Like it or not, Apple was granted a look and feel patent and several sites have noted that Samsung has copied that look and feel to make their goods. Whereas Microsoft did a totally different look.
So ironic that Microsoft, the original "look and feel" copycat, is the only iPhone competitor with a truly unique and original design to it. Good for them. Perhaps they learned their lesson in the 90s?
samsung tab 10.1 weighs less and is thinner than ipad 2. Has Android 3 on it.
Apple sh**s itself and launches lawsuit.
Yeah, apple is totally $hitting itself. Their world is collapsing around them. They're F'd and their only hope is this lawsuit. Dude, look at the image on engadget's post regarding this lawsuit. Apple's patent vs. Samsung product. Shameless, pathetic copying.
It doesn't matter if you are Apple fan or not, but the truth is pre-iPhone era, every phone company has their own style. After iPhone introduced, all the smartphones looked like iphone, except Japanese who are still producing tons of clam-shell phones. Phone makers know iPhone design works, cuz it sells! so they copied. And they cant write good OS to compete, so they turn to Android for lower R&D. The only way they can still survive is trying to make the tech specs better than iphone. If you take a quick glance at Samsung's cellphone website (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones), it's like a website with tons of iPhone-siblings.
It's true that there are many ridiculous patents, especially in software, but it's equally true that in this case one company (Apple) single-handedly introduced an extremely innovative product in the mobile space and another company (Google) blatantly copied them and then released that software to other companies (Samsung, HTC, et al) in a way that has made them liable for any patent infringements. It's easy to say, in retrospect, that Apple's innovations were "obvious", especially if you've never had an innovative idea in your life and therefore have no idea how difficult and laborious the process is, but if they were obvious then there wouldn't be such a stark contrast in design between pre-iPhone smart phones and post-iPhone smart phones. In reality, the Apple iPhone caught all these companies off guard and was so innovative that it was first met with incredulity. This is an example where IP laws should protect the innovator. Rarely do you see an example of such complete and far-reaching innovation by a single company or an example of such blatant copying by a competitor.
So ironic that Microsoft, the original "look and feel" copycat, is the only iPhone competitor with a truly unique and original design to it. Good for them. Perhaps they learned their lesson in the 90s?
nope. copying made them the king of the personal computing market. they need to do the same with phone. lol
It's true that there are many ridiculous patents, especially in software, but it's equally true that in this case one company (Apple) single-handedly introduced an extremely innovative product in the mobile space and another company (Google) blatantly copied them and then released that software to other companies (Samsung, HTC, et al) in a way that has made them liable for any patent infringements. It's easy to say, in retrospect, that Apple's innovations were "obvious", especially if you've never had an innovative idea in your life and therefore have no idea how difficult and laborious the process is, but if they were obvious then there wouldn't be such a stark contrast in design between pre-iPhone smart phones and post-iPhone smart phones. In reality, the Apple iPhone caught all these companies off guard and was so innovative that it was first met with incredulity. This is an example where IP laws should protect the innovator. Rarely do you see an example of such complete and far-reaching innovation by a single company or an example of such blatant copying by a competitor.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
Yeah, apple is totally $hitting itself. Their world is collapsing around them. They're F'd and their only hope is this lawsuit. Dude, look at the image on engadget's post regarding this lawsuit. Apple's patent vs. Samsung product. Shameless, pathetic copying.
copy or not i hope they at least offer them for sale soon so i can get the tab 8.9
As Apple has filed a patent infringement suit, that means Apple has a patent. That Apple has a patent means the patent office did not think the "look and feel" in question to be too general.
Very broad statement. Many patents are invalidated, but it's clear that the Apple design has been copied. What parts of it have been patented, though?
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them.
Just because glass existed doesn't mean forming glass into glassware was not innovative. Because people lived in caves doesn't mean building a hut wasn't innovative.
Everything came out of something before and it is rare these days for someone or some company to create something that is truly new and original
Apple did something considered to be truly innovative with the iPhone. Nothing in the market looked or worked the way the iPhone looked/worked. If you disagree, find a pre-existing mock up of the design, UI and functionality and provide a link to it. I'd be interested in seeing who Apple copied when they came up with the iPhone.
