Got to love it when the big defense is calling someone a paid shill when they're not completely singing the praises of Apple. ...
... 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.
So, you're poor misguided boys with a screwed up set of values. I'll buy that, since stealing other peoples work doesn't seem to bother you at all.
You left out the part about Google stealing every book in the world it could lay its hands on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
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. ....
So, like I said, your values are all screwed up and you think stealing is good. It's clear from the way you gloss over the actual ethical issues and go straight back to the "legal", that either you don't understand the concept of right and wrong, or don't really care. You'd be the perfect Google or Samsung employee, since you wouldn't even have any morals to leave at the door.
These two are pretty typical of the Google/Samsung defenders we see here. No sense of ethics, not even a care for the issues, just all about having what they want when they want it, for free. And if that means supporting theft, they're all for it. No wonder the world is so fucked up today.
So, you're poor misguided boys with a screwed up set of values. I'll buy that, since stealing other peoples work doesn't seem to bother you at all.
Thanks for reinterpreting what I said. My comment was about you (and other Apple fans) claiming that anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple is a paid shill. Again I'll ask, does that make you a paid Apple shill?
Quote:
You left out the part about Google stealing every book in the world it could lay its hands on.
From Wikipedia:
In October 2009, Google countered ongoing critics by stating that its scanning of books and putting them online would protect the world's cultural heritage; Google co-founder Sergey Brin stated, "The famous Library of Alexandria burned three times, in 48 BC, AD 273 and AD 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection. I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise."
There's 2 sides to every story. Well, except for you when it comes to Apple and its competitors. Then there's just one: Apple is right and anyone dares challenge them is wrong and evil.
Quote:
So, like I said, your values are all screwed up and you think stealing is good. It's clear from the way you gloss over the actual ethical issues and go straight back to the "legal", that either you don't understand the concept of right and wrong, or don't really care.
As opposed to Apple attempting to patent the concept of a rectangular portable electronics device with round corners and a black bezel around the screen? As the person you're attacking pointed out, there are dozens of other phones and tablets that follow that same fashion template. Where are the lawsuits against them? Why does Apple only attack Samsung over this?
Quote:
These two are pretty typical of the Google/Samsung defenders we see here.
And you're the typical Apple defender. Unable to use rational thought. Blinded by some bizarre devotion to an emotionless corporation that doesn't give a rat's patootie about you. Not actually bothering to read or understand the comments of those who don't 100% agree with you.
Thanks for reinterpreting what I said. My comment was about you (and other Apple fans) claiming that anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple is a paid shill. Again I'll ask, does that make you a paid Apple shill?
Well, since I've clearly stated that I think you simply have screwed up values, I don't really see the point of this comment.
Quote:
From Wikipedia:
In October 2009, Google countered ongoing critics by stating that its scanning of books and putting them online would protect the world's cultural heritage; Google co-founder Sergey Brin stated, "The famous Library of Alexandria burned three times, in 48 BC, AD 273 and AD 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection. I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise."
Uh, yeah, that's called PR spin. Are you really that gullible?
Quote:
There's 2 sides to every story. Well, except for you when it comes to Apple and its competitors. Then there's just one: Apple is right and anyone dares challenge them is wrong and evil.
Except there aren't 2 legitimate sides to the criminal Google Books Program, nor to the Google's/Samsung's blatant knockoffs of iOS/iPhone. In point of fact, while there may be 2 sides to every story, one of them is often not in agreement with the facts, and therefore worthless.
Hint: the worthless one would be your side to this story.
Quote:
As opposed to Apple attempting to patent the concept of a rectangular portable electronics device with round corners and a black bezel around the screen? As the person you're attacking pointed out, there are dozens of other phones and tablets that follow that same fashion template. Where are the lawsuits against them? Why does Apple only attack Samsung over this?
You see, here you demonstrate that you really have no understanding of the issues and what's going on. If you did, you wouldn't ask a stupid question that undermines your own position. The clear and obvious answer is that Apple is going after Samsung because, of all the Android phone and tablet manufacturers, they are the ones who are blatantly ripping off Apple's designs, rather than doing their own. It's pretty straightforward, really.
Quote:
And you're the typical Apple defender. Unable to use rational thought. Blinded by some bizarre devotion to an emotionless corporation that doesn't give a rat's patootie about you. Not actually bothering to read or understand the comments of those who don't 100% agree with you.
