particular stitching on the rear pockets of Levi's jeans. (And while a topic for another day - the fashion industry is actually a very interesting case -- an industry that survives without copyright protection.)
What is actually a "most ridiculous load of crap" are people who make assumptions about the law off the top of their heads without researching it first. And I say that even though I don't necessarily personally agree with all of Apple's arguments in the case.
What I do agree with is this: There was no effective tablet market before Apple because no one knew how to design a tablet properly - they were all taking a PC and shoving it into the form factor of a tablet. Apple re-imagines the tablet, is enormously successful and then is copied by everyone in both the physical design of the products and in many aspects of the UI. No one was producing anything like the iPad before it came along. I'd be pissed if I were Apple as well. Obviously, there's certain aspects of that design that are inherent to a tablet. And Apple cannot protect the basic concept of a tablet. But they can and should fight against anyone who blatantly steals the total idea of their tablet and that's what Samsung has done in this case.
At this point, Apple probably doesn't even really care about Samsung's existing products. They're probably just trying to establish precedents to keep Samsung and others from blatantly copying future Apple devices.
I think you're right. None of the existing "slavish copy" products are much of a threat even in places where they have been sold.
I think it's worth pointing out that the two most successful tablets are ones that were not slavish copies of the iPad - and Apple hasn't made any effort to sue them: HP Touchpad and Amazon Kindle Fire. Clearly, it is possible to create a product that has its own character and design without attracting a lawsuit from Apple. And, based on the above two examples, it looks like a successful strategy.
are you saying that apple users are so stupid they might get confused and buy a samsung on accident?
Consumer confusion is a legal term. Look it up.
Here's a scenario:
Since the iPad is far and away the most dominate tablet computer and the device the majority of average people associate with tablet computing, Grandma sees an ad on the television and wants to buy one for her grandson.
She goes to the store and sees a display with a tablet who's profile looks pretty much like what she saw on the commercial. It doesn't say "iPad" on it, but the price is either the same or lower and it looks like it is pretty much the same. Not knowing the huge difference between Samsung and Apple, she buys it.
Apple's commercial just caused a sale for Samsung.
"Ferdinand Verbiest" or atleast Ford should have received billions in compensation from all car manufactures for 'copying' the design? They could have easily asked other designers to build cars that do not have 4 wheels (or else does not have round wheels??), is not operated by a 'round' steering wheel, does not use side doors for passengers to enter the car and uses something other than gasoline/diesel for the fuel. Thank god Apple did not invent this!
"Should not be thin"? I consider this to be a killer of innovation. If other manufacturers could not come up with a thin design so far does not mean they didnt want to. Just that they could not design one.
Any computer that has a flap, has built-in keyboard and runs the same OS as that of a desktop is not a MacBook. Efficiency and elegance is what it matters and that what Apple should concentrate on. They have power in this space which no one can beat.
Innovation at a fair reach to people is just. when it comes bundled with 300% profit, its greed.
"Ferdinand Verbiest" or atleast Ford should have received billions in compensation from all car manufactures for 'copying' the design?
Innovation at a fair reach to people is just. when it comes bundled with 300% profit, its greed.
Let's see how many people can use the car analogy!
Do people realize many laws have changes in the last CENTURY? We're also living in a time where it doesn't take years to come out with a me-too product; it can be done in weeks.
Also, Apple doesn't make 300% profit. Besides, the price is set by what the consumer is willing to pay. That's capitalism 101. Since its successful, Apple's prices are exactly what they should be.
Apple is being ridiculous. There are plenty vendors with original smartphones and tablet designs that have every single one of those features. Of course Samsung isn't even close to being one of those vendors.
What's really funny is that that list of characteristics has been tried by Apple already. It seems like Apple doesn't care as long as it doesn't look like an iPad.
Here's a history of Apple tablets that never made it to market, but don't have rounded corners and are cluttered.
Sigh - at one point there was a company talking about coming out with an iPhone case that would provide real buttons - I wish someone would. It would be perfect for the iPhone/iPod touch.
LOL - one of my favorite Samsung/Apple in-court moments is when one of the judges (in America if memory serves) held both over her head and challenged the Samsun lawyers to point out the Samsung tablet over the iPad.
It will be harder and harder for Apple to get away with this king of "intellectual property protection". It is not an underdog anymore.
What does that have to do with anything? Companies copying other companies is only bad if the company copied from is small?
What kind of twisted relativistic logic is that?
Quote:
They have lost the case in Australia. My feeling is that they will lose the appeal
How about letting the process work it's way out before coming to conclusions?
