Lamewig- no need to apologize. Sony invented Blu ray technology And also purchased and owns the patent to Take advantage of the highest end uv spectrum as of 1997. So, of course, that technology and the invention behind it belongs to them. So you're dead on by saying Blu-Ray belongs to Sony, as they single-handedly created Blu-Ray technology and own all patents pertaining to it.
Much more than just an "interested party" as jfanning incorrectly states. But in typical jfanning manner, he will speak as fact and say youre wrong, when in actuallity, he is.
Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc
That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.
Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc
That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Quote:
It was originally invented by Sony.
This has become a very contested notion since the emergence of a technology trail going back some 25 years in the Silicon Valley. Patent Office research indicates the submission of a methods and apparatus patent application being issued to Kenneth W. Easterling of San Jose, California. This application clearly defines the novel and unpatented domain of Ultraviolet light sources as applied to laser diodes used in optical storage devices.
Historically, these light sources were of an Infra-red nature which meant they were to be found on the lowest end of the light spectrum and at a lower frequency. Subsequently, when applied to precision focusing limited the device to a relatively large "footprint". To take advantage of the precision tuning capability of the ultraviolet frequency or the highest end of the light spectrum, and allow the device to have the highest resolution, thus "footprint", Mr. Easterling applied for a methods and appartus patent in November of 1992.
In April of 1997, Mr. Easterling approached Sony's Technology Center in Rancho Bernardo, California with a revolutionary leap in technology for the Compact Disc industry. A non-disclosure agreement was signed by Sony's then Vice President of Technology and a transferrance of technology began. Years passed and the interest level ceased.
In 2001 Sony Corporation introduced Blu Ray Disc technology and rest is history.
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.
One important detail left out on most stories about this ruling. Samsung was ruled not to infringe on a design description of 2004. That is what Apple actually protected. The court never looked at a direct comparison of the tab versus the iPad, it looked at the tab versus the design description from 2004.
I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Excuse me? Creation of blu-ray technology? There are a lot of companies involved in the technologies behind the creation of Blu-ray, Sony is but one of them, why do you have an issue with that?
Here are a list of companies that have essential patents involved in Blu-ray (this is just one licencing companies, there are many more companies that have essential patents for Blu-ray, including Apple via their one patent in H.264)
Hmm, strange all these people having essential patents when Sony invented everything to do with Blu-ray, heck, if you want some more proof do a patent search for Blu-ray, you'll find a tonne more proof you are wong.
Are you really going to link to a wiki answer as proof? Really?
Once again, another thread where Google/Samsung supporters (mostly, it appears, driven by nothing but irrational hate of Apple), shills, etc. argue that Google and Samsung have done nothing wrong because they didn't lose in court. Apparently, all these people believe that it's just fine to steal other people's work.
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.
Who else's design concept was Apple trying to 'patent as their own'?
In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.
The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.
After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.
In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.
The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.
After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.
Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)
Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)
I'm not sure I can agree with your position that "no rational person" could possibly believe that Apple didn't copy any elements of the design. I don't think I'm being dishonest and I consider myself largely rational.
After the work of others has been found to be ineligible for exclusive protection (for various reasons, but in this particular instance because it, itself, has been found to be a copy of something that came before), yes, I willingly defend the ability to reproduce it.
In situations where the work of others has been found to be eligible for exclusive protection, I would willingly defend the right to prohibit it from being reproduced.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Hmm. I think jfanning maybe right on this one. If you do research on the web, you'll find that in 2000, Sony and Pioneer unveiled DVR Blue at Japan's Ceatec show. This was the basis for first-generation Blu-ray Disc and clearly yes, Sony was a major (if not THE major pusher for the tech).
So it seems that Sony did not solely invent blue ray (maybe the concept of using UV lasers, but not the whole spec). Clearly they had a huge influence and largely in the driver's seat and popular view is that Sony "won". That of course was being emphasized since Sony "lost" the previous war (Betamax vs. VHS). But I believe a more accurate statement would be: Blue-ray consortium won.
If I recall correctly, Toshiba was more of a lone player in HD-DVD than Sony in Blue ray. I could remember that one wrong though.
The iPad and iPhone clearly created new categories that revolutionized the form factors and functions of the laptop and mobile phone.
