Microsoft singed another Android vendor to their protection racket. MSFT will make about a billion 2012 in Android licensing fee's. Talk about free money. That is also more money then Google will make on Android this year.
So why don't Apple license out its patents like MSFT?
Remember the Windows debacle? Apple licensed its Windows system to Microsoft for Windows vers1. Somehow the judge in the Apple Vs MSFT trial thought that license was valid for ALL windows system, not only for Windows 1.
Apple don't have a great track record in protecting its IPs and innovations. They have starting to try to do it the last couple of years but instead of the "look and feel" patent, go after the real patents. Apple have been awarded many multi touch patents that every Android phone is breaking. Go after them for this.
And please Apple: Stop supporting Samsung. Only reason why Samsung can copy you stuff is because they make a huge part of them. Lets say that Samsung manufactures the SoC in Ipad3, this means that Samsung have known for at least 4 month exactly what Ipad3 is. Thats why they can clone the stuff so fast, since they have Apples roadmap.
Apple needs its own foundry. They are big enough today to have one. Produce their own SoC + Flash memory = cheaper, faster and more secrecy. More risky, yes, but the upside is huge. Using their own A class SoC have given them a huge edge over Android vendors since its cheaper and no other SoC is in its class and its tailor made for Apple.
You honestly think that people are going to buy that?
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban. Any actual resemblance to any currently (or past) shipping Apple products simply didn't matter - just the resemblance to the details that were visible in the registered community design document. This document, to be exact.
In response, Samsung made some changes to the shape of the device's edges. The changes were fairly insignificant overall (mush less significant than Apple had been hoping for). But the German court has given a preliminary indication that they agree with Samsung that the subtle changes are adequate.
This is exactly the story of how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N came into existence.
I'm looking for a compelling argument as to why Samsung phones in their current state are so close to the iPhone in design and operation that they should be sued and potentially banned. It seems to me that only in the mobile phone and tablet industries can one company sue another for designing a product that borrows from the ideas of a competitor. In all industries, the products within some category are always designed to be as similar as possible to the products of a competitor without being outright copies. Look at the auto industry for one example. Car companies invest huge sums of money to design new cars that fit into about seven different categories that have existed for decades: sedans, coupes, SUVs, pickups, minivans, and wagons/hatchbacks. Within one of those categories, any given vehicle is going to be substantially similar to any other vehicle so that the differences between them come down largely to aesthetics or feel. This is even true if you compare current cars to older cars. Someone from the 60s would still recognize a sedan made today as being a sedan even though modern cars are different from those made in the 60s. Car designs are all slight variations on one theme, and it works for consumers. Why should the mobile phone market be any different, and more importantly why are you all so enthusiastic about having fewer choices for consumers? The Samsung Galaxy phones are clearly not identical to iPhones. Instead they are substantially similar so that the differences between them come down largely to aesthetics or feel. Hmm...
You cant really cheer that lawsuits are decided on merits then scream foul when the decision doesnt match your expectations; that makes you no better than the fanboys.
While corruption may be an issue, the fact that EVERY court has thrown out Apple's design claims, not just one or two leads me to believe that that isnt the case.
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
Copying Apple have been hugely successful for Samsung. I also think that Samsung is the Android vendor with best stuff. If Apple didn't exist/or when Apple are to crazy I would buy Samsung stuff.
But I hate Samsung support.
My 2560x1600 Samsung monitor: Its 3 month since i left it to get repaied. Samsung have hired totally incompetent support personal.
My Apple 2560x1600. I got it replaced 1 day.
Apples service is something that Samsung will have problem copying.
BTW. I wonder about Samsungs moral. Apple helped Samsung to build its NAND factories in 2005 giving them a billion. Apple is Samsungs largest customer with almost 10 billion in revenue. How can Samsung morally copy/steal from their largest customer? Don't forget about the Samsung person that leaked all Apple stuff to case makers and other staff. Really non ethical behavior.
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban.
You left out the part about the 2 dimensional line drawing depicting a 3 dimensional object.
e.g. the house I live in was built based on 2 dimensional drawings.
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
In my opinion, that thing still infringes. In fact, it infringes MORE, because it's a BLATANT copy of the original iPad. Samsung said to themselves, "Okay, we can't copy the iPad 2? Fine, we'll copy your first gen iPad."
And isn't Apple gunning for a ban of the Tab N too, because of that?
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
And the tab 10.1 didnt infringe on the design patent of the ipad or ipad2. It was banned because it resembled a drawing of a non-existant product.