I've read and understood your comments, they just don't make any sense.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal other people's work. It's a convenient point to ignore if you want to cling to your faith, but once you answer that, it's pretty clear that Apple is in the right here, and Google/Samsung in the wrong.
I've read and understood your comments, they just don't make any sense.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal other people's work. It's a convenient point to ignore if you want to cling to your faith, but once you answer that, it's pretty clear that Apple is in the right here, and Google/Samsung in the wrong.
If it is pretty clear, then why has Apple, with some of the best lawyers in the world, been unabletoconvincemultiplecourts throughout the world that Google/Samsung are in the wrong?
Are you going to hand wave and call every court that doesn't rule in favor of Apple corrupt just like you call anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple a Google/Samsung shrill?
If it is pretty clear, then why has Apple, with some of the best lawyers in the world, been unabletoconvincemultiplecourts throughout the world that Google/Samsung are in the wrong?
Are you going to hand wave and call every court that doesn't rule in favor of Apple corrupt just like you call anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple a Google/Samsung shrill?
I don't really understand why these morally confused young boys today have so much trouble reasoning clearly. But, here we have another naive, misguided Internet lawyer, who's arguing a question of right or wrong, of whether Google/Samsung ripped off iOS/iPhone, and cites court decisions as though that makes some sort of point.
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the courts aren't really deciding whether Android and Samsung phones are cheap knockoffs of iOS and the iPhone -- i.e., whether Google/Samsung stole Apple's work. They are deciding narrow questions of law brought before them, and only those questions. Are you able to see the difference now, once it's been pointed out to you? Do you understand now why your little legalistic arguments are entirely beside the point?
There is just absolutely no question that Android is, and was meant to be, a knockoff of iOS. Everything about it and it's history tells us that it is. If you disagree, it's because you are denying reality. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, and the facts support only the conclusion given here.
There is also absolutely no question that Samsung's handsets and tablets are, and are meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. In fact, in this case, it's been shown that Samsung has a history of doing this with product after product after product, and there is nothing unique about their theft of Apple's work. They've done this to many other companies before, and will likely continue to operate as thieves in the future. Stealing other companies' designs is just what they do.
So, when you come in here arguing that Google and Samsung have done no wrong, because of this little point of law, and this little court decision, and repeat talking points about rounded rectangles and community design, what you are really doing is supporting theft. What you are really arguing is that theft is OK as long as you can get away with it. In fact, you're all rather smug about that last point, which is all the more disturbing.
To repeat, Google and Samsung have stolen Apple's work. If you support them, you are saying that theft is ok (at least, if you can get away with it). This isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is how there are so many people out there whose values are so screwed up as to think like you do.
To repeat, Google and Samsung have stolen Apple's work. If you support them, you are saying that theft is ok (at least, if you can get away with it). This isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is how there are so many people out there whose values are so screwed up as to think like you do.
Now I'm regretting supporting the lowering of the signature height limit. I want to quote that whole post.
Now I'm regretting supporting the lowering of the signature height limit. I want to quote that whole post.
It's really, really easy to say Google, or Samsung or whoever "stole" from Apple. Samsung claims Apple uses stolen IP. So does Motorola. So does Kodak. HTC too. It's a little harder to show any of this is true as demonstrated by the dozens of stalled, dismissed or slow-moving lawsuits between Apple, Samsung and various other players.
There's even Chinese authors claiming Apple has stolen their copyrighted works and refuses to stop selling their books after requests/demands to remove them.
Is there any case yet that has proven any Apple IP was used without permission by Samsung or vice-versa? I'll save everyone the trouble of looking. NO. So claiming as fact that either of them is using the others IP without permission is akin to Daniel's "vaporware" when blogging about imaginary or rumored devices. It doesn't really exist just because someone talks about it like it does.
It's really, really easy to say Google, or Samsung or whoever "stole" from Apple. Samsung claims Apple uses stolen IP. So does Motorola. So does Kodak. HTC too. It's a little harder to show any of this is true as demonstrated by the dozens of stalled, dismissed or slow-moving lawsuits between Apple, Samsung and various other players.
There's even Chinese authors claiming Apple has stolen their copyrighted works and refuses to stop selling their books after requests/demands to remove them.
Is there any case yet that has proven any Apple IP was used without permission by Samsung or vice-versa? I'll save everyone the trouble of looking. NO. So claiming as fact that either of them is using the others IP without permission is akin to Daniel's "vaporware" when blogging about imaginary or rumored devices. It doesn't really exist just because someone talks about it like it does.
