The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. ...
Wow, that is very cleverly done. You can drag the bottom of the window down and just before the notice is going to come into view the page rearranges itself to take up more vertical space.
No. That javascript exists on most of the International sites - including those that do not have any requirement to post the Samsung notice.
The US site is one of the few that does NOT contain that code.
That same poster at the TheNextWeb you're depending on for that claim (I'm assuming it's the same thread since you worded your post similarly) prompted another member to say the Java-code wasn't added to the UK site until the the day the Appeals Court told Apple they had to re-publish. At this point I don't think anyone really knows if Apple did this specifically to hide the notice or not, or will be able to prove intent one way or the other. Not that it really matters.
No they didn't copy Apple they just stole ideas like there's no tommorrow all because not enough was done prior to the suit. I remember Steve made it very public about how he wanted to talk it out before taking them to court they should pay 5 billion to Apple instead of 1 for that
At this point, I whole heartedly applaud Apple giving the UK courts the finger, high and proud. For anyone that thinks Apple is being childish, I say they are responding to the court in kind. The order was immature and unreasonable. The response has been ingeniously alike in that regard. I look forward to the courts response. What are they going to do? Order Apple to apologize?
OMG did you know the dictionary hides the definition of "Zebra" at the end? It's not on the first page! OMG you guys, thenextweb.com failed to mention this horrible scandal.
OMG did you know the dictionary hides the definition of "Zebra" at the end? It's not on the first page! OMG you guys, thenextweb.com failed to mention this horrible scandal.
How is that at all the same as what is happening here?
This cracks me up. This is a minor issue yet we're at 81 comments.
Meanwhile, the more significant news about the A6X processor and how fast it is (the fastest SoC in the world) has barely cracked 20 comments.
I guess the trolls don't want to spend time dicussing FACTS (like how the Nexus 10 gets its a$$ handed to it by the A6X) when they can argue opinions for hours on end about how bad Apple is or how they're "losing" in court.
<p style="background-color:transparent;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">4. So this case is all about, and only about, Apple’s registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences – even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.</p>
<p style="background-color:transparent;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">5. Other disputes between the parties in other countries have concerned other intellectual property rights. We are not concerned with any of them.</p>
Nice try of you and the English court to confuse the argument.
The German court was talking about the exact same thing: Apples registered (community) design.
Every one knows that Apples actual products are the implementation of this design, so your semantics have no base at all.
Read this from arstechnica:
The Galaxy Tab 7.7 had already been banned from sale in Germany thanks to a decision from a lower court in late 2011. At that time, the court treated Samsung Germany as a separate entity from Samsung in Korea; the latter was able to continue selling the tablet throughout the rest of Europe. This was reversed on Tuesday when the Duesseldorf High Court decided that Samsung Germany was instead a local branch of the Korean company, resulting in the EU-wide ban. According to a statement released by the court, the Galaxy Tab 7.7 infringes upon Apple's registered EU Community Design for the iPad.
(See: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-wins-eu-wide-ban-on-galaxy-tab-7-7-tab-10-1n-not-covered/)
This cracks me up. This is a minor issue yet we're at 81 comments.
Meanwhile, the more significant news about the A6X processor and how fast it is (the fastest SoC in the world) has barely cracked 20 comments.
I guess the trolls don't want to spend time dicussing FACTS (like how the Nexus 10 gets its a$$ handed to it by the A6X) when they can argue opinions for hours on end about how bad Apple is or how they're "losing" in court.
Your right of course. I was already amazed by the gigaflops of my iPad3.
I guess unfairness and dishonestly triggers me.
But then again, it's a bit naive to expect fairness and honesty from a law system, especially one that old and based on ancient traditions. And this ruling is after all nothing more than one man's opinion.
This cracks me up. This is a minor issue yet we're at 81 comments.
Meanwhile, the more significant news about the A6X processor and how fast it is (the fastest SoC in the world) has barely cracked 20 comments.
I guess the trolls don't want to spend time dicussing FACTS (like how the Nexus 10 gets its a$$ handed to it by the A6X) when they can argue opinions for hours on end about how bad Apple is or how they're "losing" in court.
