These consumer must be really dumb (if the whole thing is not a lie by Applekoh) -- they must be Americans.
It's easy to underestimate what Americans will say to exchange a product and save face. Look up the kind of things Walmart accepts as returns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
2006
Samsung Picture Frame
2010
Apple iPad
Digital Picture frames, have Flat Panel computer monitors as prior art, which those in turn have CRT flat screens as prior art. Digital Photo frames, and most computer screens aren't touch screen devices. Some later picture frame and televisions(not computer monitors) are WiFi enabled. But these devices are not something you stick in your pocket, nor are they battery operated. There are design compromises you make if a device is going to sit on top of the fire place than you would for something that you'd use to read in your bed. The backs of photo frames and televisions are often boxy plastic things.
Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks.
I think the rectangular shape with semi-rounded edges is self-explained and self-expressed in the photos.
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
My take on this would be this:
Most Fridges are nearly the same for a long time.
Apple invents a Fridge that's a perfect sphere that opens into two hemispheres. Food stays fresher, longer, is easier to find, uses less energy, has more recycled content, looks great in the kitchen, and revolutionizes kitchen design as builders incorporate this new round element.
Same old market, but totally revolutionized, with impacts into other markets (like home design). Apple "steals great ideas" as they say they do by considering all angles of every aspect of everything "Fridge", but in the end makes something in total that no one else has done.
They patent the sphere, the left-right nature of the storage, the space-savings, etc etc.
Then Samsung makes their new sphere-Fridge, with nearly the same choice of exterior metals, handles, power-cords, etc (but all sort of cheaper and lousy-er).
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.
Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.
Either way, does Samsung use other tablets as their prior art, where as apple only use Samsung UMPC. Did samsung actually ever make a XP tablet edition product?
Expert witness are routinely reimbursed for their time to testify. They have mortgages to pay too....
I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.
Because then her bias would have been too obvious. Fear not, she will award Apple the victory soon enough.
Because Samsung is not a US company (yes, companies do exist outside of the country of god and guns).
It is clear the Samsung cannot expect fairness in the current US.
We might not know the details of US "law", but we know unfairness and racial bias when we see it!
South Korea 5ting!
If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
It was worth mentioning, as that is the angle that Samsung was using as a foil.
For AI to ignore that completely, and frame him solely as a design expert, is disingenuous.
I don't think you understand what disingenuous means "Psycho Miko."
They "frame him solely as a design expert" because he is. The fact that like most expert witnesses, he is paid, means nothing. If there was some kind of bias attached to the fact that he was paid, then courts wouldn't routinely allow paid witnesses.
You are the one being disingenuous by implying something that no one believes and doesn't really exist, based (apparently) on no other evidence than your own bias.
Explain for me how those devices look anything alike? I'm sure not seeing it.
I know, right? It's like taking a picture of a house and saying that it was "obviously" strongly influenced by the shoebox. Or saying that all cars are copies of the original Ford in that they have four wheels on the bottom, doors on each side, and use the exact same "steering wheel" device.
Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks.
For that to have any relevant meaning, as regards this case, it would have to show that NONE of the returns were due to iPad confusion, 1 in 10 is more than none.
I honestly believe that in the long run, it's Apple who will win most of the patent lawsuits that actually matter. No matter what those lawyers say, there's no way that a judge is going to ignore the plain clear fact (that you can clearly see in the photos even with zero knowledge about the matter) that Samsung is in some way too heavily inspired by Apple's design choices.
I hope so too, but sadly it's not up to the judge. It's up to the jury and let's face it, juries are complete idiots about half the time. The average person has a fairly low IQ and is easily led. They also favour emotion over logic and have very little capacity for critical thinking.
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.
In which part of Solip's post did he discount Dieter Rams' design? Better read his posts twice before commenting.
Apart from that you still don't get the difference between inspiration and copying.
Any designer so even Rams gets their inspiration from somewhere.
But in the case of Samesung we are talking about blatant copying.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPM
These consumer must be really dumb (if the whole thing is not a lie by Applekoh) -- they must be Americans.
