Previous courts were either corrupt or dumb, because I can't understand how they can't see through all the lying, deceit and manipulation by samesung.
Maybe they are so dumb they just concentrate on the legal merits of the case without the bias of fanboyism.
In other News:
Samsung look like they might be laying the groundwork to giving Android and Google the bird. They have announced they are more or less abandoning their Bada OS and folding it into another of their OS projects, Tizen. Looks likely the new OS will run on smartphones and likely tablets, TV's and other devices.
Blatant copying of Apple if you ask me.
They have also started production of a 46" transparent display panel.
More blatant copying of Apple.
They have also announced they are to invest $41.7 Bn this year. About $11.86 Bn of that will be in R&D
This last bit I find puzzling. Why would you need to invest so much in R&D if the only thing you do is copy other peoples ideas? Must be a misprint.
Just the fact that Apple had to file in a German court shows how US judicial system can't/won't protect American company IPs. samesung is peddling their disgusting products everywhere and even if Apple receives summary judgment in Germany, samesung products will have had infested the world with their lame copies of Apple. I hope Apple not only gets treble damages but is able to force evil samesung into bankruptcy. samesung does not deserve a place in the world. Does anyone here know how soon Apple can get summary judgement to block samesung products in Europe? Will the outcome affect rulings in US and Asia?
Not really. The Dusseldorf court has patent-friendly reputation and is commonly known as the Eastern Texas courts of Germany (favored by patent trolls). If Apple had legitimate patents case against Samsung, they would have filed lawsuits in the Dutch court where Samsung's entire European distribution would be jeopardized.
All, but one of Apple's claims, were invalidated/thrown out in the Dutch court last year. The Dutch court sided with Apple on one "scrolling" (software) claim found in Android, not Samsung.
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.
I doubt Apple's capital investment did much - after all, Samsung spends many more billions building / upgrading new fabs every year. It isn't a charity either - Apple did it to secure supplies and deep discount.
Nope, Samsung's #1 client is Sony - that alone should raise some concern. Apple is #2 and accounts for slightly less than 5% of all Samsung Electronics's sales.
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 might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
One of these days, Apple is going to push Samsung to patent (or is it Community Design) a circle, triangle and a trapezoid (if Apple hasn't already done so).
Once that happens, its not only going to rile up techniques, but also mathematicians as well.
Then, even 1st graders will be jumping on the bandwagon of fanboy hating.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
So I could get some very talented artists together, have them use their creativity and create tons of line drawings of things I hope will one day becom a reality, submitt them without ever building or even plan on building and now I own the rights and can legally block anyone attempting to produce anything that resembles them? That just does not seem fair. Take all the syfy movies from he past few years, make "drawings" submitt to EU, rake in The cash.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
I also read something like this in OS news website. In that report, Apple registered hundreds of Cummunity Design mainly in drawing in EU for the products that never existed. Sure Apple did register Community Designs for some acctual products like Iphone (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ucts-with.html) but Apple also registered multiple possible designs not eventuated (like the second Cummunity Design in above link). One other point was that the drawing Community Designs Apple registered were too vague that could be used too widely.
Registering multiple Community Designs in drawings that never existed. Bringing Community Design not eventuated in Court over existing product. It seems like that is what Apple is doing here. It looks like Apple is saying that they want monoploy in public.
Apple isn't claiming the Samsung products are "knock-off's" of anything Apple sells. That there might not be any actual Apple product that used those designs doesn't matter.
The suits have nothing at all to do with claiming Samsung's Galaxy's looking like iPhones or iPads. Instead Apple claims they too closely resemble a two-dimensional drawing that Apple created and submitted for registering a Community Design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Good luck with that...I've tried to explain that ad infinitum in the Tab case and no one seemed to pay attention and kept saying that the suit was about resemblance to the iPad when it was about a drawing.
