I'm just going on all the iPads I sell and the fact that we never bothered restocking Tabs because no-one ever asks for them.
That is exactly why Apple's efforts in court are so laughable. They need to pick their battles instead of wasting time and resources on these loser cases.
That is exactly why Apple's efforts in court are so laughable. They need to pick their battles instead of wasting time and resources on these loser cases.
I suspect that Apple knows what they're doing more than you do.
In the end, look at the results. Put a Samsung Tab next to the original iPad. That was the situation before Apple filed suit. Now, put the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Apple appears to have achieved its goal of getting Samsung to stop copying.
Now that Jerrytroll's idiocy is out of the way, let's get back to the original topic. Reuters reports the following:
"The judge, however, rejected Samsung's request that Apple be forbidden from continuing to claim that its design rights had been infringed, saying that Apple was entitled to hold the opinion, the news agency said."
I can't quite reconcile an order telling Apple to publish that Samsung did not copy the iPad but at the same time allowing Apple to continue to claim that it's design rights had been infringed. The entire order doesn't make any sense.
So Phil, I've asked this before of others and I'm curious to know what your response would be. If you had designed a product and patented the design - then went to a manufacturer to source parts for this product, then months later see this company's product come to market looking suspiciously like your product that they supplied parts for - how would you feel and what would you do? Would you simply shrug your shoulders and say they can just do whatever they want?
As a patent holder myself, I will defend my patents against any and all infringement - which is something you have to do if you want to maintain your patent.
Your assertion that samsung copied the ipad at the manufacturing stage is pure crap. First, apple is one of the most secretive companies EVER. I doubt most of their employees knew what the ipad looked like before it was released. Why would Samsung have to know what it was going to look like in advance? They manufacture what... the screens, the processors, and the flash. You don't need to know what the shell of a device looks like to manufacture any of these parts, and they're all commodity parts (the processor is a bit different, but it's essentially the same as a commodity processor, but contains apple's IP that is not resold to other vendors). I doubt most of Apple's internal designers (designing the logic board etc) even knew what the device would look like, but had a set of specifications they had to try and meet. Do you really think apple was dumb enough to ship samsung the shell of an ipad months or years before the ipad's relase? The only manufacturer who was likely to know what it looked like in advance would be foxconn who manufactured the actual device, and they aren't involved in this lawsuit.
As far as the design of the ipad... It's essentially the design of a touch screen smart phone (that many different companies have made, some concepts even before apple) blown up into a larger form factor. No one else made it first, mostly due to the lack of a software infrastructure to use, because it was clear with the old tablets that the Windows OS was not (at the time) designed for tablet use, and the model had to be different. It wasn't until google made android work on tablets (an obvious extension) that competitors could come to market. But as for the actual look of the product... What design there is patented? Unless you want to argue that a rectangle with a large screen and a flat surface is patentable... This isn't much different than many existing laptop screens, and old tablets had a similar look and feel from the front (when in tablet mode), but yes, the OS was largely different, and the device itself was much thicker and bulkier (computer technology has minaturized components, I bet you think apple should be able to patent the fact that computer devices can get smaller over time too). But, if you put those devices into a box with the screen facing outward, and it turned off, from 10-15 feet the front would look like an ipad... Apple wants to be able to put design patents on their hardware for their simplistic designs, but when you make the HW so simplistic in design, there's little room to patent the hardware's look and feel, because it's little more than a flat rectangle. They can patent the software to use it (and they have and are fighting that), but the hardware design? Might as well patent the look and feel of a piece of paper. Apple's devices were not made without prior attempts by other companies coming along first. The difference is the other companies failed where apple did not. If those companies were sueing apple over the look and feel of the ipad, you'd say they were just sour that they lost, and money trying to steal apple's hard earned money, and you'd be right. In the same regards, apple is trying to patent a look of a device, but because they're the behmouth they are, they might get away with it.
Why spend the money to appeal when Apple could post something funny similar to the following:
Judge Rules that Samsung Tablet "not as cool" as Apple iPad.
