It's clear to me who won. Samsung gets to keep doing what it wanted to. And Apple's lack of originality was noted in court. The "cool" comment may influence 10-year-olds though.
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.
Actually, that "Accept No Substitutes" thing is pretty clever.
I don't think anyone has ever bought a Galaxy Tab thinking they bought an iPad..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm sure you wished it worked like that but it was your claim. Surely you can find at least one instance as evidence that you're correct. That's the easy one to prove, right? It won't even require surveying everyone who ever bought a tablet.
Actually it was Wurm5150's claim that he didn't think anybody ever bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad. That came first. So please inform Wurm 5150 of how he's not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Start there and then when you're finished, come find me. Try to keep up. You are really making this too easy, its not even fun anymore. Maybe I could help by typing slower?
Actually it was Wurm5150's claim that he didn't think anybody ever bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad. That came first. So please inform Wurm 5150 of how he's not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Start there and then when you're finished, come find me. Try to keep up. You are really making this too easy, its not even fun anymore. Maybe I could help by typing slower?
It's not wurm5150 arguing with me.
I was simply curious if you could find anything showing you might be right about "I don't think the vast majority of customers got misdirected, but I believe a significant number did."
Making an attempt to throw in an insult or two makes you sound insecure with your position. I'm guessing you couldn't find anyone claiming it happened to them, which certainly wouldn't support "a significant number", do you think? I figured I'd give you a chance to try and convince me that it's not a rarity if it happens at all.
No biggie, just relax. We all get challenged here once in awhile. It's not a reflection on you personally.
I was simply curious if you could find anything showing you might be right about "<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;">I don't think the vast majority of customers got misdirected, but I believe a significant number did."</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;"> Making an attempt to throw in an insult or two makes you sound insecure with your position. I'm guessing you couldn't find anyone claiming it happened to them, which certainly wouldn't support "a significant number", do you think? I figured I'd give you a chance to try and convince me that it's not a rarity if it happens at all.</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;">No biggie, just relax. We all get challenged here once in awhile. It's not a reflection on you personally.</span>
Sorry my moderate position upset your sense of absolutes. Please accept this as a peace offering - I'll now let you have the last word. Go ahead, I promise not to reply to whatever you think you need to say. It won't get any easier.
I like this 'not as cool' line. It looks like a stupid reasoning, but I guess this line is intended to communicate Apple and Apple die-hard fans which seem to be isolated by day. I see a humor in there.
It's clear to me who won. Samsung gets to keep doing what it wanted to.
And Apple's lack of originality was noted in court.
The "cool" comment may influence 10-year-olds though.
If and when the UK's trial judge becomes the entire world, you might have a point.
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned. More importantly, the rest of the world seems to recognize Apple's innovation and Samsung's blatant copying.
As are you to prove me wrong. In my case it only takes one person to say they were bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad to prove me right. In order to prove your point, it would require surveying every single purchaser of a Tab whether they thought they were buying an iPad. If I were assigned one of these tasks, I know which one I would prefer. But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll let you have first shot.
No. That just proves this hypothetical person is stupid. Or they simply cannot read the word SAMSUNG on the front....or identify the APPLE logo on the back of the iPad. This BS argument over whether Apple has the right to patent a black, rectangular device just astounds me...How can so many people believe this nonsense?
If and when the UK's trial judge becomes the entire world, you might have a point.
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned. More importantly, the rest of the world seems to recognize Apple's innovation and Samsung's blatant copying.
I'm certain it will be appealed because that's what lawyers do.
As for "Samsung's blatant copying", you must know more about this case than the judge.
Interesting that this AI article made no mention of the poke at Apple's lack of originality. But then, who expects real journalism here? It's all Apple PR fluff.
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned.
True. But at this point, the decision has been made that Samsung did not infringe under the applicable law. Maybe someday reality will change. But as of now...
Fair enough. You base the statement "<span style="background-color:rgb(198,204,208);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">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. "</span>
on 5 people. This sort of "5 examples indicates what MOST PEOPLE thought" is called a "hasty generalization". Many people do that. But it is fallacious, and so the conclusions cannot be relied upon.
Where did I say that? I was simply giving an example from my own experience. It does not cover every buyer, nor did I claim it did. There are many here who claim, nobody will buy a Tab and think it is an iPad. Anyone who has experience helping the less technical, will know this is not the case. And, anyone with a lot of experience with support knows that the less technical outnumber the technical by a wide margin. Don't dismiss something out of hand simply because you don't want it to be true. Apple is right to worry. That does not mean they are right about how they deal with it always. But they are right that they need to protect their intellectual property. All your sweeping generalizations about my position aside. I bring a real situation that applies to what is being discussed, what do you bring other than talk and conjecture? If it holds true for 5 people, it holds true for more than 5. Does it make it most people, no necessarily. But it is real data. What real data have you brought?
Just wait until Apple releases the Apple TV, then Samsung can sue apple for claiming that their device infringes upon Samsung's (and most everyone else in the industry's) design. Large 16:9 rectangular screen, using LCD or plasma technology. Integrated speakers to produce sound, Slightly rounded corners, thin, wall-mountable, etc. Such a lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous, but it's no different than the ipad/galaxy tablet one.
Phil
If they have design patents, they are entitled to sue.
The problem with your little scenario is that they probably don't, as the TV market has been around with multiple manufacturers using similar designs for many years, whereas the iPad market has one manufacturer and has only been around a few years.