That is a valid action under Copyright and pertains to copying the look and feel of Apple's Graphical User Interface. It also is practically the same lawsuit Apple filed against Microsoft years ago. Apple lost that suit, however, it was because the judge found that although Microsoft used Apple's copyright work, Apple gave Microsoft a license to do so. Apple and Microsoft were partners on Office.
Apple clearly gave no such license to Samsung. Further, Apple's exhibit drives the point home. The GUI is a clear copy of the iPhone and works the same way.
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seankill
I normally agree with apple on most of their lawsuits. This one seems a bit general. "copy the look and feel".
The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.
I'm concerned that as competition gets more fierce we'll see more suits like this. Ignoring whether this specific case has any merit, overall US patent policies are f'd-up with no sign of a fix in sight. When US businesses feel the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect themselves from frivolous patent infringement suits it's no wonder that funds for real innovative engineering and design can be hard to come by.
That is a valid action under Copyright and pertains to copying the look and feel of Apple's Graphical User Interface. It also is practically the same lawsuit Apple filed against Microsoft years ago. Apple lost that suit, however, it was because the judge found that although Microsoft used Apple's copyright work, Apple gave Microsoft a license to do so. Apple and Microsoft were partners on Office.
Apple clearly gave no such license to Samsung. Further, Apple's exhibit drives the point home. The GUI is a clear copy of the iPhone and works the same way.
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
Samsung is like IBM, a collection of separate corporations underneath it's umbrella. There is no jump to another supplier as the group that provides IPS and Memory are different from the consumer electronics companies.
I'm concerned that as competition gets more fierce we'll see more suits like this. Ignoring whether this specific case has any merit, overall US patent policies are f'd-up with no sign of a fix in sight. When US businesses feel the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect themselves from frivolous patent infringement suits it's no wonder that funds for real innovative engineering and design can be hard to come by.
Stupid. . . if you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em.
You don't spend hundreds, if not billions in development for your products, then patent the resulting research only to not defend them. If you don't defend them those patents become null and void.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
Actually the other guys argument is stronger than yours. He is right in this case. All of the parts separated doesn't make an innovative product. it's the combination that Apple put together to make an innovative product. Now almost all of the new smart phones coming out try to mimmic Iphone. Before everyone was trying to mimmic BB. Now everyone is trying to mimmic the Iphone/Ipad. These items really did re-define the smartphone and tablet markets and no one can honestly say they didn't. Apple and Apple alone changed the game. That's just the fact.
Comments
Apple sh**s itself and launches lawsuit.
Like it or not, Apple was granted a look and feel patent and several sites have noted that Samsung has copied that look and feel to make their goods. Whereas Microsoft did a totally different look.
So ironic that Microsoft, the original "look and feel" copycat, is the only iPhone competitor with a truly unique and original design to it. Good for them. Perhaps they learned their lesson in the 90s?
samsung tab 10.1 weighs less and is thinner than ipad 2. Has Android 3 on it.
Apple sh**s itself and launches lawsuit.
Yeah, apple is totally $hitting itself. Their world is collapsing around them. They're F'd and their only hope is this lawsuit. Dude, look at the image on engadget's post regarding this lawsuit. Apple's patent vs. Samsung product. Shameless, pathetic copying.
They do.
Samsung #2 on the Top 10 patent holders for 2010.
Apple isn't on the list.
http://247wallst.com/2011/01/10/the-...s-by-company/#
Top 10 on the patent list is not Top 10 on the Embedded Platform List for Smartphones and Tablets.
