So... google copies the iPhone while sitting in board meetings, then starts copying other Apple tech that was developed while Google was tight with Apple.
wouldn't be surprised to see more of this coming to light in the future.
Google needs to license the tech from Apple if Apple wants to let them.
But Google still isn't paying Sun for their tech in Android...
Only a retard would think that this laptop has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
I'm pretty sure that IS an Apple laptop. Did you get your links wrong?
Only a retard would think that this laptop has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
That groove for opening the laptop is a dead giveaway that this is in reality an Apple Laptop - please check your facts. Apple has posted several videos of how they spent a lot of time and attention getting this groove right. If this is really a HP laptop, then something is seriously wrong!
[" url="/t/151093/apple-granted-patent-for-head-mounted-display-tech#post_2140535"]Here's an HP laptop from a few years ago: (edit - this is actually a Macbook Pro)
Only a retard would think that this laptop has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
What happened to "only a retard"?
You sure are starting to live up to what you claim about other people in your posts...
There are way too many examples to give, surely most people have seen a bunch of the nearly identical looking ripoff products already, but I'll just post one of the recent ones that I saw.
This has nothing to do with rectangles, Apple patenting a square or any of the other stupid jokes that certain misinformed people and demented Fandroids like to make. It has to do with the talentless people who made this ripoff. Their intention was clearly to deliberately rip off the Macbook Air's design when they were making this design.
[" url="/t/151093/apple-granted-patent-for-head-mounted-display-tech#post_2140512"]Maybe that's what miniature minds believe, but I'm surprised that Apple doesn't actually sue more companies, considering the amount of cheap ripoffs, and nearly identical looking, inferior products on the market.
I've seen your posts. You don't have the right to say anyone has a miniture mind.
By the way, did Apple give you knee pads before or after you drank the kool-aid?
As for Apple, it is documented that they apply for tons of patents on possible future tech, hoping that just 1 out of 100 become mainstream. But they have zero intent on actually working on any of these patents. It's called throwing sh#t at the wall and seeing what eventually sticks. Then suing.
[" url="/t/151093/apple-granted-patent-for-head-mounted-display-tech#post_2140545"]Yes, you're absolutely right. An image was labelled wrong on Google search.
I'm going to go hunt for a few more Mac clones.
I love your sheer stupidity. Sure you weren't one of the lawyers for Samsung that couldn't tell the difference between an iPad and Galaxy Tab?
I love your sheer stupidity. Sure you weren't one of the lawyers for Samsung that couldn't tell the difference between an iPad and Galaxy Tab?
I would say that it reinforces my point. Some of the clones and the real thing look mighty alike. I made an error and I acknowledged it. I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake, unlike lying Fandroids.
The real idiots are the people who claim that those other devices didn't steal Apple's design.
I've seen your posts. You don't have the right to say anyone has a miniture mind.
Are you certain of that? The irony is quite strong.
As for your knee-pads and Kool-aid comment, knee-pads are not necessary for me, as I don't swing that way. And no kool-aid is required to recognize that Apple makes the best devices out there, in every category.
Here's an HP laptop from a few years ago: (edit - this is actually a Macbook Pro)
Only a retard would think that this laptop (an Apple MBP) has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
So, an Apple MBP looks exactly like an Apple MBP, and you decide to never buy another Apple product again... well don't let the virtual door hit your butt on the way out. Apple has a responsibility to its stockholders to protect its IP whether you believe it or not. There's no competition when everyone plays follow the leader instead of innovating, you have your skivvies in a knot for the wrong reasons.
[" url="/t/151093/apple-granted-patent-for-head-mounted-display-tech#post_2140560"]I would say that it reinforces my point. Some of the clones and the real thing look mighty alike. I made an error and I acknowledged it. I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake, unlike lying Fandroids.
The real idiots are the people who claim that those other devices didn't steal Apple's design.
Or there are def clones of the ipad, iphone, imac, mbp and mba out there. I don't dispute that. Apple has a lot of products in demand, especially in Asia. Clones are innevitable.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
So, an Apple MBP looks exactly like an Apple MBP, and you decide to never buy another Apple product again... well don't let the virtual door hit your butt on the way out. Apple has a responsibility to its stockholders to protect its IP whether you believe it or not. There's no competition when everyone plays follow the leader instead of innovating, you have your skivvies in a knot for the wrong reasons.