A recent decision by Judge xxxx ruled that Apple is not entitled to legal patent protection against the Samsung Tablet because it is "not as cool" as the Apple iPad. While Apple believes that it is obvious to any impartial observer that the Samsung is a poor attempt to create a cheap knock-off of the iPad's design, we do take comfort in the Judge's legal finding that the Samsung Tablet's ripped-off design is still not a "cool" as the iPad. While we always felt that our tablet was cool, it is nice to now have legal precedent for our belief.
The decision from Judge Colin Birss means Apple will have to post the notice on its U.K. website for six months, as well as "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad
I can understand the lack of infringement but the conclusion is dumb. The judge is making his own allegations about the damaging impression that Apple has caused without providing any evidence. Apple hasn't advertised that Samsung has infringed their design, they sued them and they had every right to. Is the judge asserting that Apple shouldn't have raised the lawsuit? It's such a ridiculous decision that it should result in him being removed from his job.
Birss determined that Samsung's products, including the Galaxy Tab, are distinctive from Apple, as they are thinner and have "unusual details" on the back.
Interesting how he made the opposite decision in another case:
"Judge Birss QC, found for the claimant, as he found "the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work."
Birss held that, while some aspects of the claimants' work were absent from the offending image, sufficient aspects were present to constitute copyright infringement."
Not only does the Galaxy Tab clearly take design cues from the iPad as evidenced by Samsung's UMPC designs before the iPad and subsequent designs after the iPad, Samsung reproduces a substantial amount of Apple's designs as evidenced by most of their products:
It's been said before, but again: their would be NO touch Smartphones, Tablets or Ultrabooks anywhere, without Apple leading the way first with their products.
But it has only been said by the uniformed or those trying to manipulate history to make a point.
Any informed person would be aware that there were touch-screen* smartphones long before Apple entered the phone area and that there were tablets that (from a distance </S>) looked like the ipad long before 2010. That is not to say that they have had a significant impact on both markets.
Just because people publish selective photos showing phones pre and post 2007 it doesn't make it fact.
*Copyright of this term is not officially owned by Apple
The decision reached reeks of bias. I wonder what would happen if their appeal fails and they don't comply.
Whilst not dismissing your points, why do you think that the judge would be biased?
I am not sure what the result of non compliance would be but ultimately the "head" of Apple UK might be found to be in contempt of court and imprisoned. I shouldn't imagine that Apple would want that kind of PR
Any informed person would be aware that there were touch-screen* smartphones long before Apple entered the phone area and that there were tablets that (from a distance </S>) looked like the ipad long before 2010.
They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this:
[VIDEO]
That's not even close, nor is it in the same class of device. Microsoft makes an interesting claim here though:
[VIDEO]
But you will note that the iTablet never tried to mimic the iPad even after the iPad came out. Samsung tried to make the experience on their device almost identical to the iPad with their design, which extends to the accessories. Samsung's earlier efforts looked like this:
Whilst not dismissing your points, why do you think that the judge would be biased?
The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
I am not sure what the result of non compliance would be but ultimately the "head" of Apple UK might be found to be in contempt of court and imprisoned. I shouldn't imagine that Apple would want that kind of PR
I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME. NO. NO. I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS. I HAD TO DOWNLOAD FLASH TO UPLOAD THAT IMAGE FROM MY COMPUTER. PLUS, I HAD TO GO TO A SECOND PAGE WHERE I HAD TO TELL IT THE SIZE I WANTED (INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE IMAGE, LIKE I WOULD ALWAYS WANT IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE) AND HAD TO CLICK A BOX THAT SAID I WASN'T POSTING ANYTHING INFRINGING (WHICH I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AS IT'S A FREAKING INTERNET FORUM).
They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this: The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?
Hi marvin
I agree that that the t226 device looks quite different but the earlier t221 (capacitive version) does look like the white ipad. Yes i am aware that apple had already made (unseen) prototypes but these would have not been part of the public domain. So if iTablet managed to make iPad look-a-likes even before Apple then it is conceivable that Samsung weren't drawing their inspiration exclusively from Apple.
