So in the future there will never be another innovative company like Apple. There is no point in investing hundreds of millions in R+D if other companies can just steal all your research. Samesung is a cloner...they can not innovate, nor do anything new. All they can do is steal from others.
This opens the floodgates for rampant intellectual property theft. It sucks knowing the future will hold little innovation. Hope eveyrone is ready for bland cloners which offer nothing new....that is what you are going to get by discouraging Apple from innovating.
Design Patent D504,889: asserted against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1.
- Likely invalid in light of Knight Ridder prior art.
.
HP compaq TC 100 also played part in decision of invalidity.
As per court document:-
"_ _ _Apple argued that the flat glass surface disclosed in the D?889 patent,which is not present in the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet_ _ _ _ Samsung has identified several prior
art references, including the 2002 Hewlett-Packard Compaq Tablet PC TC 1000 (?the HP Tablet?),which disclose additional features of the tablet that are related to the primary reference.The HP Tablet may serve as a secondary reference because it is related both in design and in use to the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder Tablet._ _ _ The HP Tablet contains a flat glass screen that covers the top surface of the tablet and a thin rim that surrounds the front face of the device. Thus, the main element that Apple argued was not present in the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder Tablet existed in the HP Tablet."
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
Do you believe Libertarians actually believe that there's no threat to the pace of innovation if you completely remove patent law?
Libertarians would argue the fruits of your labor belongs to you.
I've never heard one propose eliminating patents. Though I have heard them question to the current structure, e.g. duration, and practices, i.e. eliminating "due process" by permitting the seizure of web sites on the allegation that it was profiting on others IP a la Chanel.
Then WHY Apple is only suing Samsung, any other tablet around looks like that?
.
Get your facts right. Apple is suing a lot of companies not only Samsung.
In fact in Australian court , apart from debunking Apple's claims, Samsung lawyers also successfully showed that if Galaxy Tab is considered infringing, then a lot of other tablets also. They demoed those devices in court also. Though Australian case is not about design, still Apple made a conscious choice to sue Samsung only not other device makers.
And the sort of design claim Apple is making a lot of tablets will fall into the category.
In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements
Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?
Time to get rid of your Apple gear if so.
The "Samsung Components" your refering to the A5, the lcd, and the nand flash memory, are OEM built to the manufacturers specs by samsung. The A5 and the Flat panel used in apples products were designed by apple for apple. Samsung is being Paid to build them they did not design them. The Arm core design in the A5 is owned by ARM not by samsung Same with the Graphics Unit. Apple customized them specifically for the devices there in. The LCD is also specific to the iOS devices. Appled designed a unique system for laminating the glass to the LCD and also the Capacitative Touch Layer. With the exception of the memory these components are not put in anyone elses products. Apple could have intel build them or sharp or sony or lg and is already starting to do some of that now. Samsung does not own the designs of those parts they just have the manufacturing facilities to build them. (With exception to the memory of which there are dozens of nand flash vendors all over the world including micron and intel right here in the us).
In a late Friday ruling it was announced that Apple's request for an early U.S. ban on certain Samsung mobile devices was shot down by District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, reports Reuters.
Koh denied Apple's bid to stop the sale of the Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote.
What's getting lost here is that the reason for the decision has nothing to do with the merits. Under U.S. law, in order to get a preliminary injunction, you must show that you will be irreparably harmed if the other party is allowed to continue with their actions. If the allegedly infringing party has the financial resources to reimburse you for any damages caused, then a preliminary injunction is not generally awarded.
Samsung clearly has the ability to pay many billions of dollars in damages. It's not surprising that a preliminary injunction would not be awarded because of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The ruling is not the end of the lawsuit, and Koh noted that Apple was likely to prove that Samsung infringed on at least one tablet patent. She goes on to say, however, that the Cupertino, Calif. tech giant still needs to prove the patent's validity, something it had not shown thus far.
