Your first post and you attack the judge and Samsung calling for his imprisonment? Wow...just, wow.
You realize that Siri, which Apple touted as the be-all-end-all of iOS updates was NOT CREATED BY APPLE??!!!??? But instead, Siri was purchased from another company and added to iOS. You should note that Siri used to work on all iPhones, but Apple intentionally limited it used to the iPhone 4s. So does that mean Apple doesn't innovate either?
When Samsung saves up enough money to buy Apple, it can copy Apple's designs all it wants.
Just stand in the tablet area in Best Buy for an hour or so to answer your own question. You hear older folks especially saying "I want to see an iPad' and iPad simply means a tablet to many and they are easily switch sold by what ever product the sales guy wants to sell them that day. Their personal preferences really show especially the Apple haters.
This sales tactic has been used forever, not just with iPads. That's what a return policy is for (and the BBB to file a complaint against the company employing the weasel of a salesperson).
People intentionally buy fake Louis Vuitton purses from China. There is no confusion. But selling those purses is still wrong.
It might be illegal depending on the location, but to stamp a moral judgment ("...is still wrong.") on the purchase of a knock-off bag doesn't seem accurate.
If Samsung just Stop imitating Apple and deploys real innovative work, all humanity will benefit!
From the decision:
Quote:
However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003).
Maybe Samsung was copying the HP TC1000? Like Apple did?
When Samsung saves up enough money to buy Apple, it can copy Apple's designs all it wants.
And that's all this was. . . A design on paper. Apple wasn't suing Samsung over the Tab looking like the iPad. It was accusing Samsung of infringing paper drawings that Apple rec'd design patents on back in 2004.
So this wasn't about iPad vs. Tab anyway. In reality it was about line drawings vs. Tab.
All it took was one guy to invent the wheel, all the trial and error, expense, blood, sweat and tears. Then everyone else goes, ahhhhhh, that's how you do it! Suddenly everybody's selling wheels and telling the original guy ... What are you complaining about, it's just a circle ... You can't copyright a circle ...
Which reminds me of the movie The Hudsucker Proxy, where Tim Robbins takes the drawing out of his shoe depicting a simple circle and suggesting, "you know for kids" -- and of course it was the Hula Hoop.
What's interesting about that movie is that it spotlights the very issue here ... Robbins then is out of ideas as he grapples with success and simply offers variations on the original Hula Hoop instead of real innovation. However, during the course of the movie, the drawing of a simple circle is presented twice more to represent two very different products ... The frisbee and the flexistraw ... "you know, for kids".
It might be illegal depending on the location, but to stamp a moral judgment ("...is still wrong.") on the purchase of a knock-off bag doesn't seem accurate.
No, as a human being, we have a right to decide if that is right or wrong. I haven't made a firm decision on it yet, but others are very welcome to.
Given that, apparently, no one else's tablet is "cool", Apple's design must be original enough to distinguish it from the rest of the pack.
Therefore, if Apple's design is cool, it must also be original as well.
I think this qualifies me for those neato judge's robes in the UK.
In any case, I think Judge Koh's ruling is way cooler:
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh found that Samsung did in fact infringe on Apple's design patents. She ruled that Samsung "does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products."</span>
If this British "judge" proves anything, is that our legal system is totally retarded at dealing with 21st Century issues... Just like the defunct financial system.
Not cool? Bummer, dude! Not even the *name* -- "Tab 10.1??" -- is cool.
"Tab" is cool... if you're stuck in the 80's. Then again, iPad wasn't a fantastic name, but hey, Apple can make anything "cool", as we are no doubt reassured by this "judge".
I think this qualifies me for those neato judge's robes in the UK.
You'll have to get the wig too.
Apple should just move on and perhaps work "Accept No Substitues" into their advertising campaign.
Can't you just see a bunch of hip Apple dudes pointing and laughing at some geeky Samsung users with their crap knock off devices?... Oh wait that would be copying Samsung.
People intentionally buy fake Louis Vuitton purses from China. There is no confusion. But selling those purses is still wrong.
It might be illegal depending on the location, but to stamp a moral judgment ("...is still wrong.") on the purchase of a knock-off bag doesn't seem accurate.
Sure it's wrong because it has the Louis Vuitton logo on it. That is not what Samsung is doing at all. They are trying convince buyers that GalaxyTab is just as cool as an iPad. The judge said it isn't but that isn't going to stop Samsung from trying. Eventually they might even persuade some people that it is even cooler than an iPad. That is what is at stake here. Which is cooler regardless of which was the original and which was the copy.
Sure it's wrong because it has the Louis Vuitton logo on it. That is not what Samsung is doing at all. They are trying convince buyers that GalaxyTab is just as cool as an iPad. The judge said it isn't but that isn't going to stop Samsung from trying. Eventually they might even persuade some people that it is even cooler than an iPad. That is what is at stake here. Which is cooler regardless of which was the original and which was the copy.
... except the court had no comment on the iPad as such. This was strictly a case about a design on paper, one dating back to 2004, and one of many filed by Apple. This one happened to be useful for suing Samsung. It wasn't iPad vs Tab design.
I don't think anyone has ever bought a Galaxy Tab thinking they bought an iPad..
I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. If it walks like a duck, quacks like... in this case, it isn't a duck.
I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. If it walks like a duck, quacks like... in this case, it isn't a duck.
Do you have any facts to support this thought?
Unproven assumptions would be OK, but facts are the best.
Fantastic - Glad to see the UK legal system thinking straight.
As for the "cool" comment - you must be pretty young or not done much with your time to care - after you are judged by what you have accomplished in life, a 400 dollar piece of electronics being cool or not is just silliness.
But again iOS usually represent the untalented section of the Apple community - they need to get their value how ever they can I suppose.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Your first post and you attack the judge and Samsung calling for his imprisonment? Wow...just, wow.