Ditto. Ever since the lawsuit wars began, people on Apple Insider have oversimplified this as a matter of one company ripping off the other. If you try to explain to them that look and feel are tough to successfully litigate or demonstrate the actual basis of the lawsuits, you're dismissed as a fanboy.
These lawsuits don't come cheap. All they do is create extra costs for firms involved and lead to backlash long-term. The more I read about Apple getting shot down in courts all around the world, the more compelled I am to believe Apple's becoming more like RAMBUS. As I've said in other threads, Apple should just stick to innovating and marketing. Those are its two towers. They should continue capitalizing on those two strengths instead of wasting valuable time and resources on lawsuits that increasingly appear more likely than not to fail.
You can go ahead and keep saying "Good, I hope this one sticks" with each and every suit that turns out to be a sham for Apple, because at the rate Apple keeps getting at these unfavorable rulings, you'll be saying the same line over...and over...and over...again.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
So I could get some very talented artists together, have them use their creativity and create tons of line drawings of things I hope will one day becom a reality, submitt them without ever building or even plan on building and now I own the rights and can legally block anyone attempting to produce anything that resembles them? That just does not seem fair. Take all the syfy movies from he past few years, make "drawings" submitt to EU, rake in The cash.
The non-legal community needs people like you guys to hash out the issues and explain them in a way that's understandable. I plan to take a couple of IP classes in my last year of law school, and I find your explanations to be pretty legitimate based on what I've read on my own and what I've learned just through conversations with my IP buddies.
And yes, the lawsuits this time around are (again) not centered on "slavish" copies (can we please have the mods on AI limit or censor the use of that word to discourage it from losing its meaning?) of Apple products. They center around design patents that appear to be either vague or too far-reaching to be meaningful.
And yeah. I get where fanboys are coming from wishing evil upon Samsung. But I think more people here need to question just where we draw the line on patent law. Should we allow Apple to continue wasting the time and money of their competitors just to bring lawsuits based on worthless patents that'll only get invalidated or just not enforced by a high court?
Equally important, let's put this in the sphere of American patent law. What kind of precedent would we set if we were to recognize these far-reaching patents? It's already bad enough that it costs about roughly $2 million for a small business over here in Silicon Valley just to fend off a lawsuit based off a sham patent that no serious judge would ever uphold. These patent trolls, while not anywhere close to Apple in terms of churning out good products based on legitimate patents, end up intimidating small businesses into settling for a lump sum somewhere below that figure. In short, the whole thing's a mess. Do we want to exacerbate this trend further?
I really think we need to think about these issues more carefully and put aside the emotional attachment to a brand.
... And yeah. I get where fanboys are coming from wishing evil upon Samsung. But I think more people here need to question just where we draw the line on patent law. Should we allow Apple to continue wasting the time and money of their competitors just to bring lawsuits based on worthless patents that'll only get invalidated or just not enforced by a high court?
...
I really think we need to think about these issues more carefully and put aside the emotional attachment to a brand.
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
We do need to think about these issues more carefully, much more carefully. None of these careless, "Oh, that big mean Apple, why can't they just let everyone make iPhones," inspired attempts to pretend to rationality. No, we need to carefully think about what is it we really believe in when we defend the practice of stealing other people's work.
Yes, another thread has devolved into legalistic, hair-splitting arguments where phrases like "Community Design" and "rounded corners" are rolled around on the floor like so many marbles to trip up anyone who might actually think that Google and Samsung are thieves and have done something wrong here, by, you know, stealing the entire fucking design of iOS and the iPhone and making cheap knockoffs of them.
Because, there can be no rational argument that they aren't thieves. Don't be fooled by the, "Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone," argument, which is the only defense they have, Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nothing more. Samsung's smartphones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. And the reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is that all the evidence shows that this is how both companies typically operate: by stealing the work of others.