I have no idea if he's being sarcastic or not. Apple ][ is usually more Apple-centric or Apple happy is the word I think. Just find it weird is all. Nothing against you of course Apple ][.
Only if Apple include Notification Center in their glasses...
That's the only argument Googlelites come up with when presented with Apple patents. But, but, but... Apple has copied Notification Center from Google! There are no other things Googlelites refer to make their case on how shameful Apple is in copying others. (Oh yeah, and the Xerox thing from 30 years ago.) This is not to say that all Apple's implementations are original. Like they had to pay $100 million to Creative for their patent on music player UI that Apple used in clickwheel iPods. Surely though, Apple brought a lot of new UI language for the multi-touch phone OS. How much will hold as patentable is up to the courts.
I have no idea if he's being sarcastic or not. Apple ][ is usually more Apple-centric or Apple happy is the word I think. Just find it weird is all. Nothing against you of course Apple ][.
I won't be leaving Apple's ecosystem anytime soon (more likely never , and I'm not going to blame anybody for misinterpreting my post, since I messed up on the image which accompanied it. It was supposed to be an image of one of the clones, and this whole clone BS even got me confused.
Or there are def clones of the ipad, iphone, imac, mbp and mba out there. I don't dispute that. Apple has a lot of products in demand, especially in Asia. Clones are innevitable.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
Even if Apple patents 'potential' future products, like you write, then that's not illegal. You might have a problem with the current patent system, but that is hardly Apple's fault. Companies should take full advantage of the current system and laws. Anybody else is also free to patent any future ideas, if they can come up with them.
Or there are def clones of the ipad, iphone, imac, mbp and mba out there. I don't dispute that. Apple has a lot of products in demand, especially in Asia. Clones are innevitable.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
I disagree that Apple litigates on products that have not come out. Show me examples! What I have see, though, is Apple is served themselves by companies that come out of nowhere and don't produce anything saying they have the patents on something (also software patents). And Apple has to pay them trolls! That's why the game is so unfair. Patent trolls do extract money from Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, etc. I have read reports on how many companies are licensed to patents of these trolls. But when it comes to Apple, I bet you other companies don't want to pay a dime to their biggest competitor. I bet Google is the least licensed of all. (Just my opinion. And I do believe that under Cook, Apple will be satisfied with payment and not just deny use to other companies.)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
@ Apple ][
That me a long time to realize that is not a MBA. Who makes that? Samsung?
No, I found it on this site:
http://www.androidauthority.com/android-book-thd-n2-a-macbook-clone-android-ics-93542/
So... google copies the iPhone while sitting in board meetings, then starts copying other Apple tech that was developed while Google was tight with Apple.
wouldn't be surprised to see more of this coming to light in the future.
Google needs to license the tech from Apple if Apple wants to let them.
But Google still isn't paying Sun for their tech in Android...
"Don't be evil"
yeah right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Here's an HP laptop from a few years ago:
Only a retard would think that this laptop has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
I'm pretty sure that IS an Apple laptop. Did you get your links wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwingrav
I'm pretty sure that IS an Apple laptop. Did you get your links wrong?
Yes, you're absolutely right. An image was labelled wrong on Google search.
I'm going to go hunt for a few more Mac clones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Here's an HP laptop from a few years ago:
Only a retard would think that this laptop has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
That groove for opening the laptop is a dead giveaway that this is in reality an Apple Laptop - please check your facts. Apple has posted several videos of how they spent a lot of time and attention getting this groove right. If this is really a HP laptop, then something is seriously wrong!
What happened to "only a retard"?
You sure are starting to live up to what you claim about other people in your posts...
I found another clone, and I doubled checked it this time, and this is definitely not an actual Apple device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
There are way too many examples to give, surely most people have seen a bunch of the nearly identical looking ripoff products already, but I'll just post one of the recent ones that I saw.
This has nothing to do with rectangles, Apple patenting a square or any of the other stupid jokes that certain misinformed people and demented Fandroids like to make. It has to do with the talentless people who made this ripoff. Their intention was clearly to deliberately rip off the Macbook Air's design when they were making this design.
What is that ugly piece if shite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
What is that ugly piece if shite?
If you're really interested in that lovely thing, then the link is in post #22.
By the way, did Apple give you knee pads before or after you drank the kool-aid?