I do agree that the images that you posted of the samsung power lead suggest that someone was taking the pee but I guess that is not proof positive as far as the judge was concerned
It's a matter of semantics but the judge isn't insisting on a global response but you are correct that compliance will end up becoming global. I still fail to see how it equates to advertising.
I might well be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws. I have no idea of the extent to which Apple have publicly defamed Samsung but they do have the filings of an earlier case on their site where they make the "slavish" claim. Incidentally lines such as "Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control." probably do not help their cases, if I were a judge i would consider that someone were not be totally honest.. Had the Aple team used such techniques during the case then it might explain the sarcastic "cool" remark.
Sure, Samsung shouldn't be allowed to copy Apple. Apple was so sure they would win their case they had to use Photoshopped evidence. Bravo, Apple, bravo. You say this heavily mangled image looks like this other heavily mangled image ? You're Apple, you must have the monopoly on quality.
What you fansheep fail to remember is Steve Jobs stole everything his company started on, straight from Xerox. So if you want to accuse Samsung of copying products, why don't you have Apple return all its stolen ideas first?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I'm just going on all the iPads I sell and the fact that we never bothered restocking Tabs because no-one ever asks for them.
That is exactly why Apple's efforts in court are so laughable. They need to pick their battles instead of wasting time and resources on these loser cases.
I suspect that Apple knows what they're doing more than you do.
In the end, look at the results. Put a Samsung Tab next to the original iPad. That was the situation before Apple filed suit. Now, put the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone 4S. Apple appears to have achieved its goal of getting Samsung to stop copying.
Now that Jerrytroll's idiocy is out of the way, let's get back to the original topic. Reuters reports the following:
"The judge, however, rejected Samsung's request that Apple be forbidden from continuing to claim that its design rights had been infringed, saying that Apple was entitled to hold the opinion, the news agency said."
I can't quite reconcile an order telling Apple to publish that Samsung did not copy the iPad but at the same time allowing Apple to continue to claim that it's design rights had been infringed. The entire order doesn't make any sense.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
So Phil, I've asked this before of others and I'm curious to know what your response would be. If you had designed a product and patented the design - then went to a manufacturer to source parts for this product, then months later see this company's product come to market looking suspiciously like your product that they supplied parts for - how would you feel and what would you do? Would you simply shrug your shoulders and say they can just do whatever they want?
As a patent holder myself, I will defend my patents against any and all infringement - which is something you have to do if you want to maintain your patent.
Your assertion that samsung copied the ipad at the manufacturing stage is pure crap. First, apple is one of the most secretive companies EVER. I doubt most of their employees knew what the ipad looked like before it was released. Why would Samsung have to know what it was going to look like in advance? They manufacture what... the screens, the processors, and the flash. You don't need to know what the shell of a device looks like to manufacture any of these parts, and they're all commodity parts (the processor is a bit different, but it's essentially the same as a commodity processor, but contains apple's IP that is not resold to other vendors). I doubt most of Apple's internal designers (designing the logic board etc) even knew what the device would look like, but had a set of specifications they had to try and meet. Do you really think apple was dumb enough to ship samsung the shell of an ipad months or years before the ipad's relase? The only manufacturer who was likely to know what it looked like in advance would be foxconn who manufactured the actual device, and they aren't involved in this lawsuit.
