True but many of their patents are nonsense and vague.
...and that's exactly what I'm pointing out: even Apple, regardless of the patents they have...more than likely thinks the whole USPTO-thing is absolute nonsense.
However, in many cases time and again... Apple is the first to use any of their patented processes in an actual product, regardless of how stupid, vague and/or all-encompassing the patent is. That's their advantage, not necessarily the patents.
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.
A Funny fact: Apple was the very first company to integrate USB ports on their computers. They were the first to also NOT include them on a "computer", the iPad. It is now the Tech Geeks calling Apple idiots for dropping USB, when they probably wouldn't even have SCSI-2 yet if left to the other manufacturers.
Their always has to be a leader... and for +30 years, that has always been Apple.
...and that's exactly what I'm pointing out: even Apple, regardless of the patents they have...more than likely thinks the whole USPTO-thing is absolute nonsense.
However, in many cases time and again... Apple is the first to use any of their patented processes in an actual product, regardless of how stupid, vague and/or all-encompassing the patent is. That's their advantage, not necessarily the patents.
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.
A Funny fact: Apple was the very first company to integrate USB ports on their computers. They were the first to also NOT include them on a "computer", the iPad. It is now the Tech Geeks calling Apple idiots for dropping USB, when they probably wouldn't even have SCSI-2 yet if left to the other manufacturers.
Their always has to be a leader... and for +30 years, that has always been Apple.
There were tablets way before Apple released the iPad though. It's not like their design is particularly unique.
It will be appealed. And, the more this keeps up and the more time it takes, the more forcefully it will remind people that Samsung is a cheap copier, a failed one at that (in tablets).
Newspapers do it as a result of a voluntary code, and occasionally as the result of losing a libel case. But "quite common" is a bit of a stretch. I can't think of one example. Presumably you have many?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Barely a month goes by without someone suing one or more of the newspapers for libel. I'm not saying they always win but if they do they usually have to publish an apology. Nothing to do with that waste of space PCC voluntary code which has been shown to be a sham by the Leveson Inquiry.
I suppose the last big one I can think of is Christopher Jefferies successfully suing a number of newspapers for libel last year over the Joanna Yates murder. I guess you don't remember that case - it is was only the lead news story for days across TV and the Press here. I'm sure I could find a lot more celebrity cases if I could be bothered to Google it but I'll leave that to you.
While I'm sure you are absolutely correct about the newspaper libel cases, the difference here is that Apple has not been sued for libel (or slander, which I think is what is implied here). Are you suggesting that if you lose a civil case in British courts then you are, by definition, guilty of defamation for bringing it in the first place, and, even worse, will be penalized proactively by the judge in that case, without any need for an action by the successful defendant? I don't believe that is a correct interpretation of British law.
There were touchscreen phones before the iPhone. There were high-res displays before the iPad 3 and Retina MBP. There were laptops before the Macbook Air. Blah blah blah.
You claim Apple's patents are vague, but your comments are vague as well. Only reason I can think of is you're trying to troll again instead of actually having a reasonable discussion.
A Funny fact: Apple was the very first company to integrate USB ports on their computers. They were the first to also NOT include them on a "computer", the iPad. .
Your Funny 'fact' is wrong. Apple was not the first to integrate USB into their computers. A number of other manufacturers offered USB at the time.
Apple MAY have been the first to drop serial and parallel ports (or, in Apple's case, ADB ports) and rely exclusively on USB, but that's quite different than what you claimed. You might also argue that they popularized USB (within weeks after the iMac's launch, almost everyone was selling bondi blue keyboards and mice), but again, they were not the first to use USB.
Of course, your other 'fact' is also not correct. The iPad was not the first computer-like device to drop USB. Apple's Newton used Apple's 8 pin serial port instead of USB. There were other PDAs that did not use USB, as well.
And that too, speech outside Britain? Good luck trying.
I was laughing my a** off at that post. He's off his rocker.
You were saying?