So, is it really OK to just steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own? Because, that's what Google and Samsung are doing here. Do we really want to live in a world where that is considered a good thing? Who cares what Apple's legal strategy is in putting a stop to theft. Arguing about "rounded corners" is like saying the Feds shouldn't go after mobsters for tax evasion. What's the important thing here, that we stop criminal behavior, or that we convict only for murder?
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
Got to love it when the big defense is calling someone a paid shill when they're not completely singing the praises of Apple.
So I'm guessing you're a paid Apple shill since you're always here to defend them and attack any company that dares to compete against them. Especially Google (I can only guess that maybe one of their Street View vehicles ran over your cat at some point for the amount of venom you spew towards them).
Let's see, some of Google's blatant copying: They redefined internet search, redefined internet maps, redefined internet mail, and (for better or worse) redefined internet advertising.
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.
Your argument would hold if Apple sues every other company on the globe that has "similar" designs as Apple's "Community design" so called "patent".
But they arent.
They are only targeting a select few companies with enough market threat to undermine Apple's market share.
That, my friend, is enough evidence to suggest that they are basing their decision to sue purely on anti-competitive reasons.
Of course, Apple would NEVER admit to that as that.
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
We do need to think about these issues more carefully, much more carefully. None of these careless, "Oh, that big mean Apple, why can't they just let everyone make iPhones," inspired attempts to pretend to rationality. No, we need to carefully think about what is it we really believe in when we defend the practice of stealing other people's work.
Yes, another thread has devolved into legalistic, hair-splitting arguments where phrases like "Community Design" and "rounded corners" are rolled around on the floor like so many marbles to trip up anyone who might actually think that Google and Samsung are thieves and have done something wrong here, by, you know, stealing the entire fucking design of iOS and the iPhone and making cheap knockoffs of them.
Because, there can be no rational argument that they aren't thieves. Don't be fooled by the, "Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone," argument, which is the only defense they have, Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nothing more. Samsung's smartphones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. And the reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is that all the evidence shows that this is how both companies typically operate: by stealing the work of others.
So, is it really OK to just steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own? Because, that's what Google and Samsung are doing here. Do we really want to live in a world where that is considered a good thing? Who cares what Apple's legal strategy is in putting a stop to theft. Arguing about "rounded corners" is like saying the Feds shouldn't go after mobsters for tax evasion. What's the important thing here, that we stop criminal behavior, or that we convict only for murder?
You clearly aren't reading the comments, and your emotional irrationalism is getting the better of you. No, I don't have a horse in the race you obsess over. Even if we were to presume I'm some kind of shill, what do I have to gain by winning over supporters unless I'm starting a Samsung cult?
Look at the rulings by courts all around the world. Even the judges in Spain that initially granted Apple an injunction that was eventually lifted after Samsung made revisions to its tablets were being perspicuous about their level of discretion. They are probably well aware that vague and far-reaching design patents are just flat out impractical if not unrealistically difficult to enforce. You really should try doing some more research and reading some of the other arguments presented.
Oh, and it's a bit asinine to label anyone who discusses patent law issues as being "legalistic." You're just oversimplifying the issues and thus displaying an inability to grasp them. This isn't an issue of "stolen designs." Again, courts all around the world are refusing to grant permanent injunctions for refinements and variations. Smartphones and tablets have been around for a while. The LG Prada interestingly enough was one of the first smartphone around with the shape and design that's quite common today before Apple's iPhone first generation came out. But LG chose not to sue Apple (Google it) since their in-house counsel PROBABLY advised them not to pursue a suit. They were probably right in giving such advice.
Again, think about what you're arguing a little more carefully. It's either the cases all the judges who ruled against Apple are wrong, or at least some (or perhaps all?) of them are in the right.
Comments
Previous courts were either corrupt or dumb, because I can't understand how they can't see through all the lying, deceit and manipulation by samesung.
Maybe they are so dumb they just concentrate on the legal merits of the case without the bias of fanboyism.