If apple had a strong case aganist it on the grounds of the ipad or ipad2 design, why didnt it go after the tab with those patents instead of using some old drawing it dug up?
Thus far, no court has banned a samsung product because it looked too much (hardware wise) like an apple product.
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban. Any actual resemblance to any currently (or past) shipping Apple products simply didn't matter - just the resemblance to the details that were visible in the registered community design document. This document, to be exact.
In response, Samsung made some changes to the shape of the device's edges. The changes were fairly insignificant overall (mush less significant than Apple had been hoping for). But the German court has given a preliminary indication that they agree with Samsung that the subtle changes are adequate.
This is exactly the story of how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N came into existence.
German court agreed only based on technicalities, not on its merits. There is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple = protecting intellectual property.
In my opinion, that thing still infringes. In fact, it infringes MORE, because it's a BLATANT copy of the original iPad. Samsung said to themselves, "Okay, we can't copy the iPad 2? Fine, we'll copy your first gen iPad."
And isn't Apple gunning for a ban of the Tab N too, because of that?
Right... at an unusual time when competition is creeping up on their backs.
We all know that it isnt about intellectual property per se that motivated Apple to pursue their legal proceedings, but rather the significant threat that Samsung posed as a competitor to Apple's market share.
And the tab 10.1 didnt infringe on the design patent of the ipad or ipad2.
Sure it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Right... at an unusual time when competition is creeping up on their backs.
HA! Competition? That's rich.
Quote:
We all know that it isnt about intellectual property per se that motivated Apple to pursue their legal proceedings, but rather the significant threat that Samsung posed as a competitor to Apple's market share.
Not in the slightest. This is exactly the same case as the eMachines lawsuit. It posed absolutely no threat to Apple in terms of marketshare, but fortunately that doesn't matter in the slightest if it's a question of IP theft.
Comments
Keep up the lawsuits Apple! I'd like to see even more suing. Fandroids always get upset when Apple sues.
It's like Steve Jobs said, let's go thermonuclear!
don't you have homeless people to burn?
So why don't Apple license out its patents like MSFT?
Remember the Windows debacle? Apple licensed its Windows system to Microsoft for Windows vers1. Somehow the judge in the Apple Vs MSFT trial thought that license was valid for ALL windows system, not only for Windows 1.
Apple don't have a great track record in protecting its IPs and innovations. They have starting to try to do it the last couple of years but instead of the "look and feel" patent, go after the real patents. Apple have been awarded many multi touch patents that every Android phone is breaking. Go after them for this.
And please Apple: Stop supporting Samsung. Only reason why Samsung can copy you stuff is because they make a huge part of them. Lets say that Samsung manufactures the SoC in Ipad3, this means that Samsung have known for at least 4 month exactly what Ipad3 is. Thats why they can clone the stuff so fast, since they have Apples roadmap.
Apple needs its own foundry. They are big enough today to have one. Produce their own SoC + Flash memory = cheaper, faster and more secrecy. More risky, yes, but the upside is huge. Using their own A class SoC have given them a huge edge over Android vendors since its cheaper and no other SoC is in its class and its tailor made for Apple.
don't you have homeless people to burn?
These forums need a "Like" button.
Lets say that Samsung manufactures the SoC in Ipad3, this means that Samsung have known for at least 4 month exactly what Ipad3 is.
False.
You honestly think that people are going to buy that?
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban. Any actual resemblance to any currently (or past) shipping Apple products simply didn't matter - just the resemblance to the details that were visible in the registered community design document. This document, to be exact.
In response, Samsung made some changes to the shape of the device's edges. The changes were fairly insignificant overall (mush less significant than Apple had been hoping for). But the German court has given a preliminary indication that they agree with Samsung that the subtle changes are adequate.
This is exactly the story of how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N came into existence.
I'm looking for a compelling argument as to why Samsung phones in their current state are so close to the iPhone in design and operation that they should be sued and potentially banned. It seems to me that only in the mobile phone and tablet industries can one company sue another for designing a product that borrows from the ideas of a competitor. In all industries, the products within some category are always designed to be as similar as possible to the products of a competitor without being outright copies. Look at the auto industry for one example. Car companies invest huge sums of money to design new cars that fit into about seven different categories that have existed for decades: sedans, coupes, SUVs, pickups, minivans, and wagons/hatchbacks. Within one of those categories, any given vehicle is going to be substantially similar to any other vehicle so that the differences between them come down largely to aesthetics or feel. This is even true if you compare current cars to older cars. Someone from the 60s would still recognize a sedan made today as being a sedan even though modern cars are different from those made in the 60s. Car designs are all slight variations on one theme, and it works for consumers. Why should the mobile phone market be any different, and more importantly why are you all so enthusiastic about having fewer choices for consumers? The Samsung Galaxy phones are clearly not identical to iPhones. Instead they are substantially similar so that the differences between them come down largely to aesthetics or feel. Hmm...