Quote:
Legislation to protect its citizens from British libel laws will be voted on this week by a Senate judiciary committee in the US. The bill was drawn up after a series of high-profile cases in which American writers and publishers have been successfully sued in the High Court in London after just a few copies of their books or articles were sold in Britain or read on the internet.
What facts are you talking about exactly? You mean the convertible tablet/laptops on the market before the iPad. Yes, you're right. Apple copied them lock stock and barrel. And let's not give Apple any credit for the mouse or the personal computer or a GUI - because, well because they are Apple and we don't like them. I mean the facts don't prove anything. And any anecdotal or assumptive arguments about Samsung copying Apple are complete rubbish. Samsung's products that look like Apple products released before them are purely coincidental. And to top that off, it doesn't even matter if they copied Apple, because, well because what other shape would a phone or tablet have...
When I first saw a Galaxy Tab from a distance, I thought for a moment it was an iPad… then immediately thought, oh, something's weird with that one (because it seemed longer, due to its 16:9 dimensions). Other than that, it and their nexus phone could both be mistaken for Apple products at a glance.
That kind of blatant copying of design and finishing style is now OK apparently……? "look-alike" products, not a problem, eh?
SO what's the point of a trademark, copyright or patent then?
the key word here is "from a distance". After examining the product, it was clear it was not an ipad. Did you really think it was an ipad because it looked identical to the ipad, or because the VAST majority of tablets that anyone will see anywhere are iPads. From a distance, all touch-screen tablets are going to have a similar design. There's a big screen that you touch, a headphone jack, a possible volume control button, and likely a button or two that have to be on the edge of the case (where else would you click it?) From the same distance, all cars of the same size can start to look the same. Look at the average dashboard of a car... The layout is very similar from one car to another .. . not because of blatant copying, but because people expect this to be the case. Of course, cars are much bigger, and have many more externally visible features than a tablet, so they will look less similar.
Seeing lawsuits like this, it is clear that apple wants the courts to crush all of their competition (if this design patent holds up, very few tablets will ever be allowed because from 15 feet away (especially when turned off), they're going to look identical (at least from the front). I'm sorry, but there's only so many ways to arrange a screen.
Despite the fact that I've loved the apple ecosystem in the past, apple's actions regarding their competitors, and their sheer arrogance as they've grown into the behomouth that they are make me hesitant to purchase more apple products. Sadly, the competition has failed to really offer compelling products, but hopefully that will start to change. It's not that different from the days when MS windows was your only option for a computer.
the key word here is "from a distance". After examining the product, it was clear it was not an ipad. Did you really think it was an ipad because it looked identical to the ipad, or because the VAST majority of tablets that anyone will see anywhere are iPads. From a distance, all touch-screen tablets are going to have a similar design. There's a big screen that you touch, a headphone jack, a possible volume control button, and likely a button or two that have to be on the edge of the case (where else would you click it?) From the same distance, all cars of the same size can start to look the same. Look at the average dashboard of a car... The layout is very similar from one car to another .. . not because of blatant copying, but because people expect this to be the case. Of course, cars are much bigger, and have many more externally visible features than a tablet, so they will look less similar.
Seeing lawsuits like this, it is clear that apple wants the courts to crush all of their competition (if this design patent holds up, very few tablets will ever be allowed because from 15 feet away (especially when turned off), they're going to look identical (at least from the front). I'm sorry, but there's only so many ways to arrange a screen.
Despite the fact that I've loved the apple ecosystem in the past, apple's actions regarding their competitors, and their sheer arrogance as they've grown into the behomouth that they are make me hesitant to purchase more apple products. Sadly, the competition has failed to really offer compelling products, but hopefully that will start to change. It's not that different from the days when MS windows was your only option for a computer.
Phil
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
True but many of their patents are nonsense and vague.
You really need to take that up with the patent issuers, who, apparently, disagreed with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
British libel laws - as draconian as they are - have never been used against anonymous posters to my knowledge.