In other News:
Samsung look like they might be laying the groundwork to giving Android and Google the bird. They have announced they are more or less abandoning their Bada OS and folding it into another of their OS projects, Tizen. Looks likely the new OS will run on smartphones and likely tablets, TV's and other devices.
Blatant copying of Apple if you ask me.
They have also started production of a 46" transparent display panel.
More blatant copying of Apple.
They have also announced they are to invest $41.7 Bn this year. About $11.86 Bn of that will be in R&D
This last bit I find puzzling. Why would you need to invest so much in R&D if the only thing you do is copy other peoples ideas? Must be a misprint.
Just the fact that Apple had to file in a German court shows how US judicial system can't/won't protect American company IPs. samesung is peddling their disgusting products everywhere and even if Apple receives summary judgment in Germany, samesung products will have had infested the world with their lame copies of Apple. I hope Apple not only gets treble damages but is able to force evil samesung into bankruptcy. samesung does not deserve a place in the world. Does anyone here know how soon Apple can get summary judgement to block samesung products in Europe? Will the outcome affect rulings in US and Asia?
Not really. The Dusseldorf court has patent-friendly reputation and is commonly known as the Eastern Texas courts of Germany (favored by patent trolls). If Apple had legitimate patents case against Samsung, they would have filed lawsuits in the Dutch court where Samsung's entire European distribution would be jeopardized.
All, but one of Apple's claims, were invalidated/thrown out in the Dutch court last year. The Dutch court sided with Apple on one "scrolling" (software) claim found in Android, not Samsung.
Which is which. I can't tell.
lol! yeah hard one there.
These forums need a "Like" button.
Why? So you can say you 'like' Samsung, and 'like' people who say they 'like' Samsung?
Go to a Samsung forum (don't know if there are any; don't care either).
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.
I doubt Apple's capital investment did much - after all, Samsung spends many more billions building / upgrading new fabs every year. It isn't a charity either - Apple did it to secure supplies and deep discount.
Nope, Samsung's #1 client is Sony - that alone should raise some concern. Apple is #2 and accounts for slightly less than 5% of all Samsung Electronics's sales.
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?
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
Once that happens, its not only going to rile up techniques, but also mathematicians as well.
Then, even 1st graders will be jumping on the bandwagon of fanboy hating.
I'll stick around just for the entertainment.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
So I could get some very talented artists together, have them use their creativity and create tons of line drawings of things I hope will one day becom a reality, submitt them without ever building or even plan on building and now I own the rights and can legally block anyone attempting to produce anything that resembles them? That just does not seem fair. Take all the syfy movies from he past few years, make "drawings" submitt to EU, rake in The cash.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
I also read something like this in OS news website. In that report, Apple registered hundreds of Cummunity Design mainly in drawing in EU for the products that never existed. Sure Apple did register Community Designs for some acctual products like Iphone (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ucts-with.html) but Apple also registered multiple possible designs not eventuated (like the second Cummunity Design in above link). One other point was that the drawing Community Designs Apple registered were too vague that could be used too widely.
Registering multiple Community Designs in drawings that never existed. Bringing Community Design not eventuated in Court over existing product. It seems like that is what Apple is doing here. It looks like Apple is saying that they want monoploy in public.
Just the fact that Apple had to file in a German court shows how US judicial system can't/won't protect American company IPs.
How would you expect the US to enforce US laws in a foreign country?
That would be a copyright violation, if Apple's ad is copyrighted in Korea.
No it wouldn't be.
You can't copyright how things are said.
How would you expect the US to enforce US laws in a foreign country?
I have no idea how, but if it's important enough: trust me, the job gets done.
Apple isn't claiming the Samsung products are "knock-off's" of anything Apple sells. That there might not be any actual Apple product that used those designs doesn't matter.
The suits have nothing at all to do with claiming Samsung's Galaxy's looking like iPhones or iPads. Instead Apple claims they too closely resemble a two-dimensional drawing that Apple created and submitted for registering a Community Design.
