It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.
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.
when the prince´s father comes to search for his son at the mc dowells restaurant, they tell the owner that there is someone to see him: He reacts: Their not from mcDonalds are they? Looking a bit intimidated.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
... it's called design. Just look at Samsung's previous pads for examples of alternative shapes. They only switched to a very close copy of Apple when Apple proved their pad design was a success. Isn't this obvious?
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
I just think it is pretty weak - the rounded rectangle - and could easily be overturned by an appeals court judge.
After all, the same claim wasn't accepted by the judge in the Netherlands last week.
And it is still in the prelim injuction phase (the first one was fast-track preliminary, today was normal preliminary). It hasn't gone to trial yet, where the standards of proof are probably higher.
I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.
yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
Because they won the case in the equivalent of the "east district of texas" and the case deemed valid here was deemed invalid in another court (in fact, the judge said that Apple's design was so minimalistic it became hard to protect)
People who don't like what Apple does aren't automatically trolls. Those with justification for their beliefs are welcome here.
But you have to ask them questions to see if they even have any arguments or if they're just parroting copy-pasted text on troll websites. You can't know otherwise.
If they say something to the effect they want someone to die, benefit of the doubt goes away for me. That shows they're either not rational or they're not really in it for a viable conversation, it becomes clear they're out to spread vitriol and getting reactions out of people.
yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
Quote:
"We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate," Lee said of the forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 in an interview with Yonhap News Agency. "Apple made it very thin."
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
Also, who cut the trees off the land those factories are built on? And who built the chainsaws those people used? And who mined the ore used to build those chainsaws? And who discovered the mines, filled with its precious, precious ore? Come on, are you serious with this crap?
You don't give credit to the inventor of glass for the lightbulb, even though curved glass and crude lightbulbs existed before Edison. He put the right sh*t together, he gets the credit (no comment on the whole Edison/Tesla thing here, please).
Tablets and tablet components existed before Apple put them together the way they did to make the iPad. But it took Apple doing it right before all these tablets that happen to look exactly the same as the iPad to start showing up. You obviously aren't stupid; don't insult yourself by acting like they didn't virtually create this market and are being ripped off by copycats.
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
that's...a duh moment and doesn't show copying...it shows adapting to the market...nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
I for one don't think it looks like an iPad 2 beyond the minimalistic design. My beef with Samsung is mainly for TouchWiz's blatant rip of iOS for phones (the tablets are decidedly different)
This injunction is BS IMO because it grants a company a monopoly on this:
It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.
I don't like Samsung's Android products and I do think they deserve to be smacked down. But how is this a "triumph for common sense". In essence the judge is saying nobody but Apple can make a tablet that's a rectangle. Come on. You know that's not common sense.
Had they slapped the injunction on Samsung based on Touchwiz, I would have fully agreed with it. On the Galaxy line of phones, for example, I fully concur with the treatment Samsung is getting. This however, is not a victory for anything but bad legal precedents.
If this stands, why can't a tire company file for circular wheels or a television maker for rectangular display?
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
I don't like Samsung, but suggesting that making your product thinner after seeing your competitor's product is copying, is ridiculous.
If that's your logic, what do you think of the race that's on in the flat panel television market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
I just looked it up just to make sure and nope. The original (10.1v) was texturized with an indentation on the back and the Samsung logo. The current, re-designed one (10.1) is smooth with 1/2" lip on the top. Completely different design.
My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.
Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?
Looks like the fairy God-moderators have granted your wish, because justin24 is banned how.
Comments
Yes!
It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.
Agreed.
Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
when the prince´s father comes to search for his son at the mc dowells restaurant, they tell the owner that there is someone to see him: He reacts: Their not from mcDonalds are they? Looking a bit intimidated.
... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.
Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?
... it's called design. Just look at Samsung's previous pads for examples of alternative shapes. They only switched to a very close copy of Apple when Apple proved their pad design was a success. Isn't this obvious?
