I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
The blog and this article source a release from the court. If you have a better source.. Oh wait maybe the court is lying too. Maybe the same people who faked 9/11 and the moon landing made a fake release. Maybe the whole court is fake. I do not believe Germany is even a country.
The blog and this article source a release from the court. If you have a better source.. Oh wait maybe the court is lying too. Maybe the same people who faked 9/11 and the moon landing made a fake release. Maybe the whole court is fake. I do not believe Germany is even a country.
But the Knight-Ridder device never came to fruition nor was protected by multiple patents like the Apple iPad. Hence, even though the iPad may resemble a 2006 Samsung photo frame, there's more to the story than just that. What's digitally being shown to the user on the screen and how it is used is also at the heart of this matter.
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
This is the same company that colluded with LG to the tune of at least $5 billion in fraudulent LCD Panel pricing and were together forced to pay back nearly $1 Billion in fines.
Oddly, Samsung was given immunity because they talked first and the remaining 5 other providers took the fall.
This is a Samsung digital photo frame from 2006. It looks just like a Galaxy Tab 10.1, only with a smaller screen.
Actually that's a render of what engadget thought the product might look like. If you can find a picture of the actual product that would be interesting.
The only ones I can see that look even remotely like the iPad are from 2009. They have far sharper corners, they have a row of buttons down the side, they have a completely different profile. They are the 800W and the 1000W.
Also Apple's community design is dated 2004, so even a 2006 product wouldn't be enough to get them a prior art.
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
You haven't been reading the comments of Apple haters on CNET or the like. It has fooled all of those people all of the time. They cry for Samsung the "poor victim" and scream at Apple the "mean control freaks". It just goes to show you that people will believe their hearts more than the facts any day.
I started my career in part-time computer support for my organization and it was the facts that got me interested in Macs and Apple. It is my heart that makes me love the facts about Apple's greatness.
You left out "Apple has patented the rectangle".
Meanwhile in Australia, the company I work for has switched to plan B as in Blackberry Playbook as the tablet du jour.
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
Right, first off - legally that doesn't help Samsung because the design is registered in 2004.
Second that design probably wouldn't infringe because it has a big thick bezel, a completely different profile, a ton of funky buttons.
The fact is Samsung did copy the iPad. They got as close to the design as they could, the curvature of the edges, the curvature of the corners, the thickness of the margins. They switched to a 30pin dock connector. They even changed the back so that the 2nd gen version of the 10.1 would look more plain and similar to the iPads.
About the only things they could have done to make it look more like the iPad would be change the aspect ratio and stick an apple logo on it.
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
That design has already been patented since 2004 by Apple.
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
Maybe if Samsung had stuck to that lovely beige, plastic trim surrounding the bezel in the example you linked to, they wouldn't be in this mess.
The thickness and buttons hidden on the side are also a nice touch.
Meanwhile in Australia, the company I work for has switched to plan B as in Blackberry Playbook as the tablet du jour.
Bad plan, given that Sprint just cancelled the wimax playbook we have to assume that it's the next dell streak. I mean when even Sprint doesn't want you, you're pretty much done.
Keep going till you reach plan 9, that is a good plan.
Sometimes with these really big companies it's hard to know if they're deliberately being misleading, or if it's just the left hand not talking to the right hand. You have to look at their past behaviour, and in this case you have the copying...
No surprise here. I've recently started reading Android related blogs and forums.
Stories are always spun to be pro Android. Everyone else is wrong... especially, Apple.
A common thread now is that Apple must litigate, since it cannot compete / innovate in the marketplace.
That comment goes a bit far, but the concept is right on the money.
10 years ago, Microsoft was the big mean bully and now it's undeniably Apple while Bill Gates forks over money to starving kids in Africa as fast as it can.
Apple will continue to be immensely profitable, but it will never hold down a majority marketshare for an extended period of time in computing devices. Their bully attitude either scares off customers, or it invites antitrust investigations. In this case it's highly likely to result in patent reform, given the absurdity of the patents here.
This was a monstrous mistake by Apple and it's doing a ton of damage to its image outside of the "fan" community. If you read mainstream media article comments, they're overwhelmingly incredulous that Apple would stoop to such lows.