Quote:
and they will start losing more cases
from your lips...
Quote:
Now Apple is the largest public company in the world. Governments always try to find a way how to break such companies apart (to improve competition) or how to restrict them from stiffing the competition in other ways.
If your right and governments are really that stupid, expect more economies to continue to suck.
Even China has realized the economic detriment of cloning and has started cracking down on stuff that five years ago wouldn't have even gotten attention.
Quote:
With such dumb-ass arguments like "rectangular shape" they are just asking for trouble.
Well, at least we agree there are "dumb-ass arguments"
Maybe Apple is jealous of the success enjoyed by Android tablets. lol
Maybe they are just pissed that other companies waited for their success and then blindly copied them?
Nope - it can't be that at all
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone and multi-touch, how did he end it?
"And boy have we patented it"
If that's not a clear warning, I don't know what more you would have to have him do?!?
If the design of the iPhone and iPad was so obvious, why was Apple the first to combine all those elements? Why isn't that question being asked or answered? Probably because it doesn't follow the "Apple is just being mean" groupthink
Well, Apple didn't invemt the tablet, but they did invent the tablet market.
No kidding.
Quote:
I've also come to realize, that you must live in your own "special" little world.
He's not the only one, unfortunately. It never ceases to amaze me for someone who is so non-plussed with Apple products how many he purports to own, and then post about how disappointed or neutral he feels about them. Continually. In an Apple fan site. If there were only a term for such people...
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.
Maybe you don't understand. Apple is targeting the stupid and the gullible among its expected iPad customers. Those customers need Apple's protection against dishonest companies like Amazon and Samsung.
The salesmen all say that the Samsung is basically the same as the iPad, but cheaper. So they fool Apple's rightful customers - the stupid and the gullible.
They should be put in jail. Apple is doing the right thing.
Maybe Apple should have considered the same 'design alternatives' before they used each of those design elements AFTER numerous others manufactures had be using them for years?
haha, yeah if samsung would have ripped off one of these, they wouldn't be in this trouble
To the uninformed purchaser if it looks like it and feels like it and costs about as much then it must be the same.
And Apple should be allowed to OWN that sort of customer. They came in to the store because of Apple. If they are uninformed, they should be sold an Apple product. Simple as that. Anything else is misleading Apple's customer. Those Apple customers need protection against these dishonest companies who fool them. Apple is merely extending their warm blanket of consumer protection to the uninformed portion of their rightful customer base.
Maybe they are just pissed that other companies waited for their success and then blindly copied them?
Nope - it can't be that at all
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone and multi-touch, how did he end it?
"And boy have we patented it"
If that's not a clear warning, I don't know what more you would have to have him do?!?
If the design of the iPhone and iPad was so obvious, why was Apple the first to combine all those elements? Why isn't that question being asked or answered? Probably because it doesn't follow the "Apple is just being mean" groupthink
You can't make a near exact copy of a Rolex watch and then claim that you're not infringing because you wrote 'Rulex' rather than 'Rolex' on the face of the watch. That's essentially what Samsung is doing. Making a slavish copy and then saying that they should be able to get it because it's from Samsung rather than Apple.
For me, Samsung has copied Apple. That said, this list of suggestions, if it's real, is utterly facetious/ridiculous. I would pay money to see this read aloud in court with a straight face and watch the reaction of Samsung's representatives.
Comments
did you even read my last post MY TV HAS ALL THAT CRAP.
they DONT make more than the rest of the industry put together.
well i would say if samsung broke into the apple store and stole an ipod2 then they should give it back. lol
coke, pepsi, rc cola... ect
ford, chevy, toyota... ect
how many different companys makes blue jeans or shirts for that matter. you dont see them sueing each other because their blue jeans are blue do you. or suing for pockets in t-shirts
you dont see ford sueing chevy because they put a motor in their car?
this apple argument is the most ridiculous load of crap there is
You don't think there's difference between a Ford and a Toyota? The engines are different, the bodies are different, the finish is different, the performance is different, their reliability is different, etc. And Ford would sue Chevy if Chevy copied Ford's exact motor design bit by bit.
The reason why blue jeans makers don't sue each other is because you can't patent or copyright fashion. The only part of fashion that can be protected are logos and things like the particular stitching on the rear pockets of Levi's jeans. (And while a topic for another day - the fashion industry is actually a very interesting case -- an industry that survives without copyright protection.)
What is actually a "most ridiculous load of crap" are people who make assumptions about the law off the top of their heads without researching it first. And I say that even though I don't necessarily personally agree with all of Apple's arguments in the case.
