Most of the reason here is because of the mis-use of the word "generic." What they really mean is "simple," as do most people who use the "generic" term which is commonly misused in this way.
"Generic" actually means "common to a larger group," so to call the iPad design generic is only to say that it has common elements to all tablets like a screen and a battery. It doesn't address anything about the particular design of the thing, except to the degree that it implies a sort of "off the shelf" construction of readily available, unremarkable and common parts. This is more descriptive of Samsung's designs than of Apple's. Almost everything about the iPad design is custom.
The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.
The Special Theory of Relativity looks amazingly obvious and simple once you've read it, but it still took a real Einstein to figure it out for the first time.
you just compared an iPad to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That just happened. Think on that.
Because typically what you do in cases like this is win a case and then use that win against others.
How am I over simplifying it? The judge did NOT compare the tab to the ipad2, but to the community design drawing (which doesn't look like an ipad2 either, it's a lot thicker)
So you're right, Apple's not going after others. But apple has this win in Germany that they CAN use against any others if they want to.
So say next year Asus comes out with a windows8 tablet that docks with their transformer dock and it's a runaway success (tablet/laptop transforming has that chance) Apple can use this lawsuit to strengthen the case against them, and this judge will most likely grant it there as well.
So again, how do you make a tablet in another way and still have it be USEFUL (as in, the additions are done for some other reason than to JUST avoid this design) Sure, Sony did it. But read the reviews. They ALL say that while it's drastically improved in one orientation, the design severely limits other use cases.
don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.
i dnt like this at all, its a bad precedent, and what make it worse , in my opinion apple got the whole tablet market on its own and already tops in quality hardware, software support and pricing. even the most touted android tablet the Asus Transformer is still way below ipad in quality. Android devices as it stand currently are not a competitior to ipad, they are not even at the same playing field.
apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..
competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..
All Samsung had to do is offset the actual working area of the glass... thin bezel on top with a thicker bezel on the bottom...
Nope, the size of the screen, or the amount of bezel (or shame of screen) has nothing to do with this community design. All these changes would still be in "violation"
Quote:
and then put a row of buttons at the bottom... maybe a slight trapezoid shape... easy peezy... instead...
So make completely useless changes to the design that add NOTHING to the usability of the product, just to avoid a design. That's not "encouraging innovation."
Quote:
Personally, I'm leaning towards a limited amount of time that something like this can be upheld... say 3 to 5 years... but that's jmho.
It shouldn't be granted in the first place. Hopefully a judge will overturn it. Remember, we're not talking about the Tab vs ipad2 here. we're talking about a drawing that can be used against any device currently on the market. Potentially, several devices that came out Before the ipad would also violate it (even though they used resistive screens)
don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.
The whole point Apple is making is that by copying the design it muddies Apple's reputation with people falsely believing that it may be an Apple product when it isn't. Licensing the design is NOT going to resolve that issue, is it?
I agree. I'm not sure what else Apple licenses, but I think past history has proven to Apple that licensing is a losing game for them. OSX doesn't get licensed. Ask Psystar
Why give Sammy the right to produce something that looks like the iPad and iPhone, when you can make a sale of the real thing at considerably more profit?
The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.
A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides.
Once touchscreens became economically viable and plainly the preferred method for buyers to interact with their mobile devices, the consumer expected shape (based on newspapers, magazines, laptops, computer displays, TV screens, windows) was rectangular. . . and obvious. Surely you don't consider a rectangle shape to be innovative do you?
So it looks like Apples Monopoly Grows leaving no room for competition. Obviously Apple doesn't know how to invent anymore since it's nothing more than a patent troll. It would be nice to see anonymous to take down apple. These suits by apple are ridiculous if a company can't design something similar but have a completley different OS then innovation is dead because Apple controls everything. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't stand for this.
i dnt like this at all, its a bad precedent, and what make it worse , in my opinion apple got the whole tablet market on its own and already tops in quality hardware, software support and pricing. even the most touted android tablet the Asus Transformer is still way below ipad in quality. Android devices as it stand currently are not a competitior to ipad, they are not even at the same playing field.
apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..
competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..
regards
But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?
