I guess Samsung might have not wanted be followed in Apple's direction being confident of what they have, ie real technology patents. I think Samsung fully awares Ipad is blantant copy, I mean design wise, of their own digital photo frame. They might have treated getting design idea is not copy althogh I think Apple crossed line.
IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.
32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.
32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..
Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
As Gatorguy rightfuly point out, Apple might have copied Samsung's own when they designed Ipad inside and out. That might be the motivator why Samsung made their own product Galaxy SII similar to Iphone.
If law suit is the only way solve this mess, then Ipad and Galaxy SII should banned. Otherwise, why dont they just do cross licencing? Then I guess because of big success with Ipad, Apple might have to pay more fees to Samsung.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.
Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.
You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?
Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.
What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?
Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.
Read the "community design" labeling.
You are going into the specifics of which the "community design" standard does not apply.
All it has to do is be "similar" then in apparently "infringes" upon the "community design".
In Apple's application for the "community design", it doesn't describe in details what type of UI it is using.
It just shows in pictoral form the shape of the general device.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.
This is not prior art to anything.
There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.
This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...
Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.
You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.
It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
I am quite interested in your comment here about the dispute register in 2004 by Apple. Can you provide evidence link if possible?
Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.
This is not prior art to anything.
There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.
This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...
You are basing on hypothetical scenarios of what ifs. Anyone can come up with alternatives. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.
It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.
No one is talking about what Apple contributed, except you.
Dont try to go off topic. Stick with the subject at hand here.
We are discussing the merits of what is in Apple's "community design" here.
Ah yes the picture frame Samsung made two years after Apple registered the design in 2004. Were you trying to pictorially represent a failed argument?
That design is one of at least 1000 assorted designs, most of which were never used. Nor was this design ever claimed to be for the iPad. Quite likely a generic rectangular design with minimal details that Apple used to be sure every conceivable base was covered.
The iPad design has been widely attributed to Mr Ive. Not this design tho, evidence that the Community Design that Apple uses in this case was not for the iPad, but simply one of 100's that Apple filed to cover all possible designs for a portable computer.
But this isn't a "first" story. And "everybody else does it" isn't a valid excuse.
My point is, readers used to gravitate and choose the most credible, polished news source for their information. Newspapers and their editors would pride themselves in making sure their publication was (next to) perfect.
With the Internet being the way a good majority of the population gets their news, now it's all about being first. Who cares about typos and poor grammar.
Between email, texting and forums like this one, people's attention to detail, spelling and grammar are going downhill really fast in their effort to save time. Before long, IMHO, even online newspapers will forget about capitalization and punctuation because they'll rely on spellcheck instead of the educated human brain.
Comments
I guess Samsung might have not wanted be followed in Apple's direction being confident of what they have, ie real technology patents. I think Samsung fully awares Ipad is blantant copy, I mean design wise, of their own digital photo frame. They might have treated getting design idea is not copy althogh I think Apple crossed line.
IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.
32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.
32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
No, thats not a Galaxy Tab.
It's a Samsung picture frame from 5 years ago.
No, thats not a Galaxy Tab.
It's a Samsung picture frame from 5 years ago.
Ah yes the picture frame Samsung made two years after Apple registered the design in 2004. Were you trying to pictorially represent a failed argument?
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..
Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.
If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
As Gatorguy rightfuly point out, Apple might have copied Samsung's own when they designed Ipad inside and out. That might be the motivator why Samsung made their own product Galaxy SII similar to Iphone.
If law suit is the only way solve this mess, then Ipad and Galaxy SII should banned. Otherwise, why dont they just do cross licencing? Then I guess because of big success with Ipad, Apple might have to pay more fees to Samsung.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.
Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.
You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?
Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.
More likely, they can't go after the next copycat if they let Samsung off the hook easy.
What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?
Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.
Read the "community design" labeling.
You are going into the specifics of which the "community design" standard does not apply.
All it has to do is be "similar" then in apparently "infringes" upon the "community design".
In Apple's application for the "community design", it doesn't describe in details what type of UI it is using.
It just shows in pictoral form the shape of the general device.
I am from Earth by the way.
Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around
or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider
Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.
Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.
This is not prior art to anything.
There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.
This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...
Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.
You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.
It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.
It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.
If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
I am quite interested in your comment here about the dispute register in 2004 by Apple. Can you provide evidence link if possible?
Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.
This is not prior art to anything.
There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.
This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...
You are basing on hypothetical scenarios of what ifs. Anyone can come up with alternatives. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.
It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.
No one is talking about what Apple contributed, except you.
Dont try to go off topic. Stick with the subject at hand here.
We are discussing the merits of what is in Apple's "community design" here.
Ah yes the picture frame Samsung made two years after Apple registered the design in 2004. Were you trying to pictorially represent a failed argument?
That design is one of at least 1000 assorted designs, most of which were never used. Nor was this design ever claimed to be for the iPad. Quite likely a generic rectangular design with minimal details that Apple used to be sure every conceivable base was covered.
The iPad design has been widely attributed to Mr Ive. Not this design tho, evidence that the Community Design that Apple uses in this case was not for the iPad, but simply one of 100's that Apple filed to cover all possible designs for a portable computer.
But this isn't a "first" story. And "everybody else does it" isn't a valid excuse.
My point is, readers used to gravitate and choose the most credible, polished news source for their information. Newspapers and their editors would pride themselves in making sure their publication was (next to) perfect.
With the Internet being the way a good majority of the population gets their news, now it's all about being first. Who cares about typos and poor grammar.
Between email, texting and forums like this one, people's attention to detail, spelling and grammar are going downhill really fast in their effort to save time. Before long, IMHO, even online newspapers will forget about capitalization and punctuation because they'll rely on spellcheck instead of the educated human brain.