Paragraphs.
wakefinance HATES them!
don't you have homeless people to burn?
Homeless people don't bother me, as long as they're not being homeless next to my home.
snip ...blah, blah, blah .../snip Hmm...
So make an exact copy of a Porsche and you'll find yourself in court defending a design infringement case so fast your head would spin.
Read up or f*&k off.
These forums need a "Like" button.
I agree with that. And they also need a "dislike" button too.
don't you have homeless people to burn?
He makes some very relevant points.
You gonna call him a child molester next?
You cant really cheer that lawsuits are decided on merits then scream foul when the decision doesnt match your expectations; that makes you no better than the fanboys.
While corruption may be an issue, the fact that EVERY court has thrown out Apple's design claims, not just one or two leads me to believe that that isnt the case.
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
But I hate Samsung support.
My 2560x1600 Samsung monitor: Its 3 month since i left it to get repaied. Samsung have hired totally incompetent support personal.
My Apple 2560x1600. I got it replaced 1 day.
Apples service is something that Samsung will have problem copying.
BTW. I wonder about Samsungs moral. Apple helped Samsung to build its NAND factories in 2005 giving them a billion. Apple is Samsungs largest customer with almost 10 billion in revenue. How can Samsung morally copy/steal from their largest customer? Don't forget about the Samsung person that leaked all Apple stuff to case makers and other staff. Really non ethical behavior.
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban.
You left out the part about the 2 dimensional line drawing depicting a 3 dimensional object.
e.g. the house I live in was built based on 2 dimensional drawings.
Apple = cry baby
Apple = protecting intellectual property.
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
In my opinion, that thing still infringes. In fact, it infringes MORE, because it's a BLATANT copy of the original iPad. Samsung said to themselves, "Okay, we can't copy the iPad 2? Fine, we'll copy your first gen iPad."
And isn't Apple gunning for a ban of the Tab N too, because of that?
You're too dumb to even spell Samsung right. Unbelievable.
You're too dumb to recognize an obvious play on words. Unbelievable.
So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?
And the tab 10.1 didnt infringe on the design patent of the ipad or ipad2. It was banned because it resembled a drawing of a non-existant product.
If apple had a strong case aganist it on the grounds of the ipad or ipad2 design, why didnt it go after the tab with those patents instead of using some old drawing it dug up?
Thus far, no court has banned a samsung product because it looked too much (hardware wise) like an apple product.
A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban. Any actual resemblance to any currently (or past) shipping Apple products simply didn't matter - just the resemblance to the details that were visible in the registered community design document. This document, to be exact.
In response, Samsung made some changes to the shape of the device's edges. The changes were fairly insignificant overall (mush less significant than Apple had been hoping for). But the German court has given a preliminary indication that they agree with Samsung that the subtle changes are adequate.
This is exactly the story of how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N came into existence.
German court agreed only based on technicalities, not on its merits. There is a difference.
Apple = protecting intellectual property.
In my opinion, that thing still infringes. In fact, it infringes MORE, because it's a BLATANT copy of the original iPad. Samsung said to themselves, "Okay, we can't copy the iPad 2? Fine, we'll copy your first gen iPad."
And isn't Apple gunning for a ban of the Tab N too, because of that?
Right... at an unusual time when competition is creeping up on their backs.
We all know that it isnt about intellectual property per se that motivated Apple to pursue their legal proceedings, but rather the significant threat that Samsung posed as a competitor to Apple's market share.
It's a decoy.
He makes some very relevant points.
You gonna call him a child molester next?
Prove me wrong though. You haven't done that. So I suppose my point stands.
Besides my comment to Apple ][ is based on a discussion I don't think you were around for.
And the tab 10.1 didnt infringe on the design patent of the ipad or ipad2.
Sure it didn't.
Right... at an unusual time when competition is creeping up on their backs.
HA! Competition? That's rich.
We all know that it isnt about intellectual property per se that motivated Apple to pursue their legal proceedings, but rather the significant threat that Samsung posed as a competitor to Apple's market share.
Not in the slightest. This is exactly the same case as the eMachines lawsuit. It posed absolutely no threat to Apple in terms of marketshare, but fortunately that doesn't matter in the slightest if it's a question of IP theft.