I think it comes down to two things: 1) The A6X is an open-close case with no room for interpretation. It's hands down better than anything else whereas with these lawsuits it's all interpretation, who argued best, what system of laws you are using, and the slant of the judge. 2) Apple has been in the lead for years so there is no surprise that Apple is still winning in this regard. The only thing that might be discussion worthy is how Apple is widening the gap even more.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. ...
Wow, that is very cleverly done. You can drag the bottom of the window down and just before the notice is going to come into view the page rearranges itself to take up more vertical space.
Ya gotta admit that takes balls.
OK Sir Robin, your move...
Well if they end up finally losing the other billion dollar suit maybe Sammy will have to put a notice saying We did infringe.
They pulled that stunt on the AU site as well. Gone now.
No. That javascript exists on most of the International sites - including those that do not have any requirement to post the Samsung notice.
The US site is one of the few that does NOT contain that code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No. That javascript exists on most of the International sites - including those that do not have any requirement to post the Samsung notice.
The US site is one of the few that does NOT contain that code.
That same poster at the TheNextWeb you're depending on for that claim (I'm assuming it's the same thread since you worded your post similarly) prompted another member to say the Java-code wasn't added to the UK site until the the day the Appeals Court told Apple they had to re-publish. At this point I don't think anyone really knows if Apple did this specifically to hide the notice or not, or will be able to prove intent one way or the other. Not that it really matters.
OMG did you know the dictionary hides the definition of "Zebra" at the end? It's not on the first page! OMG you guys, thenextweb.com failed to mention this horrible scandal.
Nah, it's weekend click bait to keep the ads impressions up when they aren't posting news. I'm starting to get their play book.
On the US Apple website can they post a notice saying simply: "Yes, they did."
?
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
OMG did you know the dictionary hides the definition of "Zebra" at the end? It's not on the first page! OMG you guys, thenextweb.com failed to mention this horrible scandal.
How is that at all the same as what is happening here?
Or when Samsung cuts Apple a check for $1-3 billion they post that on the front page on the UK site.
He's making a joke.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He's making a joke.
I'm turning into Defensio… WAY too many false positives.
This cracks me up. This is a minor issue yet we're at 81 comments.
Meanwhile, the more significant news about the A6X processor and how fast it is (the fastest SoC in the world) has barely cracked 20 comments.
I guess the trolls don't want to spend time dicussing FACTS (like how the Nexus 10 gets its a$$ handed to it by the A6X) when they can argue opinions for hours on end about how bad Apple is or how they're "losing" in court.
Nice try of you and the English court to confuse the argument.
The German court was talking about the exact same thing: Apples registered (community) design.
Every one knows that Apples actual products are the implementation of this design, so your semantics have no base at all.
Read this from arstechnica:
The Galaxy Tab 7.7 had already been banned from sale in Germany thanks to a decision from a lower court in late 2011. At that time, the court treated Samsung Germany as a separate entity from Samsung in Korea; the latter was able to continue selling the tablet throughout the rest of Europe. This was reversed on Tuesday when the Duesseldorf High Court decided that Samsung Germany was instead a local branch of the Korean company, resulting in the EU-wide ban. According to a statement released by the court, the Galaxy Tab 7.7 infringes upon Apple's registered EU Community Design for the iPad.
(See: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-wins-eu-wide-ban-on-galaxy-tab-7-7-tab-10-1n-not-covered/)
J.
Your right of course. I was already amazed by the gigaflops of my iPad3.
I guess unfairness and dishonestly triggers me.
But then again, it's a bit naive to expect fairness and honesty from a law system, especially one that old and based on ancient traditions. And this ruling is after all nothing more than one man's opinion.
J.
I think it comes down to two things: 1) The A6X is an open-close case with no room for interpretation. It's hands down better than anything else whereas with these lawsuits it's all interpretation, who argued best, what system of laws you are using, and the slant of the judge. 2) Apple has been in the lead for years so there is no surprise that Apple is still winning in this regard. The only thing that might be discussion worthy is how Apple is widening the gap even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm turning into Defensio… WAY too many false positives.
You've lost your ability to detect snark. i'd better put the /s back on.