What I do agree with is this: There was no effective tablet market before Apple because no one knew how to design a tablet properly - they were all taking a PC and shoving it into the form factor of a tablet. Apple re-imagines the tablet, is enormously successful and then is copied by everyone in both the physical design of the products and in many aspects of the UI. No one was producing anything like the iPad before it came along. I'd be pissed if I were Apple as well. Obviously, there's certain aspects of that design that are inherent to a tablet. And Apple cannot protect the basic concept of a tablet. But they can and should fight against anyone who blatantly steals the total idea of their tablet and that's what Samsung has done in this case.
At this point, Apple probably doesn't even really care about Samsung's existing products. They're probably just trying to establish precedents to keep Samsung and others from blatantly copying future Apple devices.
You don't think there's difference between a Ford and a Toyota? The engines are different, the bodies are different, the finish is different, the performance is different, their reliability is different, etc. And Ford would sue Chevy if Chevy copied Ford's exact motor design bit by bit.
The reason why blue jeans makers don't sue each other is because you can't patent or copyright fashion. The only part of fashion that can be protected are logos and things like the particular stitching on the rear pockets of Levi's jeans. (And while a topic for another day - the fashion industry is actually a very interesting case -- an industry that survives without copyright protection.)
What is actually a "most ridiculous load of crap" are people who make assumptions about the law off the top of their heads without researching it first. And I say that even though I don't necessarily personally agree with all of Apple's arguments in the case.
What I do agree with is this: There was no effective tablet market before Apple because no one knew how to design a tablet properly - they were all taking a PC and shoving it into the form factor of a tablet. Apple re-imagines the tablet, is enormously successful and then is copied by everyone in both the physical design of the products and in many aspects of the UI. No one was producing anything like the iPad before it came along. I'd be pissed if I were Apple as well. Obviously, there's certain aspects of that design that are inherent to a tablet. And Apple cannot protect the basic concept of a tablet. But they can and should fight against anyone who blatantly steals the total idea of their tablet and that's what Samsung has done in this case.
At this point, Apple probably doesn't even really care about Samsung's existing products. They're probably just trying to establish precedents to keep Samsung and others from blatantly copying future Apple devices.
I think you're right. None of the existing "slavish copy" products are much of a threat even in places where they have been sold.
I think it's worth pointing out that the two most successful tablets are ones that were not slavish copies of the iPad - and Apple hasn't made any effort to sue them: HP Touchpad and Amazon Kindle Fire. Clearly, it is possible to create a product that has its own character and design without attracting a lawsuit from Apple. And, based on the above two examples, it looks like a successful strategy.
are you saying that apple users are so stupid they might get confused and buy a samsung on accident?
Consumer confusion is a legal term. Look it up.
Here's a scenario:
Since the iPad is far and away the most dominate tablet computer and the device the majority of average people associate with tablet computing, Grandma sees an ad on the television and wants to buy one for her grandson.
She goes to the store and sees a display with a tablet who's profile looks pretty much like what she saw on the commercial. It doesn't say "iPad" on it, but the price is either the same or lower and it looks like it is pretty much the same. Not knowing the huge difference between Samsung and Apple, she buys it.
Apple's commercial just caused a sale for Samsung.
"Should not be thin"? I consider this to be a killer of innovation. If other manufacturers could not come up with a thin design so far does not mean they didnt want to. Just that they could not design one.
Any computer that has a flap, has built-in keyboard and runs the same OS as that of a desktop is not a MacBook. Efficiency and elegance is what it matters and that what Apple should concentrate on. They have power in this space which no one can beat.
Innovation at a fair reach to people is just. when it comes bundled with 300% profit, its greed.
"Ferdinand Verbiest" or atleast Ford should have received billions in compensation from all car manufactures for 'copying' the design?
Innovation at a fair reach to people is just. when it comes bundled with 300% profit, its greed.
Let's see how many people can use the car analogy!
Do people realize many laws have changes in the last CENTURY? We're also living in a time where it doesn't take years to come out with a me-too product; it can be done in weeks.
Also, Apple doesn't make 300% profit. Besides, the price is set by what the consumer is willing to pay. That's capitalism 101. Since its successful, Apple's prices are exactly what they should be.
Then enter the TV market and hurt Samsung on all fronts.
And if you agree with Apple, then stop buying Samsung products and spread the word to your friends.
Apple is being ridiculous. There are plenty vendors with original smartphones and tablet designs that have every single one of those features. Of course Samsung isn't even close to being one of those vendors.
What's really funny is that that list of characteristics has been tried by Apple already. It seems like Apple doesn't care as long as it doesn't look like an iPad.