And that too, speech outside Britain? Good luck trying.
I was laughing my a** off at that post. He's off his rocker.
...and that's exactly what I'm pointing out: even Apple, regardless of the patents they have...more than likely thinks the whole USPTO-thing is absolute nonsense.
However, in many cases time and again... Apple is the first to use any of their patented processes in an actual product, regardless of how stupid, vague and/or all-encompassing the patent is. That's their advantage, not necessarily the patents.
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.
A Funny fact: Apple was the very first company to integrate USB ports on their computers. They were the first to also NOT include them on a "computer", the iPad. It is now the Tech Geeks calling Apple idiots for dropping USB, when they probably wouldn't even have SCSI-2 yet if left to the other manufacturers.
Their always has to be a leader... and for +30 years, that has always been Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You really need to take that up with the patent issuers, who, apparently, disagreed with you.
Well the judge didn't....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
...and that's exactly what I'm pointing out: even Apple, regardless of the patents they have...more than likely thinks the whole USPTO-thing is absolute nonsense.
However, in many cases time and again... Apple is the first to use any of their patented processes in an actual product, regardless of how stupid, vague and/or all-encompassing the patent is. That's their advantage, not necessarily the patents.
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.
A Funny fact: Apple was the very first company to integrate USB ports on their computers. They were the first to also NOT include them on a "computer", the iPad. It is now the Tech Geeks calling Apple idiots for dropping USB, when they probably wouldn't even have SCSI-2 yet if left to the other manufacturers.
Their always has to be a leader... and for +30 years, that has always been Apple.
There were tablets way before Apple released the iPad though. It's not like their design is particularly unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Well the judge didn't....
It will be appealed. And, the more this keeps up and the more time it takes, the more forcefully it will remind people that Samsung is a cheap copier, a failed one at that (in tablets).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
their would be NO touch Smartphones, Tablets or Ultrabooks anywhere, without Apple leading the way first with their products...
LG Prada?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
There were tablets way before Apple released the iPad though. It's not like their design is particularly unique.
Don't regurgitate this tired, old, nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Stuff like this makes "British justice" an oxymoron.
What a foolish, laughable judge!
Yet I'm sure he is much more respected that some keyboard warrior on a internet forum such as yourself. What have you accomplished in your life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Don't regurgitate this tired, old, nonsense.
Why because you can't argue with facts?
While I'm sure you are absolutely correct about the newspaper libel cases, the difference here is that Apple has not been sued for libel (or slander, which I think is what is implied here). Are you suggesting that if you lose a civil case in British courts then you are, by definition, guilty of defamation for bringing it in the first place, and, even worse, will be penalized proactively by the judge in that case, without any need for an action by the successful defendant? I don't believe that is a correct interpretation of British law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Why because you can't argue with facts?
There were touchscreen phones before the iPhone. There were high-res displays before the iPad 3 and Retina MBP. There were laptops before the Macbook Air. Blah blah blah.
You claim Apple's patents are vague, but your comments are vague as well. Only reason I can think of is you're trying to troll again instead of actually having a reasonable discussion.
You're right! They're like deer caught in headlights ... SpamSandwich, fedarooney, gone forever, too! It's almost too easy :-)
Your Funny 'fact' is wrong. Apple was not the first to integrate USB into their computers. A number of other manufacturers offered USB at the time.
Apple MAY have been the first to drop serial and parallel ports (or, in Apple's case, ADB ports) and rely exclusively on USB, but that's quite different than what you claimed. You might also argue that they popularized USB (within weeks after the iMac's launch, almost everyone was selling bondi blue keyboards and mice), but again, they were not the first to use USB.
Of course, your other 'fact' is also not correct. The iPad was not the first computer-like device to drop USB. Apple's Newton used Apple's 8 pin serial port instead of USB. There were other PDAs that did not use USB, as well.
More likely because he is tired of arguing with nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
And that too, speech outside Britain? Good luck trying.
I was laughing my a** off at that post. He's off his rocker.