OK, just so everyone is clear, Gatorguy isn't just a boy with screwed up values, he is a paid shill, with screwed up values.
As you can see, once again, he's focusing on the legal issues to avoid the real ones. (And, if Apple is selling copyrighted works without the right to do so, they're in the wrong too: two wrongs don't make a right, Gatorguy, so that's no defense of Google/Samsung, although, I suspect this will amount to nothing, since Apple has repeatedly demonstrated respect for copyrights, and other IP, like FRAND patents. More respect than the owners of the same in the latter instance.)
We don't need a "case", in the legal sense, to be "proven" to know that Google and Samsung are thieves who are producing cheap knockoffs of Apple's work. We can simply observe this to be the case. The evidence is so overwhelming against both Google and Samsung that to deny it is like denying that the Earth is round. It's simply patently obvious. (Pun intended.)
(That Android and Samsung products are knockoffs is so well documented in so many instances, that we don't need to "prove" it here, now. It's already firmly established as fact and well known. Denying this for the purpose of arguing about won't fly any longer.)
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the courts aren't really deciding whether Android and Samsung phones are cheap knockoffs of iOS and the iPhone -- i.e., whether Google/Samsung stole Apple's work. They are deciding narrow questions of law brought before them, and only those questions.
Quote:
There is also absolutely no question that Samsung's handsets and tablets are, and are meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. In fact, in this case, it's been shown that Samsung has a history of doing this with product after product after product, and there is nothing unique about their theft of Apple's work. They've done this to many other companies before, and will likely continue to operate as thieves in the future. Stealing other companies' designs is just what they do.
I am citing court cases because they are arguing on whether or not Samsung has infringed upon the design patents that Apple holds (i.e. did Samsung ?steal? the design from Apple). So if ?stealing other companies? design is just what they do,? then it should be easy to demonstrate that they?re infringing on Apple?s design patents. Yet this has not been the case thus far.
And the courts do rule on issues of knock-offs. So given that fact, and your statement that there?s ?absolutely no question that Samsung?s handsets and tablets are, and meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad,? why has Apple not be able to win a similar case against Samsung?
Quote:
There is just absolutely no question that Android is, and was meant to be, a knockoff of iOS. Everything about it and it's history tells us that it is. If you disagree, it's because you are denying reality. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, and the facts support only the conclusion given here.
Android?s history (with Google) goes back 2 years before the introduction of the iPhone. If its meant to be a knockoff of iOS, why does everything in Android operate so different from iOS?
I am citing court cases because they are arguing on whether or not Samsung has infringed upon the design patents that Apple holds (i.e. did Samsung ?steal? the design from Apple). So if ?stealing other companies? design is just what they do,? then it should be easy to demonstrate that they?re infringing on Apple?s design patents. Yet this has not been the case thus far.
And the courts do rule on issues of knock-offs. So given that fact, and your statement that there?s ?absolutely no question that Samsung?s handsets and tablets are, and meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad,? why has Apple not be able to win a similar case against Samsung?
You seem to think you're asking some pretty compelling questions, which they might be if this were strictly a legal issus, although, some of your statements are false. (i.s., it's not the case that, "Apple ]has\\ not be able to win a similar case against Samsung.")
But, they aren't rea;;y that compelling when you consider that few if any of these cases have actually fully made their way through the courts -- most of them are still in early stages. Secondly, making a case in court, even when you are in the right, is not necessarily a slam dunk, and courts are not arbiters of truth, only law.
This is why the "legal" arguments here don't matter. They all amount to the same thing: "If Samsung hasn't been convicted, they aren't guilty of the crime." Well, OJ likes that sort of thinking, but it just isn't so.
Three are, however, about a million websites out there showing us all the details of how Samsung copied the iPhone and the iPad, and other products before that. They are a serial offender. They are "copyists". There simply isn't any question about that. Their argument, in fact, is that they shoul be allowed to be copyists. Your argument is until they are "convicted in court" it's ok whatever they do
Quote:
Android?s history (with Google) goes back 2 years before the introduction of the iPhone. If its meant to be a knockoff of iOS, why does everything in Android operate so different from iOS?
Oh, please, not that stupid shit again. This is sort of the litmus test of the Android zealot's intelligence: will they make the Android came before iPhone, so Google can't have copied claim?
