But your claim was that there were no tablets on the market and you were proven wrong. Regardless of thickness and it's touch input. All Apple did was take an existing form factor and make it svelte and sexy and showed that it worked much better with a mobile OS than a streamlined version of a PC OS.
I never said there were no tablets on the market. Please quote me where i said that. I said there were no tablets on the market anything like the iPad.
It seems to me that in various subjects, more can be patented in the US than in the rest of the world, which, as the example seems to show, does not give necessarily any protection to the one who owns the patent. There has been a long debate in Europe about software patents, for example (I cannot even say what is now the current status). Legislation differ depending on what part of the world you are, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of any particular justice decision.
No, but I think you can draw conclusions based on the overall marketplace offered by the laws/regulations inherent to it.
Even though the US has faltered and isn't the clear leader in innovation, there are still more new products and ideas emerging first in the US than other countries. In tech and software, look at revenues for companies based in different countries. To imply there isn't direct correlation is just silly.
Quote:
As noted by many posts, there is a specific antagonism between Apple and Samsung which explain the energy they put into these disputes.
Yes, blatently copying of the entire Apple user experience developed for the iPad. Plenty of alternative experiences have been demonstrated in this and other threads.
Quote:
I believe all Apple competitors will be cut into tiny bits in a near future, with the exception of Samsung.
I believe all Android iPad competitors will be cut to bits - but by the Kindle fire sucking out what little oxygen exists aside from the iPad, not because of Samsung or the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.
Quote:
Although these two companies differ on many points, they strangely have one point in common, in their common complete disregard of planet finance opinion, which give them the unique advantage of conducting long term strategies.
Huh? If you are implying money doesn't matter for either company... even with it's cash horde, I guarantee you Apple doesn't take anything fiscal related for granted.
You don't generate huge profits by being cavalier about expenses or profits.
Whether or not it's epic remains to be seen. I personally don't see it going more than a couple of years, and I don't see it making a major difference in the market. But I do think it will set precedent for other companies - particularly other asian companies - that copying Apple will come at a steep price.
In 1997 tablets looked very different from today's iPad.
not to the fandroids/samesung astroturfers. According to them, the iPad is a rip off as there were so many tablets on the market which looked exactly like the ipad. Every tablet before the ipad looked just like the ipad. Thin. Black bevel. No buttons on the bevel. Ran a non-windows OS. All that...before the iPad.
I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.
This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?
If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.
Nothing has been served - except heaping plates of stupidity.
Quote:
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court. The court has determine it does not.
Sigh - go read the article again. Then try to comprehend. The judge said she doesn't agree with Apple's point that they won't be able to recoup and therefore an injunction isn't merited.
There wasn't a ruling about the merits of Apple's or Samsung's claims. Not in the least.
Quote:
Are you trying to go against the court here?
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse, or are you really just this ignorant of basic processes of the American legal system?
Quote:
Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization. As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster. The same goes for tablets.
Yes, miniaturization is a direct contributor to multi-touch, app stores, glass facing, bezels, tapered cases, single home buttons on the face, etc.
Yup, it's all obvious because of miniaturization
Quote:
Apple's patent argument in court was only about the front.
No it wasn't, but nice try. Thankfully your not a lawyer for either Apple or Samsung. It would probably be more entertaining though!
This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?
If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.
Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"
They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."
This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.
Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same
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 the iPad look exactly like that Joojoo tablet
thin, lightweight, touch UI, no buttons, black bezel, all-glass front panel
The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.
This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.
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.
DaHarder, let me correct your statement:
"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.
They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.
These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.
Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.
The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.
This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.
Unless the dates have been altered there is plenty of evidence an acknowledgment of the CrunchPad being adead and showing an Atom-based JooJoo at the end of 2009, a month before the iPad was demoed, that had a nice glossy black border and a nice rounded back panel for a 16:9 12" display.
With products being so close together there is no feasible way that these working demos could could have copied each other with a month's difference. Samsung on the other hand has shown too many comparative points that mirror Apple products months after they are released.
Just look at their remote control that looks like an iPhone 4.
Because it's not a phone I don't think Apple would go after this product but it's definitely infringing on the iPhone 4/4S look and feel.
Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"
They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."
This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.
Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same
I don't think most people are against all patents, which seems to be the extreme position you're arguing against. There are a number of patents that should probably not have been granted. The "wide-screen" ones recently asserted against Apple might be one example.
Because most patents may have been properly awarded for original/unique inventions does not equate to all patents are good, nor proper, nor wielded fairly and equitably.
One thing is abundantly clear in reading this thread: Androidians are not terribly good at reading comprehension, and do not come through as being thoughtful (or even particularly smart).
All one sees are the proforma knee-jerk nonsense being spewed forth time and again. Like a broken toy that has its battery replaced every once in while....