Apple makes killer products. All it needs to do is make them. Stuff like this makes people increasingly philosophically against Apple, because it makes it look like if Apple had its way, you would have to buy their products. Rather than competing in the marketplace, they're trying to drive everyone else out of the market with underhanded tactics.
I know almost everyone here won't see it like that, but that's the point. People here won't. "Fans" won't. Apple will always have a dedicated fanbase that loyally buys its products. Where Apple has repeatedly fallen down in the past is getting mainstream acceptance. The iPod was a success because it was decidedly pro-consumer -- it made everything easy, they pushed to remove DRM, there was nothing else in the same league and they kept it one step a head not by litigation, but innovation.
Somewhere along the way they've lost it. Now they're litigating while innovation is stagnating (relative to Apple's standards, not industry). Their devices are increasingly becoming hostile to the consumer with the App Store restrictions, publisher bullying (eg, Kindle fiasco), crusades against jailbreaking, having cool features that only work within the Apple ecosystem, etc. There's nothing criminal about this, to be sure -- but it's also a sure fire way to maneuver yourself out of a majority marketshare position. We saw it with smartphones, and we will see it with tablets as well.
But maybe Apple is okay with that. Apple is immensely and astonishingly profitable. Good for them, if so. But that still makes them a bunch of dicks for trying to restrict consumer choice in the marketplace with an army of lawyers.
Comments
Stories are always spun to be pro Android. Everyone else is wrong... especially, Apple.
A common thread now is that Apple must litigate, since it cannot compete / innovate in the marketplace.
I loved my turbo GFX16 and the portable gaming device (Lynx?) that used the same cartridges as the console. Loved the thin cartridges.
The Lynx was an Atari product and used cartridges that were like triple-thick credit cards, no relation to the TurboGFX 16.
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
The blog and this article source a release from the court. If you have a better source.. Oh wait maybe the court is lying too. Maybe the same people who faked 9/11 and the moon landing made a fake release. Maybe the whole court is fake. I do not believe Germany is even a country.
The blog and this article source a release from the court. If you have a better source.. Oh wait maybe the court is lying too. Maybe the same people who faked 9/11 and the moon landing made a fake release. Maybe the whole court is fake. I do not believe Germany is even a country.
Elvis is behind the whole thing....
Since Samsung have a consistent practice of stretching the truth, then as they say 'leopards can't change their spots'
Unfortunately if you think that Samsung has not copied iPad, then you are blind or living in dreamland.
This is a Samsung digital photo frame from 2006. It looks just like a Galaxy Tab 10.1, only with a smaller screen.
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-esc...tion-11171102/
And an article about Roger Fidler of Knight-Ridder, written just before the iPad release:
http://www.snd.org/2010/01/fidler/
But the Knight-Ridder device never came to fruition nor was protected by multiple patents like the Apple iPad. Hence, even though the iPad may resemble a 2006 Samsung photo frame, there's more to the story than just that. What's digitally being shown to the user on the screen and how it is used is also at the heart of this matter.
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
This is the same company that colluded with LG to the tune of at least $5 billion in fraudulent LCD Panel pricing and were together forced to pay back nearly $1 Billion in fines.
Oddly, Samsung was given immunity because they talked first and the remaining 5 other providers took the fall.
http://www.betanews.com/article/EU-f...ity/1291823569
You really should stand back and look from a broader perspective.
This is a Samsung digital photo frame from 2006. It looks just like a Galaxy Tab 10.1, only with a smaller screen.
Actually that's a render of what engadget thought the product might look like. If you can find a picture of the actual product that would be interesting.
The only ones I can see that look even remotely like the iPad are from 2009. They have far sharper corners, they have a row of buttons down the side, they have a completely different profile. They are the 800W and the 1000W.
Also Apple's community design is dated 2004, so even a 2006 product wouldn't be enough to get them a prior art.
Sorry. I can't really be bothered to reply to this.
You just did!
...
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/C...l-Photo-Frames
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
You haven't been reading the comments of Apple haters on CNET or the like. It has fooled all of those people all of the time. They cry for Samsung the "poor victim" and scream at Apple the "mean control freaks". It just goes to show you that people will believe their hearts more than the facts any day.
I started my career in part-time computer support for my organization and it was the facts that got me interested in Macs and Apple. It is my heart that makes me love the facts about Apple's greatness.
You left out "Apple has patented the rectangle".