This is really the stupidest argument ever for a number of reasons. First of all, we know Apple was working on the iPhone for years before it was "announced", for years before Google acquired Android. We also know that "Android", before the announcement of the iPhone, was intended to be a Blackberry knockoff. Comes the iPhone and Google's realization that this will transform the landscape, and they very rapidly created a new version of Android that was completely different from what they had been working on.
Things do work differently in Android, though, don't they: iOS scrolling smooth, Android scrolling laggy. I guess Google just aren't that good at this programming thing.
You seem to think you're asking some pretty compelling questions, which they might be if this were strictly a legal issus, although, some of your statements are false. (i.s., it's not the case that, "Apple ]has\\ not be able to win a similar case against Samsung.")
But, they aren't rea;;y that compelling when you consider that few if any of these cases have actually fully made their way through the courts -- most of them are still in early stages. Secondly, making a case in court, even when you are in the right, is not necessarily a slam dunk, and courts are not arbiters of truth, only law.
This is why the "legal" arguments here don't matter. They all amount to the same thing: "If Samsung hasn't been convicted, they aren't guilty of the crime." Well, OJ likes that sort of thinking, but it just isn't so.
Three are, however, about a million websites out there showing us all the details of how Samsung copied the iPhone and the iPad, and other products before that. They are a serial offender. They are "copyists". There simply isn't any question about that. Their argument, in fact, is that they shoul be allowed to be copyists. Your argument is until they are "convicted in court" it's ok whatever they do
I’ll give you that the court cases are still ongoing, but if anything, they have shown that the case of Samsung ‘copying’ Apple is not as slam dunk as you make it out to be.
The websites you mention do a great job of pointing out the similarities between the tab and the ipad, and if I was only looking at that, I would think that the Tab 10.1 is a copy of the iPad too. However, there are still significant differences between the two, and I have to think, “If Samsung truly wanted to make a knockoff of the iPad, then why did they choose to go with a 16:9 aspect ratio? Why did they choose to include a button-less front? Why did they design the back completely different? Why did they choose an OS that is so fundamentally different than iOS? Etc”
So the picture is less clear to me; especially when there tablets like the HP Touchpad out there, which DOES include a 9.7”, 4:3 ratio, 1024x768 display, which DOES include a front with a single [HOME] button on it as well as button placement that mirrors the iPad exactly, which DOES include a back design exactly like the iPad 1, which DOES include packaging exactly like the iPad. To me, the touchpad, because of those similarities, is much closer to the iPad than the tab ever will be.
While you feel that there isn’t any question that Samsung is copying Apple, and I would too if I dismiss those differences (FWIW, I do feel that previous Samsung products have mirrored Apple’s too closely, just not the tab 10.1 and the GS2). However, if I take those into consideration, I simply cannot, with a good conscience, declare them blatant copyists. We will probably never come to an agreement on this point.
Which is why I keep referring to the court cases. You seem to think that there is a disconnect between the ‘legal’ issue and the question of whether Samsung is copying Apple’s design or not. The fact that Apple is calling Samsung a ‘copyist’ and leveraging design patents against them leads me to think otherwise. Now you may have an issue with the legal definition of what is a copy; but without a formal definition, how are we going to get anywhere, as demonstrated above? By YOUR definition, Samsung is obviously copying Apple because you choose to see the similarities between the tab and the iPad (for example) and dismiss the differences. I do not come to the same conclusion because I choose to put equal weight on both the similarities and the differences.
Quote:
Oh, please, not that stupid shit again. This is sort of the litmus test of the Android zealot's intelligence: will they make the Android came before iPhone, so Google can't have copied claim?
This is really the stupidest argument ever for a number of reasons. First of all, we know Apple was working on the iPhone for years before it was "announced", for years before Google acquired Android. We also know that "Android", before the announcement of the iPhone, was intended to be a Blackberry knockoff. Comes the iPhone and Google's realization that this will transform the landscape, and they very rapidly created a new version of Android that was completely different from what they had been working on.
Things do work differently in Android, though, don't they: iOS scrolling smooth, Android scrolling laggy. I guess Google just aren't that good at this programming thing.
And yet, what was so completely different from the blackberry clone than what was released? Because besides expanding touch capability, there wasn’t much that they changed such that it more closely resembled the iPhone.
Apple lost it's appeal in the Netherlands where they were trying to get a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on another Community Design. The high court affirmed the lower court's ruling from August that Samsung's product is sufficiently different from Apple's claimed design.
Apple lost it's appeal in the Netherlands where they were trying to get a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on another Community Design. The high court affirmed the lower court's ruling from August that Samsung's product is sufficiently different from Apple's claimed design.