The crux of the story is the background. Apple would likely not have used this ridiculous patent if Samsung hadn't blatantly copied thier work.
Chances are good it will get overturned, but Apple won't mind even if they have to pay Samsung's lost revenue . See http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...alaxy-tab.html
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
I just think it is pretty weak - the rounded rectangle - and could easily be overturned by an appeals court judge.
After all, the same claim wasn't accepted by the judge in the Netherlands last week.
And it is still in the prelim injuction phase (the first one was fast-track preliminary, today was normal preliminary). It hasn't gone to trial yet, where the standards of proof are probably higher.
I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.
yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.
Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?
Because they won the case in the equivalent of the "east district of texas" and the case deemed valid here was deemed invalid in another court (in fact, the judge said that Apple's design was so minimalistic it became hard to protect)
People who don't like what Apple does aren't automatically trolls. Those with justification for their beliefs are welcome here.
But you have to ask them questions to see if they even have any arguments or if they're just parroting copy-pasted text on troll websites. You can't know otherwise.
If they say something to the effect they want someone to die, benefit of the doubt goes away for me. That shows they're either not rational or they're not really in it for a viable conversation, it becomes clear they're out to spread vitriol and getting reactions out of people.
yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
"We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate," Lee said of the forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 in an interview with Yonhap News Agency. "Apple made it very thin."
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.
Also, who cut the trees off the land those factories are built on? And who built the chainsaws those people used? And who mined the ore used to build those chainsaws? And who discovered the mines, filled with its precious, precious ore? Come on, are you serious with this crap?
You don't give credit to the inventor of glass for the lightbulb, even though curved glass and crude lightbulbs existed before Edison. He put the right sh*t together, he gets the credit (no comment on the whole Edison/Tesla thing here, please).
Tablets and tablet components existed before Apple put them together the way they did to make the iPad. But it took Apple doing it right before all these tablets that happen to look exactly the same as the iPad to start showing up. You obviously aren't stupid; don't insult yourself by acting like they didn't virtually create this market and are being ripped off by copycats.
Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.
Did you sleep 'thru "humor 101" or is this an "attempt" at sarcasm .... if so ..... fail !
If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first.
Does this argument really hold though when we are talking about litigating over a rectangle?
It's not like there weren't tablets that were rectangles with rounded corners before.
Does this argument really hold though when we are talking about litigating over a rectangle?
It's not like there weren't tablets that were rectangles with rounded corners before.
I have already stated my thoughts on that above.
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
that's...a duh moment and doesn't show copying...it shows adapting to the market...nothing wrong with that.
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
I for one don't think it looks like an iPad 2 beyond the minimalistic design. My beef with Samsung is mainly for TouchWiz's blatant rip of iOS for phones (the tablets are decidedly different)
This injunction is BS IMO because it grants a company a monopoly on this:
Yes!
It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.
I don't like Samsung's Android products and I do think they deserve to be smacked down. But how is this a "triumph for common sense". In essence the judge is saying nobody but Apple can make a tablet that's a rectangle. Come on. You know that's not common sense.
Had they slapped the injunction on Samsung based on Touchwiz, I would have fully agreed with it. On the Galaxy line of phones, for example, I fully concur with the treatment Samsung is getting. This however, is not a victory for anything but bad legal precedents.
If this stands, why can't a tire company file for circular wheels or a television maker for rectangular display?
Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.
I don't like Samsung, but suggesting that making your product thinner after seeing your competitor's product is copying, is ridiculous.
If that's your logic, what do you think of the race that's on in the flat panel television market?
It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
no, the back of the current tab is texturized.
no, the back of the current tab is texturized.
I just looked it up just to make sure and nope. The original (10.1v) was texturized with an indentation on the back and the Samsung logo. The current, re-designed one (10.1) is smooth with 1/2" lip on the top. Completely different design.
My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.
Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?
Looks like the fairy God-moderators have granted your wish, because justin24 is banned how.