Guess you'll have to stop buying Apple products; Samsung supplies a lot of the screens and memory chips in Apple products....
that's all changing and samsung has many divisions...they dont want to lose apple's biz and if they do there be setting up a new co. that will compete with samsung with other clients and not just apple biz.
"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.
They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.
These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.
Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.
And surely you realize that they had resistive screens because capacitive were either not economically viable, didn't exist in a commercial capacity or weren't manufactured at all at the time those previous tablets were offered. Devices were thick and heavy because the miniature components weren't yet invented.
In essence, if Apple had wanted to build today's version of the iPad in 1994 they could not have. The technology did not exist for Apple anymore than it did for Samsung, Microsoft or any builder of a tablet/slate device.
That makes the talking point "see what tablets look like since the iPad" a ridiculous one. Not belittling Apple's successful design and marketing strategy at all. They are the first to be successful in the segment. It's the "before & after" arguments that show such little intelligent thought.
Comments
But your claim was that there were no tablets on the market and you were proven wrong. Regardless of thickness and it's touch input. All Apple did was take an existing form factor and make it svelte and sexy and showed that it worked much better with a mobile OS than a streamlined version of a PC OS.
I never said there were no tablets on the market. Please quote me where i said that. I said there were no tablets on the market anything like the iPad.
It seems to me that in various subjects, more can be patented in the US than in the rest of the world, which, as the example seems to show, does not give necessarily any protection to the one who owns the patent. There has been a long debate in Europe about software patents, for example (I cannot even say what is now the current status). Legislation differ depending on what part of the world you are, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of any particular justice decision.
No, but I think you can draw conclusions based on the overall marketplace offered by the laws/regulations inherent to it.
Even though the US has faltered and isn't the clear leader in innovation, there are still more new products and ideas emerging first in the US than other countries. In tech and software, look at revenues for companies based in different countries. To imply there isn't direct correlation is just silly.
As noted by many posts, there is a specific antagonism between Apple and Samsung which explain the energy they put into these disputes.
Yes, blatently copying of the entire Apple user experience developed for the iPad. Plenty of alternative experiences have been demonstrated in this and other threads.
I believe all Apple competitors will be cut into tiny bits in a near future, with the exception of Samsung.
I believe all Android iPad competitors will be cut to bits - but by the Kindle fire sucking out what little oxygen exists aside from the iPad, not because of Samsung or the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.
Although these two companies differ on many points, they strangely have one point in common, in their common complete disregard of planet finance opinion, which give them the unique advantage of conducting long term strategies.
Huh? If you are implying money doesn't matter for either company... even with it's cash horde, I guarantee you Apple doesn't take anything fiscal related for granted.
You don't generate huge profits by being cavalier about expenses or profits.
Whether or not it's epic remains to be seen. I personally don't see it going more than a couple of years, and I don't see it making a major difference in the market. But I do think it will set precedent for other companies - particularly other asian companies - that copying Apple will come at a steep price.
As it should.
In 1997 tablets looked very different from today's iPad.
not to the fandroids/samesung astroturfers. According to them, the iPad is a rip off as there were so many tablets on the market which looked exactly like the ipad. Every tablet before the ipad looked just like the ipad. Thin. Black bevel. No buttons on the bevel. Ran a non-windows OS. All that...before the iPad.
I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.
This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?
If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.
Very impressive, but I wonder if the specific devices were cherry-picked.
care to back up your claims or are you just trolling like you always do? I hear Fox News is hiring...you would fit right in there.
Justice has been served.
Nothing has been served - except heaping plates of stupidity.
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court. The court has determine it does not.
Sigh - go read the article again. Then try to comprehend. The judge said she doesn't agree with Apple's point that they won't be able to recoup and therefore an injunction isn't merited.
There wasn't a ruling about the merits of Apple's or Samsung's claims. Not in the least.
Are you trying to go against the court here?
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse, or are you really just this ignorant of basic processes of the American legal system?
Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization. As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster. The same goes for tablets.
Yes, miniaturization is a direct contributor to multi-touch, app stores, glass facing, bezels, tapered cases, single home buttons on the face, etc.
Yup, it's all obvious because of miniaturization
Apple's patent argument in court was only about the front.
No it wasn't, but nice try. Thankfully your not a lawyer for either Apple or Samsung. It would probably be more entertaining though!
This is one thing that amazes me about people against patents. Why on earth would a company spend millions on R&D to develop new products and technology if there wasn't any ability for them to protect their IP (through patents)?
If there was no patent system there'd be no true innovation.
Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"
They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."
This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.
Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same
And look at how many people cared... Heck, they were even Bill Gates priority! For over a decade!
His statement was factually incorrect. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'd tell you to be careful flinging around so much crap, but then realized it's probably all you know how to do
Doc on the offensive... wrong side of the bed today?