Comments
Got to love it when the big defense is calling someone a paid shill when they're not completely singing the praises of Apple. ...
... 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.
So, you're poor misguided boys with a screwed up set of values. I'll buy that, since stealing other peoples work doesn't seem to bother you at all.
You left out the part about Google stealing every book in the world it could lay its hands on.
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. ....
So, like I said, your values are all screwed up and you think stealing is good. It's clear from the way you gloss over the actual ethical issues and go straight back to the "legal", that either you don't understand the concept of right and wrong, or don't really care. You'd be the perfect Google or Samsung employee, since you wouldn't even have any morals to leave at the door.
These two are pretty typical of the Google/Samsung defenders we see here. No sense of ethics, not even a care for the issues, just all about having what they want when they want it, for free. And if that means supporting theft, they're all for it. No wonder the world is so fucked up today.
So, you're poor misguided boys with a screwed up set of values. I'll buy that, since stealing other peoples work doesn't seem to bother you at all.
Thanks for reinterpreting what I said. My comment was about you (and other Apple fans) claiming that anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple is a paid shill. Again I'll ask, does that make you a paid Apple shill?
You left out the part about Google stealing every book in the world it could lay its hands on.
From Wikipedia:
In October 2009, Google countered ongoing critics by stating that its scanning of books and putting them online would protect the world's cultural heritage; Google co-founder Sergey Brin stated, "The famous Library of Alexandria burned three times, in 48 BC, AD 273 and AD 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection. I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise."
There's 2 sides to every story. Well, except for you when it comes to Apple and its competitors. Then there's just one: Apple is right and anyone dares challenge them is wrong and evil.
So, like I said, your values are all screwed up and you think stealing is good. It's clear from the way you gloss over the actual ethical issues and go straight back to the "legal", that either you don't understand the concept of right and wrong, or don't really care.
As opposed to Apple attempting to patent the concept of a rectangular portable electronics device with round corners and a black bezel around the screen? As the person you're attacking pointed out, there are dozens of other phones and tablets that follow that same fashion template. Where are the lawsuits against them? Why does Apple only attack Samsung over this?
These two are pretty typical of the Google/Samsung defenders we see here.
And you're the typical Apple defender. Unable to use rational thought. Blinded by some bizarre devotion to an emotionless corporation that doesn't give a rat's patootie about you. Not actually bothering to read or understand the comments of those who don't 100% agree with you.
Thanks for reinterpreting what I said. My comment was about you (and other Apple fans) claiming that anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple is a paid shill. Again I'll ask, does that make you a paid Apple shill?
Well, since I've clearly stated that I think you simply have screwed up values, I don't really see the point of this comment.
From Wikipedia:
In October 2009, Google countered ongoing critics by stating that its scanning of books and putting them online would protect the world's cultural heritage; Google co-founder Sergey Brin stated, "The famous Library of Alexandria burned three times, in 48 BC, AD 273 and AD 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection. I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise."
Uh, yeah, that's called PR spin. Are you really that gullible?
There's 2 sides to every story. Well, except for you when it comes to Apple and its competitors. Then there's just one: Apple is right and anyone dares challenge them is wrong and evil.
Except there aren't 2 legitimate sides to the criminal Google Books Program, nor to the Google's/Samsung's blatant knockoffs of iOS/iPhone. In point of fact, while there may be 2 sides to every story, one of them is often not in agreement with the facts, and therefore worthless.
Hint: the worthless one would be your side to this story.
As opposed to Apple attempting to patent the concept of a rectangular portable electronics device with round corners and a black bezel around the screen? As the person you're attacking pointed out, there are dozens of other phones and tablets that follow that same fashion template. Where are the lawsuits against them? Why does Apple only attack Samsung over this?
You see, here you demonstrate that you really have no understanding of the issues and what's going on. If you did, you wouldn't ask a stupid question that undermines your own position. The clear and obvious answer is that Apple is going after Samsung because, of all the Android phone and tablet manufacturers, they are the ones who are blatantly ripping off Apple's designs, rather than doing their own. It's pretty straightforward, really.
And you're the typical Apple defender. Unable to use rational thought. Blinded by some bizarre devotion to an emotionless corporation that doesn't give a rat's patootie about you. Not actually bothering to read or understand the comments of those who don't 100% agree with you.