Trust me, given what Apple has done over the past few years with their iDevices and computers, they are not going to let third rate companies who's MO is to copy and not innovate motivate them to do better. They've needed no one (except for Steve jobs) to motivate them to come up with the things they have.
Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.
Excellent! Let's all turn on some "Sexual Chocolate"
Nice to see that Samsung got put in its place. Wait till the US case goes on stream.
IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.
The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.
But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?
Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.
So it looks like Apples Monopoly Grows leaving no room for competition. Obviously Apple doesn't know how to invent anymore since it's nothing more than a patent troll. It would be nice to see anonymous to take down apple. These suits by apple are ridiculous if a company can't design something similar but have a completley different OS then innovation is dead because Apple controls everything. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't stand for this.
Can't wait to see the end of Steve Jobs
LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.
Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.
i love apple's products and their innovative thinking but a lawsuit against a corporate giant (especially if the product consist of their technology) is not going to help apple in the long run. since now samsung(and their partners!) has all the reason to be on the offensive side of the legal battle, they will most likely file an injunction to all new apple products (ie iphone5, ipad3 etc) in the future...assuming that the product consist of samsung parts and technology...in a legal point of view, apple is going to have a lose-lose situation. loss of profits -> disruption of new products -> loss of customer's selection -> loss of innovation (to either sides). so iphone5 will most likely get delayed for a year if the injunction is filed...i wish apple didn't start this lawsuit...apple is digging its own grave man....not cool
LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.
Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.
Agreed. Derogatory comments about Steve Jobs are well out of line, adding nothing to the conversation.
Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.
Their designs were completely different than what Apple had to offer and nobody wanted them. Can't blame Apple for that. That's why they weren't competitive. The AT&T guy had one when he came to check my phone lines. Jeez, I'd throw out my back if I had to carry one of those bricks.
I'm talking about the early tablet PC's, not the TouchPad by HP. Apple's design was completely different from this. That's why HP probably never thought of suing.
Comments
Most of the reason here is because of the mis-use of the word "generic." What they really mean is "simple," as do most people who use the "generic" term which is commonly misused in this way.
"Generic" actually means "common to a larger group," so to call the iPad design generic is only to say that it has common elements to all tablets like a screen and a battery. It doesn't address anything about the particular design of the thing, except to the degree that it implies a sort of "off the shelf" construction of readily available, unremarkable and common parts. This is more descriptive of Samsung's designs than of Apple's. Almost everything about the iPad design is custom.
The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.
The Special Theory of Relativity looks amazingly obvious and simple once you've read it, but it still took a real Einstein to figure it out for the first time.
you just compared an iPad to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That just happened. Think on that.
Because typically what you do in cases like this is win a case and then use that win against others.
How am I over simplifying it? The judge did NOT compare the tab to the ipad2, but to the community design drawing (which doesn't look like an ipad2 either, it's a lot thicker)
So you're right, Apple's not going after others. But apple has this win in Germany that they CAN use against any others if they want to.
So say next year Asus comes out with a windows8 tablet that docks with their transformer dock and it's a runaway success (tablet/laptop transforming has that chance) Apple can use this lawsuit to strengthen the case against them, and this judge will most likely grant it there as well.
So again, how do you make a tablet in another way and still have it be USEFUL (as in, the additions are done for some other reason than to JUST avoid this design) Sure, Sony did it. But read the reviews. They ALL say that while it's drastically improved in one orientation, the design severely limits other use cases.
don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.
apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..
competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..
regards
All Samsung had to do is offset the actual working area of the glass... thin bezel on top with a thicker bezel on the bottom...
Nope, the size of the screen, or the amount of bezel (or shame of screen) has nothing to do with this community design. All these changes would still be in "violation"
and then put a row of buttons at the bottom... maybe a slight trapezoid shape... easy peezy... instead...
So make completely useless changes to the design that add NOTHING to the usability of the product, just to avoid a design. That's not "encouraging innovation."
Personally, I'm leaning towards a limited amount of time that something like this can be upheld... say 3 to 5 years... but that's jmho.