You realize that Siri, which Apple touted as the be-all-end-all of iOS updates was NOT CREATED BY APPLE??!!!??? But instead, Siri was purchased from another company and added to iOS. You should note that Siri used to work on all iPhones, but Apple intentionally limited it used to the iPhone 4s. So does that mean Apple doesn't innovate either?
When Samsung saves up enough money to buy Apple, it can copy Apple's designs all it wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Just stand in the tablet area in Best Buy for an hour or so to answer your own question. You hear older folks especially saying "I want to see an iPad' and iPad simply means a tablet to many and they are easily switch sold by what ever product the sales guy wants to sell them that day. Their personal preferences really show especially the Apple haters.
This sales tactic has been used forever, not just with iPads. That's what a return policy is for (and the BBB to file a complaint against the company employing the weasel of a salesperson).
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
When Samsung saves up enough money to buy Apple, it can copy Apple's designs all it wants.
What does your comment have to do with my post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
People intentionally buy fake Louis Vuitton purses from China. There is no confusion. But selling those purses is still wrong.
It might be illegal depending on the location, but to stamp a moral judgment ("...is still wrong.") on the purchase of a knock-off bag doesn't seem accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
If Samsung just Stop imitating Apple and deploys real innovative work, all humanity will benefit!
From the decision:
Quote:
However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003).
Maybe Samsung was copying the HP TC1000? Like Apple did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
From the decision:
Maybe Samsung was copying the HP TC1000? Like Apple did?
DARN IT, how many times must i tell you to stop saying Apple ever copied anything!!!
STOP!!!! Apple lives in a bubble, they never copied anything ever!!!
Geez, can we ban this guy? Always coming in here using facts all the time
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
When Samsung saves up enough money to buy Apple, it can copy Apple's designs all it wants.
And that's all this was. . . A design on paper. Apple wasn't suing Samsung over the Tab looking like the iPad. It was accusing Samsung of infringing paper drawings that Apple rec'd design patents on back in 2004.
So this wasn't about iPad vs. Tab anyway. In reality it was about line drawings vs. Tab.
All it took was one guy to invent the wheel, all the trial and error, expense, blood, sweat and tears. Then everyone else goes, ahhhhhh, that's how you do it! Suddenly everybody's selling wheels and telling the original guy ... What are you complaining about, it's just a circle ... You can't copyright a circle ...
Which reminds me of the movie The Hudsucker Proxy, where Tim Robbins takes the drawing out of his shoe depicting a simple circle and suggesting, "you know for kids" -- and of course it was the Hula Hoop.
What's interesting about that movie is that it spotlights the very issue here ... Robbins then is out of ideas as he grapples with success and simply offers variations on the original Hula Hoop instead of real innovation. However, during the course of the movie, the drawing of a simple circle is presented twice more to represent two very different products ... The frisbee and the flexistraw ... "you know, for kids".
Samsung needs to take the latter approach ...
No, as a human being, we have a right to decide if that is right or wrong. I haven't made a firm decision on it yet, but others are very welcome to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I'm not......cool?
The judge didn't say you weren't cool, just not as cool as the iPad.
I hope this helps.
If this British "judge" proves anything, is that our legal system is totally retarded at dealing with 21st Century issues... Just like the defunct financial system.
Not cool? Bummer, dude! Not even the *name* -- "Tab 10.1??" -- is cool.
"Tab" is cool... if you're stuck in the 80's. Then again, iPad wasn't a fantastic name, but hey, Apple can make anything "cool", as we are no doubt reassured by this "judge".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
I think this qualifies me for those neato judge's robes in the UK.
You'll have to get the wig too.
Apple should just move on and perhaps work "Accept No Substitues" into their advertising campaign.
Can't you just see a bunch of hip Apple dudes pointing and laughing at some geeky Samsung users with their crap knock off devices?... Oh wait that would be copying Samsung.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
People intentionally buy fake Louis Vuitton purses from China. There is no confusion. But selling those purses is still wrong.
It might be illegal depending on the location, but to stamp a moral judgment ("...is still wrong.") on the purchase of a knock-off bag doesn't seem accurate.
Sure it's wrong because it has the Louis Vuitton logo on it. That is not what Samsung is doing at all. They are trying convince buyers that GalaxyTab is just as cool as an iPad. The judge said it isn't but that isn't going to stop Samsung from trying. Eventually they might even persuade some people that it is even cooler than an iPad. That is what is at stake here. Which is cooler regardless of which was the original and which was the copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Sure it's wrong because it has the Louis Vuitton logo on it. That is not what Samsung is doing at all. They are trying convince buyers that GalaxyTab is just as cool as an iPad. The judge said it isn't but that isn't going to stop Samsung from trying. Eventually they might even persuade some people that it is even cooler than an iPad. That is what is at stake here. Which is cooler regardless of which was the original and which was the copy.
... except the court had no comment on the iPad as such. This was strictly a case about a design on paper, one dating back to 2004, and one of many filed by Apple. This one happened to be useful for suing Samsung. It wasn't iPad vs Tab design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
I don't think anyone has ever bought a Galaxy Tab thinking they bought an iPad..
I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. If it walks like a duck, quacks like... in this case, it isn't a duck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. If it walks like a duck, quacks like... in this case, it isn't a duck.
Do you have any facts to support this thought?
Unproven assumptions would be OK, but facts are the best.
Fantastic - Glad to see the UK legal system thinking straight.
As for the "cool" comment - you must be pretty young or not done much with your time to care - after you are judged by what you have accomplished in life, a 400 dollar piece of electronics being cool or not is just silliness.
But again iOS usually represent the untalented section of the Apple community - they need to get their value how ever they can I suppose.