I've read and understood your comments, they just don't make any sense.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal other people's work. It's a convenient point to ignore if you want to cling to your faith, but once you answer that, it's pretty clear that Apple is in the right here, and Google/Samsung in the wrong.
I've read and understood your comments, they just don't make any sense.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal other people's work. It's a convenient point to ignore if you want to cling to your faith, but once you answer that, it's pretty clear that Apple is in the right here, and Google/Samsung in the wrong.
If it is pretty clear, then why has Apple, with some of the best lawyers in the world, been unable to convince multiple courts throughout the world that Google/Samsung are in the wrong?
Are you going to hand wave and call every court that doesn't rule in favor of Apple corrupt just like you call anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple a Google/Samsung shrill?
If it is pretty clear, then why has Apple, with some of the best lawyers in the world, been unable to convince multiple courts throughout the world that Google/Samsung are in the wrong?
Are you going to hand wave and call every court that doesn't rule in favor of Apple corrupt just like you call anyone who isn't 100% pro-Apple a Google/Samsung shrill?
I don't really understand why these morally confused young boys today have so much trouble reasoning clearly. But, here we have another naive, misguided Internet lawyer, who's arguing a question of right or wrong, of whether Google/Samsung ripped off iOS/iPhone, and cites court decisions as though that makes some sort of point.
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the courts aren't really deciding whether Android and Samsung phones are cheap knockoffs of iOS and the iPhone -- i.e., whether Google/Samsung stole Apple's work. They are deciding narrow questions of law brought before them, and only those questions. Are you able to see the difference now, once it's been pointed out to you? Do you understand now why your little legalistic arguments are entirely beside the point?
There is just absolutely no question that Android is, and was meant to be, a knockoff of iOS. Everything about it and it's history tells us that it is. If you disagree, it's because you are denying reality. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, and the facts support only the conclusion given here.
There is also absolutely no question that Samsung's handsets and tablets are, and are meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. In fact, in this case, it's been shown that Samsung has a history of doing this with product after product after product, and there is nothing unique about their theft of Apple's work. They've done this to many other companies before, and will likely continue to operate as thieves in the future. Stealing other companies' designs is just what they do.
So, when you come in here arguing that Google and Samsung have done no wrong, because of this little point of law, and this little court decision, and repeat talking points about rounded rectangles and community design, what you are really doing is supporting theft. What you are really arguing is that theft is OK as long as you can get away with it. In fact, you're all rather smug about that last point, which is all the more disturbing.
To repeat, Google and Samsung have stolen Apple's work. If you support them, you are saying that theft is ok (at least, if you can get away with it). This isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is how there are so many people out there whose values are so screwed up as to think like you do.
To repeat, Google and Samsung have stolen Apple's work. If you support them, you are saying that theft is ok (at least, if you can get away with it). This isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is how there are so many people out there whose values are so screwed up as to think like you do.
Now I'm regretting supporting the lowering of the signature height limit. I want to quote that whole post.
Now I'm regretting supporting the lowering of the signature height limit. I want to quote that whole post.
It's really, really easy to say Google, or Samsung or whoever "stole" from Apple. Samsung claims Apple uses stolen IP. So does Motorola. So does Kodak. HTC too. It's a little harder to show any of this is true as demonstrated by the dozens of stalled, dismissed or slow-moving lawsuits between Apple, Samsung and various other players.
There's even Chinese authors claiming Apple has stolen their copyrighted works and refuses to stop selling their books after requests/demands to remove them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...s-report-says/
Is there any case yet that has proven any Apple IP was used without permission by Samsung or vice-versa? I'll save everyone the trouble of looking. NO. So claiming as fact that either of them is using the others IP without permission is akin to Daniel's "vaporware" when blogging about imaginary or rumored devices. It doesn't really exist just because someone talks about it like it does.
It's really, really easy to say Google, or Samsung or whoever "stole" from Apple. Samsung claims Apple uses stolen IP. So does Motorola. So does Kodak. HTC too. It's a little harder to show any of this is true as demonstrated by the dozens of stalled, dismissed or slow-moving lawsuits between Apple, Samsung and various other players.
There's even Chinese authors claiming Apple has stolen their copyrighted works and refuses to stop selling their books after requests/demands to remove them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...s-report-says/
Is there any case yet that has proven any Apple IP was used without permission by Samsung or vice-versa? I'll save everyone the trouble of looking. NO. So claiming as fact that either of them is using the others IP without permission is akin to Daniel's "vaporware" when blogging about imaginary or rumored devices. It doesn't really exist just because someone talks about it like it does.