As far as the design of the ipad... It's essentially the design of a touch screen smart phone (that many different companies have made, some concepts even before apple) blown up into a larger form factor. No one else made it first, mostly due to the lack of a software infrastructure to use, because it was clear with the old tablets that the Windows OS was not (at the time) designed for tablet use, and the model had to be different. It wasn't until google made android work on tablets (an obvious extension) that competitors could come to market. But as for the actual look of the product... What design there is patented? Unless you want to argue that a rectangle with a large screen and a flat surface is patentable... This isn't much different than many existing laptop screens, and old tablets had a similar look and feel from the front (when in tablet mode), but yes, the OS was largely different, and the device itself was much thicker and bulkier (computer technology has minaturized components, I bet you think apple should be able to patent the fact that computer devices can get smaller over time too). But, if you put those devices into a box with the screen facing outward, and it turned off, from 10-15 feet the front would look like an ipad... Apple wants to be able to put design patents on their hardware for their simplistic designs, but when you make the HW so simplistic in design, there's little room to patent the hardware's look and feel, because it's little more than a flat rectangle. They can patent the software to use it (and they have and are fighting that), but the hardware design? Might as well patent the look and feel of a piece of paper. Apple's devices were not made without prior attempts by other companies coming along first. The difference is the other companies failed where apple did not. If those companies were sueing apple over the look and feel of the ipad, you'd say they were just sour that they lost, and money trying to steal apple's hard earned money, and you'd be right. In the same regards, apple is trying to patent a look of a device, but because they're the behmouth they are, they might get away with it.
Phil
Why spend the money to appeal when Apple could post something funny similar to the following:
Judge Rules that Samsung Tablet "not as cool" as Apple iPad.
A recent decision by Judge xxxx ruled that Apple is not entitled to legal patent protection against the Samsung Tablet because it is "not as cool" as the Apple iPad. While Apple believes that it is obvious to any impartial observer that the Samsung is a poor attempt to create a cheap knock-off of the iPad's design, we do take comfort in the Judge's legal finding that the Samsung Tablet's ripped-off design is still not a "cool" as the iPad. While we always felt that our tablet was cool, it is nice to now have legal precedent for our belief.
I can understand the lack of infringement but the conclusion is dumb. The judge is making his own allegations about the damaging impression that Apple has caused without providing any evidence. Apple hasn't advertised that Samsung has infringed their design, they sued them and they had every right to. Is the judge asserting that Apple shouldn't have raised the lawsuit? It's such a ridiculous decision that it should result in him being removed from his job.
Interesting how he made the opposite decision in another case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Teas
"Judge Birss QC, found for the claimant, as he found "the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work."
Birss held that, while some aspects of the claimants' work were absent from the offending image, sufficient aspects were present to constitute copyright infringement."
Not only does the Galaxy Tab clearly take design cues from the iPad as evidenced by Samsung's UMPC designs before the iPad and subsequent designs after the iPad, Samsung reproduces a substantial amount of Apple's designs as evidenced by most of their products:
http://www.mactrast.com/2011/09/samsungs-imitation-of-apple-products-is-just-too-obvious/
The decision reached reeks of bias. I wonder what would happen if their appeal fails and they don't comply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Not by comparison this socialist shit hole. I spend much time in both places. My preference by far is California.
In fairness, I do like the bikini-clad women and the weather, generally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
It's been said before, but again: their would be NO touch Smartphones, Tablets or Ultrabooks anywhere, without Apple leading the way first with their products.
But it has only been said by the uniformed or those trying to manipulate history to make a point.
Any informed person would be aware that there were touch-screen* smartphones long before Apple entered the phone area and that there were tablets that (from a distance </S>) looked like the ipad long before 2010. That is not to say that they have had a significant impact on both markets.
Just because people publish selective photos showing phones pre and post 2007 it doesn't make it fact.
*Copyright of this term is not officially owned by Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Nice try. See earlier prototypes from Apple, 2002 ~ 2004………….
I dont see your point... Are you suggesting that Samsung were privvy to those protoypes? And that they waited a decade to "copy" the said prototypes.
Why are you unwilling to accept that Samsung may have been influeneced by more than one source?
Or are you suggesting that iTablet stole the overall look from Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Not by comparison this socialist shit hole. I spend much time in both places. My preference by far is California.
I think that this is first time that I have ever heard of anyone referring to Lord Snooty's government as socialist....
Wow, do find the Daily Mail too left wing???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The decision reached reeks of bias. I wonder what would happen if their appeal fails and they don't comply.
Whilst not dismissing your points, why do you think that the judge would be biased?