As for Apple, it is documented that they apply for tons of patents on possible future tech, hoping that just 1 out of 100 become mainstream. But they have zero intent on actually working on any of these patents. It's called throwing sh#t at the wall and seeing what eventually sticks. Then suing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I love your sheer stupidity. Sure you weren't one of the lawyers for Samsung that couldn't tell the difference between an iPad and Galaxy Tab?
I would say that it reinforces my point. Some of the clones and the real thing look mighty alike. I made an error and I acknowledged it. I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake, unlike lying Fandroids.
The real idiots are the people who claim that those other devices didn't steal Apple's design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I've seen your posts. You don't have the right to say anyone has a miniture mind.
Are you certain of that? The irony is quite strong.
As for your knee-pads and Kool-aid comment, knee-pads are not necessary for me, as I don't swing that way. And no kool-aid is required to recognize that Apple makes the best devices out there, in every category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Here's an HP laptop from a few years ago: (edit - this is actually a Macbook Pro)
Only a retard would think that this laptop (an Apple MBP) has any similarity at all to any of Apple's devices. It is purely a coincidence that the average person on the street would have an extremely hard time telling the two apart. When HP made this, they were definitely not trying to rip off Apple's design. Only a fool would come to that conclusion. This is just how laptops look, and HP would have come up with this exact design completely on their own, even if Apple didn't exist. Does Apple think that they can patent a rectangle? Apple has some fucking nerve. I'm never going to buy another Apple product again. And believe me, I'm not a Fandroid or a troll, my family owns 17 Macs, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads and 1 iPod Touch, but this is the final straw. Apple is anti-competition and I like choice, even if all of the choices out there look exactly like Apple's fucking designs.
So, an Apple MBP looks exactly like an Apple MBP, and you decide to never buy another Apple product again... well don't let the virtual door hit your butt on the way out. Apple has a responsibility to its stockholders to protect its IP whether you believe it or not. There's no competition when everyone plays follow the leader instead of innovating, you have your skivvies in a knot for the wrong reasons.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
I have no idea if he's being sarcastic or not. Apple ][ is usually more Apple-centric or Apple happy is the word I think. Just find it weird is all. Nothing against you of course Apple ][.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Only if Apple include Notification Center in their glasses...
That's the only argument Googlelites come up with when presented with Apple patents. But, but, but... Apple has copied Notification Center from Google! There are no other things Googlelites refer to make their case on how shameful Apple is in copying others. (Oh yeah, and the Xerox thing from 30 years ago.) This is not to say that all Apple's implementations are original. Like they had to pay $100 million to Creative for their patent on music player UI that Apple used in clickwheel iPods. Surely though, Apple brought a lot of new UI language for the multi-touch phone OS. How much will hold as patentable is up to the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daramouthe
I have no idea if he's being sarcastic or not. Apple ][ is usually more Apple-centric or Apple happy is the word I think. Just find it weird is all. Nothing against you of course Apple ][.
I won't be leaving Apple's ecosystem anytime soon (more likely never
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Or there are def clones of the ipad, iphone, imac, mbp and mba out there. I don't dispute that. Apple has a lot of products in demand, especially in Asia. Clones are innevitable.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
Even if Apple patents 'potential' future products, like you write, then that's not illegal. You might have a problem with the current patent system, but that is hardly Apple's fault. Companies should take full advantage of the current system and laws. Anybody else is also free to patent any future ideas, if they can come up with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Or there are def clones of the ipad, iphone, imac, mbp and mba out there. I don't dispute that. Apple has a lot of products in demand, especially in Asia. Clones are innevitable.
But Apple is at a point where it is creating code or patenting some 'potential' future product with it's only intention being litigation. A patent should only be granted if you have a working model and show intent to manufacture. Apps and code should be copyrighted only if they are used in a program or OS. You shouldn't be able to patent lines of code, or in this case a 'quick search box' which Apple didn't even create. How you get a patent for something that hasexisted for over a decade is beyond me.
I disagree that Apple litigates on products that have not come out. Show me examples! What I have see, though, is Apple is served themselves by companies that come out of nowhere and don't produce anything saying they have the patents on something (also software patents). And Apple has to pay them trolls! That's why the game is so unfair. Patent trolls do extract money from Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, etc. I have read reports on how many companies are licensed to patents of these trolls. But when it comes to Apple, I bet you other companies don't want to pay a dime to their biggest competitor. I bet Google is the least licensed of all. (Just my opinion. And I do believe that under Cook, Apple will be satisfied with payment and not just deny use to other companies.)