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....
Droidtards are envious of anything Apple. Because they lust after Apple products, but are too greedy to buy them, they get wratthful whenever it is pointed out that Apple makes big profits. They all just gluttons for market share, while slothfully avoiding any work that might result in innovation. And for some reason they are proud of themselves.
You can't say anything too bad about droidtards. It is all OK.
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.
Haha! He's also turned the forums into his own personal web photo service. Most people would just use Picasa or whatever, lol. "And here's my iPad and my Galaxy Tab and Kindle Fire the day we went to the beach. iPad kept kicking sand in Galaxy Tab's face, calling him unloved POS. Oh, those tablets, they love to tease each other."
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.
If they really believe that, so what? The irony is that Samsung, Motorola, HP, and all the rest know, they KNOW the iPad is the design to shoot for. Those companies aren't stupid, and they know they're taking design ideas from Apple, whether their fans admit it or not. THEY KNOW.
I thought the iPad more or less took its design cues from the iPhone and iPod Touch designs. Didn't the haters call it "a giant iPod Touch"? Back in 1997, full sized tablets resembled laptops without keyboards, and that's what they were. Heavy, short battery life, slow processors: crippled Windows laptops. Or else they were devices like the Newton 2000.
Now that the Galaxy Tab is still allowed to be sold in the USA, at least for the time being, then everybody can get back to not buying any of them, as has been the case all along.
You'd think that with all of the Fantards around, sales would be much higher. I guess it's all talk and no action for certain people, which is hardly surprising.
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
Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.
Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!:
Look and feel does not equate experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?:
Where you been? we live in that world now
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.:
So transmissions werent allowed to first shift into first gear and then into second gear, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.
Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?:
There's a natural progression to technology, and Apple has shown what that is with two devices, the touchscreen smartphone and the tablet computer. Imagine if you will if nobody was allowed to copy Philips' flat panel TVs, after all they were the first ones to bring plasma TVs to public retail, and now every flat panel TV whether it be, plasma, LCD, or LED, or built by Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung, etc... all look like that first TV sold by Philips.
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.
Definitely Apple's patents include both front and back sides, but in the court they are claiming front view for most cases. Excerpt from court document:
"The D?087 patent provides 6 different embodiments. None of the embodiments, however, claims anything other than the front view of the patented design. Although the patent contains ?a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article,? Door-Master, 256 F.3d at 1313 (internal citations and quotations omitted), all views except for the front view are delineated with broken lines and are explicitly excluded from the design patent claim scope. See D?087 patent (?None of the broken lines form a part of the claimed design.?). Thus, Apple has only claimed the front face of the cell phone in the D?087 patent."
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're looking at the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Apple does NOT copy. Apple steals. Apple has always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
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.
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.
LOL. The only innovation coming out of Samesung is deciding where to place the Samesung logo on their rip-off products. If you aren't loving their iphone, ipad and ipod knock-offs, check out their Macbook Air wanna-be. Whatever Apple creates, Samesung immitates. They figure it is the only way that can get sales.
As for Apple running out of ideas like the iPhone, iPod, and iPad all ThE MOST successful products on the planet in their categories... Well, I guess we'll see. But name one item that Samesung can lay claim to as somethng that changed the industry.
: ? then WHY you wrote ? In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements & Though Australian case is not about design?
Reading comprehension? Though I believe you understood What I was trying to say.
Other tablets will also fall into Apple's patent claims whether technical ( as in Australia) or design ( as in Germany) patents , but conscious choice to choose largest competitor and defeating it, is not all a bad strategy by Apple. Others will automatically comply
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Other than a black bezel and glass screen, that's where the similarities end. I'd say they were 20% similar.
Differences include slimmer design, single integrated button on the front, volume buttons on opposite sides and of different shape and composition, different antenna design, completely different dock connector.
Now why not show an iphone and a Samesung phone side by side, prior to all the legal action. Now you have you 90% similarities.
But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-
"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices
Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.
The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.
_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."
Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips
True that they have won a patent for a method of fabricating the A5 but they dont own the design of the A5. That design property is still Apples. Also with the A6 Apple has already started working back in july with Taiwan Semicondutor Manufacturing Company to buid the A6. They Also have sharp and lg building flat panels for the iphone 4s and the ipad 2. I think the days of samsung making anything except nand flash for apple may be coming to an end soon because of this law suit mess.
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Why don't you find a screen shot of the Prada or read the user manual as to how the touch screen gestures worked. That'll really open your eyes as to how different these phones really are (and how lousy the Prada really was).
Comments
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....
Droidtards are envious of anything Apple. Because they lust after Apple products, but are too greedy to buy them, they get wratthful whenever it is pointed out that Apple makes big profits. They all just gluttons for market share, while slothfully avoiding any work that might result in innovation. And for some reason they are proud of themselves.