I am not sure what the result of non compliance would be but ultimately the "head" of Apple UK might be found to be in contempt of court and imprisoned. I shouldn't imagine that Apple would want that kind of PR
They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this:
[VIDEO]
That's not even close, nor is it in the same class of device. Microsoft makes an interesting claim here though:
[VIDEO]
But you will note that the iTablet never tried to mimic the iPad even after the iPad came out. Samsung tried to make the experience on their device almost identical to the iPad with their design, which extends to the accessories. Samsung's earlier efforts looked like this:
[VIDEO]
The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Yes, Barrister?
It's official: Got a screen shot of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
It's official: Got a screen shot of it.
Man, people are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Yes, Barrister?
I was thinking more this:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME. NO. NO. I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS. I HAD TO DOWNLOAD FLASH TO UPLOAD THAT IMAGE FROM MY COMPUTER. PLUS, I HAD TO GO TO A SECOND PAGE WHERE I HAD TO TELL IT THE SIZE I WANTED (INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE IMAGE, LIKE I WOULD ALWAYS WANT IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE) AND HAD TO CLICK A BOX THAT SAID I WASN'T POSTING ANYTHING INFRINGING (WHICH I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AS IT'S A FREAKING INTERNET FORUM).
NO. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, HUDDLER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They should also be aware that they behaved nothing like them too and they actually didn't look anywhere near as similar as Samsung products do. The iTablet looked like this:
The conclusion points to this. It's a vindictive ruling that isn't backed by evidence, which suggests there's a personal motivation. The judge has no evidence that Apple has left a damaging impression about Samsung so there's no reason to issue a ruling that Apple should advertise online (i.e globally) stating that Samsung hasn't infringed on their design when other parts of the world agree they have.
I doubt the UK government would want PR that suggests judges are issuing personally motivated rulings without evidence. There's no way they'd imprison one of Apple's staff for refusing to advertise a competitor's product when they didn't advertise that Samsung copied them in the first place. The appeal will succeed because it's a stupid, baseless ruling and hopefully action will be taken against the judge. Even his suggestion about the Galaxy Tab not being cool enough to infringe is unprofessional and can be seen as damaging to Samsung. Is the judge going to be forced to put up a website saying that his remarks about the Galaxy Tab being uncool were defamatory and damaging?
Hi marvin
I agree that that the t226 device looks quite different but the earlier t221 (capacitive version) does look like the white ipad. Yes i am aware that apple had already made (unseen) prototypes but these would have not been part of the public domain. So if iTablet managed to make iPad look-a-likes even before Apple then it is conceivable that Samsung weren't drawing their inspiration exclusively from Apple.
I do agree that the images that you posted of the samsung power lead suggest that someone was taking the pee but I guess that is not proof positive as far as the judge was concerned
It's a matter of semantics but the judge isn't insisting on a global response but you are correct that compliance will end up becoming global. I still fail to see how it equates to advertising.
I might well be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws. I have no idea of the extent to which Apple have publicly defamed Samsung but they do have the filings of an earlier case on their site where they make the "slavish" claim. Incidentally lines such as "Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control." probably do not help their cases, if I were a judge i would consider that someone were not be totally honest.. Had the Aple team used such techniques during the case then it might explain the sarcastic "cool" remark.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
I might well be wrong but I don't believe that the "evidence" offered in court is exempt from libel or slander laws.
Cool precedent if it is not exempt, better than the US's 5th Amendment.
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may make me liable to libel or slander laws, I refer to Apple vs Samsung, your worship."
At least it will make a change from the "I cannot recall" response when people don't want to answer questions in court.
What you fansheep fail to remember is Steve Jobs stole everything his company started on, straight from Xerox. So if you want to accuse Samsung of copying products, why don't you have Apple return all its stolen ideas first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreadSlayer
Abject nonsense, posted ad infinitum
No, you're not a thread slayer. You're not even a bad troll. Our bad trolls here are better than this crap.
Come back when you have an actual argument.