That connector will ultimately sink Samsung (In this case). This probably why they are starting to pull back some of their more absurd counter-suits so they can work on settling.
Samsung only need to print at the back of their device "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in Korea", that will settle, and everyone will happy.
Apple believes Samsung is copying their stuff and Samsung does not want to stop, what are they supposed to do. While I can't prove it, I am sure Apple asked more then once for them to knock it off.
I can see it now, Steve Jobs and Lee Kun-Hee sit down across a featureless black glass table. They stare into each others eyes while in the background plays music from a classic western. Slowly they extend their right hands across the table, and take firm hold, perhaps to shake hands.
Still they stare into each others eyes, until Lee slowly nods and then Jobs begins the ritual
rather, what i was trying to impress was that patenting a generic product design, (or allowing such patents from the beginning) is a ridiculous thing to do, if not absurd.
an analogy cannot be 100% mirror-image.
of course, you may come up with more sophisticated, more matching analogy to the current situation. but that is not the point of the analogy i used.
i simply WANTED TO MOCK this whole situation.
Here are other things "analogous" to phones in your scheme: gravel, sandwiches, lumber, bricks, steaks and asphalt. These are things that are comprised of one or two very basic constituent elements arranged in highly standardized fashion. Note that any of these might have some patentable attributes if they were to do something novel with those constituents or arrangement-- i.e. asphalt using a sophisticated blend of polymers or a particular blend of seasonings for signature restaurant steak dish.
An analogy, even one intending to mock, needs to be, well, analogous to "have a point". "Maybe next Apple will try to patent the Moon" isn't an analogy, it's (not very effective) hyperbole. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with patent law, it's just that it has nothing to do, at all, with hamburgers and tossing that in just weakens the argument.
And when I looked at it, and held it in my hands, it...to me...looked very very similar to the iPad. That's why I liked it. There were some definite design differences, but overall, it was very similar. It'sa really nice product at the same price point too.
And when I looked at it, and held it in my hands, it...to me...looked very very similar to the iPad. That's why I liked it. There were some definite design differences, but overall, it was very similar. It'sa really nice product at the same price point too.
Yep it's a good knock-off, but it's hard to think of a reason to buy the knock-off iPod when it's no cheaper than the real version. I mean what's the advantage? Heck before that I'd go for the TouchPad. - at least it's an interesting overpriced knock-off.
Comments
That connector will ultimately sink Samsung (In this case). This probably why they are starting to pull back some of their more absurd counter-suits so they can work on settling.
How will it sink Samsung?
I found that a little mind boggling too.
Apple believes Samsung is copying their stuff and Samsung does not want to stop, what are they supposed to do. While I can't prove it, I am sure Apple asked more then once for them to knock it off.
I can see it now, Steve Jobs and Lee Kun-Hee sit down across a featureless black glass table. They stare into each others eyes while in the background plays music from a classic western. Slowly they extend their right hands across the table, and take firm hold, perhaps to shake hands.
Still they stare into each others eyes, until Lee slowly nods and then Jobs begins the ritual
1
2
3
4
http://www.vimeo.com/8682268
lol. hey, i wasn't saying a burger is patentable.
rather, what i was trying to impress was that patenting a generic product design, (or allowing such patents from the beginning) is a ridiculous thing to do, if not absurd.
an analogy cannot be 100% mirror-image.
of course, you may come up with more sophisticated, more matching analogy to the current situation. but that is not the point of the analogy i used.
i simply WANTED TO MOCK this whole situation.
Here are other things "analogous" to phones in your scheme: gravel, sandwiches, lumber, bricks, steaks and asphalt. These are things that are comprised of one or two very basic constituent elements arranged in highly standardized fashion. Note that any of these might have some patentable attributes if they were to do something novel with those constituents or arrangement-- i.e. asphalt using a sophisticated blend of polymers or a particular blend of seasonings for signature restaurant steak dish.
An analogy, even one intending to mock, needs to be, well, analogous to "have a point". "Maybe next Apple will try to patent the Moon" isn't an analogy, it's (not very effective) hyperbole. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with patent law, it's just that it has nothing to do, at all, with hamburgers and tossing that in just weakens the argument.
And when I looked at it, and held it in my hands, it...to me...looked very very similar to the iPad. That's why I liked it. There were some definite design differences, but overall, it was very similar. It'sa really nice product at the same price point too.
Yep it's a good knock-off, but it's hard to think of a reason to buy the knock-off iPod when it's no cheaper than the real version. I mean what's the advantage? Heck before that I'd go for the TouchPad. - at least it's an interesting overpriced knock-off.