The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:
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.
Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.
If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art. Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them. Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.
Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art. Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them. Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.
Prior art my foot. *insert every prior art argument here*
The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:
Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.
If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Apple's site is the 36th most visited website on the internet:
The presence of a competitor's product to a portion of that amount of traffic is advertising.
If there's no evidence provided, their allegations could be slander but they provided plenty examples of Samsung's infringing practises.
Hi
Re the itablet, I appreciate that it was much thicker, not suprising when you consider that it was made in 2007. I was referring more to the rounded rectangle with a border rather than the whole package.
I must admit that I had not realised that the icons in the grid were samsung's own, I'd assumed that they were the stock andriod ones.
Not having any legal training, I'd thought that it was the job of the claimant to prove that consumers would be confused into buying the defendant's product (thinking that it was the claimant's). Mirroring the case of Apple Corps Vs Apple, where Apple argued that as they had no presence in the music industry and thus as such there was no harm to Apple Corp.
Whilst apple have been told to add a page to their site, they haven't been told to add a hyperlink to samsung, nor have they been ordered to give that page any special positioning. I guess they will just have a single page that one has to actively search for.
Slander, I don't know enough about the details of the case but would assume that by virtue of the fact that they lost the case (rightly or wrongly) they have maligned samsung (as far as the judge is concerned). Judges are human, they don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, IF apple went down the "we invented the smartphone and tablet" path then the judge would doubt their probity and possibly give less weight to the honest statements.
I was referring more to the rounded rectangle with a border rather than the whole package.
That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.
The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
Slander, I don't know enough about the details of the case but would assume that by virtue of the fact that they lost the case (rightly or wrongly) they have maligned samsung (as far as the judge is concerned).
The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:
Judges are human, they don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, IF apple went down the "we invented the smartphone and tablet" path then the judge would doubt their probity and possibly give less weight to the honest statements.
Apple had every right to make those claims. Everybody who was alive in the past 6 years could see the impact the products they made have had.
In 6 years, they went from $300m profit per quarter to $13b to become the most profitable company in the world and most of it from iOS devices:
You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.
Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.
That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.
The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:
You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.
Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.
I am second guessing here, but.. the judge would be willing to accept that Apple changed the phone landscape. That doesn't give them the right to rewrite history though.
I have not responded to the slander stuff, sorry, I don't know enough about it.
Chalk this up as a win for common sense!! I believe it was nothing more than Apple being spiteful after a failed attempt to buy the Super AMOLED screen from Samsung on the cheap. Besides, how many different ways can you make a rectangle?
"...make a rectangle"? You make it sound like Apple is trying to patent/copyright simple geometry. It's silly oversimplifications like this which end up sounding the most petty and spiteful...
As for wanting AMOLED screens, I believe Apple already decided a long time ago that it was going in a different direction (retina tech)… I don't think we'll be seeing retina AMOLED for a very long time.
I am second guessing here, but.. the judge would be willing to accept that Apple changed the phone landscape. That doesn't give them the right to rewrite history though.
I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?
Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.
I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?
Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.
Sorry Marvin, i didn't explain myself very clearly, by re-writing history I was pooh-poohing any suggestion that there were no smartphones prior to the iphone. Regardless of the validity of one's case, one doesn't have the right to make such claims and IMO doing so makes one seem less honest. As a lay person, based on my partial reading of the PDF they have a good case, it is a shame that they feel it necessary to embellish the truth in such a brazen way.
Seems quite fair to me. Apple must have known that this could be a possible outcome and after seeing both devices I would agree Samsung has not copied to iPad to a large enough extent. Yes there are similarities but the 2 devices ultimately look different. In the same way that you get lots of furniture that's very similar or tvs, bikes basically any category you look at there's lots of things that are very similar but ultimately different / different enough that there not breaking any rules.
I was pooh-poohing any suggestion that there were no smartphones prior to the iphone. Regardless of the validity of one's case, one doesn't have the right to make such claims and IMO doing so makes one seem less honest. As a lay person, based on my partial reading of the PDF they have a good case, it is a shame that they feel it necessary to embellish the truth in such a brazen way.
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
I see that claim as simply taking a bit of literary license.
Entymology is an exceptionally important part of AI discussions. If we couldn't pick apart each others' posts word for word we might accidentally find out that in general we have more in common than we wish to admit. Can you imagine how that would affect the forums? What would we do with all the built up ad-hom pressure, kick the dog instead?
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
You must have missed this from my earlier post "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." There was another similar line. Will post back with it later, in the middle of doing something else. Cheers
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.
Apple fanboy mad?
I love the way you yell without bothering to refute what I said, the truth. You're the better troll, troll! nya nya!
Apple stole the design of the GUI, mouse included, from XEROX PARC when Steve toured the facility. Like the jerk he was, Steve even insulted the designs he saw...right before he copied them.