Good luck with that...I've tried to explain that ad infinitum in the Tab case and no one seemed to pay attention and kept saying that the suit was about resemblance to the iPad when it was about a drawing.
Ditto. Ever since the lawsuit wars began, people on Apple Insider have oversimplified this as a matter of one company ripping off the other. If you try to explain to them that look and feel are tough to successfully litigate or demonstrate the actual basis of the lawsuits, you're dismissed as a fanboy.
These lawsuits don't come cheap. All they do is create extra costs for firms involved and lead to backlash long-term. The more I read about Apple getting shot down in courts all around the world, the more compelled I am to believe Apple's becoming more like RAMBUS. As I've said in other threads, Apple should just stick to innovating and marketing. Those are its two towers. They should continue capitalizing on those two strengths instead of wasting valuable time and resources on lawsuits that increasingly appear more likely than not to fail.
You can go ahead and keep saying "Good, I hope this one sticks" with each and every suit that turns out to be a sham for Apple, because at the rate Apple keeps getting at these unfavorable rulings, you'll be saying the same line over...and over...and over...again.
You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.
It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.
So I could get some very talented artists together, have them use their creativity and create tons of line drawings of things I hope will one day becom a reality, submitt them without ever building or even plan on building and now I own the rights and can legally block anyone attempting to produce anything that resembles them? That just does not seem fair. Take all the syfy movies from he past few years, make "drawings" submitt to EU, rake in The cash.
The non-legal community needs people like you guys to hash out the issues and explain them in a way that's understandable. I plan to take a couple of IP classes in my last year of law school, and I find your explanations to be pretty legitimate based on what I've read on my own and what I've learned just through conversations with my IP buddies.
And yes, the lawsuits this time around are (again) not centered on "slavish" copies (can we please have the mods on AI limit or censor the use of that word to discourage it from losing its meaning?) of Apple products. They center around design patents that appear to be either vague or too far-reaching to be meaningful.
And yeah. I get where fanboys are coming from wishing evil upon Samsung. But I think more people here need to question just where we draw the line on patent law. Should we allow Apple to continue wasting the time and money of their competitors just to bring lawsuits based on worthless patents that'll only get invalidated or just not enforced by a high court?
Equally important, let's put this in the sphere of American patent law. What kind of precedent would we set if we were to recognize these far-reaching patents? It's already bad enough that it costs about roughly $2 million for a small business over here in Silicon Valley just to fend off a lawsuit based off a sham patent that no serious judge would ever uphold. These patent trolls, while not anywhere close to Apple in terms of churning out good products based on legitimate patents, end up intimidating small businesses into settling for a lump sum somewhere below that figure. In short, the whole thing's a mess. Do we want to exacerbate this trend further?
I really think we need to think about these issues more carefully and put aside the emotional attachment to a brand.
... And yeah. I get where fanboys are coming from wishing evil upon Samsung. But I think more people here need to question just where we draw the line on patent law. Should we allow Apple to continue wasting the time and money of their competitors just to bring lawsuits based on worthless patents that'll only get invalidated or just not enforced by a high court?
...
I really think we need to think about these issues more carefully and put aside the emotional attachment to a brand.
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
We do need to think about these issues more carefully, much more carefully. None of these careless, "Oh, that big mean Apple, why can't they just let everyone make iPhones," inspired attempts to pretend to rationality. No, we need to carefully think about what is it we really believe in when we defend the practice of stealing other people's work.
Yes, another thread has devolved into legalistic, hair-splitting arguments where phrases like "Community Design" and "rounded corners" are rolled around on the floor like so many marbles to trip up anyone who might actually think that Google and Samsung are thieves and have done something wrong here, by, you know, stealing the entire fucking design of iOS and the iPhone and making cheap knockoffs of them.
Because, there can be no rational argument that they aren't thieves. Don't be fooled by the, "Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone," argument, which is the only defense they have, Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nothing more. Samsung's smartphones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. And the reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is that all the evidence shows that this is how both companies typically operate: by stealing the work of others.