Well, either the judge was misquoted or this argument will be thrown out on appeal. Under U.S. law, a patent is PRESUMED to be valid as soon as it's issued. So Apple has no further obligation to prove its validity. Samsung will have the opportunity to prove that it's NOT valid, but Apple doesn't need to prove validity. (They may, of course, need to overcome Samsung's objections to the patent, but that's not the same thing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
(...it's only a matter of time before cooler legal heads around the world put an end to all this anti-competitve nonsense, and the consumer can decide what they want to spend their money on)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Apple is obviously just being anti-competitve, abusing the legal system to try and block competitors for frivolous reasons. Boycott Them!
Amazing how shallow the thought processes are for so many of the Apple Haters. Apple IS competing. In fact, the fact that so much of the industry is scrambling to copy Apple makes it clear that Apple is the main innovator in the industry. Everyone else is simply copying rather than creating their own innovations.
Allowing people to copy Apple's products willy-nilly is anti-competitive. Enforcing patents is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
Thanks for proving the point. It is entirely possible to make a tablet that doesn't look like a slavish copy of the iPad. In fact, even today there are plenty of tablets on the market that aren't slavish copies of the iPad. Apple has every right to defend it's intellectual property when Samsung comes along and makes a product which is such a close copy that even its own attorney can't tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
DaHarder has been a troll like forever. Don't waste your time responding to his post. Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.
The problem is that the venom he spews then goes unchallenged.
Comments
Apple is obviously just being anti-competitve, abusing the legal system to try and block competitors for frivolous reasons. Boycott Them!
Clueless.
Robbing a bank, the ignorant people understand. Robbing a design, they're clueless.
Yup, this is a real kick in the teeth for innovation.
What's the point? May as well just steal and stagnate like the rest of the thieving scumbags.
Yup, this is a real kick in the teeth for innovation.
What's the point? May as well just steal and stagnate like the rest of the thieving scumbags.
Do you believe Libertarians actually believe that there's no threat to the pace of innovation if you completely remove patent law?
DaHarder has been a troll like forever. Don't waste your time responding to his post. Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.
Agreed. Done.
Samsung is obviously copying Apple and deserves to be punished. Boycott them now and for a long time.
Guess you'll have to stop buying Apple products; Samsung supplies a lot of the screens and memory chips in Apple products....
This opens the floodgates for rampant intellectual property theft. It sucks knowing the future will hold little innovation. Hope eveyrone is ready for bland cloners which offer nothing new....that is what you are going to get by discouraging Apple from innovating.
Design Patent D504,889: asserted against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1.
- Likely invalid in light of Knight Ridder prior art.
.
HP compaq TC 100 also played part in decision of invalidity.
As per court document:-
"_ _ _Apple argued that the flat glass surface disclosed in the D?889 patent,which is not present in the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet_ _ _ _ Samsung has identified several prior
art references, including the 2002 Hewlett-Packard Compaq Tablet PC TC 1000 (?the HP Tablet?),which disclose additional features of the tablet that are related to the primary reference.The HP Tablet may serve as a secondary reference because it is related both in design and in use to the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder Tablet._ _ _ The HP Tablet contains a flat glass screen that covers the top surface of the tablet and a thin rim that surrounds the front face of the device. Thus, the main element that Apple argued was not present in the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder Tablet existed in the HP Tablet."
Apple is obviously just being anti-competitve, abusing the legal system to try and block competitors for frivolous reasons. Boycott Them!
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
I think 2003 one is compaq TC100. It was one of the major reasons that US court opined that Apple's tablet design patent will likely be invalidated.
Do you believe Libertarians actually believe that there's no threat to the pace of innovation if you completely remove patent law?
did libertarianism become anarchy?
Oh wait, it didn't.
Would you buy a from copy cat or would you reward the innovator?
The answer to the question would pretty much define what kind of a person are you.
Nuff said !
Do you believe Libertarians actually believe that there's no threat to the pace of innovation if you completely remove patent law?
Libertarians would argue the fruits of your labor belongs to you.
I've never heard one propose eliminating patents. Though I have heard them question to the current structure, e.g. duration, and practices, i.e. eliminating "due process" by permitting the seizure of web sites on the allegation that it was profiting on others IP a la Chanel.
