Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.
Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.
Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of 100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit. This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.
No, they took it to court for blatant copying of look, shape, form, and feel. Something that take a lot of time, money, and resources to develop. And something that is so easy to steal.
This trial was not about copying any real product. The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design. Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs. They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
The patent D670,286 does not say anything about rounded corners. At least you should look it up before commenting. It's all about look, shape, and, form. Something that takes a lot of time and money to develop and very little to steal.
This trial was not about D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.
Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?
Probably. Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following. Its core is about shapes with rounded corners. In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners. That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from. Apple basically said it themselves.
What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
The EU Community Design Patent that Apple claimed is here:
Remember the recent British case where Apple was required to "advertise" that Sammy didn't infringe on a particular design patent? This is related to that case.
Yes, it really is. Apple thinks they should have a monopoly on a round-cornered rectangle, and the courts are rightly smacking them down.
The Apple devices are very nice, I have them and use them - and I've probably been using and promoting Apple products longer than most people here. But don't fool yourself that the rectangle and circle are somehow inventions of Apple.
You really should not try to sound smart and smarmy when you have no clue about the basic facts -- and Apple's reasoning -- behind the suit.
Yay! European courts rule that design laws can not be enforced. Time to start ripping off everything from their fashion industry! No wonder Europe is sinking into an economic abys: they have no respect for design or intellectual property. As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!
Yay! European courts rule that design laws can not be enforced. Time to start ripping off everything from their fashion industry! No wonder Europe is sinking into an economic abys: they have no respect for design or intellectual property.
As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!
Agreed. Sadly, Europe is falling the way of China as far as respect for intellectual property.
Yay! European courts rule that design laws can not be enforced. Time to start ripping off everything from their fashion industry! No wonder Europe is sinking into an economic abys: they have no respect for design or intellectual property.
As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!
Agreed. Sadly, Europe is falling the way of China as far as respect for intellectual property.
Remove the curtains from the eyes. Samsung Tabs (or whatever they are) infringe on Apple's designs. It includes the 'rounded rectangles'. It is a part of the design. Many things have rounded rectanges, but a few look horribly exactly like Apple's design.
I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up,
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.
Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.
Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of 100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit. This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.
This trial was not about copying any real product. The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design. Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs. They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.
This trial was not about D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.
Probably. Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following. Its core is about shapes with rounded corners. In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners. That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from. Apple basically said it themselves.
So samescum weren't thinking about copying anything from Apple when they communicated this?
“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”
Oh, FYI, Trade dress is as important to a company as is patents and copyright. So trade dress is ok to plagiarise? Easy to isolate a few words out of context. You can do that with any patent and then they'd all read the same too. Why not take the document as a whole? It explains precisely what design means to Apple. Why do you troll an Apple forum anyway? Just curious.
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
Hers some evidence, and pretty damning at that. Stop trolling Apple forums to get your jollies.
“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”
Nobody can deny samescum weren't thinking about innovating anything while they were talking like this.
“Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it’s a difference between Heaven and Earth.”
?Courts makes judgements that show no resemblance to the truth all the time. Take a step back and see the trees in the forrest.
Time to take your old blinkers off and put your hate for Apple aside and have an educated journey into the world of the truth.
Kr00, none of what you presented has anything to do with the Dutch ruling. In fact the Community Design Patent that Apple was still trying to assert did not represent any actual Apple product. What you posted doesn't in any way disprove what KDarling wrote.
I think most us us probably agree that Samsung has attempted to mimic Apple, sometimes much too closely. Apple has valid complaints. Infringing this particular Community Design has been proven not to be one of those valid complaints.
What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together.
The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's.
But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?
Well I did notice a MAJOR difference in the package design between Samsung and Apple... if you note the Home Screen background that sort of has a horizon 1/3rd from the bottom on both; Apple uses a desert landscape while Samsung has a picture of a beach.
Other than that, I can't tell that these weren't two products from the same company if I didn't look for the logo.
That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together.The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's.But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?
The overall case had nothing to do with icons, colors, or any of the sort. It didn't even have to do with any Apple product (like an iPad). Nor did the Dutch case discussed here even rule on the merits of the Apple-asserted Community Design I linked for you earlier if you actually had any interest in seeing what Apple's claims were. The Dutch ruling from a couple days ago (which I also linked if you're truly curious about it) affirmed that the British Court had already ruled that Samsung had not infringed on that specific IP and they were not going to find any differently. The only thing of substance they added were penalties for Apple if they were to pursue interference with Samsung's Tab sales.
You don't have to guess about why the Dutch court ruled as they did. Follow the links in both posts 18 and 19 and it should be clear.
Well I did notice a MAJOR difference in the package design between Samsung and Apple... if you note the Home Screen background that sort of has a horizon 1/3rd from the bottom on both; Apple uses a desert landscape while Samsung has a picture of a beach. Other than that, I can't tell that these weren't two products from the same company if I didn't look for the logo.
The iPhone wasn't the first phone with that kind of packaging.
The iPhone used it months after LG's new Prada, which came out with a style of having the phone directly under a removable box lid, and then accessories under that.
That's the trouble with most fansite comparison charts. They carefully cherry-pick only non-iPhone-like styles for their "before" images, and people with little or no pre-iPhone experience believe them.
Heck, you can put together all sorts of such charts. Here's one I just made up. It's both just as truthful as the ones that others posted, and just as meaningless.
This is not to say that Samsung didn't choose to look as much like Apple as legally possible. I think they did, at least at first. However, Apple didn't invent most of what some newbie fans claim.
As GatorGuy noted, none of this has anything to do with the Dutch decision, which was only over a non-product design that virtually every court and jury has decided was not infringed due to being so generic.
