Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
OK I'll buy that but again were any other tablets other than the Tab purchased believing they were iPads and who's to blame for that?
Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } The corporatocracy is as insensitive to poetic justice as it is immune the more usual kinds.
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
Or when people like you realize that a question can have more than one answer. And I've posed questions to you and you have chosen to ignore them.
"Did Samsung steal wholesale from Apple in hardware design, software design, and trade dress?" can have more than one answer? How? And to the later, I can't remember any, but I imagine it was because of their incorrect or pointless nature.
Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?
"Did Samsung steal wholesale from Apple in hardware design, software design, and trade dress?" can have more than one answer? How? And to the later, I can't remember any, but I imagine it was because of their incorrect or pointless nature.
Yes they did and I've answered in the affirmative to these before. I will not however blame people's stupidity on Samsung.
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended.
Exactly, and it's a testament to how close Samsung purposely copied that it didn't end quickly.
Originally Posted by peterring
Here is a link to the Knight Ridder tablet presentation:
As much as you'd like to believe that consumers aren't that silly, they are.
For example, just watch people next time they fill up their car with gas at a gas station:
1. Somebody puts gas in their car.
At this point, in their immediate future, they have now created a 'To Do' list of 'go inside and pay for the gas I just put in the vehicle'.
2. They walk inside the petrol station, go up to the attendant and...
This is it. The moment.
Look at the confused look on their face. What pump number did they use? 'Sh!t', they say, 'I just filled up my car with gas. I didn't anticipate needing the pump number to tell the attendant which pump it was...'. Random pointing and referrals to 'it's the <insert colour> car' begin...
Unfortunately, customers don't live in the world that you and I live in.
Generally, they're in a galaxy far, far away...
let's see: a couple hundred million licensed drivers in the usa, some large percentage of which put fuel in their vehicle every day, and you're faulting people for forgetting to get the pump number before they walk inside to pay for their fuel purchase? i know for a fact that i've done that at least once in the 30+ years i've been driving, so i guess not living in the same world as you makes those of us guilty of this sin inferior to you.
(i suppose there is comfort in the fact that as more and more people use debit and credit cards to pay at the pump, the fewer people you'll have to lord over.)
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?
I would conclude that you're obfuscating.
You admit that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers by blatantly copying Apple's proprietary product. That's enough to demonstrate guilt and Apple should win.
Whether or not consumers are stupid has no bearing on that matter. And note that not all consumers who were confused are stupid. Samsung's attorneys, for example. I'm assuming that total morons don't easily get law degrees and end up working for major firms in positions of importance.
let's see: a couple hundred million licensed drivers in the usa, some large percentage of which put fuel in their vehicle every day, and you're faulting people for forgetting to get the pump number before they walk inside to pay for their fuel purchase? i know for a fact that i've done that at least once in the 30+ years i've been driving, so i guess not living in the same world as you makes those of us guilty of this sin inferior to you.
(i suppose there is comfort in the fact that as more and more people use debit and credit cards to pay at the pump, the fewer people you'll have to lord over.)
I got a better one, how many people have put diesel into a car by mistake? It happens quite often.
Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?
OK - I think I understand your point, but I would argue that whether stupid people mistook Tabs for iPads, or whether salespersons mislead them does not exempt Samsung from liability for infringing on design patents. Similarly, that some customers (even many customers) returned other devices thinking that they were iPads still doesn't let Samsung off, although you certainly could argue that it devalues that particular Best Buy evidence.
The fact that you were only fooled briefly is not evidence in Samsung's favor, given that you are saying, effectively, that yes, you agree they tried to deceive you but you were too knowledgeable to fall for it.
I would conclude that you're obfuscating.
You admit that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers by blatantly copying Apple's proprietary product. That's enough to demonstrate guilt and Apple should win.
Whether or not consumers are stupid has no bearing on that matter. And note that not all consumers who were confused are stupid. Samsung's attorneys, for example. I'm assuming that total morons don't easily get law degrees and end up working for major firms in positions of importance.
Sure it does because it'll take away from the point Apple is trying to make in a impartial juror. Kinda like a 400 ft foul ball, it looks good and got hit hard but in the end was meaningless. And of course I don't mean that people are complete morons, just that they're not as tech savvy and you and I.
I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.
… The Anti-Apple Brigade never quits, does it? Kicking and screaming and clawing at the men in white shirts as they're taken away… [SIZE=8px](ha ha)[/SIZE]
Did you mean "men in white coats", or are you talking about the lawyers?