Functions? Yes. But form factors? Hardly. There were candybar phones with large screens prior to the iphone, and there were tablets prior to the ipad. One of the big problems I see with these suits is that a large part of design is dictated by form factor; and these design elements that apple is bringing to bear are being invalidated through prior art.
Quote:
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.
The problem with that stance is that there are aspects of android and samsung's tab that are different (some of which can be considered significant) from apple's design. Google and samsung could have easily made these aspect more similar to the ipad (and some other tablets actually do), yet they didn't. So taking that into consideration, and the question of "obvious copying" becomes less clear.
Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products.
I just started using a Android tablet (Asus Slider) in the last three months and I don't see many similarities between the two. The first version maybe but now with Android 4.0 not so much, you'll be hard press to find many similarities. Actually I'm starting to wish Apple would start copying some ideas from Google, like maybe a real file-manager. In my opinion iOS is great as a phone OS but seriously lacking as a tablet OS, something Android 4.0 seems to get. If it wasn't for the apps I still would not own a iPad, iPhone yes, still love those.
Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?
Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?
Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.
And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?
Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?
Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.
And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?
Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.
Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.
Oh, most likely; that's probably closer to the true reason why apple is filing lawsuit after lawsuit against samsung. They just happen to think they have a case with the design patents. And that's perfectly fine. If they can show that samsung is in violation, more power to them.
However, I'm going to call a spade a spade; apple is not suing because samsung is the closest copy, but rather because they're the closest in competition.
Oh, most likely; that's probably closer to the true reason why apple is filing lawsuit after lawsuit against samsung. They just happen to think they have a case with the design patents. And that's perfectly fine. If they can show that samsung is in violation, more power to them.
However, I'm going to call a spade a spade; apple is not suing because samsung is the closest copy, but rather because they're the closest in competition.
Right I mean there are plenty of other manufactures that have very close designs that replicate the iPad but you don't see Apple going after them the way they are with Samsung. Have you ever seen the silver version of the Motorola Xoom, my wife has one and dude I'm not kidding I always mistake it for my iPad. Just the other day I was sitting on the couch and yelled at my daughter for using my iPad and she said, "but Daddy this is Mommy's computer", "what, let me see that, oh ...... I'm sorry honey". I'm not a dick the kid just has this gift of destroying the things I own.
Comments
Lamewig- no need to apologize. Sony invented Blu ray technology And also purchased and owns the patent to Take advantage of the highest end uv spectrum as of 1997. So, of course, that technology and the invention behind it belongs to them. So you're dead on by saying Blu-Ray belongs to Sony, as they single-handedly created Blu-Ray technology and own all patents pertaining to it.
Much more than just an "interested party" as jfanning incorrectly states. But in typical jfanning manner, he will speak as fact and say youre wrong, when in actuallity, he is.
Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc
That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.
Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so.
Apple has already appealed.
This article is about Apple losing that appeal.
Hmm, if I am wrong, then why do Panasonic and Pioneer individually own more Blu-ray patents than Sony? Why does Microsoft own patents related to Blu-ray, same with Apple, Philips etc etc etc
That seems very strange for a technology that was invented and owned by Sony, I know you have trouble coping with being wrong, in this case you are, it is very simple to prove you are wrong, there is no point trying to take it further.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
It was originally invented by Sony.
This has become a very contested notion since the emergence of a technology trail going back some 25 years in the Silicon Valley. Patent Office research indicates the submission of a methods and apparatus patent application being issued to Kenneth W. Easterling of San Jose, California. This application clearly defines the novel and unpatented domain of Ultraviolet light sources as applied to laser diodes used in optical storage devices.
Historically, these light sources were of an Infra-red nature which meant they were to be found on the lowest end of the light spectrum and at a lower frequency. Subsequently, when applied to precision focusing limited the device to a relatively large "footprint". To take advantage of the precision tuning capability of the ultraviolet frequency or the highest end of the light spectrum, and allow the device to have the highest resolution, thus "footprint", Mr. Easterling applied for a methods and appartus patent in November of 1992.
In April of 1997, Mr. Easterling approached Sony's Technology Center in Rancho Bernardo, California with a revolutionary leap in technology for the Compact Disc industry. A non-disclosure agreement was signed by Sony's then Vice President of Technology and a transferrance of technology began. Years passed and the interest level ceased.