OK, just so everyone is clear, Gatorguy isn't just a boy with screwed up values, he is a paid shill, with screwed up values.
As you can see, once again, he's focusing on the legal issues to avoid the real ones. (And, if Apple is selling copyrighted works without the right to do so, they're in the wrong too: two wrongs don't make a right, Gatorguy, so that's no defense of Google/Samsung, although, I suspect this will amount to nothing, since Apple has repeatedly demonstrated respect for copyrights, and other IP, like FRAND patents. More respect than the owners of the same in the latter instance.)
We don't need a "case", in the legal sense, to be "proven" to know that Google and Samsung are thieves who are producing cheap knockoffs of Apple's work. We can simply observe this to be the case. The evidence is so overwhelming against both Google and Samsung that to deny it is like denying that the Earth is round. It's simply patently obvious. (Pun intended.)
(That Android and Samsung products are knockoffs is so well documented in so many instances, that we don't need to "prove" it here, now. It's already firmly established as fact and well known. Denying this for the purpose of arguing about won't fly any longer.)
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the courts aren't really deciding whether Android and Samsung phones are cheap knockoffs of iOS and the iPhone -- i.e., whether Google/Samsung stole Apple's work. They are deciding narrow questions of law brought before them, and only those questions.
There is also absolutely no question that Samsung's handsets and tablets are, and are meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. In fact, in this case, it's been shown that Samsung has a history of doing this with product after product after product, and there is nothing unique about their theft of Apple's work. They've done this to many other companies before, and will likely continue to operate as thieves in the future. Stealing other companies' designs is just what they do.
I am citing court cases because they are arguing on whether or not Samsung has infringed upon the design patents that Apple holds (i.e. did Samsung ?steal? the design from Apple). So if ?stealing other companies? design is just what they do,? then it should be easy to demonstrate that they?re infringing on Apple?s design patents. Yet this has not been the case thus far.
And the courts do rule on issues of knock-offs. So given that fact, and your statement that there?s ?absolutely no question that Samsung?s handsets and tablets are, and meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad,? why has Apple not be able to win a similar case against Samsung?
There is just absolutely no question that Android is, and was meant to be, a knockoff of iOS. Everything about it and it's history tells us that it is. If you disagree, it's because you are denying reality. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, and the facts support only the conclusion given here.
Android?s history (with Google) goes back 2 years before the introduction of the iPhone. If its meant to be a knockoff of iOS, why does everything in Android operate so different from iOS?
I am citing court cases because they are arguing on whether or not Samsung has infringed upon the design patents that Apple holds (i.e. did Samsung ?steal? the design from Apple). So if ?stealing other companies? design is just what they do,? then it should be easy to demonstrate that they?re infringing on Apple?s design patents. Yet this has not been the case thus far.
And the courts do rule on issues of knock-offs. So given that fact, and your statement that there?s ?absolutely no question that Samsung?s handsets and tablets are, and meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad,? why has Apple not be able to win a similar case against Samsung?
You seem to think you're asking some pretty compelling questions, which they might be if this were strictly a legal issus, although, some of your statements are false. (i.s., it's not the case that, "Apple ]has\\ not be able to win a similar case against Samsung.")
But, they aren't rea;;y that compelling when you consider that few if any of these cases have actually fully made their way through the courts -- most of them are still in early stages. Secondly, making a case in court, even when you are in the right, is not necessarily a slam dunk, and courts are not arbiters of truth, only law.
This is why the "legal" arguments here don't matter. They all amount to the same thing: "If Samsung hasn't been convicted, they aren't guilty of the crime." Well, OJ likes that sort of thinking, but it just isn't so.
Three are, however, about a million websites out there showing us all the details of how Samsung copied the iPhone and the iPad, and other products before that. They are a serial offender. They are "copyists". There simply isn't any question about that. Their argument, in fact, is that they shoul be allowed to be copyists. Your argument is until they are "convicted in court" it's ok whatever they do
Android?s history (with Google) goes back 2 years before the introduction of the iPhone. If its meant to be a knockoff of iOS, why does everything in Android operate so different from iOS?
Oh, please, not that stupid shit again. This is sort of the litmus test of the Android zealot's intelligence: will they make the Android came before iPhone, so Google can't have copied claim?