So, is it really OK to just steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own? Because, that's what Google and Samsung are doing here. Do we really want to live in a world where that is considered a good thing? Who cares what Apple's legal strategy is in putting a stop to theft. Arguing about "rounded corners" is like saying the Feds shouldn't go after mobsters for tax evasion. What's the important thing here, that we stop criminal behavior, or that we convict only for murder?
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
Got to love it when the big defense is calling someone a paid shill when they're not completely singing the praises of Apple.
So I'm guessing you're a paid Apple shill since you're always here to defend them and attack any company that dares to compete against them. Especially Google (I can only guess that maybe one of their Street View vehicles ran over your cat at some point for the amount of venom you spew towards them).
Let's see, some of Google's blatant copying: They redefined internet search, redefined internet maps, redefined internet mail, and (for better or worse) redefined internet advertising.
Sure it didn't.
HA! Competition? That's rich.
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.
Your argument would hold if Apple sues every other company on the globe that has "similar" designs as Apple's "Community design" so called "patent".
But they arent.
They are only targeting a select few companies with enough market threat to undermine Apple's market share.
That, my friend, is enough evidence to suggest that they are basing their decision to sue purely on anti-competitive reasons.
Of course, Apple would NEVER admit to that as that.
Which is which. I can't tell.
lol..
So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?
We do need to think about these issues more carefully, much more carefully. None of these careless, "Oh, that big mean Apple, why can't they just let everyone make iPhones," inspired attempts to pretend to rationality. No, we need to carefully think about what is it we really believe in when we defend the practice of stealing other people's work.
Yes, another thread has devolved into legalistic, hair-splitting arguments where phrases like "Community Design" and "rounded corners" are rolled around on the floor like so many marbles to trip up anyone who might actually think that Google and Samsung are thieves and have done something wrong here, by, you know, stealing the entire fucking design of iOS and the iPhone and making cheap knockoffs of them.
Because, there can be no rational argument that they aren't thieves. Don't be fooled by the, "Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone," argument, which is the only defense they have, Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nothing more. Samsung's smartphones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. And the reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is that all the evidence shows that this is how both companies typically operate: by stealing the work of others.
So, is it really OK to just steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own? Because, that's what Google and Samsung are doing here. Do we really want to live in a world where that is considered a good thing? Who cares what Apple's legal strategy is in putting a stop to theft. Arguing about "rounded corners" is like saying the Feds shouldn't go after mobsters for tax evasion. What's the important thing here, that we stop criminal behavior, or that we convict only for murder?
You clearly aren't reading the comments, and your emotional irrationalism is getting the better of you. No, I don't have a horse in the race you obsess over. Even if we were to presume I'm some kind of shill, what do I have to gain by winning over supporters unless I'm starting a Samsung cult?
Look at the rulings by courts all around the world. Even the judges in Spain that initially granted Apple an injunction that was eventually lifted after Samsung made revisions to its tablets were being perspicuous about their level of discretion. They are probably well aware that vague and far-reaching design patents are just flat out impractical if not unrealistically difficult to enforce. You really should try doing some more research and reading some of the other arguments presented.
Oh, and it's a bit asinine to label anyone who discusses patent law issues as being "legalistic." You're just oversimplifying the issues and thus displaying an inability to grasp them. This isn't an issue of "stolen designs." Again, courts all around the world are refusing to grant permanent injunctions for refinements and variations. Smartphones and tablets have been around for a while. The LG Prada interestingly enough was one of the first smartphone around with the shape and design that's quite common today before Apple's iPhone first generation came out. But LG chose not to sue Apple (Google it) since their in-house counsel PROBABLY advised them not to pursue a suit. They were probably right in giving such advice.
Again, think about what you're arguing a little more carefully. It's either the cases all the judges who ruled against Apple are wrong, or at least some (or perhaps all?) of them are in the right.