Comments
Interesting question - yes - but you are still circling the issue, which is the allegation that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse. Whether other manufacturers did the same is not the subject of this legal action, and should have no bearing on the outcome.
Or when people like you realize that a question can have more than one answer. And I've posed questions to you and you have chosen to ignore them.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
The corporatocracy is as insensitive to poetic justice as it is immune the more usual kinds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It is not unique to Apple and its products, I've seen people ask for chicken McNuggets in Burger King.
And if you are in the south, you go to a restaurant, they ask what you want to drink:
"A coke"
"What kind?"
"Root Beer"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Or when people like you realize that a question can have more than one answer. And I've posed questions to you and you have chosen to ignore them.
"Did Samsung steal wholesale from Apple in hardware design, software design, and trade dress?" can have more than one answer? How? And to the later, I can't remember any, but I imagine it was because of their incorrect or pointless nature.
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended. For me it took no more than 5 seconds to realize the Tab wasn't an iPad. If people purchased them then either they're extremely stupid or were talked into it by a salesperson at which point Samsung cannot be blamed. If a Apple lawyer says "data from Best Buy shows 100 people returned Tabs because they believed it was an iPad" and in turn the Samsung lawyer says "data from Best Buy also shows that 100 Motorola Xooms were returned because it was believed to be an iPad" as an unbiased juror what would be your reasoning? What would you conclude?
Yes they did and I've answered in the affirmative to these before. I will not however blame people's stupidity on Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
Actually, as compelling as this sounds at first, it's really an effect of first to market/advertiser impressions...
For example... what do you think of when you see...
1. A Bandaid?
2. A Xerox Copy?
3. A Kleenex tissue?
4. A FedEx'd package?
These are all examples of incredibly strong product brands now associated with an entire segment of products or services.
People don't see or call tablet PCs, tablet PCs... they almost always call them iPads... even if its a POS grey market tablet.
My 2-cents.
1. a hidden vagina
2. a virtual vagina
3 a real vagina
4. a gift. (no..a vagina inside of a box)
Here is a link to the Knight Ridder tablet presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm not circling the issue, I have admitted that in fact Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers but there's a point where the confusion should've ended.
Exactly, and it's a testament to how close Samsung purposely copied that it didn't end quickly.
Originally Posted by peterring
Here is a link to the Knight Ridder tablet presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Your point being what, that Apple wasn't first and therefore can't patent anything and should lose? News flash: all this crap has been invalidated.
How about a nickname for Richard? And if you don't know what it is then it's Dick.
I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.
let's see: a couple hundred million licensed drivers in the usa, some large percentage of which put fuel in their vehicle every day, and you're faulting people for forgetting to get the pump number before they walk inside to pay for their fuel purchase? i know for a fact that i've done that at least once in the 30+ years i've been driving, so i guess not living in the same world as you makes those of us guilty of this sin inferior to you.
(i suppose there is comfort in the fact that as more and more people use debit and credit cards to pay at the pump, the fewer people you'll have to lord over.)
I would conclude that you're obfuscating.
You admit that Samsung deliberately sought to confuse consumers by blatantly copying Apple's proprietary product. That's enough to demonstrate guilt and Apple should win.
Whether or not consumers are stupid has no bearing on that matter. And note that not all consumers who were confused are stupid. Samsung's attorneys, for example. I'm assuming that total morons don't easily get law degrees and end up working for major firms in positions of importance.
I got a better one, how many people have put diesel into a car by mistake? It happens quite often.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I believe it's a testament to how stupid people can be.
… The Anti-Apple Brigade never quits, does it? Kicking and screaming and clawing at the men in white shirts as they're taken away… (ha ha)
OK - I think I understand your point, but I would argue that whether stupid people mistook Tabs for iPads, or whether salespersons mislead them does not exempt Samsung from liability for infringing on design patents. Similarly, that some customers (even many customers) returned other devices thinking that they were iPads still doesn't let Samsung off, although you certainly could argue that it devalues that particular Best Buy evidence.
The fact that you were only fooled briefly is not evidence in Samsung's favor, given that you are saying, effectively, that yes, you agree they tried to deceive you but you were too knowledgeable to fall for it.
Sure it does because it'll take away from the point Apple is trying to make in a impartial juror. Kinda like a 400 ft foul ball, it looks good and got hit hard but in the end was meaningless. And of course I don't mean that people are complete morons, just that they're not as tech savvy and you and I.
Did you mean "men in white coats", or are you talking about the lawyers?