So ironic that Microsoft, the original "look and feel" copycat, is the only iPhone competitor with a truly unique and original design to it. Good for them. Perhaps they learned their lesson in the 90s?
nope. copying made them the king of the personal computing market. they need to do the same with phone. lol
It's true that there are many ridiculous patents, especially in software, but it's equally true that in this case one company (Apple) single-handedly introduced an extremely innovative product in the mobile space and another company (Google) blatantly copied them and then released that software to other companies (Samsung, HTC, et al) in a way that has made them liable for any patent infringements. It's easy to say, in retrospect, that Apple's innovations were "obvious", especially if you've never had an innovative idea in your life and therefore have no idea how difficult and laborious the process is, but if they were obvious then there wouldn't be such a stark contrast in design between pre-iPhone smart phones and post-iPhone smart phones. In reality, the Apple iPhone caught all these companies off guard and was so innovative that it was first met with incredulity. This is an example where IP laws should protect the innovator. Rarely do you see an example of such complete and far-reaching innovation by a single company or an example of such blatant copying by a competitor.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
Yeah, apple is totally $hitting itself. Their world is collapsing around them. They're F'd and their only hope is this lawsuit. Dude, look at the image on engadget's post regarding this lawsuit. Apple's patent vs. Samsung product. Shameless, pathetic copying.
copy or not i hope they at least offer them for sale soon so i can get the tab 8.9
As Apple has filed a patent infringement suit, that means Apple has a patent. That Apple has a patent means the patent office did not think the "look and feel" in question to be too general.
Very broad statement. Many patents are invalidated, but it's clear that the Apple design has been copied. What parts of it have been patented, though?
C'mon Apple, less suing, not more!
The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/22533...ller_ssds.html
I'm not a believer in coincidences. I do believe that Samsung was just sent a message.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them.
Just because glass existed doesn't mean forming glass into glassware was not innovative. Because people lived in caves doesn't mean building a hut wasn't innovative.
Everything came out of something before and it is rare these days for someone or some company to create something that is truly new and original
Apple did something considered to be truly innovative with the iPhone. Nothing in the market looked or worked the way the iPhone looked/worked. If you disagree, find a pre-existing mock up of the design, UI and functionality and provide a link to it. I'd be interested in seeing who Apple copied when they came up with the iPhone.
Apple clearly gave no such license to Samsung. Further, Apple's exhibit drives the point home. The GUI is a clear copy of the iPhone and works the same way.
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
I normally agree with apple on most of their lawsuits. This one seems a bit general. "copy the look and feel".
I love competition too but everyone is out to steal Apple's swag.
Sony kicked a** with the psp and I love that machine.
Do your own thing.
And just you wait until Apple brings. out their own TV and the ipad 3. Jesus!
All hell will break loose.
The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.
I'm concerned that as competition gets more fierce we'll see more suits like this. Ignoring whether this specific case has any merit, overall US patent policies are f'd-up with no sign of a fix in sight. When US businesses feel the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect themselves from frivolous patent infringement suits it's no wonder that funds for real innovative engineering and design can be hard to come by.
Stupid. . . if you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em.
That is a valid action under Copyright and pertains to copying the look and feel of Apple's Graphical User Interface. It also is practically the same lawsuit Apple filed against Microsoft years ago. Apple lost that suit, however, it was because the judge found that although Microsoft used Apple's copyright work, Apple gave Microsoft a license to do so. Apple and Microsoft were partners on Office.
Apple clearly gave no such license to Samsung. Further, Apple's exhibit drives the point home. The GUI is a clear copy of the iPhone and works the same way.
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
Samsung is like IBM, a collection of separate corporations underneath it's umbrella. There is no jump to another supplier as the group that provides IPS and Memory are different from the consumer electronics companies.
I'm concerned that as competition gets more fierce we'll see more suits like this. Ignoring whether this specific case has any merit, overall US patent policies are f'd-up with no sign of a fix in sight. When US businesses feel the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect themselves from frivolous patent infringement suits it's no wonder that funds for real innovative engineering and design can be hard to come by.
Stupid. . . if you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em.
You don't spend hundreds, if not billions in development for your products, then patent the resulting research only to not defend them. If you don't defend them those patents become null and void.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
Actually the other guys argument is stronger than yours. He is right in this case. All of the parts separated doesn't make an innovative product. it's the combination that Apple put together to make an innovative product. Now almost all of the new smart phones coming out try to mimmic Iphone. Before everyone was trying to mimmic BB. Now everyone is trying to mimmic the Iphone/Ipad. These items really did re-define the smartphone and tablet markets and no one can honestly say they didn't. Apple and Apple alone changed the game. That's just the fact.