It's easy to underestimate what Americans will say to exchange a product and save face. Look up the kind of things Walmart accepts as returns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
2006
Samsung Picture Frame
2010
Apple iPad
Digital Picture frames, have Flat Panel computer monitors as prior art, which those in turn have CRT flat screens as prior art. Digital Photo frames, and most computer screens aren't touch screen devices. Some later picture frame and televisions(not computer monitors) are WiFi enabled. But these devices are not something you stick in your pocket, nor are they battery operated. There are design compromises you make if a device is going to sit on top of the fire place than you would for something that you'd use to read in your bed. The backs of photo frames and televisions are often boxy plastic things.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
What...?
What?
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
J. Ive, Dieter Rams wants his designs back.
Did he misplace them?
Ask him to look under the carpet as well.
There's a difference between inspiration and blatant copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
My take on this would be this:
Most Fridges are nearly the same for a long time.
Apple invents a Fridge that's a perfect sphere that opens into two hemispheres. Food stays fresher, longer, is easier to find, uses less energy, has more recycled content, looks great in the kitchen, and revolutionizes kitchen design as builders incorporate this new round element.
Same old market, but totally revolutionized, with impacts into other markets (like home design). Apple "steals great ideas" as they say they do by considering all angles of every aspect of everything "Fridge", but in the end makes something in total that no one else has done.
They patent the sphere, the left-right nature of the storage, the space-savings, etc etc.
Then Samsung makes their new sphere-Fridge, with nearly the same choice of exterior metals, handles, power-cords, etc (but all sort of cheaper and lousy-er).
The rest is obvious....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.
Either way, does Samsung use other tablets as their prior art, where as apple only use Samsung UMPC. Did samsung actually ever make a XP tablet edition product?
Expert witness are routinely reimbursed for their time to testify. They have mortgages to pay too....
I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad
Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPM
Because then her bias would have been too obvious. Fear not, she will award Apple the victory soon enough.
Because Samsung is not a US company (yes, companies do exist outside of the country of god and guns).
It is clear the Samsung cannot expect fairness in the current US.
We might not know the details of US "law", but we know unfairness and racial bias when we see it!
South Korea 5ting!
If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.
Well then, at least he was honest about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
It was worth mentioning, as that is the angle that Samsung was using as a foil.
For AI to ignore that completely, and frame him solely as a design expert, is disingenuous.
I don't think you understand what disingenuous means "Psycho Miko."
They "frame him solely as a design expert" because he is. The fact that like most expert witnesses, he is paid, means nothing. If there was some kind of bias attached to the fact that he was paid, then courts wouldn't routinely allow paid witnesses.
You are the one being disingenuous by implying something that no one believes and doesn't really exist, based (apparently) on no other evidence than your own bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa
Diasgreements are happened often. You're called a troll not because of disagreement, but because you're repeating what Android trolls spew everywhere.
Ok, fanboi. Fanboism are happened often. Go ahead and correct that sentence for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Explain for me how those devices look anything alike? I'm sure not seeing it.
I know, right? It's like taking a picture of a house and saying that it was "obviously" strongly influenced by the shoebox. Or saying that all cars are copies of the original Ford in that they have four wheels on the bottom, doors on each side, and use the exact same "steering wheel" device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/
For that to have any relevant meaning, as regards this case, it would have to show that NONE of the returns were due to iPad confusion, 1 in 10 is more than none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber
I honestly believe that in the long run, it's Apple who will win most of the patent lawsuits that actually matter. No matter what those lawyers say, there's no way that a judge is going to ignore the plain clear fact (that you can clearly see in the photos even with zero knowledge about the matter) that Samsung is in some way too heavily inspired by Apple's design choices.
I hope so too, but sadly it's not up to the judge. It's up to the jury and let's face it, juries are complete idiots about half the time. The average person has a fairly low IQ and is easily led. They also favour emotion over logic and have very little capacity for critical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
On one angle under a certain lighting they look similar the way a cloud can look like Snoopy but they are copying Rams's designs. They aren't even the same devices, competing for sale, or even in the same millennium. It's amazing the straws you'll grasp at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
It's amazing that you're able to discount these designs when Ive has said otherwise.
In which part of Solip's post did he discount Dieter Rams' design? Better read his posts twice before commenting.
Apart from that you still don't get the difference between inspiration and copying.
Any designer so even Rams gets their inspiration from somewhere.
But in the case of Samesung we are talking about blatant copying.