In 2001 Sony Corporation introduced Blu Ray Disc technology and rest is history.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invent...#ixzz1kRICSiTb
It's a losing battle for Apple. The best thing that Apple needs to do is sign licensing agreements with Google. Apple i products should begin transitioning to Android. The overwhelming momentum of Android will solidify its top place in the market. Apple needs to adopt and get on board or get lost the Android tidal wave. There really is no denying the future of iOS.
I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.
Anyone know a few Dutch jokes, so we can blow off some steam?
Would that steam be packaged in a Dutch Oven? Because some on these forums are certainly blowing it out their ***
I'll be honest I am an android fanboy. I only come to this site because the articles are ridiculously bias. Being an android fanboy I still live on this planet called earth. You my friend do not. I do not hate apple, (dislike some of the business decisions but they make some good products). All I care about is being able to get some cool phones and cutting edge apps like Google Wallet. I also hope that one day the major communication apps will get standardized option between the OSs. Google seems like it will be the first to give us a universal standard though. HOWEVER you are out of this world. Do you really think all those people who enjoy iPhones are really just waiting for an Android. (hint: if they where they would have one). Get your head out of your rear and look at the facts: Apple is not going anywhere or Google. Deal with it or go back to what ever planet you are from.
Bias is a noun. You mean biased.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Excuse me? Creation of blu-ray technology? There are a lot of companies involved in the technologies behind the creation of Blu-ray, Sony is but one of them, why do you have an issue with that?
Here are a list of companies that have essential patents involved in Blu-ray (this is just one licencing companies, there are many more companies that have essential patents for Blu-ray, including Apple via their one patent in H.264)
http://www.one-blue.com/licensors/
Another link stating Philips owns essential patents
http://us.liteonit.com/us/news/news-...shiba-decision
An old link stating that several companies had joined together to charge for their essential patents
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/03/0..._licence_fees/
Hmm, strange all these people having essential patents when Sony invented everything to do with Blu-ray, heck, if you want some more proof do a patent search for Blu-ray, you'll find a tonne more proof you are wong.
Are you really going to link to a wiki answer as proof? Really?
You are wrong, get over it.
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.
Who else's design concept was Apple trying to 'patent as their own'?
In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.
The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.
After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.
In this case, Apple was trying to use a piece of intellectual property known in Europe as a community design. (In the USA, the closest analogy would be a "Design Patent", so that is the terminology I'll use for the rest of this post.) They asserted the claim that Samsung was violating certain elements of this design patent - hence, if follows that they were claiming ownership of those elements within their design patent.
The court ruled that at least 6 pieces of prior art (referenced in the article at the top of this thread) worked to limit the scope of what could actually be protected by Apple's design patent - effectively, they were saying that some of the elements that Apple had been trying to claim as their own property in the design patent had already been done before by others, and therefore Apple cannot claim ownership of those particular design elements.
After removing consideration of any design elements invalidated by prior art, the court ruled that Samsung wasn't infringing on any of the remaining truly unique elements which were still in effect within the design patent.
Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)
Which, while the ruling in the case, is all bullshit, since Samsung is quite obviously "slavishly" copying Apple's designs in their entirety. No rational person can believe that they are not, so, if you're defending them, you're defending the practice of stealing the work of others. (And, no rational person truly believes Apple "stole" these designs from anyone else, so, if they say they did, they aren't being honest.)
I'm not sure I can agree with your position that "no rational person" could possibly believe that Apple didn't copy any elements of the design. I don't think I'm being dishonest and I consider myself largely rational.
After the work of others has been found to be ineligible for exclusive protection (for various reasons, but in this particular instance because it, itself, has been found to be a copy of something that came before), yes, I willingly defend the ability to reproduce it.
In situations where the work of others has been found to be eligible for exclusive protection, I would willingly defend the right to prohibit it from being reproduced.
Yawn- Maybe I should have said the creation of Blu ray technology. But if you want to argue other companies own patents on disc recreation, players, burners, etc.- then you're right.
But, because you never offer facts and I do, here ya go. Although, like all facts presented, you'll just call them opinions.
Hmm. I think jfanning maybe right on this one. If you do research on the web, you'll find that in 2000, Sony and Pioneer unveiled DVR Blue at Japan's Ceatec show. This was the basis for first-generation Blu-ray Disc and clearly yes, Sony was a major (if not THE major pusher for the tech).