This is really the stupidest argument ever for a number of reasons. First of all, we know Apple was working on the iPhone for years before it was "announced", for years before Google acquired Android. We also know that "Android", before the announcement of the iPhone, was intended to be a Blackberry knockoff. Comes the iPhone and Google's realization that this will transform the landscape, and they very rapidly created a new version of Android that was completely different from what they had been working on.
Things do work differently in Android, though, don't they: iOS scrolling smooth, Android scrolling laggy. I guess Google just aren't that good at this programming thing.
You seem to think you're asking some pretty compelling questions, which they might be if this were strictly a legal issus, although, some of your statements are false. (i.s., it's not the case that, "Apple ]has\\ not be able to win a similar case against Samsung.")
But, they aren't rea;;y that compelling when you consider that few if any of these cases have actually fully made their way through the courts -- most of them are still in early stages. Secondly, making a case in court, even when you are in the right, is not necessarily a slam dunk, and courts are not arbiters of truth, only law.
This is why the "legal" arguments here don't matter. They all amount to the same thing: "If Samsung hasn't been convicted, they aren't guilty of the crime." Well, OJ likes that sort of thinking, but it just isn't so.
Three are, however, about a million websites out there showing us all the details of how Samsung copied the iPhone and the iPad, and other products before that. They are a serial offender. They are "copyists". There simply isn't any question about that. Their argument, in fact, is that they shoul be allowed to be copyists. Your argument is until they are "convicted in court" it's ok whatever they do
I’ll give you that the court cases are still ongoing, but if anything, they have shown that the case of Samsung ‘copying’ Apple is not as slam dunk as you make it out to be.
The websites you mention do a great job of pointing out the similarities between the tab and the ipad, and if I was only looking at that, I would think that the Tab 10.1 is a copy of the iPad too. However, there are still significant differences between the two, and I have to think, “If Samsung truly wanted to make a knockoff of the iPad, then why did they choose to go with a 16:9 aspect ratio? Why did they choose to include a button-less front? Why did they design the back completely different? Why did they choose an OS that is so fundamentally different than iOS? Etc”
So the picture is less clear to me; especially when there tablets like the HP Touchpad out there, which DOES include a 9.7”, 4:3 ratio, 1024x768 display, which DOES include a front with a single [HOME] button on it as well as button placement that mirrors the iPad exactly, which DOES include a back design exactly like the iPad 1, which DOES include packaging exactly like the iPad. To me, the touchpad, because of those similarities, is much closer to the iPad than the tab ever will be.
While you feel that there isn’t any question that Samsung is copying Apple, and I would too if I dismiss those differences (FWIW, I do feel that previous Samsung products have mirrored Apple’s too closely, just not the tab 10.1 and the GS2). However, if I take those into consideration, I simply cannot, with a good conscience, declare them blatant copyists. We will probably never come to an agreement on this point.
Which is why I keep referring to the court cases. You seem to think that there is a disconnect between the ‘legal’ issue and the question of whether Samsung is copying Apple’s design or not. The fact that Apple is calling Samsung a ‘copyist’ and leveraging design patents against them leads me to think otherwise. Now you may have an issue with the legal definition of what is a copy; but without a formal definition, how are we going to get anywhere, as demonstrated above? By YOUR definition, Samsung is obviously copying Apple because you choose to see the similarities between the tab and the iPad (for example) and dismiss the differences. I do not come to the same conclusion because I choose to put equal weight on both the similarities and the differences.
Oh, please, not that stupid shit again. This is sort of the litmus test of the Android zealot's intelligence: will they make the Android came before iPhone, so Google can't have copied claim?
This is really the stupidest argument ever for a number of reasons. First of all, we know Apple was working on the iPhone for years before it was "announced", for years before Google acquired Android. We also know that "Android", before the announcement of the iPhone, was intended to be a Blackberry knockoff. Comes the iPhone and Google's realization that this will transform the landscape, and they very rapidly created a new version of Android that was completely different from what they had been working on.
Things do work differently in Android, though, don't they: iOS scrolling smooth, Android scrolling laggy. I guess Google just aren't that good at this programming thing.
And yet, what was so completely different from the blackberry clone than what was released? Because besides expanding touch capability, there wasn’t much that they changed such that it more closely resembled the iPhone.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/d...xy-tab-10-1-i/
Apple lost it's appeal in the Netherlands where they were trying to get a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on another Community Design. The high court affirmed the lower court's ruling from August that Samsung's product is sufficiently different from Apple's claimed design.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/d...xy-tab-10-1-i/
Eh? The article makes it seem like its a completely different case, and not an appeal.