Meanwhile in Australia, the company I work for has switched to plan B as in Blackberry Playbook as the tablet du jour.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/C...l-Photo-Frames
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
Right, first off - legally that doesn't help Samsung because the design is registered in 2004.
Second that design probably wouldn't infringe because it has a big thick bezel, a completely different profile, a ton of funky buttons.
The fact is Samsung did copy the iPad. They got as close to the design as they could, the curvature of the edges, the curvature of the corners, the thickness of the margins. They switched to a 30pin dock connector. They even changed the back so that the 2nd gen version of the 10.1 would look more plain and similar to the iPads.
About the only things they could have done to make it look more like the iPad would be change the aspect ratio and stick an apple logo on it.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/C...l-Photo-Frames
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
That design has already been patented since 2004 by Apple.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...ations_UPDATE/
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/C...l-Photo-Frames
I believe that's the same product from the render. Although the photo is from 2007, it's still way before the iPad was released. I'm not saying that iPad is a copy of a Samsung photo frame, I'm just saying that the Tab 10.1 isn't an iPad copy.
Maybe if Samsung had stuck to that lovely beige, plastic trim surrounding the bezel in the example you linked to, they wouldn't be in this mess.
The thickness and buttons hidden on the side are also a nice touch.
Elvis is behind the whole thing....
No, Elvis has left the building.
Maybe if Samsung had stuck to that lovely beige, plastic trim surrounding the bezel in the example you linked to, they wouldn't be in this mess.
The thickness and buttons hidden on the side are also a nice touch.
That beige bezel has some interesting texturing going on - they should totally have gone with that
You left out "Apple has patented the rectangle".
Meanwhile in Australia, the company I work for has switched to plan B as in Blackberry Playbook as the tablet du jour.
Bad plan, given that Sprint just cancelled the wimax playbook we have to assume that it's the next dell streak. I mean when even Sprint doesn't want you, you're pretty much done.
Keep going till you reach plan 9, that is a good plan.
This isn't really relevant but I think people will enjoy it anyway
Almost beating the CDi?
Ma boi, these sales are what all true companies strive for!
No surprise here. I've recently started reading Android related blogs and forums.
Stories are always spun to be pro Android. Everyone else is wrong... especially, Apple.
A common thread now is that Apple must litigate, since it cannot compete / innovate in the marketplace.
That comment goes a bit far, but the concept is right on the money.
10 years ago, Microsoft was the big mean bully and now it's undeniably Apple while Bill Gates forks over money to starving kids in Africa as fast as it can.
Apple will continue to be immensely profitable, but it will never hold down a majority marketshare for an extended period of time in computing devices. Their bully attitude either scares off customers, or it invites antitrust investigations. In this case it's highly likely to result in patent reform, given the absurdity of the patents here.
This was a monstrous mistake by Apple and it's doing a ton of damage to its image outside of the "fan" community. If you read mainstream media article comments, they're overwhelmingly incredulous that Apple would stoop to such lows.
Apple makes killer products. All it needs to do is make them. Stuff like this makes people increasingly philosophically against Apple, because it makes it look like if Apple had its way, you would have to buy their products. Rather than competing in the marketplace, they're trying to drive everyone else out of the market with underhanded tactics.
I know almost everyone here won't see it like that, but that's the point. People here won't. "Fans" won't. Apple will always have a dedicated fanbase that loyally buys its products. Where Apple has repeatedly fallen down in the past is getting mainstream acceptance. The iPod was a success because it was decidedly pro-consumer -- it made everything easy, they pushed to remove DRM, there was nothing else in the same league and they kept it one step a head not by litigation, but innovation.
Somewhere along the way they've lost it. Now they're litigating while innovation is stagnating (relative to Apple's standards, not industry). Their devices are increasingly becoming hostile to the consumer with the App Store restrictions, publisher bullying (eg, Kindle fiasco), crusades against jailbreaking, having cool features that only work within the Apple ecosystem, etc. There's nothing criminal about this, to be sure -- but it's also a sure fire way to maneuver yourself out of a majority marketshare position. We saw it with smartphones, and we will see it with tablets as well.
But maybe Apple is okay with that. Apple is immensely and astonishingly profitable. Good for them, if so. But that still makes them a bunch of dicks for trying to restrict consumer choice in the marketplace with an army of lawyers.