It shouldn't be granted in the first place. Hopefully a judge will overturn it. Remember, we're not talking about the Tab vs ipad2 here. we're talking about a drawing that can be used against any device currently on the market. Potentially, several devices that came out Before the ipad would also violate it (even though they used resistive screens)
don't you know that since Apple changed the game and effectively created a new market they should be the sole owners of such a design. Granted it's exactly like if the first flatscreen thin profile TV/monitor maker patented their design and then had a monopoly in the field, which would suck, but hey. one you change the game you should play alone.
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI
That's from 1994
Wow is that ever an intelligent comment.
It's another Coming to America reference.
The whole point Apple is making is that by copying the design it muddies Apple's reputation with people falsely believing that it may be an Apple product when it isn't. Licensing the design is NOT going to resolve that issue, is it?
I agree. I'm not sure what else Apple licenses, but I think past history has proven to Apple that licensing is a losing game for them. OSX doesn't get licensed. Ask Psystar
Why give Sammy the right to produce something that looks like the iPad and iPhone, when you can make a sale of the real thing at considerably more profit?
The thing about "simple" solutions also, is that they only look obvious after you see them for the first time. Before the first person figures them out, they aren't obvious at all and the process of getting to that "simple" idea can actually be a long, difficult task.
A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides.
Once touchscreens became economically viable and plainly the preferred method for buyers to interact with their mobile devices, the consumer expected shape (based on newspapers, magazines, laptops, computer displays, TV screens, windows) was rectangular. . . and obvious. Surely you don't consider a rectangle shape to be innovative do you?
Perfect analogy.
A little obscure, but I like it!
Not if you know your cult classics! Com'on people, we all just gotta "let our soul glow"
Can't wait to see the end of Steve Jobs
i dnt like this at all, its a bad precedent, and what make it worse , in my opinion apple got the whole tablet market on its own and already tops in quality hardware, software support and pricing. even the most touted android tablet the Asus Transformer is still way below ipad in quality. Android devices as it stand currently are not a competitior to ipad, they are not even at the same playing field.
apple should stay focused on maintaining its HUGE lead over their competitor in tablet field. not by stiffling competition in a patent ligitation but by outsmarting them. just like what they did with macbook Air , competitor product using intel ultrabook design reference already saying they cnat match macbook air's price/quality..
competition breeds good product, i dont want apple to stagnat and go stale with overconfidence and no competition..
regards
But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?
Trust me, given what Apple has done over the past few years with their iDevices and computers, they are not going to let third rate companies who's MO is to copy and not innovate motivate them to do better. They've needed no one (except for Steve jobs) to motivate them to come up with the things they have.
Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
Excellent! Let's all turn on some "Sexual Chocolate"
IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.
The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.
But it's not competition. It's out and out copying. If Sammy wants to compete, let them come up with their own ideas for a tablet. Did you ever notice how Microsoft or HP didn't sue Apple for their design? Did you ever wonder why?
Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.
So it looks like Apples Monopoly Grows leaving no room for competition. Obviously Apple doesn't know how to invent anymore since it's nothing more than a patent troll. It would be nice to see anonymous to take down apple. These suits by apple are ridiculous if a company can't design something similar but have a completley different OS then innovation is dead because Apple controls everything. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't stand for this.
Can't wait to see the end of Steve Jobs
LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.
Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.
LOLOLOL!!!!! Really? Seriously? Apple doesn't innovate?! That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning. Apple's just a patent troll, hee, hee. That's rich.
Very very unclassy to rag on Steve. Comments like yours say more about the commenter than about Apple.
Agreed. Derogatory comments about Steve Jobs are well out of line, adding nothing to the conversation.
Because they had no chance of being competitive, thus no danger at all to Apple.
Their designs were completely different than what Apple had to offer and nobody wanted them. Can't blame Apple for that. That's why they weren't competitive. The AT&T guy had one when he came to check my phone lines. Jeez, I'd throw out my back if I had to carry one of those bricks.
I'm talking about the early tablet PC's, not the TouchPad by HP. Apple's design was completely different from this. That's why HP probably never thought of suing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tablet.jpg
Apple did innovate now they recycle the same shit, or take other peoples ideas.
This'll be a good one.
Mind telling us what they're "recycling" or "taking from others"?
Oh, for bonus points, explain either how they're not innovating on their own or when they "stopped" innovating.