You were saying?
Quote:
Legislation to protect its citizens from British libel laws will be voted on this week by a Senate judiciary committee in the US. The bill was drawn up after a series of high-profile cases in which American writers and publishers have been successfully sued in the High Court in London after just a few copies of their books or articles were sold in Britain or read on the internet.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/us-freedom-of-speech-reforms-target-australian-libel-laws/story-e6frg6nf-1225884947059
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Why because you can't argue with facts?
What facts are you talking about exactly? You mean the convertible tablet/laptops on the market before the iPad. Yes, you're right. Apple copied them lock stock and barrel. And let's not give Apple any credit for the mouse or the personal computer or a GUI - because, well because they are Apple and we don't like them. I mean the facts don't prove anything. And any anecdotal or assumptive arguments about Samsung copying Apple are complete rubbish. Samsung's products that look like Apple products released before them are purely coincidental. And to top that off, it doesn't even matter if they copied Apple, because, well because what other shape would a phone or tablet have...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
When I first saw a Galaxy Tab from a distance, I thought for a moment it was an iPad… then immediately thought, oh, something's weird with that one (because it seemed longer, due to its 16:9 dimensions). Other than that, it and their nexus phone could both be mistaken for Apple products at a glance.
That kind of blatant copying of design and finishing style is now OK apparently……? "look-alike" products, not a problem, eh?
SO what's the point of a trademark, copyright or patent then?
the key word here is "from a distance". After examining the product, it was clear it was not an ipad. Did you really think it was an ipad because it looked identical to the ipad, or because the VAST majority of tablets that anyone will see anywhere are iPads. From a distance, all touch-screen tablets are going to have a similar design. There's a big screen that you touch, a headphone jack, a possible volume control button, and likely a button or two that have to be on the edge of the case (where else would you click it?) From the same distance, all cars of the same size can start to look the same. Look at the average dashboard of a car... The layout is very similar from one car to another .. . not because of blatant copying, but because people expect this to be the case. Of course, cars are much bigger, and have many more externally visible features than a tablet, so they will look less similar.
Seeing lawsuits like this, it is clear that apple wants the courts to crush all of their competition (if this design patent holds up, very few tablets will ever be allowed because from 15 feet away (especially when turned off), they're going to look identical (at least from the front). I'm sorry, but there's only so many ways to arrange a screen.
Despite the fact that I've loved the apple ecosystem in the past, apple's actions regarding their competitors, and their sheer arrogance as they've grown into the behomouth that they are make me hesitant to purchase more apple products. Sadly, the competition has failed to really offer compelling products, but hopefully that will start to change. It's not that different from the days when MS windows was your only option for a computer.
Phil
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar
the key word here is "from a distance". After examining the product, it was clear it was not an ipad. Did you really think it was an ipad because it looked identical to the ipad, or because the VAST majority of tablets that anyone will see anywhere are iPads. From a distance, all touch-screen tablets are going to have a similar design. There's a big screen that you touch, a headphone jack, a possible volume control button, and likely a button or two that have to be on the edge of the case (where else would you click it?) From the same distance, all cars of the same size can start to look the same. Look at the average dashboard of a car... The layout is very similar from one car to another .. . not because of blatant copying, but because people expect this to be the case. Of course, cars are much bigger, and have many more externally visible features than a tablet, so they will look less similar.
Seeing lawsuits like this, it is clear that apple wants the courts to crush all of their competition (if this design patent holds up, very few tablets will ever be allowed because from 15 feet away (especially when turned off), they're going to look identical (at least from the front). I'm sorry, but there's only so many ways to arrange a screen.
Despite the fact that I've loved the apple ecosystem in the past, apple's actions regarding their competitors, and their sheer arrogance as they've grown into the behomouth that they are make me hesitant to purchase more apple products. Sadly, the competition has failed to really offer compelling products, but hopefully that will start to change. It's not that different from the days when MS windows was your only option for a computer.
Phil
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.