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.
It's more like evolution, not revolution.
So you say that tablet don't look like a iPad?
I think the iPad look exactly like that Joojoo tablet
thin, lightweight, touch UI, no buttons, black bezel, all-glass front panel
The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.
This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/cru...a-little-early
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.
DaHarder, let me correct your statement:
"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.
They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.
These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.
Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.
The joojoo tablet was released in March 2010, two months after Steve Jobs showed the iPad to world in Jan 2010. So, yes the joojoo was copied from iPad.
This was how the original joojoo (Prototype C) looked before the iPad was announced. BTW this prototype was never sold, only displayed. It was called the Crunchpad.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/cru...a-little-early
Unless the dates have been altered there is plenty of evidence an acknowledgment of the CrunchPad being adead and showing an Atom-based JooJoo at the end of 2009, a month before the iPad was demoed, that had a nice glossy black border and a nice rounded back panel for a 16:9 12" display.
With products being so close together there is no feasible way that these working demos could could have copied each other with a month's difference. Samsung on the other hand has shown too many comparative points that mirror Apple products months after they are released.
Just look at their remote control that looks like an iPhone 4.Because it's not a phone I don't think Apple would go after this product but it's definitely infringing on the iPhone 4/4S look and feel.
Because most people who are against patents don't care about the real issues involved. All they know is "Because of patents, an iPad from Apple costs $500 instead of $200. If we just got rid of patents I could have premium gear for walmart prices!"
They will never admit that, of course. Heaven forbid quality cost more than crap! "That's not fair! If I can't afford quality, I should be able to have it because it's not fair for only some to have quality experiences."
This is the real message behind "social justice" and it's the antithesis of the foundations of the US. But there certainly are a whole lot of people who seem hell bent on destroying the very things that have made the US prosperous.
Whether by ignorance or malice, the result will be the same
I don't think most people are against all patents, which seems to be the extreme position you're arguing against. There are a number of patents that should probably not have been granted. The "wide-screen" ones recently asserted against Apple might be one example.
Because most patents may have been properly awarded for original/unique inventions does not equate to all patents are good, nor proper, nor wielded fairly and equitably.
All one sees are the proforma knee-jerk nonsense being spewed forth time and again. Like a broken toy that has its battery replaced every once in while....
Guess you'll have to stop buying Apple products; Samsung supplies a lot of the screens and memory chips in Apple products....
that's all changing and samsung has many divisions...they dont want to lose apple's biz and if they do there be setting up a new co. that will compete with samsung with other clients and not just apple biz.
DaHarder, let me correct your statement:
"There were tablets/MIDS on the market, some long before the iPad. They shoehorned desktop operating systems with minimal optimizations for actual tablet computing, which resulted in extremely poor battery life.
They used resistive touch screens, were not "finger friendly", and included styli and hardware keyboards.
These tablets often weighed several pounds, were extremely thick, and were unwieldy to carry about in a "mobile" fashion.
Once the iPad was released, and demonstrated that a mobile operating system optimized for touch-based input could be successful, several companies began releasing iPad-esque knock-offs.
And surely you realize that they had resistive screens because capacitive were either not economically viable, didn't exist in a commercial capacity or weren't manufactured at all at the time those previous tablets were offered. Devices were thick and heavy because the miniature components weren't yet invented.
In essence, if Apple had wanted to build today's version of the iPad in 1994 they could not have. The technology did not exist for Apple anymore than it did for Samsung, Microsoft or any builder of a tablet/slate device.
That makes the talking point "see what tablets look like since the iPad" a ridiculous one. Not belittling Apple's successful design and marketing strategy at all. They are the first to be successful in the segment. It's the "before & after" arguments that show such little intelligent thought.
Really?
Samsung = cheap plasticity knock off, thats why no one lines up for there products
The background wall doesn't belong to Samsung.
Read the facts buddy. Dont believe everything you see and also dont jump to conclusions before you know all the facts.
Samsung: " Sue me"
I wonder what would've happened if Samsung patented the design of a flat screen TV.
Would they have taken the same legal steps that Apple is (childishly) taking now?
IMO, no.
They would create better products that would compete on innovation and additional features in the MARKETPLACE and not in the COURTS.
Companies utilize the courts as a LAST RESORT if all else fails.
Apparently, Apple's ideas are running out for them to resort to these extremes.
image: http://www.techshout.com/img/samsung-lcd-750.jpg
Samsung: " Sue me"
1) No rounded corners, much less rounded corners that are nearly identical to the iPad's curve.
2) Most importantly: That's a TV, neither a tablet nor a smartphone.
Samsung: " Sue me"
I'm curious how many times you people have to be proven so completely wrong before you'll shut up about that.