Indeed. There is no way Apple can really do this without looking completely weak and foolish.
"Under mandate from Judge (whomever) we are legally required to post this notice that the said Judge has ruled that Samsung did not legally copy our products in violation of our design patents. We saw, let the public decide for themselves if they want the iPad, or a tablet "not as cool" by the same Judge"
They fill the order, never say themselves that Samsung was innocent or even guilty and still make Samsung look bad with that cool quote.
"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"
but Apple has done no such thing. They filed a lawsuit. It was the blogs etc talking about that suit that did all the yelling.
Steve Jobs called the Android software a 'stolen' product but he never yelled about the OEMs in such a way.
And Samsung hasn't proven their claims that the filing of the suit or the Apple FanBoy blogs really hurt sales. I mean it's not like they had 90% of the tablet share while Apple had 10% and then Apple started bad mouthing and it changed.
Comments
I still don't think it looks that much like it:
http://m.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/?icid=eng_ItabletT221_art
The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:
Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.
If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Apple's site is the 36th most visited website on the internet:
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/
The presence of a competitor's product to a portion of that amount of traffic is advertising.
If there's no evidence provided, their allegations could be slander but they provided plenty examples of Samsung's infringing practises.
Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art. Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them. Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
Not supporting Samsung but it is all prior art. Just look at all the tablet devices on Star Trek TNG and the iPad looks like "some" of them. Apple was just able to take the tablet mainstream when no one else could.
Prior art my foot. *insert every prior art argument here*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I still don't think it looks that much like it:
http://m.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/?icid=eng_ItabletT221_art
The thickness is different, it has a stylus, the UI is not the same (Apple points to Samsung using similar icons) and it weighs 1kg. It's about 3x the thickness and double the weight. There's no way one could be mistaken for the other. This is not the case with the Galaxy Tab:
Of course, but there's no denying that Apple was the primary influence otherwise the Galaxy Tab would like more like the iTablet than the iPad. It even extends to the packaging.
If Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their cables, ports and plugs wouldn't be the same, their UI and icons wouldn't be the same, their packaging wouldn't be the same, their in-store advertising wouldn't be the same and their hardware would look closer to their earlier products. None of this is true so either it's a pretty big coincidence or Samsung slavishly copied Apple's design.
Apple's site is the 36th most visited website on the internet:
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/
The presence of a competitor's product to a portion of that amount of traffic is advertising.
If there's no evidence provided, their allegations could be slander but they provided plenty examples of Samsung's infringing practises.
Hi
Re the itablet, I appreciate that it was much thicker, not suprising when you consider that it was made in 2007. I was referring more to the rounded rectangle with a border rather than the whole package.
I must admit that I had not realised that the icons in the grid were samsung's own, I'd assumed that they were the stock andriod ones.
Not having any legal training, I'd thought that it was the job of the claimant to prove that consumers would be confused into buying the defendant's product (thinking that it was the claimant's). Mirroring the case of Apple Corps Vs Apple, where Apple argued that as they had no presence in the music industry and thus as such there was no harm to Apple Corp.
Whilst apple have been told to add a page to their site, they haven't been told to add a hyperlink to samsung, nor have they been ordered to give that page any special positioning. I guess they will just have a single page that one has to actively search for.
Slander, I don't know enough about the details of the case but would assume that by virtue of the fact that they lost the case (rightly or wrongly) they have maligned samsung (as far as the judge is concerned). Judges are human, they don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, IF apple went down the "we invented the smartphone and tablet" path then the judge would doubt their probity and possibly give less weight to the honest statements.
That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.
The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-false-rape-accusation-considered-slander--335806.html
"Defamation requires proof that incorrect statements of fact, not opinion, were made to third parties and that it caused harm"
Apple has not publicly made any statements about Samsung and any references they put online have substantial evidence to back them up.
Apple had every right to make those claims. Everybody who was alive in the past 6 years could see the impact the products they made have had.
In 6 years, they went from $300m profit per quarter to $13b to become the most profitable company in the world and most of it from iOS devices:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/
You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.
Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's not just what the case is about though. The PDF you posted goes way beyond just the appearance of the display. Android fans like to dismiss this on the grounds that Apple is trying to protect a patent for a rounded rectangle but it's much more than that. Other tablets look like rounded rectangles, many look closer to the iPad than the Galaxy Tab.
The iTablet screen is probably the closest visually to the iPad screen out of any classical tablet that predated it but the white capacitive screen wasn't covered with glass. The black one, which looked like the iPad was pen-input only.
The judge would have to provide evidence that Samsung has been harmed. If the accusations were known to be false then it's slander but they weren't and have been upheld elsewhere:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-false-rape-accusation-considered-slander--335806.html
"Defamation requires proof that incorrect statements of fact, not opinion, were made to third parties and that it caused harm"
Apple has not publicly made any statements about Samsung and any references they put online have substantial evidence to back them up.