Here's a history of Apple tablets that never made it to market, but don't have rounded corners and are cluttered.
http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/0...puter-history/
Sigh - at one point there was a company talking about coming out with an iPhone case that would provide real buttons - I wish someone would. It would be perfect for the iPhone/iPod touch.
And then here’s what Samsung did.
LOL - one of my favorite Samsung/Apple in-court moments is when one of the judges (in America if memory serves) held both over her head and challenged the Samsun lawyers to point out the Samsung tablet over the iPad.
So, can samsung claim that they based their design of the galaxy tab 10.1 off said device, and not the iPad?
Not in this forum they can't.
With such dumb-ass arguments like "rectangular shape" they are just asking for trouble.
Apple has no choice but to protect its intellectual property.
It will be harder and harder for Apple to get away with this king of "intellectual property protection". It is not an underdog anymore.
What does that have to do with anything? Companies copying other companies is only bad if the company copied from is small?
What kind of twisted relativistic logic is that?
They have lost the case in Australia. My feeling is that they will lose the appeal
How about letting the process work it's way out before coming to conclusions?
and they will start losing more cases
from your lips...
Now Apple is the largest public company in the world. Governments always try to find a way how to break such companies apart (to improve competition) or how to restrict them from stiffing the competition in other ways.
Even China has realized the economic detriment of cloning and has started cracking down on stuff that five years ago wouldn't have even gotten attention.
With such dumb-ass arguments like "rectangular shape" they are just asking for trouble.
Well, at least we agree there are "dumb-ass arguments"
sounds like apple is afraid of Samsung.
I was playing with a Galaxy Tab 8.9 at Best Buy yesterday. It is sweet.
The 10 inch pads are too big to carry outside the house, and the 7 inch ones can be hard to read without zooming.
The Galaxy Tab 8.9 seems to really hit the sweet spot.
Maybe Apple is jealous of the success enjoyed by Android tablets. lol
Maybe they are just pissed that other companies waited for their success and then blindly copied them?
Nope - it can't be that at all
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone and multi-touch, how did he end it?
"And boy have we patented it"
If that's not a clear warning, I don't know what more you would have to have him do?!?
If the design of the iPhone and iPad was so obvious, why was Apple the first to combine all those elements? Why isn't that question being asked or answered? Probably because it doesn't follow the "Apple is just being mean" groupthink
Well, Apple didn't invemt the tablet, but they did invent the tablet market.
No kidding.
I've also come to realize, that you must live in your own "special" little world.
He's not the only one, unfortunately. It never ceases to amaze me for someone who is so non-plussed with Apple products how many he purports to own, and then post about how disappointed or neutral he feels about them. Continually. In an Apple fan site. If there were only a term for such people...
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.
Maybe you don't understand. Apple is targeting the stupid and the gullible among its expected iPad customers. Those customers need Apple's protection against dishonest companies like Amazon and Samsung.
The salesmen all say that the Samsung is basically the same as the iPad, but cheaper. So they fool Apple's rightful customers - the stupid and the gullible.
They should be put in jail. Apple is doing the right thing.
Maybe Apple should have considered the same 'design alternatives' before they used each of those design elements AFTER numerous others manufactures had be using them for years?
haha, yeah if samsung would have ripped off one of these, they wouldn't be in this trouble
To the uninformed purchaser if it looks like it and feels like it and costs about as much then it must be the same.
And Apple should be allowed to OWN that sort of customer. They came in to the store because of Apple. If they are uninformed, they should be sold an Apple product. Simple as that. Anything else is misleading Apple's customer. Those Apple customers need protection against these dishonest companies who fool them. Apple is merely extending their warm blanket of consumer protection to the uninformed portion of their rightful customer base.
Maybe they are just pissed that other companies waited for their success and then blindly copied them?
Nope - it can't be that at all
When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone and multi-touch, how did he end it?
"And boy have we patented it"
If that's not a clear warning, I don't know what more you would have to have him do?!?
If the design of the iPhone and iPad was so obvious, why was Apple the first to combine all those elements? Why isn't that question being asked or answered? Probably because it doesn't follow the "Apple is just being mean" groupthink
Dude, I agree with you.
You can't make a near exact copy of a Rolex watch and then claim that you're not infringing because you wrote 'Rulex' rather than 'Rolex' on the face of the watch. That's essentially what Samsung is doing. Making a slavish copy and then saying that they should be able to get it because it's from Samsung rather than Apple.
What if you write Nivrel?
Or Omega?
Or Casio?
Here's the Rolex:
Poor form Apple, and that's from a fan.