You can't say anything too bad about droidtards. It is all OK.
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.
Haha! He's also turned the forums into his own personal web photo service. Most people would just use Picasa or whatever, lol. "And here's my iPad and my Galaxy Tab and Kindle Fire the day we went to the beach. iPad kept kicking sand in Galaxy Tab's face, calling him unloved POS. Oh, those tablets, they love to tease each other."
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.
If they really believe that, so what? The irony is that Samsung, Motorola, HP, and all the rest know, they KNOW the iPad is the design to shoot for. Those companies aren't stupid, and they know they're taking design ideas from Apple, whether their fans admit it or not. THEY KNOW.
I thought the iPad more or less took its design cues from the iPhone and iPod Touch designs. Didn't the haters call it "a giant iPod Touch"? Back in 1997, full sized tablets resembled laptops without keyboards, and that's what they were. Heavy, short battery life, slow processors: crippled Windows laptops. Or else they were devices like the Newton 2000.
You'd think that with all of the Fantards around, sales would be much higher. I guess it's all talk and no action for certain people, which is hardly surprising.
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
Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.
Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!:
Look and feel does not equate experience.
Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?:
Where you been? we live in that world now
Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.:
So transmissions werent allowed to first shift into first gear and then into second gear, etc...
Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.
Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?:
There's a natural progression to technology, and Apple has shown what that is with two devices, the touchscreen smartphone and the tablet computer. Imagine if you will if nobody was allowed to copy Philips' flat panel TVs, after all they were the first ones to bring plasma TVs to public retail, and now every flat panel TV whether it be, plasma, LCD, or LED, or built by Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung, etc... all look like that first TV sold by Philips.
Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.
Definitely Apple's patents include both front and back sides, but in the court they are claiming front view for most cases. Excerpt from court document:
"The D?087 patent provides 6 different embodiments. None of the embodiments, however, claims anything other than the front view of the patented design. Although the patent contains ?a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article,? Door-Master, 256 F.3d at 1313 (internal citations and quotations omitted), all views except for the front view are delineated with broken lines and are explicitly excluded from the design patent claim scope. See D?087 patent (?None of the broken lines form a part of the claimed design.?). Thus, Apple has only claimed the front face of the cell phone in the D?087 patent."
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're looking at the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Apple does NOT copy. Apple steals. Apple has always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
the judge is of korean descent. i noted this a while back and thought this could be a problem. and guess what?
You'll want to not go down this road.
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
I never said the ipad was copied from joojoo tablet, but based on your logic about showed date then the ipad must copied from joojoo tablet.
12/2009
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/j...ands-on-video/
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.
LOL. The only innovation coming out of Samesung is deciding where to place the Samesung logo on their rip-off products. If you aren't loving their iphone, ipad and ipod knock-offs, check out their Macbook Air wanna-be. Whatever Apple creates, Samesung immitates. They figure it is the only way that can get sales.
As for Apple running out of ideas like the iPhone, iPod, and iPad all ThE MOST successful products on the planet in their categories... Well, I guess we'll see. But name one item that Samesung can lay claim to as somethng that changed the industry.
Reading comprehension? Though I believe you understood What I was trying to say.
Other tablets will also fall into Apple's patent claims whether technical ( as in Australia) or design ( as in Germany) patents , but conscious choice to choose largest competitor and defeating it, is not all a bad strategy by Apple. Others will automatically comply
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Other than a black bezel and glass screen, that's where the similarities end. I'd say they were 20% similar.
Differences include slimmer design, single integrated button on the front, volume buttons on opposite sides and of different shape and composition, different antenna design, completely different dock connector.
Now why not show an iphone and a Samesung phone side by side, prior to all the legal action. Now you have you 90% similarities.
And if you get caught copying, obfuscate.
Lol for sure!
But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-
"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices
Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.
The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.
_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."
Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips
True that they have won a patent for a method of fabricating the A5 but they dont own the design of the A5. That design property is still Apples. Also with the A6 Apple has already started working back in july with Taiwan Semicondutor Manufacturing Company to buid the A6. They Also have sharp and lg building flat panels for the iphone 4s and the ipad 2. I think the days of samsung making anything except nand flash for apple may be coming to an end soon because of this law suit mess.
Like Apple doesn't copy. Now before you guys nit pick at the subtle differences. We're comparing the "look" of the devices which are >90% similar. Oh and if you didn't know, the phone on the left is the LG Prada released in 2007 just before the first iPhone was released.
Why don't you find a screen shot of the Prada or read the user manual as to how the touch screen gestures worked. That'll really open your eyes as to how different these phones really are (and how lousy the Prada really was).