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
This is a good age to to put your integrity together and stop trolling. You are doing a great job of intelligently telling lies.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.
Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.
Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of 100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit. This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.
Ruling in Dutch here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
No, they took it to court for blatant copying of look, shape, form, and feel. Something that take a lot of time, money, and resources to develop. And something that is so easy to steal.
This trial was not about copying any real product. The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design. Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs. They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
The patent D670,286 does not say anything about rounded corners. At least you should look it up before commenting. It's all about look, shape, and, form. Something that takes a lot of time and money to develop and very little to steal.
This trial was not about D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.
It was about this registered Community Design from 2004 for a very generic display that was never produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?
Probably. Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following. Its core is about shapes with rounded corners. In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners. That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from. Apple basically said it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
The EU Community Design Patent that Apple claimed is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001
The Dutch Court statement is here (unless you read Dutch you'll want to use Google Translate):
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BY8487&u_ljn=BY8487
Remember the recent British case where Apple was required to "advertise" that Sammy didn't infringe on a particular design patent? This is related to that case.
Pipped by KDarling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
Yes, it really is. Apple thinks they should have a monopoly on a round-cornered rectangle, and the courts are rightly smacking them down.
The Apple devices are very nice, I have them and use them - and I've probably been using and promoting Apple products longer than most people here. But don't fool yourself that the rectangle and circle are somehow inventions of Apple.
You really should not try to sound smart and smarmy when you have no clue about the basic facts -- and Apple's reasoning -- behind the suit.
As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!
Agreed. Sadly, Europe is falling the way of China as far as respect for intellectual property.
Agreed. Sadly, Europe is falling the way of China as far as respect for intellectual property.
Remove the curtains from the eyes. Samsung Tabs (or whatever they are) infringe on Apple's designs. It includes the 'rounded rectangles'. It is a part of the design. Many things have rounded rectanges, but a few look horribly exactly like Apple's design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up,
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up,
Attacking the poster is quite mature¡
... although I could probably learn from my own sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.
Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.
Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of 100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit. This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.
Ruling in Dutch here.
This trial was not about copying any real product. The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design. Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs. They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.
This trial was not about D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.
It was about this registered Community Design from 2004 for a very generic display that was never produced.
Probably. Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following. Its core is about shapes with rounded corners. In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners. That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from. Apple basically said it themselves.
So samescum weren't thinking about copying anything from Apple when they communicated this?
“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”
Oh, FYI, Trade dress is as important to a company as is patents and copyright. So trade dress is ok to plagiarise? Easy to isolate a few words out of context. You can do that with any patent and then they'd all read the same too. Why not take the document as a whole? It explains precisely what design means to Apple. Why do you troll an Apple forum anyway? Just curious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
Hers some evidence, and pretty damning at that. Stop trolling Apple forums to get your jollies.
“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”
Nobody can deny samescum weren't thinking about innovating anything while they were talking like this.
“Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it’s a difference between Heaven and Earth.”
?Courts makes judgements that show no resemblance to the truth all the time. Take a step back and see the trees in the forrest.
Time to take your old blinkers off and put your hate for Apple aside and have an educated journey into the world of the truth.
Kr00, none of what you presented has anything to do with the Dutch ruling. In fact the Community Design Patent that Apple was still trying to assert did not represent any actual Apple product. What you posted doesn't in any way disprove what KDarling wrote.
I think most us us probably agree that Samsung has attempted to mimic Apple, sometimes much too closely. Apple has valid complaints. Infringing this particular Community Design has been proven not to be one of those valid complaints.
What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?
That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together.The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's.
But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?
Other than that, I can't tell that these weren't two products from the same company if I didn't look for the logo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together.The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's.But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?The overall case had nothing to do with icons, colors, or any of the sort. It didn't even have to do with any Apple product (like an iPad). Nor did the Dutch case discussed here even rule on the merits of the Apple-asserted Community Design I linked for you earlier if you actually had any interest in seeing what Apple's claims were. The Dutch ruling from a couple days ago (which I also linked if you're truly curious about it) affirmed that the British Court had already ruled that Samsung had not infringed on that specific IP and they were not going to find any differently. The only thing of substance they added were penalties for Apple if they were to pursue interference with Samsung's Tab sales.
You don't have to guess about why the Dutch court ruled as they did. Follow the links in both posts 18 and 19 and it should be clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
Well I did notice a MAJOR difference in the package design between Samsung and Apple... if you note the Home Screen background that sort of has a horizon 1/3rd from the bottom on both; Apple uses a desert landscape while Samsung has a picture of a beach.
The iPhone wasn't the first phone with that kind of packaging.
The iPhone used it months after LG's new Prada, which came out with a style of having the phone directly under a removable box lid, and then accessories under that.
That's the trouble with most fansite comparison charts. They carefully cherry-pick only non-iPhone-like styles for their "before" images, and people with little or no pre-iPhone experience believe them.
Heck, you can put together all sorts of such charts. Here's one I just made up. It's both just as truthful as the ones that others posted, and just as meaningless.
This is not to say that Samsung didn't choose to look as much like Apple as legally possible. I think they did, at least at first. However, Apple didn't invent most of what some newbie fans claim.
As GatorGuy noted, none of this has anything to do with the Dutch decision, which was only over a non-product design that virtually every court and jury has decided was not infringed due to being so generic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
The Jury in the US also said The Galaxy Tab did not infringe on design patents. The award was for patent on the Galaxy line of phones.
You really shouldn't poke holes in someone's alternate reality. They might get hostile without their medication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Hello! The 1950s called. Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts.
If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched. Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.
I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor. I have no reason to care what brands you use.
I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way. There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.
This is a good age to to put your integrity together and stop trolling. You are doing a great job of intelligently telling lies.