Then WHY Apple is only suing Samsung, any other tablet around looks like that?
.
Get your facts right. Apple is suing a lot of companies not only Samsung.
In fact in Australian court , apart from debunking Apple's claims, Samsung lawyers also successfully showed that if Galaxy Tab is considered infringing, then a lot of other tablets also. They demoed those devices in court also. Though Australian case is not about design, still Apple made a conscious choice to sue Samsung only not other device makers.
And the sort of design claim Apple is making a lot of tablets will fall into the category.
In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/10/...f-xoom-tablet/
They should have also sued HP for touchpad also by the same logic
Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?
Time to get rid of your Apple gear if so.
The "Samsung Components" your refering to the A5, the lcd, and the nand flash memory, are OEM built to the manufacturers specs by samsung. The A5 and the Flat panel used in apples products were designed by apple for apple. Samsung is being Paid to build them they did not design them. The Arm core design in the A5 is owned by ARM not by samsung Same with the Graphics Unit. Apple customized them specifically for the devices there in. The LCD is also specific to the iOS devices. Appled designed a unique system for laminating the glass to the LCD and also the Capacitative Touch Layer. With the exception of the memory these components are not put in anyone elses products. Apple could have intel build them or sharp or sony or lg and is already starting to do some of that now. Samsung does not own the designs of those parts they just have the manufacturing facilities to build them. (With exception to the memory of which there are dozens of nand flash vendors all over the world including micron and intel right here in the us).
when you can't innovate, sue.
hahhahahahahahahahahahahaah troll
When you cant inovate Copy.
Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?
Time to get rid of your Apple gear if so.
well played...well played!
In a late Friday ruling it was announced that Apple's request for an early U.S. ban on certain Samsung mobile devices was shot down by District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, reports Reuters.
Koh denied Apple's bid to stop the sale of the Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote.
What's getting lost here is that the reason for the decision has nothing to do with the merits. Under U.S. law, in order to get a preliminary injunction, you must show that you will be irreparably harmed if the other party is allowed to continue with their actions. If the allegedly infringing party has the financial resources to reimburse you for any damages caused, then a preliminary injunction is not generally awarded.
Samsung clearly has the ability to pay many billions of dollars in damages. It's not surprising that a preliminary injunction would not be awarded because of that.
The ruling is not the end of the lawsuit, and Koh noted that Apple was likely to prove that Samsung infringed on at least one tablet patent. She goes on to say, however, that the Cupertino, Calif. tech giant still needs to prove the patent's validity, something it had not shown thus far.
Well, either the judge was misquoted or this argument will be thrown out on appeal. Under U.S. law, a patent is PRESUMED to be valid as soon as it's issued. So Apple has no further obligation to prove its validity. Samsung will have the opportunity to prove that it's NOT valid, but Apple doesn't need to prove validity. (They may, of course, need to overcome Samsung's objections to the patent, but that's not the same thing).
(...it's only a matter of time before cooler legal heads around the world put an end to all this anti-competitve nonsense, and the consumer can decide what they want to spend their money on)
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
Apple is obviously just being anti-competitve, abusing the legal system to try and block competitors for frivolous reasons. Boycott Them!
Amazing how shallow the thought processes are for so many of the Apple Haters. Apple IS competing. In fact, the fact that so much of the industry is scrambling to copy Apple makes it clear that Apple is the main innovator in the industry. Everyone else is simply copying rather than creating their own innovations.
Allowing people to copy Apple's products willy-nilly is anti-competitive. Enforcing patents is not.
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
Thanks for proving the point. It is entirely possible to make a tablet that doesn't look like a slavish copy of the iPad. In fact, even today there are plenty of tablets on the market that aren't slavish copies of the iPad. Apple has every right to defend it's intellectual property when Samsung comes along and makes a product which is such a close copy that even its own attorney can't tell the difference.
DaHarder has been a troll like forever. Don't waste your time responding to his post. Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.
The problem is that the venom he spews then goes unchallenged.
hahhahahahahahahahahahahaah troll
When you cant inovate Copy.
And if you get caught copying, obfuscate.