Apple had every right to make those claims. Everybody who was alive in the past 6 years could see the impact the products they made have had.
In 6 years, they went from $300m profit per quarter to $13b to become the most profitable company in the world and most of it from iOS devices:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/
You don't have that level of success unless you do something ground-breaking. I remember what phones and tablets were like before iOS and they were all terrible. Not one of them indicated in the slightest that we'd end up where we are now. Apple defined the entire multi-touch genre of mobile devices not matter how much people don't like hearing it.
Google knew this and they ripped them off in software. Samsung knew this and they ripped them off in hardware.
I am second guessing here, but.. the judge would be willing to accept that Apple changed the phone landscape. That doesn't give them the right to rewrite history though.
I have not responded to the slander stuff, sorry, I don't know enough about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun
Chalk this up as a win for common sense!! I believe it was nothing more than Apple being spiteful after a failed attempt to buy the Super AMOLED screen from Samsung on the cheap. Besides, how many different ways can you make a rectangle?
"...make a rectangle"? You make it sound like Apple is trying to patent/copyright simple geometry. It's silly oversimplifications like this which end up sounding the most petty and spiteful...
As for wanting AMOLED screens, I believe Apple already decided a long time ago that it was going in a different direction (retina tech)… I don't think we'll be seeing retina AMOLED for a very long time.
I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?
Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't see where they are rewriting history. They are saying that Samsung took too much inspiration from their products in developing their own and back it up with numerous examples. If it was just about the shape of the display, their stance would be weak but it's not just about that. What history is being ammended here?
Let's assume that Samsung used the iTablet as a design reference. How does it account for everything other than the display? They even copied the idea of Apple's proprietary 30-pin port.
Sorry Marvin, i didn't explain myself very clearly, by re-writing history I was pooh-poohing any suggestion that there were no smartphones prior to the iphone. Regardless of the validity of one's case, one doesn't have the right to make such claims and IMO doing so makes one seem less honest. As a lay person, based on my partial reading of the PDF they have a good case, it is a shame that they feel it necessary to embellish the truth in such a brazen way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
…different enough that there not breaking any rules.
See, that's Samsung's only argument. And by virtue of that being the argument, they are copying. Inherently. Purposefully.
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
I think he's mixing court filings, which confuses things. I suspect he's referencing this one, claim 1 under "The Nature of the Action". http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf
I see that claim as simply taking a bit of literary license.
Entymology is an exceptionally important part of AI discussions. If we couldn't pick apart each others' posts word for word we might accidentally find out that in general we have more in common than we wish to admit. Can you imagine how that would affect the forums? What would we do with all the built up ad-hom pressure, kick the dog instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Where did they say there were no smartphones prior to the iPhone? The PDF says:
"The iPhone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It has a distinctive shape and appearance—a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners, a metallic edge, a large display screen bordered at the top and bottom with substantial black segments, and a selection of colorful square icons with rounded corners that mirror the rounded corners of the iPhone itself, and which are the embodiment of Apple’s innovative iPhone user interface. As shown below, the end result is an elegant product that is more accessible, easier to use, and much less technically intimidating than previously available smart phones and PDAs. The iPhone product design immediately became closely associated with Apple."
There's no suggestion that the iPhone was the first smartphone.
You must have missed this from my earlier post "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." There was another similar line. Will post back with it later, in the middle of doing something else. Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Apple fanboy mad?
I love the way you yell without bothering to refute what I said, the truth. You're the better troll, troll! nya nya!
Apple stole the design of the GUI, mouse included, from XEROX PARC when Steve toured the facility. Like the jerk he was, Steve even insulted the designs he saw...right before he copied them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?
He would appeal, just as Tim will.
That said, I'm not sure any Judge would have the balls to overstep like this if Steve were still alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Indeed. There is no way Apple can really do this without looking completely weak and foolish.
"Under mandate from Judge (whomever) we are legally required to post this notice that the said Judge has ruled that Samsung did not legally copy our products in violation of our design patents. We saw, let the public decide for themselves if they want the iPad, or a tablet "not as cool" by the same Judge"
They fill the order, never say themselves that Samsung was innocent or even guilty and still make Samsung look bad with that cool quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al
This is completely stupid. Time for the Queen to use some of her theoretical reserve powers and intervene!
Samsung will scream biased saying that she uses an iPad herself
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Well when you go all about the place saying
"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"
but Apple has done no such thing. They filed a lawsuit. It was the blogs etc talking about that suit that did all the yelling.
Steve Jobs called the Android software a 'stolen' product but he never yelled about the OEMs in such a way.
And Samsung hasn't proven their claims that the filing of the suit or the Apple FanBoy blogs really hurt sales. I mean it's not like they had 90% of the tablet share while Apple had 10% and then Apple started bad mouthing and it changed.