What's interesting is I thought today, did the judge say "when" the coolness factor was taken into account? Because when the Galaxy Tab (10.1, in this case, I see) came out, the iPad may not have been "cool" yet. Therefore it stands that Samsung copied Apple, because the "cool" argument wouldn't apply. You gotta say I have a point here, no?
Isn't it the point when the dispute occurred, it is arguable that the iPad was not that wildly successful ~yet~. You can't retroactively say, oh, it's so cool now, so therefore no one ~back when Tab 10.1~ came out could have mistaken it?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Really, its kinda hard to tell who won this one...
Nope... (allegedly) 'Cool' or not, Apple clearly lost this one.
Hmmm...so, you feel that being told you've won the lawsuit because your product is CRAP is a big win to you???
I think I'd just as soon take a pass on that one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Half these 'judges' sound like they have been on the wacky backy. Since when was 'cool' a parameter with which to ascertain IP infringement !
Well, that's the whole point.. The judge just said Apple's design patents are nothing but smokescreen (marketing gimmicks).
And Apple's lack of originality was noted in court.
The "cool" comment may influence 10-year-olds though.
As for the tablets not being "cool enough", then he is a pretty informal judge.
Actually, that "Accept No Substitutes" thing is pretty clever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
I don't think anyone has ever bought a Galaxy Tab thinking they bought an iPad..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm sure you wished it worked like that but it was your claim. Surely you can find at least one instance as evidence that you're correct. That's the easy one to prove, right? It won't even require surveying everyone who ever bought a tablet.
Actually it was Wurm5150's claim that he didn't think anybody ever bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad. That came first. So please inform Wurm 5150 of how he's not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Start there and then when you're finished, come find me. Try to keep up. You are really making this too easy, its not even fun anymore. Maybe I could help by typing slower?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
Actually it was Wurm5150's claim that he didn't think anybody ever bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad. That came first. So please inform Wurm 5150 of how he's not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Start there and then when you're finished, come find me. Try to keep up. You are really making this too easy, its not even fun anymore. Maybe I could help by typing slower?
It's not wurm5150 arguing with me.
I was simply curious if you could find anything showing you might be right about "I don't think the vast majority of customers got misdirected, but I believe a significant number did."
Making an attempt to throw in an insult or two makes you sound insecure with your position. I'm guessing you couldn't find anyone claiming it happened to them, which certainly wouldn't support "a significant number", do you think? I figured I'd give you a chance to try and convince me that it's not a rarity if it happens at all.
No biggie, just relax. We all get challenged here once in awhile. It's not a reflection on you personally.
I like this 'not as cool' line. It looks like a stupid reasoning, but I guess this line is intended to communicate Apple and Apple die-hard fans which seem to be isolated by day. I see a humor in there.
Here is the full rulling.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html
If and when the UK's trial judge becomes the entire world, you might have a point.
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned. More importantly, the rest of the world seems to recognize Apple's innovation and Samsung's blatant copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot
Sorry to hear your living room HD TV is only a 9.7 inch -- a little short on the cash that day? Did it come with binoculars?
ID10T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
As are you to prove me wrong. In my case it only takes one person to say they were bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad to prove me right. In order to prove your point, it would require surveying every single purchaser of a Tab whether they thought they were buying an iPad. If I were assigned one of these tasks, I know which one I would prefer. But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll let you have first shot.
No. That just proves this hypothetical person is stupid. Or they simply cannot read the word SAMSUNG on the front....or identify the APPLE logo on the back of the iPad. This BS argument over whether Apple has the right to patent a black, rectangular device just astounds me...How can so many people believe this nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If and when the UK's trial judge becomes the entire world, you might have a point.
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned. More importantly, the rest of the world seems to recognize Apple's innovation and Samsung's blatant copying.
argumentum ad populum
I'm certain it will be appealed because that's what lawyers do.
As for "Samsung's blatant copying", you must know more about this case than the judge.
Interesting that this AI article made no mention of the poke at Apple's lack of originality. But then, who expects real journalism here? It's all Apple PR fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
We don't know if this will be appealed and overturned.
True. But at this point, the decision has been made that Samsung did not infringe under the applicable law. Maybe someday reality will change. But as of now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I'm not......cool?
You actually made me laugh with this comment.
And I don't mean that is a sarcastic or nasty way. It was genuinely funny.
Non-negative posts suit you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Really, its kinda hard to tell who won this one...
Interesting username you have there. I wonder, is this an example of nominative determinism at work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar
Just wait until Apple releases the Apple TV, then Samsung can sue apple for claiming that their device infringes upon Samsung's (and most everyone else in the industry's) design. Large 16:9 rectangular screen, using LCD or plasma technology. Integrated speakers to produce sound, Slightly rounded corners, thin, wall-mountable, etc. Such a lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous, but it's no different than the ipad/galaxy tablet one.
Phil
If they have design patents, they are entitled to sue.
The problem with your little scenario is that they probably don't, as the TV market has been around with multiple manufacturers using similar designs for many years, whereas the iPad market has one manufacturer and has only been around a few years.
Isn't it the point when the dispute occurred, it is arguable that the iPad was not that wildly successful ~yet~. You can't retroactively say, oh, it's so cool now, so therefore no one ~back when Tab 10.1~ came out could have mistaken it?
Maybe I missed something in the legal stuff.