2001: Nine of the world's largest electronics companies unveil plans for Blu-ray Disc: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...0202/02-0219E/
So it seems that Sony did not solely invent blue ray (maybe the concept of using UV lasers, but not the whole spec). Clearly they had a huge influence and largely in the driver's seat and popular view is that Sony "won". That of course was being emphasized since Sony "lost" the previous war (Betamax vs. VHS). But I believe a more accurate statement would be: Blue-ray consortium won.
If I recall correctly, Toshiba was more of a lone player in HD-DVD than Sony in Blue ray. I could remember that one wrong though.
Regs, Jarkko
The iPad and iPhone clearly created new categories that revolutionized the form factors and functions of the laptop and mobile phone.
Functions? Yes. But form factors? Hardly. There were candybar phones with large screens prior to the iphone, and there were tablets prior to the ipad. One of the big problems I see with these suits is that a large part of design is dictated by form factor; and these design elements that apple is bringing to bear are being invalidated through prior art.
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products. Supporting this sort of theft of other people's work is a sign that you have no morals.
The problem with that stance is that there are aspects of android and samsung's tab that are different (some of which can be considered significant) from apple's design. Google and samsung could have easily made these aspect more similar to the ipad (and some other tablets actually do), yet they didn't. So taking that into consideration, and the question of "obvious copying" becomes less clear.
So taking that into consideration, and the question of "obvious copying" becomes less clear.
Less clear, huh?
Okay.
Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?
There simply isn't any question that Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nor that Samsung's phones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of Apple's products.
I just started using a Android tablet (Asus Slider) in the last three months and I don't see many similarities between the two. The first version maybe but now with Android 4.0 not so much, you'll be hard press to find many similarities. Actually I'm starting to wish Apple would start copying some ideas from Google, like maybe a real file-manager. In my opinion iOS is great as a phone OS but seriously lacking as a tablet OS, something Android 4.0 seems to get. If it wasn't for the apps I still would not own a iPad, iPhone yes, still love those.
Less clear, huh?
Okay.
Also, what's "that" in your sentence? "They could have had an image of a single sunflower for their Pictures app, but they altruistically chose to simply use another yellow flower instead"?
Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?
Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.
And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?
Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the tab 10.1. I've made it quite clear that I do feel that the galaxy s and touchwiz 3.0 mirrors apple's design too closely. Guess I could have clarified that in that post as well. With regards to the picture of the tab 10.1 similarities, yes the charger, cable, and packaging resemble the ipad. Those are the similarities, but how do you account for the difference such as the different aspect ratios, the completely different back design, the lack of a home button? Why didn't samsung choose a 4:3 display? Why didn't they include a home button on the front?
Surely if you wanted to make a knockoff of an ipad, you would design the important bits (ie. The tablet) to look like the ipad, not focus on the accesories.
And HP gets away with using a 4:3 1024x768 display, with a back exactly the same as the ipad1 and a home button on the front. Why can't samsung? Why are the design of the accessories more important than the design of the tablet itself?
Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.
Oh because Samsung is successful with their phones and tablets. They are actually a threat to Apple where as WebOS was not and appears it will never be either.
Oh, most likely; that's probably closer to the true reason why apple is filing lawsuit after lawsuit against samsung. They just happen to think they have a case with the design patents. And that's perfectly fine. If they can show that samsung is in violation, more power to them.
However, I'm going to call a spade a spade; apple is not suing because samsung is the closest copy, but rather because they're the closest in competition.
Oh, most likely; that's probably closer to the true reason why apple is filing lawsuit after lawsuit against samsung. They just happen to think they have a case with the design patents. And that's perfectly fine. If they can show that samsung is in violation, more power to them.
However, I'm going to call a spade a spade; apple is not suing because samsung is the closest copy, but rather because they're the closest in competition.
Right I mean there are plenty of other manufactures that have very close designs that replicate the iPad but you don't see Apple going after them the way they are with Samsung. Have you ever seen the silver version of the Motorola Xoom, my wife has one and dude I'm not kidding I always mistake it for my iPad. Just the other day I was sitting on the couch and yelled at my daughter for using my iPad and she said, "but Daddy this is Mommy's computer", "what, let me see that, oh ...... I'm sorry honey". I'm not a dick the kid just has this gift of destroying the things I own.